View source for Wiki143 talk:WikiProject Chemistry

{{Stb}}
{{Hatnote|See also: [[wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Chemicals|Chemicals talk page]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request|image request page]], {{tlt|Chembox}}.}}
{{Talk header|wp=yes|search=yes|WT:CHEM|WT:CHEMISTRY}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Chemistry}}
}}
{| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.5em; background: #FFFFFF; border-collapse: collapse; border-color: #C0C090;" align=right width=33%
! {{chembox header}} colspan=1 | [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Article alerts|Article alerts]]
|-
| {{:Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Article alerts}}
|}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 56
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive=2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive %(counter)d
}}

== RfC: what next with [[Electron microscope]], an entry page for a range of techniques ==

I am starting an informal RfC (i.e. not actually going to a full {{tl|RfC}}) on how to proceed with the entry page for a wide range of [[electron microscope]] pages. It is not in the greatest of shape, I have been slowly chipping away at it although it still needs work and sources. Please post to [[Talk:Electron microscope#RfC: what next with this page]] if this is in your area of interest. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 19:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

==[[:Category:Hypothetical processes]] has been nominated for discussion==

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>[[:Category:Hypothetical processes]] has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the [[Wikipedia:Categorization|categorization]] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at '''[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 27#Category:Hypothetical processes|the category's entry]]''' on the [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion|categories for discussion]] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you.

Expert input is requested from participants regarding the best way to organize [[:Category:Hypotheses]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 05:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

== Catalysis section rewrites? ==

I recently found [[Nanomaterial-based catalyst]]. This is what I would call a weak "nano-rules" article on supported metal catalysts written with a narrow view. Shockingly, much of what there is "potential catalysts", ignoring the existing multi-billion dollar industries.  Considering how important metal catalysis is I will suggest some attention by proper card-carrying catalytic chemists (which I am not, just a peripheral academic). There would in the process need to be syncronization with [[Heterogeneous catalysis]], [[Catalyst support]] and perhaps more. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 13:43, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
:Yep. Big problems.  The nano-X articles can seem out of control: Nanoring]], [[Nanowire]], [[Nanorod]], Nanobottle]], [[Nanoflare]], [[nano flake]], on and on (it would be useful to have the entire list).  Some of these topics are probably legitimate, some not.
:With regard to useful, real heterogeneous catalysis, my approach or advice is to make sure that our core articles on catalysis (like you mention [[Heterogeneous catalysis]], [[Catalyst support]]) are strong vs trying to deal with these nano articles.
:A related area is [[Colloidal gold]], which has not made a red cent (or pence) for anyone.  Wikipedia has many articles on [[gold cluster]]s and related topics. --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 13:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
::The gold articles are on my "to do" list, those are within my area of vague competence. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 14:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
:::Full [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=intitle%3Anano%2A list of titles containing nano* ]. Of the 1,290 many are, of course, not chemistry-related. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 15:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Good list, time for some PRODs (I just did 3) and/or AfD. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 15:26, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
::For some reason I've never really understood, wikipedia has no dedicated article on [[enantioselective catalysis]] (or [[asymmetric catalysis]], whatever you're calling it), even though I strongly suspect that this is the most common approach. Instead various elements of that topic are discussed in numerous other pages--[[User:Project Osprey|Project Osprey]] ([[User talk:Project Osprey|talk]]) 19:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC).
:::Write one! [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 19:36, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
::::A general article on [[enantioselective catalysis]] would start by stating that all the principles with conventional catalysis apply, the focus on the "simple" fact that some component of the system must be chiral (even het catal), plus recognition plus [[prochirality]], etc.  The article would list the types of enantioselective catalysis, but there arent so many in Wikipedia.  There is [[asymmetric hydrogenation]] (and related [[Transfer hydrogenation]]).  I just started [[asymmetric epoxidation]] to mention [[Jacobsen epoxidation]] and [[Sharpless epoxidation]].  [[Asymmetric catalytic oxidation]] seems short. For asym alkene polymerization, see [[tacticity]] (which is tagged extensively as being deficient), [[hydrocyanation]] mentions the asym version barely. --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 19:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC) revised--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 00:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
==Recrystallization==
[[Recrystallization (chemistry)]] is a popular article (2500 views/mo) that has issues.  I tried to address some of them, like the fact that saturated solutions are not required and refluxing is not so relevant either. That kind of stuff. Also I combed through J Chem Ed for some refs, which are only so-so.  The article would benefit from fresh eyes.  A lot of us know the topic sufficiently to contribute.  The reason that I raise this particular article is the following complication: it is written sorta like a user manual, which bumps into [[WP:NOTMANUAL]]. --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 22:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

== Help keep the page [[Metabolism]] a FA! ==

I need help finding sources for the following on the page [[Metabolism]]: [[:File:Catabolism schematic.svg]], [[:File:Insulin glucose metabolism ZP.svg]], and {{tq|Modern biochemical research has been greatly aided by the development of new techniques such as chromatography, X-ray diffraction, NMR spectroscopy, radioisotopic labelling, electron microscopy and molecular dynamics simulations. These techniques have allowed the discovery and detailed analysis of the many molecules and metabolic pathways in cells.}} 

I am specifically asking for help from anyone knowledgeable in chemistry due to the chem elements in the diagrams.

I have detailed this more at [[Talk:Metabolism#Sources_needed]]. Any feedback or help is appreciated! [[User:IntentionallyDense|<span style="color:#4e0d55">'''Intentionally'''</span>]][[User talk:IntentionallyDense|<span style="color:#27032b">'''Dense'''</span>]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/IntentionallyDense|''Contribs'']])</sup> 19:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

== Categorisation of non-binary hydracids/conjugate acids of non-oxo metallates ==

I've been on an acid categorisation bender over on simple.wp, but a few particular compounds that have pages both there and here don't fit into easily verified categories (read: Gold Book entries). Specifically, I'm thinking about things like [[chloroauric acid]] and [[hexafluorosilicic acid]], which are obviously not [[oxoacid]]s but are also not [[binary acid]]s. "Hydracid" is the Gold Book's implicit term for "non-oxo Bronsted acid", but it doesn't have its own file and is also used as a synonym for "binary acid" (including on our own binary acid page). At the moment we just categorise them under [[mineral acid]] here on en.wp, which isn't wrong, but is there a more specific category anyone can cite for this case?

My brain wants to call them "complex acids", as they're conjugate acids of anionic complexes. Our own [[coordination complex]] page uses the term "acidic complex", but doesn't have a specific citation, and I'm not dredging the Red Book on a Thursday - and that term itself strikes me as a bit strange, since the relevant part to its (Bronsted) acidity is the counterion, not any part of the complex itself being "acidic". But that's all off memory and vibes. Does anyone have anything more concrete? Thanks! [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 16:02, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:I feel your pain.  Rambling perspective: the articles associated with "H<sub>2</sub>SiF<sub>6</sub>" and HAuCl<sub>4</sub>" have been occasionally controversial partly because these species don't really exist as compounds.  I mean, what exactly is H<sub>2</sub>SiF<sub>6</sub> supposed to be?  Something with H-F-Si linkages?  Probably not. You can buy or make a solution of H<sub>2</sub>SiF<sub>6</sub>, but it's really something like (H<sub>3</sub>O)<sub>2</sub>SiF<sub>6</sub>.  One such species that is widely used is [[fluoroboric acid]], but I dont think that HBF<sub>4</sub> exists, rather H(OEt<sub>2</sub>)BF<sub>4</sub> or H<sub>3</sub>OBF<sub>4</sub>.  Another case is "barfic acid", HBAr<sup>F</sup><sub>4</sub>, it always has ether or water in it. 

:Oh, to address your question, these species might be call "hydronium salts": their default form is aqueous, hence H<sub>3</sub>O<sup>+</sup>.    --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 17:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::Yeah, as far as I'm aware all of these acids have complicated protonated solvents as the counteranion rather than actual {{chem2|H+}}. Which makes sense, given that any solvent is going to be more basic than a basically unbound hydrogen. I imagine a "pure" aluminosilicic acid would be {{chem2|[H2F]2[SiF6]}}, but I also imagine that would probably dissociate into HF and {{chem2|SiF4}}. [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 18:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
::"Hydronium salts" isn't a bad idea, really. Or lyonium salts, perhaps, to be solvent-agnostic? [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 18:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Sleeping on it, I think "solvated proton acid" is probably a good descriptive name. Describes the actual mechanism of acidity without limiting it to just {{chem2|H3O+}} (both for cases where hydrogen coordinates to more than one water, and for those acids that can be made in multiple solvents, e.g. protonated ether salts).
:::As another aside, our [[fluoroboric acid]] page claims that "anhydrous" {{chem2|HBF4}} can be prepared using acetic anhydride. I don't have access to the paper - published 1977 - but I suspect in context this is preparation of {{chem2|H3OBF4}}, but removing any excess water from the aqueous acid. The only alternative that comes to mind is some version of {{chem2|[CH3C(OH)2][BF4]}} and I can't imagine aqueous {{chem2|HBF4}} protonating acetic acid. [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 14:01, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

::Something of an aside. Compounds that are classically thought of at being Lewis acid catalysis, such as [[boron trifluoride etherate]], aren't effective catalysis for things like the Friedel-Crafts reaction if they're totally dry ({{DOI|10.1038/158094c0}}, {{DOI|10.1002/pola.20036}}). Trace water is needed. This implies that the active species is a 'complex acid' - to use  Fishsicles terminology. --[[User:Project Osprey|Project Osprey]] ([[User talk:Project Osprey|talk]]) 10:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Interesting! I suppose that would make these active species would be Bronsted conjugate acids of e.g. {{chem2|[BF3OH]-}}, and yet you don't see reference to e.g. {{chem2|HBF3OH}} "trifluorohydroxyboric acid". I'd be curious to see a breakdown of which reagents are referenced as informal compounds like {{chem2|HBF4}} and which are treated as solely the Lewis acids - I suspect that it will likely be a question of the stability of the anion or its salts? [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 13:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::::The Polanyi work mentioned by Project Osprey concerns ''olefin'' chemistry.  Indeed, olefins require protons to alkylate arenes and to polymerize.  The protonation generates an alkyl carbocation.   But, for conventional Friedel-Crafts reactions of alkyl halides or acyl halides + arenes, anhydrous Lewis acids are probably superior.  --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 14:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Ah, that makes sense. Thanks! [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 15:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] Probably, but I've never been entirely sure. I mean how dry can laboratory aluminum chloride get? The trouble is that you risk getting into a discussion on olation, and I am at least wise enough to leave those sorts of mysteries well enough alone. [[User:Project Osprey|Project Osprey]] ([[User talk:Project Osprey|talk]]) 15:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

==  [[Revista Brasileira de Química]] for AFD  ==

This was, IMO, an important chemistry journal in the mid 1900s, certainly important in Brazil. However, there's a few publications named similarly, by two publishers named similarly, and it's very hard to make sense of sources (or find them) when you don't speak Portugese.  

Help would be appreciated. &#32;<span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">[[User:Headbomb|Headbomb]] {[[User talk:Headbomb|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Headbomb|c]] · [[WP:PHYS|p]] · [[WP:WBOOKS|b]]}</span> 20:37, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

==Discussion at [[:Talk:Copper extraction#Splitting proposal|Talk:Copper extraction §&nbsp;Splitting proposal]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Talk:Copper extraction#Splitting proposal|Talk:Copper extraction §&nbsp;Splitting proposal]].  [[User:Gracen|Gracen]] ([[User talk:Gracen|they]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gracen|them]]) 11:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->
:Requesting comment specifically on how metallurgy articles are generally handled. [[User:Gracen|Gracen]] ([[User talk:Gracen|they]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gracen|them]]) 11:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

== Uniform approach to extraction and refining of industrial metals ==

Per the above discussion on [[copper extraction]], but independent of whether that particular split is necessary, I would like to discuss a more uniform approach to pages like [[nickel mine]] and [[iron ore]], which cover things in detail beyond the usual "occurrence" and "production" sections on an element's own page. It seems there are a few different pages on similar topics, but naming and contents are a bit inconsistent, and I wonder if a structured cleanup would be useful. My immediate thought is something like this:

* By default, "ore", "mine", "refining", "mining", "refinery", etc. should redirect to #Occurrence and production on an element's page.
** The main exception here is elements with a single major ore, such as the current redirects [[aluminium ore]]->[[bauxite]] and [[tin ore]]->[[cassiterite]].
** Possibly also an exception for rare earths, since it doesn't make sense to talk about them separately in most of these contexts?
* If the section is large enough to split (most should be):
** "ore" and mining related terms should redirect to #Occurrence, which focuses on mineral occurrence and extraction of the ore minerals
** "smelting" and refining related terms should redirect to #Production, which focuses on how the element or its important derivatives are made from the ore mineral after extraction
* If either or both of those sections are large enough to warrant their own pages (most won't be, but some might), the former goes to "[x] mining" and the latter to "[x] refining". Maybe with a disambig page for "extraction"?

Any thoughts on something like this? [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 17:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support'''  If we can reach consensus, some existing articles might need to be modified to redirect or merged.  At the stage of consensus, we would want to have a list of all articles affected, e.g. [[copper ore]], [[copper mine]], [[copper mining]], [[copper refining]], [[copper smelting]], ...  Also we would need to be sure that all relevant element articles have sections entitled <nowiki>==Occurrence== and ==Production==</nowiki>.  One modification of your plan: ''even if the element has a single major ore, we stick to the plan.''  We could have a <nowiki>{{main|Cassiterite}} for the tin article's ==Occurrence==</nowiki>.  --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 18:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
::I'd be all for sending the ore redirects to element main pages - the main reason I left that example in is that it seems to be one of the few consistent things as-is, but I'm completely fine with changing it. I'm not really ride or die for any specific part of the plan as it exists, other than "there should be ''a'' plan". [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 18:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:'''Support''' with a strong preference for Smokefoot's suggestion. I believe it makes sense to collaborate with [[WP:ELEM|WikiProject Elements]] on this, although I'm not sure what the status of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Guidelines|their style guide]] is. [[User:Gracen|Gracen]] ([[User talk:Gracen|they]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gracen|them]]) 15:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
:'''Support''' having a general plan. I think we should have these options for the element article
:# Single section {{green|§ Occurrence and production}}
:#: 1a. '''always''' with anchors to allow links to both {{green|#Occurrence}} and {{green|#Production}}. Generally inbound links should point to one of these and not to O&P  
:#: 1b. with a {{tl|main}} hatnote if there is an article that encompasses both topics
:#: 1c. with {{tl|see also}} hatnote(s) if a separate article exists for either or both topics
:#: 1d. even when there is a hatnote, always have at least a summary paragraph so those following an inbound link get some info without having to click twice. 
:# Two sections {{green|§ Occurrence}} and {{green|§ Production}}
:#: 2a. no need for a {{red|#Occurrence and production}} anchor (open to be convinced otherwise)
:#: 2b. with a {{tl|main}} hatnote if there is an appropriate article
:#: 2c. include a  {{tl|see also}} hatnote in the unlikely event one is appropriate 
:#: 2d. even when there is a hatnote, always have at least a summary paragraph so those following an inbound link get some info without having to click twice. 
:Other notes
:* I lean toward Smokefoot’s idea if not making an exception for single ore elements
:* I also think there should be no exception for rare earths, even though the {{tl|main}} or {{tl|see also}} hatnotes would point to identical articles
:* I agree that after general consensus a list of specific element-by-element changes should be made; this may turn up some places where we should consider changing the general rules
:* these rules should be incorporated into the [[WP:ELEM]] style guide, using this as an impetus to either bring it up to date one way or another
:— [[User:YBG|YBG]] ([[User talk:YBG|talk]]) 15:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::Seconding no "backwards compatibility" anchor for case 2. Per case 1, inbound links and redirects shouldn't point to that section anyway, so there's no reason to bake in support for something that's already discouraged.
::My only thought on the exception for single ore/rare earth elements is that someone who's specifically typing in e.g. "aluminium ore" is ''probably'' looking more for bauxite specifically than for an overview of aluminium mining, but that's purely vibes based and having a hatnote just adds one more click even if that is the case, so I'm not about to die on the hill. It's certainly better from a standardisation perspective to not make the exceptions. [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 15:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' Is "Production" the best choice? Even the title of the topic uses "extraction". Plutonium is produced, but oxygen is extracted. "Production" focuses on the human activity rather than the element/chemical. The process is more clearly called "extraction" IMO. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 22:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
::It's the current standard for sections within element articles per [[WP:ELEM]]. Part of the problem that prompted this was ambiguity on "extraction". For dedicated articles, my suggestion was "mining" for extraction of ore minerals from the earth and "refining" for extraction of pure metal from ore minerals. [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 13:10, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Seconding the "mining" and "refining" distinction. I do agree with [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] that "production" sounds a bit wonky, but I'd imagine we should take that up at [[WT:ELEM]]. [[User:Gracen|Gracen]] ([[User talk:Gracen|they]]/[[Special:Contributions/Gracen|them]]) 14:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
::::Production can lead to misunderstandings, in the case of copper Chile is the country that produces (mines out most copper) but China is the one that produces (by smelting) most copper cathodes. By the way, refining may also be tricky as it can mean to include smelting or refer to the preparation of concentrates before smelting. [[User:Ingminatacam|Ingminatacam]] ([[User talk:Ingminatacam|talk]]) 19:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, "refining" isn't perfect either, though I think it's ''less'' ambiguous than "production" ([[WT:ELEM]] standard) or "extraction". I'd suggest a general breakpoint in the sections would be to have the "mining" section cover anything performed at the mine site, and "refining" anything at facilities that receive the ore and produce the metal - but of course, that's something that varies site to site and process to process as much or more than it does mineral to mineral. There's going to be corner cases for any single word section name, so we shouldn't be overly prescriptive. [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 13:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' for these metals there should almost always be enough material to justify a separate article on production. However you are right that there are two many articles on copper production.  [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 23:12, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

== [[:Category:Chemical data pages]] ==

These create duplicates on Wikidata for the real substance and the "Wikipedia chemical data page" which is not helpful for matching. I assume that these predate Wikidata, are now redundant and can be safely deleted? [[User:Matthias M.|Matthias M.]] ([[User talk:Matthias M.|talk]]) 20:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

== Help illustrate climate change information on Wikipedia and win a signed copy of The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg  ==

<div style="display:flex; align-items: center;">
<div style="min-width: 160px; text-align: center; padding: 10px;">[[File:Wikipedia Community cartoon - for International Women's Day.svg|150px]]</div><div style="padding: 10px 0;">
Dear all 

I’m very happy to let you know we are running a competition at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change/Illustrate Climate Change competition|Wikiproject Climate Change]] to encourage people to help improve visual information about climate change including the science behind it. The competition is open until the 17th of May for all language versions of Wikipedia. The top three point scorers will each win a signed copy of The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg. 

Please let me know if you have any questions

Thanks :)

[[User:John Cummings|John Cummings]] ([[User talk:John Cummings|talk]]) 17:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
</div></div>

== Dehalocarbonylation? ==

To improve our [[perfluoroalkoxy alkane]] page I've gone on a patent dive, and found the literature regularly references "dehalocarbonylation" of (perfluoro) alkoxy carboxylates to (perfluoro) vinyl ethers. This is a term I'm unfamiliar with, and some hunting has only really turned up more fluoropolymer publications, many of which I don't have immediate access to.

From the name this reaction ought to be the elimination of {{chem2|COX2}}, but the claimed reactions (e.g. {{cite patent|country=US|number=3180895|status=patent}}, intro of {{doi|10.1021/jo01258a067}}) appear ''prima facie'' to involve elimination of {{chem2|CO2}} and {{chem2|F-}} from {{chem2|R2FC\sCO2-}}. I ''suspect'' that the name is not descriptive of the mechanism, but rather the overall process of eliminating {{chem2|COX2}} from an acyl halide (which would include conversion to carboxylate as well as the pyrolysis), but if anyone has any good sources to discuss this process in more detail it'd be appreciated. [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 15:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Grot, W. (2011). [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Fluorinated_Ionomers/E8H1Hwd5GXUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Dehalocarbonylation&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover Fluorinated Ionomers]. Netherlands: Elsevier Science. Page 23
:Describes a specific reaction as a "dehalocarbonylation".
:* Illy, N., Taylan, E., Brissault, B., Wojno, J., Boileau, S., Barbier, V., & Penelle, J. (2013). Synthesis and anionic ring-opening polymerization of crown-ether-like macrocyclic dilactones: An alternative route to PEG-containing polyesters and related networks. European polymer journal, 49(12), 4087-4097.
:Uses the word in "decarboxylation (dehalocarbonylation in the case of diacyl halides)"
:My take is that this is a rarely used word meaning [[decarboxylation]] with a halide in the role of hydrogen. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
::There's a pretty good recent account, with mechanism, at [[doi:10.1126/science.abm8868]], an open access article. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 17:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you both! This is exactly the sort of thing I needed. [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 18:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

== [[Oxycation]] ==

Please add reliable sources. [[User:Bearian|Bearian]] ([[User talk:Bearian|talk]]) 19:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for raising this. This is an interesting definition of "oxycation"; the term as I learned it is more specific than just "cation containing oxygen", instead specifically referring to cationic molecules or complexes of the form {{chem2|M_{n}O_{m}|}}, as a direct mirror of the (much more common) [[oxyanion]]. Of those listed, only nitronium, vanadyl, uranyl, and (ionic) chloryl meet that definition. I would certainly not call hydronium an oxycation rather than an oxonium ion. I don't have anything authoritative one way or the other on hand, though. Can anyone else either confirm or rebuke my memory on this? [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 20:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
::An investigation of the literature:
*no listing for "oxyanion" or "oxycation": IUPAC goldbook, March's organic book, titles in Chem Reviews, titles in Chem Soc Rev
*Greenwood and Earnshaw: one mention of "oxyanion", none for "oxycation"
*Progress in Inorg Chem (now defunct but once v good):
**one "oxyanion" review (Spectroscopic Studies of Ion-Ion-Solvent Interaction in Solutions Containing Oxyanions).
**no "oxycation"-entitled reviews
*SciFinder key word search:
**"Oxycation" gives 87 hits, not listed in title of any review.  Top primary hits describe {{chem2|[UO2](2+), [Al13O4(OH)24(H2O)12](7+)}}
**"Oxyanion" gives >8000 hits, including 622 (!) reviews.

*Possible conclusions:
**1) [[Oxyanion]] is a big deal (we all knew this).
**2) An article entitled [[oxycation]]s is largely [[WP:SYNTHESIS]] meaning that it is not a thing and some editor took it upon themselves to create the topic.  Logical yes, but still synthesis at worst or stretching things at best. Notice how the one author for [[oxycation]] decided that O<sub>2</sub><sup>+</sup> is an oxycation, but the rest of the world does not use the term and certainly not in that way.  In fact, most oxycations are not even real, but fragments, like [[uranyl]] (strenuously avoiding jokes at this stage).  Over and out, --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 18:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
**:While there is no mention of “oxycation” in Greenwood and Earnshaw (1998), there are at least three mentions of “oxocation” (p. 575, 591, 592) in relation to bismuth complex cations. It is still not a common term, and the source does not provide a definition, but the concept itself appears in the source. [[User:Wostr|Wostr]] ([[User talk:Wostr|talk]]) 21:50, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
::::Great catch.  So, maybe we convert oxycation to a redirect to oxocation, which would include cations containing an oxo ligand/atom such as the Bi clusters. The above-mentioned {{chem2|[Al13O4(OH)24(H2O)12](7+)}} would join that club. --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 22:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
::::A couple other things I'd note from Greenwood & Earnshaw - their discussion of vanadyl and uranyl (resp. p. 981 and 1296) notably don't use the term "oxocation", when they'd be the first place I'd expect to see it if the usage were simply "oxyanion but a cation". I suspect it's something used to describe larger coordination complexes, if there's a formal definition at all. It's certainly not on the level of its presumed counterpart.
::::Meanwhile, the Red Book refers to vanadyl as an example of a "oxidometal cation". [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

== Proposed for deletion (PROD): [[Oxycation]] ==

FYI, the article [[Oxycation]] has been proposed for deletion ([[WP:PROD]]). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

*{{tq|"In chemistry, an oxycation is a polyatomic ion with a positive charge that contains oxygen."}}

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

*{{tq|"Not notable, or even a thing. No sources, Original research"}}

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the [[Template:Prod|deletion notice]] for what to do.

Thanks, <span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]]  •  [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 20:31, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
=="Driven by ATP hydrolysis"==
I have encountered this or similar glib phrases for many, many years and always accepted it at face value.  ATP is hydrolyzed and the energy released is somehow captured by a pair of otherwise unwilling reactants, "driving" them to products.  Wikipedia has multiple uses of this "driving" phrase.  What in heck does "drive" mean?  I realized this morning that ATP does not hydrolyze, it only phosphorylates and the resulting phosphate ester (or related phosphorylated intermediate) is attacked, not by water, but by weak nucleophiles.  Phosphate is produced, but not by hydrolysis.  So the phrase driven by ATP hydrolysis may be incorrect? --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 18:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would hazard this is loose language that's meant to refer to reactions where the enthalpic cost is 'paid for' (i.e. ''driven'') by net hydrolysis of ATP (to ADP and {{chem2|PO4}}). Take a first-year undergrad level example: 
:acetic acid + ethylamine -> ethyl acetamide + {{chem2|H2O}} (deltaH = some positive number)
:{{chem2|H2O}} + ATP -> ADP + {{chem2|PO4}} (deltaH = some big negative number) 
:Add that up, hand wave away the entropy and you have yourself an spontaneous net reaction. It's been a while, but I think that's how my early biochemistry courses used the term as a short-cut. It's also the kind of language that is sticky for its convenience and entirely sloppy. Also, you can see my sloppiness as I've forgotten the proper thermodynamics terms. [[Special:Contributions/Synpath|⇌]] [[User:Synpath|'''Syn''']][[User talk:Synpath|path]] 23:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::I should add - at no point did my courses portray that this net reaction was ''actually'' happening. This is more meant as a conceptual framework that lets you abstract away the actual chemistry. I believe the idea is that someone planning to study enzyme regulation and signal transduction networks and antibody binding doesn't necessarily need to know the finer details of enzyme mechanism. [[Special:Contributions/Synpath|⇌]] [[User:Synpath|'''Syn''']][[User talk:Synpath|path]] 23:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
::This is consistent with what I remember of undergraduate biology. Enzymes are a Rube Goldberg machine where the reaction with ATP is the first step and the "driven" reaction is the last one, and if you want to get more specific, go to grad school about it. [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 01:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] I think that this use of "drive", which I agree is common in WP articles, is really biochemical jargon. We had a similar discussion about this type of thing, which you participated in: now archived at [[WT:WikiProject Chemistry/Archive 52#Feedback on Draft:Energy-rich species: keep or delete?]]. As a result we now have the article [[Energy-rich species]]. Maybe that needs some updating? There are more sources on its Talk Page. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 09:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

== Proposed for deletion (PROD): [[Chemistry notation]] ==

FYI, the article [[Chemistry notation]] has been proposed for deletion ([[WP:PROD]]). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

*{{tq|"Chemistry notation or chemical notation refers to the system of symbols, formulas, and equations used to represent atoms, chemical elements, molecules, compounds, reactions, and chemical structures in written and visual form"}}

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

*{{tq|"There is no coherent topic here, a seeming generic title-phrase without defined meaning. It is a combination of all sorts of different ways of writing things in different contexts, with a see also that is likewise a jumble of unrelated topics."}}

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the [[Template:Prod|deletion notice]] for what to do.

Thanks, --<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]]  •  [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 19:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

== Proposed for deletion (PROD): [[Chemical game theory]] ==

FYI, the article [[Chemical game theory]] has been proposed for deletion ([[WP:PROD]]). 

It's not exactly about chemistry - it's an approach to game theory developed by [[Penn State]] chemical engineering faculty using an analytical framework borrowed from chemistry and chemical engineering. First published in [[Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research]].

The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

*{{tq|"Chemical game theory is an alternative model of game theory that represents and solves problems in strategic interactions, or contested human decision making. Differences with traditional game theory concepts include the use of metaphorical molecules called “knowlecules”, which represent choices and decisions among players in the game. Using knowlecules, entropic choices and the effects of preexisting biases are taken into consideration. A game in chemical game theory is then represented in the form of a process flow diagram consisting of unit operations. The unit operations represent the decision-making processes of the players, and have similarities to the garbage can model of political science."}}

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

*{{tq|"This seems to be original research, stemming from a 2018 paper with only 15 citations (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.iecr.8b03835). The term "Knowlecules" on Google has very few results "}}

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the [[Template:Prod|deletion notice]] for what to do.

This could use some knowledgeable eyes!

Thanks, --<span class="nowrap"><span style="font-family:Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] <sup>([[User talk:A. B.|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/A. B.|contribs]]  •  [[Special:CentralAuth/A._B.|global count]])</sup></span></span> 20:04, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

== Help needed in [[matrix (mathematics)]] (currently under [[WP:GAR]]) ==

The article [[matrix (mathematics)]] currently contains this bit of text:

:[[Chemistry]] makes use of matrices in various ways, particularly since the use of [[quantum mechanics|quantum theory]] to discuss [[chemical bond|molecular bonding]] and [[spectroscopy]]. Examples are the [[overlap matrix]] and the [[Fock matrix]] used in solving the [[Roothaan equations]] to obtain the [[molecular orbital]]s of the [[Hartree–Fock method]].

In the course of a [[WP:GAR]], this has been tagged with a citation needed tag. Can someone with expertise in the area help out by providing a reference for this, or otherwise step in there? (I am the one who once pushed the GA nomination of the article, but otherwise just a mathematician with little background in chemistry). Thanks! [[User:Jakob.scholbach|Jakob.scholbach]] ([[User talk:Jakob.scholbach|talk]]) 07:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:[[Special:Diff/1291291740|Done]]. In addition to their use in quantum chemistry, it might also be worth mentioning [[Detailed balance#Onsager reciprocal relations and detailed balance]], but I'll leave it to other editors to weigh in here. [[User:Preimage|Preimage]] ([[User talk:Preimage|talk]]) 08:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

== Notability of drug starting materials? ==

Are commonly used drug starting materials independently notable? In response to a discussion about [[User talk:Boghog#4-Chlorophenylacetonitrile|4-chlorophenylacetonitrile]], I am reviewing [[Draft:4-Chlorophenylacetonitrile]]. This compound has been cited in approximately 1,000 non-patent publications. My gut reaction is no, but I would be interested in hearing other opinions. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 14:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

: I think there are a few drug starting materials that would justify a Wikipedia article. On example would be 1-benzyl-4-piperidone (CAS 3612-20-2) that is a precursor for the antipsychotic [[penfluridol]] and the  piperidine opioid [[fentanyl]] (prompting international regulatory controls).  I think an article about 1-benzyl-4-piperidone would be notable given its political ramifications. But I think these are relatively rare. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 15:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::I do not think that drugs or med chem is particularly relevant.  If a compound has 1000 publications, I would vote for notability.  --[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 15:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::: But would you agree that 1-benzyl-4-piperidone is much more notable than 4-chlorophenylacetonitrile? [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 16:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::: Or to put it another way, are there any secondary sources that highlight the importance of 4-chlorophenylacetonitrile? An example of an independently important synthetic intermediate is [[Michler's ketone]]. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 16:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
::::I'd take this on a case-by case basis. Given that there are [https://www.chemspider.com/Chemical-Structure.211145.html 1694 references] to that nitrile in RSC journals alone, it is clearly possible to show its notability. The problem with the draft, IMO, is that it is not very good at selecting the optimum (e.g. secondary/review) articles to demonstrate that and we certainly don't need a detailed account of its synthesis per [[WP:NOTTEXTBOOK]]. A reference to its manufacturing tonnage with cites to [[Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals|REACH]] or similar would help. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 16:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:::::Note that there is a related discussion at [[WT:WikiProject Chemicals#ECHA database mining]]. The compound in question is not on [[User:Marbletan/REACH]] which we agreed would be a likely pass on notability if it were. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 17:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:I'm puzzled by the question here. "4-chlorophenylacetonitrile" should be evaluated as such, independent of the question "are commonly used drug starting materials independently notable". "Drug starting materials" could include 4-chlorophenylacetonitrile if the topic were notable.
:To me a better starting point would be [[chlorophenylacetonitrile]] and if the 4- section grew it could be split off. The broader scope would be more interesting. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:: Or even more generic would be [[benzyl cyanide]]. The section on [[Benzyl_cyanide#Reactions]] captures the essence of what type of reactions that 4-chlorophenylacetonitrile is capable of. Do we need another article specifically about 4-chlorophenylacetonitrile?  Perhaps if there was a secondary source that highlighted the specific uses of 4-chlorophenylacetonitrile, but I cannot find any. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 18:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:: There is a German Wikipedia article on [[de:4-Chlorphenylacetonitrile|4-chlorphenylacetonitrile]]. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 18:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
:::[[:de:4-Chlorphenylacetonitril]] -- [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span>]] 19:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

== [[Quisqualic acid]] ==

This may be within the remit of this WikiProject. I've been going through [[:Category:CS1_errors: periodical ignored|a category of citations that need fixing]], and I came across [[quisqualic acid]]. It seems to have references that don't support the text, close copying of at least one uncited source, and a general air of oddity. Further attention would be appreciated. [[User:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction]] ([[User talk:Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction|talk]]) 22:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Some incorrect information was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dana-tgrxj01 added] by what appears to be a single-use account. The first of these edits looks like copy and paste text. Some of it comes from [https://www.doc-developpement-durable.org/file/Culture/Plantes-Medicinales-Aromatiques/FICHES_PLANTES/Quisqualis%20indica/Combretum%20indicum%20(PROTA)%20-%20PlantUse.pdf] aka Gurib Fakim, A., 2012. Combretum indicum (L.) DeFilipps. In: Schmelzer, G.H. & Gurib Fakim, A. (Editors).
:Prota 11(2): Medicinal plants/Plantes médicinales 2. PROTA, Wageningen, Netherlands. Accessed 23
:December 2016, which has many refs on the plant [[Quisqualis]]. 
:I removed two paragraphs. Most of the History section should be moved to the article about the plant. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 00:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

== Investigatory drug pages ==

I noticed that [[User:Noxoug1|Noxoug1]] has recently been creating directly into main a number of pages on "investigatory drugs", for instance [[Zigakibart]], [[Tulmimetostat]] with many of these made by [[Novartis]]. A full list is [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Noxoug1 here]. Just pointing this out so that others who are knowledgeable in the area can check the pages. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 18:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

== Out of scope? ==

Our main page does not really have a defined scope for the project except for 'chemistry.' I tried to remove [[Savannah River Site]] from the project but it was reverted. Any opinions?" {{ping|Hawkeye7}} [[User:Christian75|Christian75]] ([[User talk:Christian75|talk]]) 20:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:That article is about a chemical processing plant, so could be in scope. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 21:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
:There was a discussion on [[Talk:Savannah River Site#Spelling]] but only two editors were involved. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 03:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
== [[Wikipedia:The World Destubathon|The World Destubathon]] ==
Hello. Project members are invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving STEM and business-related articles and we want to see a lot of science-related articles destubbed and older stale articles improved. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for science, sign up if interested.♦ [[User talk:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 10:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
:Who is "we"?  Is there some evidence that the Chem Project has a problem with stubs and staleness?--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 15:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

== Pi-interaction ==

There's a rather dusty article at [[Pi-interaction]] that could do with a merge or redirect; some expert eyes would be helpful at [[Talk:Pi-interaction#Merge proposal]]. [[User:Klbrain|Klbrain]] ([[User talk:Klbrain|talk]]) 08:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
:I have edited this supramolecular theme often.  We could do the proposed merge, but here are some predicaments:
*[[Anion–π interactions]] is kind of a thing.  Reviews exist on the topic.  I would prefer to move that bit to a pre-existing article, but I dont know what that would be.  If necessary, we spin out this narrow topic to stand on its own. 
*[[Pi-stacking]] to me means graphite, charge transfer complexes.  These interactions are relatively strong. Instead, the article is dominated by discussion of weak arene-arene interactions, with a discussion of theoretical approaches. I propose that this part be moved to [[arene]].--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 13:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

== [[Allylpotassium]] ==

Hi, I'm from dewiki and wanted to give you a headsup on this article which was posted in the same form to enwiki, dewiki, and frwiki. The article is a crude mixture of the compound allyl potassium and the general concept of allylic potassium complexes and - more problematically, there are some things off with the cited sources, e.g., I the stuff with the pyridine is not in the respective source and I couldn't find a source for this reaction. Instead, I found one with Diallylcalcium: 10.1002/anie.201003704. No idea what your procedures are for such cases just wanted to recommend you take a look because I cleaned out the German article. Have a nice weekend, [[User:Anagkai|Anagkai]] ([[User talk:Anagkai|talk]]) 14:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Does someone have access to the Zhang et al paper cited by this article? The wiki article calls it a catalyst, but even from the supplementary materials, that doesn't sit right with me: it seems to be discussing it as an intermediate when using tBuOK as the catalyst, with the allylpotassium complex only being separately synthesised to demonstrate the same spectrum is present in the reaction using tBuOK. If there's no evidence that the compound is being separately prepared to be used as a catalyst, it should probably be referred to as an intermediate. [[User:Fishsicles|Fishsicles]] ([[User talk:Fishsicles|talk]]) 16:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
::I checked: you are probably correct.  Looks like its the butoxide base that is catalyst.--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 17:22, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

== Help with [[Huang Jinling]] ==

Does anyone know of him and/or his work? He may pass [[WP:NPROF]] as a past President of a university, but I cannot check the sources for [[WP:NPP]]. Note: I have also posted to [[WT:WikiProject China]] for the language issues. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 11:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:N.B., his area from the page is, to quote: ''Huang Jinling has dedicated his career to the examination of structural and materials chemistry pertaining to transition metal complexes and atomic clusters, attaining significant results.'' [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 12:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
::Well our other Wikipedia pages on chemicals do not mention this person. Perhaps all writings are in Chinese, so would not be found by our authors. There is however a botanist with that same name referenced several times. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
:::According to the Chinese Wikipedia page, he is noted in the 1991 work 二十世纪中国名人辞典 (Dictionary of 20th Century Chinese Biography) and the 1992 work 中华当代文化名人大辞典 (Dictionary of Contemporary Chinese Cultural Celebrities), though I have no way of verifying either. -- [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#4E8321">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span class="skin-invert" style="color:#073131">rabbit</span>]] 03:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

== [[Basic lead acetate]] ==

Would it be possible to add a structure, and if yes, which type of structure would be appropriate? [[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 09:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:The existing refs do cite a crystallography paper... but that describes two compounds, both of which have different formulas to the one given in our article. [[User:Project Osprey|Project Osprey]] ([[User talk:Project Osprey|talk]]) 12:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:Structure is probably in this reference: https://doi.org/10.1021/ic101904j -- though we may have the wrong formula in our article. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306379669 is also of interest, but different lead:acetate ratio compounds were measured. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 12:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::In my head I want it to be isostructural to [[Basic beryllium acetate]] and [[Basic zinc acetate]] --[[User:Project Osprey|Project Osprey]] ([[User talk:Project Osprey|talk]]) 12:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::The structures from [[doi:10.1021/ic101904j]] are in the CSD at [https://www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/structures/Search?Doi=10.1021%2Fic101904j&DatabaseToSearch=Published this URL] I'm not sure that any of the three mentioned are actually the "basic lead acetate" with CAS No. 1335-32-6. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 13:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::... our article on [[Lead(II) acetate]] has the more common lead acetate hydrates, which is also what I think the researchgate publication was concerned with. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 13:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Those structures don't look right at all... what on earth is happening in OLAZIL? The carbon atoms are touching one another. [[User:Project Osprey|Project Osprey]] ([[User talk:Project Osprey|talk]]) 13:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::::According to its summary, the 1965 article [[doi:10.1016/0022-1902(65)80153-1]] has the X-ray structure of the material our article refers to. Unfortunately, I don't have full access (it is not included in the Wikipedia library's content at Science Direct) but this does mean it should be in the CSD somewhere but I can't find it using that DOI as the search term. [[User:Michael D. Turnbull|Mike Turnbull]] ([[User talk:Michael D. Turnbull|talk]]) 13:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::It is gratifying to see basic acetates accepted as a common motif.  It wasn't always that way here.  Metal acetates tend to lose Ac<sub>2</sub>O when M is high valent or when the simple acetate is heated. Basic acetates come in various formulas, now made famous as [[secondary building units]] in [[Metal–organic framework]]s. Cr<sub>3</sub>O and Fe<sub>3</sub>O are the cores of the basic chromium and iron acetates (ferric triacetate does not exist apparently). The structure determinations by Mauck et al. are complicated by disorder and twinning (beyond me), which are manifested in the CSD files.  The atom coordinates may require editing to see the structure properly.  Citing Mauck et al. is this overview: {{cite journal|doi=10.1021/cr3004696 |title=Anion-Centered Tetrahedra in Inorganic Compounds |date=2013 |last1=Krivovichev |first1=Sergey V. |last2=Mentré |first2=Olivier |last3=Siidra |first3=Oleg I. |last4=Colmont |first4=Marie |last5=Filatov |first5=Stanislav K. |journal=Chemical Reviews |volume=113 |issue=8 |pages=6459–6535 |pmid=23621387 }}.  Some excerpts from that review: "'''3.2. {{chem2|OPb4}}''' Tetrahedra in Inorganic Compounds. '''3.2.1. 0D Units.''' ...Isolated (OPb<sub>4</sub>) tetrahedra ... found in ... {{chem2|[Pb4O]Pb2(BO3)3Cl and Pb4O(PO4)2}} .... Mauck et al.reported on the crystal structures of {{chem2|Pb3O2(CH3COO)2*0.5H2O and Pb2O(HCOO)2}}."  For whatever reason (prob Pb<sup>2+</sup>'s size), it seems that basic lead acetate does not want to crystallize like the Zn<sub>4</sub>O(OAc)<sub>6</sub> species.--[[User:Smokefoot|Smokefoot]] ([[User talk:Smokefoot|talk]]) 14:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)