Commons talk:WikiProject Chemistry

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 30 days.

Berzelius

Is anybody recognising these symbols:

? -- Lavallen (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lowercase letter after locants/prefixes in categories

There are several categories having its name starting with lowercase letter, e.g. Category:3,4-diiodo-2,5-dimethylthiophene. According to IUPAC recommendations, the first letter after locants and most prefixes should be uppercase if the name is the first word in a sentence (or is in the title etc.). This is reflected in English or Polish Wikipedias manuals of style. I see a lot of categories that are in line with IUPAC recommendations, but some are not. Is there any such recommendation in Wikimedia Commons that can be a basis for requesting a move (Category:3,4-diiodo-2,5-dimethylthiophene → Category:3,4-Diiodo-2,5-dimethylthiophene)? Category:1,2,3-triazine, Category:1,2-dioxin, Category:1,2-dithiolanes... Wostr (talk) 22:27, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe "harmonize/consistency among related" (Template:File_renaming_reasons/i18n #4)? It would be nice if the WM software automatically treated as capital "first alphabetical char of title" not just "first char of title". But given how prevalent the uncapitalized situation is, I'm not sure it would be uncontroversial (which is preferred). I agree harmonizing these is useful, because several automatic lists of categories are displayed alphabetically (ASCII-like string sorting, which means case-sensitive, not lexicographic), which means all the first-caps come first (see [1] for example). DMacks (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to list all the categories first and then we'll see how big this problem is. Wostr (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I strongly prefer lowercase letters after locants or prefixes in category and article titles. Among other things, chemical names may just be linked as they appear in the text ([[1,2,3-triazine]] instead of [[1,2,3-Triazine|1,2,3-triazine]]). --Leyo 23:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

But this is true for article names only and imo it has nothing to do with category names, am I right? Wostr (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

My preference is covers categories, too. --Leyo 00:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

"Should the first letter-character of category names be capitalized when there are non-letter characters before it?" is a well-formed question that should be addressed outside the single scope of chemistry categories IMO. DMacks (talk) 02:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

“Use TeX” by Jahobr

• Jahobr (talk · contribs)

I run into “interesting” proposals by this person in File:1 Butan.svg and File:Butan Lewis.svg by chance. Suspect that there are many more. Jahobr either sees some images on a display rotated ∼ 20° counterclockwise, or doesn’t check how his/her code is rendered at all, or looked the last time into a chemistry textbook a looong time ago. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I checked my proposals and could not find the problem. I see nothing rotated or un-rendered. This may be ignorance on my part; could you explain a little better what the problem is? --Jahobr (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

How about font styles? Even if such terms as Roman, italic, oblique are unfamiliar to Jahobr, italic (especially in serif fonts) looks very distinct from Roman. Where did Jahobr obtain an idea that TeX (which defaults to italic in math mode) has its typography optimized for chemical symbols? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm very familiar with font styles and I don't know why you are implying I would be unfamiliar with them. The template {{Use TeX|2=chem}} uses the <chem></chem> environment plus \mathsf{} to create a non-serif non-italic font, just as the original image. Matching the orignal image as close as possible is a good thing isn't it?

${\ce {\mathsf {H-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-H}}}$

Just WikiMedia's <chem></chem> without \mathsf{} gets you a non-italic serif font:

${\ce {H-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-H}}$

The possibilities are quite versatile, you can insert different fonts. If you want a different default font-setting, I am the wrong person to address. I did not program that environment nor the {{Use TeX|2=chem}} template. I still don't see any problem. --Jahobr (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wait… what do we see in Revision of File:Butan_Lewis.svg? We can suppose that this 2=chem works nice on Mars, Venus, or even Moon perhaps, but if on Commons it yields inappropriate italic—for whichever reason—then some other wrappers should be used, right? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

My rendering is NOT italic (it looks like in the original image - just as i wanted). Look at the two examples above are they italic? NO I really do not undestand what you want. If you wanted an italic font you could use mathit:

<chem>\mathit{H-\overset{\displaystyle H \atop | }
{\underset{ | \atop \displaystyle H}{C} }- \overset{\displaystyle H \atop | }{\underset{ | \atop \displaystyle H}{C} }- \overset{\displaystyle H \atop | }
{\underset{ | \atop \displaystyle H}{C} }- \overset{\displaystyle H \atop | }{\underset{ | \atop \displaystyle H}{C} }- H}</chem>

which forces italic: ${\ce {\mathit {H-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-{\overset {\displaystyle H \atop |}{\underset {| \atop \displaystyle H}{C}}}-H}}}$

Everyting works nicely. Maybe you have a browser problem? --Jahobr (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

With uselang=en I see Roman, without it – italic. Thanks for helping to isolate the bug. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-relatedly, I see consensus on en.wp not to use TeX for plain chemical equations at this time, so I suspect using it for even more complex things such as Lewis diagrams is not supported either. DMacks (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

That is fine. I have not repaced chem-images with TeX in en.wp or deleted chem-images on this ground. I just added a possible alternative. Nobody has to use them. Maybe the template text in {{Use TeX|2=chem}} should be updated to reflect that consensus. Happy new year. --Jahobr (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think tagging structural formulae with that template is a good idea. At least, the parameter Keep needs to be added to make clear that the file is not a candidate for deletion. --Leyo 23:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Especially for Leyo and other German speakers, to remind how did {{use TeX|…|chem}} render some hours ago in their language. Now appears to be fixed at least for German and Russian; for French was already correct. Unsure about other languages, and no opinion about the practice of tagging of structures with {{use TeX}} per se. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Periodic table

I've started work on it, needs major improvement Allknowingroger (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

3D files by Claudio Pistilli

I think we have a problem with most of 3D files uploaded by him. File:3DAmmonium mandelate.png, File:3D Ammonium tartrate.png, File:Sodium thiocarbonate3D.png, File:Ammonium thiocarbonate3D.png and many others that are a poor mix of different files and above all are incorrect and misleading. Some was already deleted, but some was kept, because these files are in use in small eo.wiki in articles edited mostly by him. Right now he started adding his files to Wikidata and I'm trying to clean this up, but I see that some files probably won't be deleted at all from Commons, because he uses these files in eo.wiki... What would be the best approach? Maybe these files should be at least marked with a template with an info to not use these files? Wostr (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to ping the uploader: @Claudio Pistilli: . Wostr (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Forgive my daring way, my dear friend and Wikipedia contributor. I know of the joy you have in cooperating with our encyclopedia, but I would like you to respect the opinion of those who think differently. My archives with organic chemical structures may not be one of the seven wonders of the modern world, but they are correct and obey the rules of chemical structures. You said they were wrong and misleading (but they are not). If they were they should be replaced and NOT deleted. I have great satisfaction in contributing to this wonderful encyclopedia, and instead of believing ourselves to be the exclusive owners of the truth, let's look at other people who also feel the same satisfaction as you in helping Wikipedia. Let us unite our hopes to improve Wikipedia (not deleting but improving the files) and not blocking the joy of those who like to contribute. Think about it and ask God if what you are doing is right. Consult your heart in all the decisions of your day. A big hug. Claudio Pistilli (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that most of your files are not correct. Especially 3D models (like e.g. File:Eugenyl valerate3D.png) which are a combination of different files, hence different sizes of atoms, but above all, without paying the slightest attention to the correct geometry of the molecules, so that the created models are misleading due to their incorrectness and lack of reflection in reality. Many of your chemical structures (2D) are also incorrect, either by using fancy font, style, wierd operations like rotating the labels. combining two different files etc., or by — again — not paying the slightest attention to the correct stereochemistry (what the heck is that: File:Menthyl oxalate2D.png?). IUPAC recommendations for Graphical Represantation Sdandards for Chemical Structure Diagrams — is a document all chemists should try to follow and these recommendations have a reflection in EN/DE Manual of Style of structure drawing. You can download it free of charge; also there is free-of-charge software for chemical structure drawing (e.g. ChemSketch), I don't know if there is any free software for 3D models, but I'd strongly advise against uploading any such models until you can tell which 3D structure is correct and which is not. As I said in your discussion earlier, IMHO the best possible solution for your files is to keep them in eo.wiki. I'll find every one of your incorrect file and nominate it for deletion, that I can assure you — and it's nothing personal: I have seen situations in the past in which the editor was allowed to freely add incorrect content either in the hope of improvement or because of the old "Be bold" wiki-rule. Unfortunately, the amount of time needed to improve the incorrect content significantly exceeded the capacity of the involved people and the incorrect content was available for years in the project. Wostr (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Does Commons have a process for topic bans or upload bans? Looking at the talk pages and archives of Claudio Pistilli, I see literally hundreds of deletion messages. It is clear that this user is wasting a significant amount of other users' time to clean up after him. There is consensus that these images are not wanted here. Is it possible to use this consensus to enact a ban that forbids this individual from uploading chemistry images to Commons? ChemNerd (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

---

FYI: This user has formally asked to be unblocked. Wostr (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at these more recent uploads of chemical diagrams including 3D graphics by Claudio Pistilli at eo:wp and check if there is any improvement? --AFBorchert (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the first six, I see two with substantial chemical mistakes and three that are uncited derivative/composite images. And that's without even looking carefully. That is, there is zero improvement in ability/understanding of the topics they are trying to illustate or in our licensing/sourcing requirements/respect for others' work. These are the same substantive problems that led to the original block, one which followed multiple editors' repeated warnings over a long period of time, and from which multiple editors are still spending many hours trying to undo the mess from prior to the block. No, we don't need more of that here. en:WP:CIR. DMacks (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I should add that even if the licensing/sourcing were clarified, the images often have incorrect geometric details, as if from someone who would not understand 3D objects at all, let alone chemistry. Adding fancy-looking but chemically and/or geometrically flawed images is especially problematic because of the risk of others confusing "pretty" with "valid". I agree with others, that regardless of Edgar's socking behavior, their chemistry is spot on in whichever account they were using. DMacks (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: The way this user behaves has not changed even in the slightest. On Commons, we are witnessing only a small part of the problem: graphics. This person probably does not have sufficient chemistry knowledge to understand and correct his mistakes. He works by taking several files and then copy-pasting them together without taking into account their factual incorrectness or possible copyright infringement (some 3D models are released under CC-BY-SA or other CC licences). From the first page of his newest eo.wiki additions most (if not all) graphics has factual errors and/or potential copyright issues. These problems had been brought to his attention many times, both on his talk page and during the deletion discussions. An attempt was also made to explain to him how he could create more correct graphics and with what tools — to no avail. However, as I mentioned, the actions on Commons are only part of the problem, the other part is his activities on the eo.wiki. He seems to create articles in a very strange style, as if they were books for children. It is not only unreadable, but also very far from any commonly accepted standard. What's more, some of the information seems to be highly questionable and it lacks any confirmation in the sources. As long as this user's edits are limited to his native project, the damage is minor to the international community, and it will be up to eo.wiki users to correct this user's edits in the future. However, we should limit the possibility of propagating errors made by this user to other projects, especially since this user's activity went unnoticed until his files became more widely used in Wikimedia projects (Wikidata, Wikipedia). It is true that some actions (including administrative actions) on this user was taken by the currently banned admin. However, Edgar cannot be denied both adequate chemical knowledge and a great deal of experience in the project, and thus his current situation should not affect the evaluation of the block imposed on Claudio Pistilli. Therefore, I kindly ask you or any other admin to inform this WikiProject each time before making a decision to unblock this user. Even if such a decision were to be positive for him, it would give us the opportunity to prepare and respond appropriately to his new contributions. Wostr (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Uploads by Hoa112008

Many of the chemical structure images uploaded by User:Hoa112008 appear to be factually incorrect. I have nominated several of them for deletion, but a thorough review by more chemists of Hoa112008's other uploads is probably necessary. ChemNerd (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's similar case to the above of Claudio Pistilli, but fortunately with smaller number of uploads. IMHO both users should be blocked from uploading files to Commons. What's more, his 3D graphics seems to be uncited derivatives of other graphics. Wostr (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Older uploads by 人神之间

Seems like we're tracking a bunch of sets of files to replace. Here's another: [2]. Just a bunch of low quality of simple structures that can be replaced by others already existing in their cats. DMacks (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Classification of molecular models

Hi! Would it be ok to add Category:Space-filling models to intitle:"3d vdW" -insource:"Category Space-filling models" -insource:"Category Crystal structures" -intitle:"chain"? I looked it through and found about 30 exceptions:

• File:Atomisation-Na-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Dichlorine-gas-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Monatomic-sodium-gas-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Atomisation-Cl-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Kevlar-sheets-stacking-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Silicate-sheet-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Kevlar-sheet-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Sulflower-xtal-3D-vdW-A.png,
• File:Hexamethyltungsten-3D-vdW.png,
• File:TMS-tetrahedrane-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Kevlar-sheets-stacking-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Monatomic-chlorine-gas-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Sodium-chloride-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Sulflower-xtal-3D-vdW-B.png,
• File:Polyethylene-xtal-view-down-axis-3D-vdW-orthographic.png,
• File:5-iodotropolone-xtal-3D-SF.png,
• File:Potassium-iodate-xtal-3D-SF.png,
• File:Vanadium(V)-chloride-oxide-unit-cell-3D-balls.png,
• File:Alpha-palladium(II)-chloride-xtal-3D-SF.png,
• File:Mercury(I)-fluoride-xtal-3D-SF.png,
• File:Violet-phosphorus-chains-crossing-from-xtal-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Hydrogen-fluoride-solid-chains-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Hydrogen-fluoride-solid-chains-3D-vdW.svg,
• File:Violet-phosphorus-chains-connecting-from-xtal-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Polyethylene-3D-vdW.png,
• File:Polyethylene-xtal-packing-3D-vdW.png,

so I would try to request bot help, and afterwards remove the category from the exceptions. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't really see the benefit of filling the overfull Category:Space-filling models even further. --Leyo 12:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

First capital letter according to IUPAC rules

@Wostr: Which IUPAC rule are you referring to? --Leyo 22:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Leyo: names for chemical compounds are normally written with lowercase as such names are not proper nouns. However, uppercase have to be used when a chemical name is at the beginning of a sentence (or in the title like in the case of Commons category names). There are many prefixes and locants that are not considered the first letter in a chemical name that should be capitalised (that incl. numerical locants, greek locants, but also many prefixes like tert, retro, abeo), D and L descriptors are also not considered to be the first letter of a chemical name that is capitalised (and are also not considered in first step of alphanumerical ordering). These rules are a standard practice in IUPAC publications, in most chemical publishers and journals and in many Wikipedia projects (see en.wiki, pl.wiki). Wostr (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Category names are not titles in the strict sense. The first character of a category name is set to be uppercase (if it is a letter) by Mediawiki for Commons and Wikipedia. This is not the case, if the first letter is not the first character. Except what is set by Mediawiki, we should do it like Wiktionary does (see e.g. wikt:alpha-methylphenethylamine or wikt:ethanethiol). --Leyo 09:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

If the category name is not a title, we should use DISPLAYTITLE in every category about chemical compounds to change the first uppercase to the lowercase. I have no objections to use lowercase for all category names. Wostr (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC) PS BTW IMO every category name is a title that should be capitalised, just as every article name is a title that is capitalised. Wostr (talk) 10:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Oxathianes and thioxanes

Currently we have two categories, Category:Oxathianes and Category:Thioxanes which appear to be synonyms. Am I correct that they are synonyms? If so, we should merge them, but which category name is better? Marbletan (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

From my understanding of Hantzsch–Widman nomenclature, O comes before S, so oxathianes would be preferred. There is even an example (1,3-oxathiolane) in 1982 recommendations. Also in the current Blue Book 2013 there are 1,2-oxathiolane and 1,2,6-oxadithiepane examples (both are PINs) that may support this. Wostr (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It definitely sounds like oxathianes is the way to go. I have now merged the two categories into Category:Oxathianes. Thanks for your input. Marbletan (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Galleries about chemical compounds

We have a bunch of galleries, some of them (38) I've listed here. Only a few have any meaningful arrangement, however, none seems to be regularly maintained or even used in any way. These galleries were not harmless before Wikidata, but at this point they cause confusion – some are linked through main WD item, some are not; some Commons categories are not linked properly to the WD item, because of the links to Commons galleries; what's probably the most important, some links to galleries are imported from Wikidata to other projects and the only result is that readers end up on such junk pages.

I suggest to systematically get rid of all Commons galleries related to chemical substances. We can divide larger categories into subcategories to make it easier for users to find the right media, we can limit the number of files by removing redundant duplicates, but maintaining gallery pages is completely counterproductive. Wostr (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

After having had a look at few examples, I concur with the argumentation. --Leyo 23:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Chemistry-related gallery pages. Wostr (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Amphetamines and Substituted amphetamines

Is there any distinction between Category:Amphetamines and Category:Substituted amphetamines? It seems to me that they serve the same purpose and should be merged. Marbletan (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• I see no difference, IMO redirect from Category:Substituted amphetamines to Category:Amphetamines should be okay, as most classes have similar names without 'substituted' or 'derivatives'. Wostr (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I have now merged the two categories. Thanks. Marbletan (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Category:Oxocations and Category:Oxycations

Is there any difference of these two categories? Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Benjah-bmm27 and Allforrous: Pinging the two creators. --Leyo 22:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think they're the same. Oxocation has about 25% more hits on Google Scholar and 35% more on Google search. --Ben (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

These two are synonyms and I believe that 'oxocations' should be the name of category here. Wostr (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Category:Thioic acids and Category:Thioacids

Is there any difference between these two categories? Should they be merged? Marbletan (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• There is an archived discussion about this on the discussions pages of these categories. It seems that Category:Thioacids was created as an analogue of Category:Oxoacids while Category:Thioic acids as an analogue of Category:Carboxylic acids (we also have Category:Thiocarboxy in Category:Organic acids). From the content of both categories I see that only File:Tiomolibdic acid.svg does not belong to Category:Thioic acids. It seems to me that the distinction between thioic acids and thioacids is reasonable, but (1) it should be determined if the existence of Category:Thioacids is justified, i.e. if there are enough files to be put here apart from thiocarboxylic acids, (2) Category:Thioic acids should be renamed to Category:Thiocarboxylic acids, which is IMO a better understandable and unambiguous name. Wostr (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and pointing me to the prior discussion. I understand the intended distinction now. I think your suggestion of renaming to Category:Thiocarboxylic acids is a good one. It would lessen the chance of future confusion. I'll move the page in a week or so, if no one objects. The newly renamed category should also be a subcategory of Category:Thioacids. Marbletan (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)