Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/IRC discussions/26 Feb 2008

--- Log opened Tue Feb 26 11:15:28 EST 2008

11:15 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; ok, let's begin

11:15 &lt;walkerma&gt; 1. How should we organise chemboxes for pages where several related substances are being described (e.g., tartaric acid, cresol?

11:15 &lt;walkerma&gt; We need to consider how the Chembox is laid out

11:16 &lt;walkerma&gt; and how it might need to be tweaked to cope with multiple forms of a compound

11:16 &lt;walkerma&gt; Also, give some guidance in our MOS for people writing such pages

11:16 &lt;walkerma&gt; Any ideas?

11:17 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; modified chembox?

11:18 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; which shows...

11:18 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; look at the "forms of tartaric acid"

11:18 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; something like that

11:18 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; actually, tartaric acid is the simple case, the present article looks good

11:19 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; how about we turn cresol into a disambig with each separate article describing the structure listed

11:19 &lt;walkerma&gt; Should tartaric acid be a model for others?

11:20 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i like the extended chembox in cresol more

11:20 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; holds true to our present color scheme more

11:21 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Should we have a special "chem disambig" page type, that has a stubby infobox (for the data that doesn't relate to any specific form), raher than a normal WP:DISAMBIG list?

11:21 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; hmm

11:21 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; we can have a "soft disambig"

11:21 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; which doesn't look like a disambig page at all

11:22 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; it functions as one, by being a stub article with links to the relevant proper articles?

11:22 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; for cresols, since they are usually obtained and used as mixtures *anyway*, the daughter articles will probably be short, with a full chembox and little else

11:23 &lt;+dmacks&gt; So two separate cases: where there's little to say about each vs where there's little worth saying about [all of them as a group].

11:24 &lt;+dmacks&gt; cresol looks like a good example of the former.

11:24 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; ok

11:25 &lt;walkerma&gt; Axiosaurus: Do you have any thoughts on this? You've written quite a few pages of this sort for inorganics

11:25 &lt;+dmacks&gt; (Dextromethorphan + Levomethorphan would be the latter)

11:26 &lt;walkerma&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallium_halides

11:26 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; ooh that rotating ball is hideous

11:26 &lt;walkerma&gt; vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallium%28I%29_chloride

11:26 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Rifleman_82: why yes, yes it is.

11:26 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; thallium halides should fall into the "compound classes" sort of article anyway

11:26 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; so it's probably moot

11:27 &lt;+dmacks&gt; yeah

11:27 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; sorry- just had to go out and rescue a dustbin! I have never tried to put multiple cmpds in a single chembox- no chembox in thallium halides at last look

11:28 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; dustbin... blowing in the wind...? :)

11:28 &lt;+dmacks&gt; The side-by-side one looks nice in cresol.

11:28 &lt;+dmacks&gt; %% All we are is dustbin in the wind.....%%

11:29 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i took out the "safety" section for TlCl

11:29 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; says nothing...

11:30 -!- Beetstra_ [n=djbeetst@Wikimedia/Beetstra] has quit ["Bye Bye"]

11:30 &lt;walkerma&gt; I think there is a point, though, where we transition from "compound class" articles to these narrower topics where there may be only around 3 choices

11:30 -!- Beetstra_ [n=djbeetst@Wikimedia/Beetstra] has joined #wikichem

11:30 -!- mode/#wikichem [+v Beetstra_] by ChanServ

11:30 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; hi beetstra

11:30 &lt;walkerma&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_oxide

11:31 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; hmm...

11:31 &lt;walkerma&gt; Bad example, because there are separate articles

11:31 &lt;walkerma&gt; But you get the idea

11:31 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; if it's not clearly defined, you can't have a meaningful article or box anyway

11:31 -!- Beetstra_ is now known as Beetstra

11:31 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i take that back

11:32 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; if it's not clearly defined, you can have a meaningful article, but probably not in copper oxide

11:32 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; but if it's not clearly defined, chances are it'll not have a proper cas number and have a proper box

11:32 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; should http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raney_nickel have a box then?

11:33 &lt;walkerma&gt; I'd say no

11:33 * dmacks leans no, not enough data to populate it.

11:33 &lt;walkerma&gt; What I'm saying is that something like 2-3 forms of an inorganic, that's very similar to the cresol case

11:34 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; sodium citrates?

11:34 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; that one's irritating me a lot

11:34 &lt;walkerma&gt; Yes, sodium citrates

11:34 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbodiimide

11:35 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; specifically, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbodiimide&oldid=162366524

11:35 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; 3 boxes in 1 article

11:35 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; maybe sodium citrates should adopt the form of the carbodiimide article?

11:36 &lt;walkerma&gt; Ooh, I don't like the layout of that

11:36 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; hmmm

11:36 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; should we turn sodium citrate into a disambig of the mono, di, tri sodium salts?

11:36 &lt;walkerma&gt; It looks bad (to me) having different size boxes on top of each other

11:37 * dmacks nods @ walkerma

11:37 &lt;walkerma&gt; It looks like the basement where I store my old copies of JOC

11:37 &lt;ChemSpiderMan&gt; I like the form of the carbodiimide article myself... But if the boxes were fixed and same sized that would help

11:37 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; width could be fixed...

11:37 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; but do note in the present incarnation, there is only 1 box left

11:38 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Time to off-load EDC to its own page too?

11:38 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i was thinking just that

11:38 &lt;walkerma&gt; I wonder if we could have a mini-box that would be of fixed width that could be used for such pages?

11:39 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Or just use the image as a normal "image in an article section" instead of a box at all.

11:39 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i'd prefer we split them into separate articles

11:39 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; yeah, or just use images

11:39 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; and split them into separate articles

11:39 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; putting two or more chemicals in one article judgement call at end of day --would work for obscure inorganics such as the dozen or so Ti phosphides

11:41 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; EDC also has the problem of the salt

11:41 &lt;+dmacks&gt; As long as things are consistent (*either* a parent page linking out to specific subpages *or* a combined page; i.e., not the way carbodiimide is mixed up now), seems reasonable in light of general WP guidelines.

11:42 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; hmm

11:42 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i think that sums up everything... any objections?

11:42 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; if not maybe we can move on

11:42 &lt;walkerma&gt; I have one remaining concern, regarding the cresol format

11:43 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; ok

11:43 &lt;walkerma&gt; Sorry to go back somewhat! The box looks nice, taken alone, but it's so fat it has to get dumped into the middle of the article itself

11:43 &lt;walkerma&gt; Same with tartaric acid

11:44 &lt;walkerma&gt; Is there some other way to do this, or is this simply inevitable for this type of article? Could we redesign the chembox layout to fix this?

11:45 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; we can have a chembox-2 chembox-3 to have 2 and 3 data columns

11:45 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; but for tartaric acid it'll be wide no matter how you cut it

11:46 * dmacks can't think of a general solution to "want parallel sets of data", "have several parallel sets", and "don't want width associated with parallel columns"

11:47 &lt;walkerma&gt; Fair point about tartaric acid. But for 2-3 wide, maybe we could have the box force the columns to be no wider than x pixels or something

11:47 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; for hexanes, pentanes, xylenes, how about a chembox for the mixture

11:47 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; since that's commercially available

11:47 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; then split off 1-hex, 2-hex, etc into separate articles?

11:47 &lt;walkerma&gt; So if you have an entry like "Solubility in pure water" it would wrap onto the next line

11:47 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; same for o,m,p-xylene

11:47 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; or cresol

11:48 &lt;walkerma&gt; Rifleman_82:Sure, that sounds fine

11:49 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i'm thinking even if the articles will never be more than stubs. you guys agree?

11:49 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Not sure I like stubs that are essentially nothing except an infobox. AfD has deleted more significant chemical pages than that.

11:50 &lt;walkerma&gt; I agree with dmacks there, there needs to be some article content

11:50 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; or, a "general" chembox - mixture of isomers

11:50 &lt;walkerma&gt; If such mixtures are commercially available, then there should be such info

11:50 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; this includes cas no, mp/bp (range), formula

11:51 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; no structure

11:51 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; then isomers either 3 or so in a row

11:51 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; or sequentially

11:51 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; technically are there problems linking from a multi as opposed to a single compound chembox in future?

11:51 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; linking from?

11:52 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; they probably have to be defined as 2,3,4-member chemboxes

11:52 &lt;walkerma&gt; In other words, properties of the (macroscopic) material, then several separate boxes for the (microscopic) molecular structure

11:53 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Goes back to whether we really care about "substance" vs "compound". Since we use the same infobox for both, I don't see a problem having a multibox that has both tyeps of things in it.

11:54 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; the width will always be a problem, which means we will need a "basic" chembox... "substance" if you will

11:54 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; which brings us back to the cresol format

11:54 &lt;+dmacks&gt; yup

11:55 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; but think about it this way

11:55 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; if 2 or 3-methylpentane is really so obscure that we can't write an article about it

11:55 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; let it be and forget the chembox?

11:55 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; it's about being encyclopedic afterall

11:56 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; exceptions like tartaric acid should remain few, so we can still handcode them

11:56 &lt;ChemSpiderMan&gt; A big clap on that one...some of the articles based on chemicals are so obscure they shouldn't be there in my opinion

11:56 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; we've conveniently forgotten about many L-aldohexoses, and D-amino acids anyway

11:57 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; we're not going to have an article about D and L and DL mannose or something,

11:57 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; well okay, mannose has a picture of both D and L forms but that should suffice

11:58 * dmacks was just about to ask what the common case was, whether usually 2-3 compounds (or 2 specifics and their mixture) or "lots" of compounds.

11:58 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; if you talk about biomolecules you'll have 3 - the D and L and rac

11:58 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; cisplatin and transplatin?

11:58 &lt;walkerma&gt; dmacks: I think we have every case imaginable somewhere!

11:59 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; trans platin is in cisplatin

12:00 &lt;+dmacks&gt; walkerma: Yes. I'm hoping to avoid working for hours to find a specific solution to a specific problem when the problem is much more general.

12:00 &lt;walkerma&gt; I think that we have two different scenarios. One: Isomers or forms that differ in most of their properties (ie not enantiomers) - these would need several chemboxes

12:01 &lt;walkerma&gt; Two: We have enantiomers and the like where we could share much of one chembox, and just delineate the differences where they arise

12:01 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; yup, we do that in text

12:01 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; for type II

12:01 &lt;+dmacks&gt; makes sense

12:01 &lt;walkerma&gt; "Two" could be handled just like the way we handle hydrates at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_sulfate

12:02 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i would prefer that we leave out all the hydrates from the chembox

12:02 &lt;walkerma&gt; Where we have different molar masses, say, for different hydrates, we simply list them sequentially

12:03 &lt;walkerma&gt; Rifleman82: You can't really do that with sodium sulfate - the decahydrate is so important it has its own name - Glauber's Salt

12:03 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; fair enough

12:03 &lt;walkerma&gt; which was in fact the original name for that article

12:03 &lt;+dmacks&gt; That box does look good.

12:03 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; but for most articles, i find x-hydrate quite annoying

12:03 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; because a simple problem of 1 compound becomes complicated by many possibilities

12:04 &lt;walkerma&gt; You definitely need to list them, though!

12:04 &lt;+dmacks&gt; (what specific compound, or "unspecified mixture" does [7757-82-6] mean?)

12:04 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; we need not be exhaustive

12:04 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; and if they're interesting, like copper sulfate, we can talk about how 5 hydrate to 1 hydrate the color changes

12:05 &lt;walkerma&gt; I concede that much of the description can go into the article text

12:05 &lt;walkerma&gt; But for many compounds, the hydrate is the usual form that people in high schools etc encounter the compound

12:05 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i'd also say it used to break the CasNo field (and the link out)

12:05 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; but that's moot now

12:06 &lt;walkerma&gt; The approach I took when I wrote such things was to include (a) the anhydrous form and (b) the form most commonly encountered if different

12:06 &lt;walkerma&gt; I don't think that is over the top

12:06 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; no, martin, i do agree with you it's completely reasonable

12:06 &lt;+dmacks&gt; That sounds very reasonable.

12:06 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i was just concerned about the 3000 or so other articles

12:07 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i fear that leaving in the hydrates makes the job of curating them all all the more difficult

12:07 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; especially where the "normal" form encountered is a hydrate

12:08 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; molecular weight should not display the hydrate; the weight can be calculated directly and it's needless clutter

12:08 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; (the proper place to find the molecular weight of the stuff in your bottle is the label... not wikipedia!)

12:08 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Just need to make it clear *when* we're talking about tht hydrate form specifically vs just the structure itself.

12:09 &lt;walkerma&gt; I use Wikipedia all the time to find molecular weights, sorry!

12:09 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; haha okay

12:10 &lt;walkerma&gt; OK, I think we have a general approach figured out

12:10 &lt;walkerma&gt; For cases like cresol, with isomers with different properties, we use side-by-side chemboxes

12:10 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; okay

12:10 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; you want to create templates? or you want to hand code?

12:11 &lt;walkerma&gt; For cases like R & S forms, or one or two hyrdates, we use sequential listings of differences like at sodium suldate

12:12 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; is this goign to make data mining more difficult?

12:12 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i'm talking about R and S

12:12 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; we could include chembox fields

12:12 &lt;walkerma&gt; I think (since I'm a complete klutz when it comes to putting together chemboxes) I would prefer something simple I could put onto a page, rather than hand coding

12:12 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; casno R, casno S, casno rac

12:12 &lt;walkerma&gt; An idiot's chembox

12:12 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; same for mp (rac is different from r and s which are identical with each other)

12:13 &lt;walkerma&gt; As for data mining, I think we should wait until we discuss PC's idea of the persondata approach - I suspect that will solve it.

12:13 &lt;walkerma&gt; dmacks, is that right?

12:13 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Better to use casno 1, casno 2, casno 3 (not good to presume that we're talking about difference that can be boiled down to one stereocenter)

12:14 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; so we'll use the &lt;br /&gt; solution for the moment?

12:14 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Yes, I think so. If we're not parsing the chembox directly, who cares what's in it?

12:14 &lt;+dmacks&gt; persondata would have to have specific tags to identify when data is specific to one specific form (and also to identify what that form is)

12:14 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; hmmm

12:15 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; don't understand, but okay

12:15 &lt;walkerma&gt; But that's a discussion for another day, I suspect

12:15 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; so how do we deal with sodium citrate?

12:15 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Although hmm, if infobox has casno1 casno2 casno3 *and also* form1 form2 form3 to identify what those 3 specific things are (R, S, rac, for example), could still parse it.

12:15 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; sodium citrate be a soft redirect to mono di tri sodium citrates?

12:16 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; okay dmacks, gotcha

12:16 &lt;walkerma&gt; Unless I'm missing something, I don't think we want articles on every form of sodium citrate

12:17 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Yeah, I can't think of specific content more than a sentence or so for each one.

12:17 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disodium_citrate

12:17 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; redir the article to sodium citrate?

12:17 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; ("sodium citrate" by itself is somewhat ambig)

12:17 &lt;walkerma&gt; Is this a case where we have one common form, and two less common forms?

12:18 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Whoa, disodium isn't even linked from the generic page!

12:18 &lt;walkerma&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_citrate

12:18 &lt;walkerma&gt; !

12:19 &lt;+dmacks&gt; !

12:20 -!- ChemSpiderMan [n=ChemSpid@c-68-33-151-242.hsd1.md.comcast.net] has left #wikichem []

12:20 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; so, should we just redirect everything to "trisodium citrate", saying it's the most common form?

12:20 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; IP person can/will always change a redirect for what sounds like a specific form

12:21 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; and briefly mention that others are available, give formula but not mw

12:21 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; btw

12:21 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; these articles all started as a redirect!

12:21 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; yeah, MY redirects

12:21 &lt;walkerma&gt; I suspect we need one article called sodium citrate with a section explaining the different salts, and their specific uses

12:21 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; I know! whoi was that IP person

12:21 -!- Beetstra [n=djbeetst@Wikimedia/Beetstra] has quit ["Bye Bye"]

12:21 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; btw can we change the box - "molecular formula" to "formula"; "molar mass" to "formula weight"

12:22 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Is trisodium citrate the most common form, and the form that is actually described on the sodium citrate page, or did the content become about generic issues now that the page has a generic name?

12:23 &lt;+dmacks&gt; (i.e., is the page *actually* trisodium citrate?)

12:23 -!- Beetstra_ [n=djbeetst@Wikimedia/Beetstra] has joined #wikichem

12:23 -!- mode/#wikichem [+v Beetstra_] by ChanServ

12:23 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s3386.htm

12:23 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/SO/sodium_citrate_dihydrate.html

12:23 -!- Beetstra_ is now known as Beetstra

12:23 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; the page is actually about trisodium citrate

12:23 -!- Beetstra [n=djbeetst@Wikimedia/Beetstra] has quit [Remote closed the connection]

12:24 &lt;walkerma&gt; It looks like the page was always called sodium citrate, but I think it's always been about just the trisodium salt

12:24 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; but a few msdss use it to refer to trisodium salt

12:24 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Objecetions to reversing the redirect?

12:24 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; no objections

12:24 &lt;walkerma&gt; No

12:25 &lt;walkerma&gt; objections that is

12:25 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; no objection here

12:25 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; we can leave sodium citrate as a stub, mentioning there are mono di and trisodium salts, "sodium citrate usually referring to the trisodium salt"

12:25 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; and redir mono and di there

12:25 &lt;walkerma&gt; Hang on, though - would it be better to merge them all into one article called sodium citrate?

12:26 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; it'd be inappropriate to have a chembox there?

12:26 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; unless we phrase it starting with "trisodium citrate, usually refeerred to as "sodium citrate" ... "

12:26 &lt;walkerma&gt; It would be fine to either have a cresol-type chembox or

12:26 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; further down, "other related compounds include mono, di ..."

12:27 &lt;walkerma&gt; Just have a chembox for the trisodium, then mention the other forms in the article

12:27 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; ok, fair enough

12:27 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Are the other forms actually important at all, or just as "we have one, better have them all for completeness"?

12:27 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; sounds OK

12:27 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; you guys can leave it to me... i'll get it done later

12:27 &lt;walkerma&gt; thanks

12:28 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Rifleman_82: okay. /me already reversed the redirect, so feel free to override whatever I did and make it better:)

12:28 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; haha alright okay

12:29 &lt;walkerma&gt; I think the other forms are important enough for an anon to add stuff like "Disodium citrate is used as an antioxidant in food" etc

12:29 &lt;walkerma&gt; The other forms may not warrant their own articles, but I think they do warrant a mention in an article on sodium salts of citric acid

12:31 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; hmm

12:31 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i don't think we should read too much into a single anon

12:32 &lt;walkerma&gt; Even if they don't warrant their own chemboxes in that page

12:32 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; while clearing chembox-->new, i came across numerous seemingly unencyclopedic articles

12:32 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; a mention should be adequate

12:32 &lt;+dmacks&gt; yeah

12:32 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; since we're talking about chemboxes, should the formula be in the CHN notation? or should it be in the CH3COOH semi-structural form?

12:32 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i don't like the latter

12:32 * dmacks likes CHN

12:33 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; yeah...

12:33 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; it's easier to punch into a mw calculator...

12:33 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; to be fair citrates are probably a lot more important than some of our other articles--at least they get 1000s of google hits

12:33 &lt;walkerma&gt; OK, I think we've reached a general consensus on the citrate issue. I like Hill system, CHN

12:33 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Yeah, make it useful and distinct, separate from the several other existing structural notations.

12:34 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; but for inorganics? HBr or BrH?

12:34 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; HBr please!!

12:34 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; that's not hill system then...

12:34 &lt;walkerma&gt; For inorganics, that's a whole big issue to discuss I think!

12:34 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i'm lazy, i just take whatever chemsketch tells me

12:35 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; and it's usually CHN

12:35 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Yeah, let the inorganikers settle what is "standard" in that world.

12:35 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; organomets?

12:35 &lt;axiosaurus&gt; you lret a programmer tell you what the formula is!?

12:35 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; okay i'm not going to look for a problem when there isn't one

12:35 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i'm lazy...

12:35 &lt;+dmacks&gt; heh

12:35 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; when i'm filling out chemboxes my mind is usually a blank

12:35 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; autopilot... draw the structure, copy out the mw and formula

12:36 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; find an MSDS and copy R and S statements

12:36 &lt;walkerma&gt; Well keep quiet about organometallics, then! Can we brush them under the carpet for now?

12:36 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; yeah...

12:36 &lt;+dmacks&gt; yup

12:36 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; to finish off chemnboxes... can we adopt the changes i suggested?

12:36 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; "chemical formula" or "formula" instead of "molecular formula"

12:36 &lt;+dmacks&gt; ("Consensus of editors: there is no such thing as an organometallic compound":)

12:36 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; and "formula weight" instead of "molar mass"

12:37 -!- axiosaurus [n=chatzill@host217-43-62-111.range217-43.btcentralplus.com] has quit ["got to go! cheers -cooking calls"]

12:37 &lt;walkerma&gt; Formula is fine IMHO

12:38 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Does it link somewhere, so that it's clear it's not empirical formula?

12:38 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; for many compounds, it is indeed the empirical formula...

12:38 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; Al2Cl6 versus AlCl3?

12:38 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; palladium acetate is a trimer

12:39 &lt;walkerma&gt; But formula weight can raise lots of issues, if only I could think of them... I remember we debated this in depth in 2005, and molar mass was the only phrase that didn't have problems

12:39 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; speaking of which, there are some problems with benjahbmm's THF/Et2O adducts of organolithiums and grignards

12:39 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Someone who has taken gen-chem probably does a "burn Mg, find empirical formula as lowest-integer-ratio", so all those alkanes are off by a factor of two (at least)

12:39 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; hmm... molar mass is fine i guess; i thought "formula weight" emphasizes it follows the formula more

12:40 &lt;+dmacks&gt; If we're data-mining, as long as it's consistent, no problemo.

12:40 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; probably would be nice for mw/fw/whatever you call it to be calculated automatically from the formula

12:41 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Yeah, and if formula *doesn't* match mass, we have a problem anyway.

12:41 &lt;walkerma&gt; The advantage of formula weight is that it does go along with structure rather than substance, which is nicer. But it does have the word "weight" which upsets the physicists, since the weight will be different on different planets

12:42 &lt;+dmacks&gt; This is really a chemistry question, not an editorial one.

12:42 &lt;+dmacks&gt; What's it really called (IUPAC, ACS, whatever)?

12:43 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; that's not even a chemistry question, that's a nomenclature problem

12:43 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-formulaw.html

12:43 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; i don't really need this to be resolved today...

12:43 * dmacks nods

12:43 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; does martin have more stuff to discuss?

12:45 &lt;walkerma&gt; No. I think we should end this now.

12:46 &lt;walkerma&gt; I think multiple isomers/forms in one article is a thorny issue, and there is still work to do, but we've resolved some things

12:46 &lt;walkerma&gt; If you have any bright ideas on how to standardise the chemboxes so they can become more "modular" for this sort of purpose, that would be great.

12:47 &lt;walkerma&gt; Shall we close?

12:47 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; hmm

12:47 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; louisBB is interested in joining us

12:47 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; if you guys see him, would be nice to welcome him into our community

12:47 &lt;walkerma&gt; Who is louisBB?

12:48 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rifleman_82#Wiki_Project_Chemistry

12:48 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; 2ndly, i want to know if the desired endstate is for drugboxes to be replaced by chemboxes

12:48 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; that's my position, btw

12:49 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; if so, we might need to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28medicine-related_articles%29#Bolding.2C_linking_.26_coloring_of_elements_in_drugbox.2Finfobox_chemical_formulae

12:49 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; briefly, bolding and coloring and wikilinking element symbols

12:49 &lt;walkerma&gt; Thanks for the info

12:50 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; yup

12:50 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; maybe something to think about after we close today

12:50 &lt;+dmacks&gt; yeah

12:50 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; otherwise i'm done :)

12:50 &lt;walkerma&gt; We need to talk with the people over there, and the WP:Pharmacology folks

12:51 &lt;walkerma&gt; I'd like to mention one last thing, the people from ChemAxon are offering us free use of their tools. These could be very useful.

12:51 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; got a link?

12:51 &lt;walkerma&gt; Seehttp://www.chemaxon.com/

12:52 &lt;walkerma&gt; http://www.chemaxon.com/

12:52 &lt;+dmacks&gt; niiice

12:52 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; sounds like a solution to the jmol

12:52 &lt;walkerma&gt; They are not simply saying, "Here are some things"

12:53 &lt;walkerma&gt; this guy Alex Allerdyce sounds like he is willing to work with us

12:53 &lt;walkerma&gt; Rather like the way Tony did when he was at ACD

12:53 &lt;walkerma&gt; This could be a very useful connection

12:53 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; definitely

12:53 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; hmm

12:54 &lt;+Rifleman_82&gt; martin - can we end here? i'd like to talk about what we discussed earlier, off the record

12:54 &lt;walkerma&gt; Yes, let's end things here

12:54 &lt;+dmacks&gt; Alright.

--- Log closed Tue Feb 26 12:54:56 EST 2008