Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
See also: Chemistry talk page, {{Chembox}} (talk).

Can someone make this template Night Mode compatible?

[edit]

Template:Periodic table (by nutritional elements)

The problem here is that the legend's colors aren't inverted (while only the table's colors are inverted). Since the template's creator was banned, I now look to you guys – who know how to code or whatever – to have this template edited in accordance to night mode compatibility recommendations. CheckNineEight (talk) 04:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found that not inverting the table in this case improved readability. Adding dark-mode inversion for Template:Legend will require a template editor. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for the whole thing to be made Night Mode compatible instead of having to opt out of it completely. So it's the legend template that's causing the issue, huh... CheckNineEight (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CheckNineEight & LaundryPizza03, how does Template:Periodic table (by nutritional elements)/sandbox look? Rjjiii (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The colors aren't matching, and I don't know why. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the source text. CheckNineEight (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CheckNineEight, could you explain a bit more? Do the colors not match the previous colors (because they're using the design tokens)? Or do the colors in the table not match the colors in the legend? Rjjiii (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. (Excuse my late response) CheckNineEight (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CheckNineEight, of course, there's no rush. Dang, that's an issue to resolve. Can I ask what browser and type of device? I've tested Chrome (blink), Firefox (Gecko), Gnome Web (WebKit), and Pale Moon on a laptop with Linux Mint, I've tested Chrome and Firefox on a Samsung phone running Android, and an older version of Safari (WebKit) on an iPhone. In both light and dark mode, I see the same background color in the legend and the table. I also tested automatic on the iPhone, and the automatic setting matched manual dark and light colors. The only difference I see is the presence/absence of the text (only in the table) and the border (only in the legend). I can't really troubleshoot it unless I can recreate the problem, Rjjiii (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might be because I'm using a really old phone (Android 6.0+). I don't know if my Chrome browser is even up to date, I'm not getting any update warning/notification. In case it might be hardware specific, I'm using Samsung Galaxy Grand Prime+. CheckNineEight (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it could just be that the {{legend table}} template doesn't support color inversion, like LaundryPizza03 said. CheckNineEight (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CheckNineEight, no, unless your browser is Chrome 48 or lower, it should still work, and even then Chrome 48 would just show no colors, not different ones. Are you using the dark mode built into Wikipedia or the dark mode gadget. The update that @LaundryPizza03 did for {{legend}} does something with the gadget, but on the normal dark mode, I don't see any changes in either the desktop or mobile skin. Rjjiii (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm using the normal, built-in Dark Mode. I checked the gadgets and it has both Dark mode toggle and Core styling for dark mode gadget enabled, but I don't know if these are the same as the built-in, or if these were still the pre-2024 ones; am I somehow using both Dark Mode versions? CheckNineEight (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I'm an idiot, that was the gadget version! I prefer that version, though, because it's darker than the default one. Apologies. CheckNineEight (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yeah, it's probably that version having a problem with Template:legend table that's causing the issue. CheckNineEight (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, mystery solved then. Even though it's been mostly supplanted by the new dark mode available to everyone, the WMF will probably still keep the gadget around for some time. The way that those two dark mode options handle changing colors is pretty different though, so you may run into other pages and templates that work in the new dark mode, but not the gadget, Rjjiii (talk) 03:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I think my solution worked better for visibility. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii @LaundryPizza03
Can someone help guide me how to customize my default dark mode settings? I mean the /global.css user subpage stuff (so it applies to all other sister sites), not edit the skin itself. Or is there a more appropriate approach to this? I can't find a useful guide no matter what I click, wherever I go. CheckNineEight (talk) 06:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm the wrong person to ask; I've never done it. LP03 may have some ideas. You could try making a post at WP:VPT if not. Good luck, Rjjiii (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Dihydrosphingosine redirected to Safingol?

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Safingol § Why is Dihydrosphingosine redirected to here?. CheckNineEight (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you used the wrong template. -- Reconrabbit 15:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? It does say you are invited to [talk page] and also gave it a custom heading. CheckNineEight (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a template for merging notice in the middle of this topic now, which probably came from the use of {{Format link}}? I can delete it if it's unintended? -- Reconrabbit 16:27, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please do. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. I was using {{pls}}, and I can't see what's gone wrong, probably because I'm on mobile. CheckNineEight (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mandelic acid chemical formula mismatch

[edit]

Mandelic acid lists one chemical formula in the lead and another in the infobox. The formula in the lead comes up as some of the Other Names I found listed in my reference for mandelic acid, but not what appears to be the "main" or most commonly referred to formula. I know very little about chemistry, I am mainly editing these pages (like potassium permanganate) for their cosmetic/industrial/human uses. If a chemistry editor could take a look, I'd appreciate. I don't want to add incorrect content if it's unclear which formula I should be referencing. Pingnova (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The different formulas you see are the difference between the pure molecular formula in the infobox (just how many of each element) vs the condensed formula in the lead (indicates the isomeric connectivity or groupings of the atoms in the structure). The structure represented by "C6H5CH(OH)CO2H" is "phenyl group, connected to a carbon that has an H and a hydroxyl group, connected to a carboxylic acid group", and the algebra-like total of all of it is C8H8O3. DMacks (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understand, thank you for explaining and doing some chem-focused edits to the page. I am not focusing on chemistry as I contribute to the article but let me know if I make a mistake. Appreciate it! Pingnova (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Methylsulfonylmethane#Requested move 3 September 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Methylsulfonylmethane#Requested move 3 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 08:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to amend chemical naming policies re: acronyms

[edit]

TL;DR: Propose amending chemical naming policies to allow use of page titles with format "<acronym> (<disambig term>)", e.g., "DOM (psychedelic)". Current policies/standards do not allow this. The proposal is because oftentimes the acronyms are essentially the common/trivial name and because this proposed format is a good solution for very long, technical, and unrecognizable chemical article titles.

There are many chemical compounds in the area of pharmacology and specifically designer drugs/research chemicals that are referred to mainly by acronyms or pseudo-acronyms and for which these acronyms are essentially the common/trivial names. For people somewhat familiar with the drug in question, they will easily recognize the acronym but will often not recognize or be able to interpret the chemical name. A couple of examples include the psychedelic drugs 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine (DOM) and lysergic acid 2,4-dimethylazetidide (LSZ).

In some cases, following Wikipedia article naming policies including WP:OCHEMNAME, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZE, WP:ACROTITLE, and WP:CONCISE, we can simply use the acronym form as the page title and there are no problems with this. Examples include LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine), and DOTFM (2,5-dimethoxy-4-trifluoromethylamphetamine), among many others. That is, Wikipedia policies prefer the common/trivial name over the chemical or other names, an acronym is fine if the acronym primarily or exclusively refers to the topic in question, and the acronym title is more succinct, concise, and readily recognizable. For example, WP:OCHEMNAME: "Trivial names (non-systematic, or "common" names) are favored for use in titles of articles for organic compounds instead of systematic names. [...] For compounds lacking trivial names, as is often the case for complex structures, substitutive nomenclature or other systematic names may be used." And WP:ACROTITLE: "In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title."

In other cases however, there are other notable topics on Wikipedia that also use the same acronym and that would conflict with a drug page using this title. This is much more common for shorter acronyms (e.g., three or four characters). Examples include DOM, most of the other DOx drugs (e.g., DOB, DOC, DOI, etc.), LSZ, 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), and many others. The current standard in such instances is to spell out the full chemical name as the article title. For instance, WP:ACROTITLE again: "In many cases, no decision is necessary because a given acronym has several expansions, none of which is the most prominent. Under such circumstances, an article should be named with the spelled-out phrase and the acronym should be a disambiguation page providing descriptive links to all of them."

There are two concerns with this. One is that many readers somewhat familiar with the drug, as mentioned above, would readily recognize the acronym but would not recognize or be able to interpret the chemical name. Another concern is that oftentimes these chemical names can get very long and be very technical, to a point that feels almost kind of silly for a page title. For example, the psychedelic drug 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylphenylcyclopropylamine (DMCPA) or the psychoactive drug 1-methylamino-1-(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl)propane (M-ALPHA). Fortunately, in these two instances, there are no conflicts with other acronyms, and I'm in the process of having the pages moved to the acronym forms. But there could easily be a conflict in a given instance like this, and the chemical name could be and sometimes is even be longer and less interpretable than the preceding instances.

While WP:ACROTITLE dictates that the full name should be spelled out rather than acronym used in the case of conflicting acronym titles, an alternative would be to title the drug page with the acronym and a disambiguation term, for example "DOM (psychedelic)". WP:ACROTITLE would seemingly preclude this, per the following excerpt: "One general exception to this rule deals with our strong preference for natural disambiguation. Many acronyms are used for several things; naming a page with the full name helps to avoid clashes. For instance, multiple TV/radio broadcasting companies share the initials ABC; even though some may be far better known by that acronym, our articles on those companies are found at, for example, American Broadcasting Company rather than ABC (American TV network)." However, drug and chemical acronyms are a somewhat unusual situation in that they are often essentially the trivial/common name of a given compound. In many cases, the drug is almost always known by and referred to as the acronym and not by the full chemical name, with rare exceptions (e.g., full chemical named being defined just once or twice and then the acronym then always used, such as in journal articles on the compound). Moreover, chemical names may be so exceptionally long and technical as to be fully unrecognizable and interpretable for many people. Finally, many acronym-like chemical names are actually pseudo-acronyms. For example, the 2C series of psychedelic drugs like 2C-B and 2C-I, with the "2C" part simply referring to the fact that the side chain has two carbon atoms and not relating to the chemical name. In addition, the DOx series are not technically acronyms of the chemical names, with for instance DOM being an acronym of the virtually unknown code name "des-oxy-methyl" made up by its inventor Alexander Shulgin. As such, these kinds of pseudo-acronyms might fall outside of the scope of WP:ACROTITLE to variable extents and could technically be considered non-acronym common/trivial names.

Based on the preceding reasoning, I'd like to propose a change to chemical naming policies such that the use of an acronym with a disambiguation term, for instance "DOM (psychedelic)" or "LSZ (psychedelic)", be considered a valid way of naming chemical or drug page titles. I think that it would provide a clean and satisfying solution to the above-described problems that can happen with using full chemical names. And I can't really think of any good reasons against this title format beyond it not being the current standard. This proposal would involve amendment of WP:OCHEMNAME to specifically address acronyms and/or amendment of any other applicable policies (perhaps including even WP:ACROTITLE). I realize that this WikiProject would be the place to discuss amending WP:OCHEMNAME, but obviously discussion elsewhere would need to occur for other policies.

Thank you and I look forward to your thoughts on this issue. – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 22:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I haven't participated in any of the recent RMs on these compounds, but in general, I don't believe this push toward using acronyms as titles for these relatively obscure psychedelic drug derivatives is a good idea. I realize it's not a clearcut issue, but I'll just offer some thoughts. Having LSD as a title makes perfect sense, because I would bet more readers know that "LSD" refers to the psychedelic than those who know its full name is "lysergic acid diethylamide". Thus, it completely comports with MOS:ACROTITLE. MDMA is a more borderline case- I actually believe the WP:COMMONNAME is Ecstasy (drug), but that's for another time and place. But I have strongly mixed feelings about many of these other cases, probably because I have a chemistry bias. With this bias, I may not know much about 2,5-dimethoxy-4-trifluoromethylamphetamine, but I at least instantly know it's an organic compound that is a derivative of amphetamine, and a reader with organic chemistry knowledge can decipher the structure of the compound. They may have no idea of why its notable or its properties, but that is why one would come to read the article! In contrast, as a chemist or not, I have no idea what DOTFM is (or DMCPA)! I don't mean to project my ignorance onto others, but I suspect only readers already interested in psychedelics would know it refers to a drug. I understand the nom's reading of MOS:ACROTITLE to indicate this reasoning means the initialism should be the article title, but I read WP:RECOGNIZE more broadly, and I am not sure the acronyms truly are the common names of these compounds. Maybe in some cases they are, and I suppose they should be evaluated on a case by case basis, but I am skeptical. For instance, as a chemist, DOM to me refers to dissolved organic matter, not 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine. In fact, the abbreviations don't even make sense to me- the Shulgin nomenclature is so niche and specialized that it really doesn't make sense to me to follow it for article titles. (TBH, I also wonder how many of these compounds are actually notable, and tug on my mergist tendencies, which would render these titling issues moot.) I get that when experts discuss these compounds they don't repeatedly say "2,5-dimethoxy-4-trifluoromethylamphetamine"- that's what abbreviations are for, but that doesn't mean they should be title of the article (though they make great redirects!). The nom points out full chemical named being defined just once or twice and then the acronym then always used, such as in journal articles on the compound)- we should follow suit, use the full name as the title, define it in the lede section, and then use the abbreviation throughout the article. My litmus test is like the LSD case: only if readers are more likely to know the abbreviation than its definition, the abbreviation should be the title, because they come to the article to learn its definition, not the other way around. I just don't think that's true for most of these articles.
A related thought as sort of a middle ground in line with WP:OCHEMNAME is to use substitutive nomenclature in cases where a parent compound uses the abbreviation as its common name, e.g. 2-Bromo-LSD.
These comments are broader than the question here, but I feel similarly about the specific question about whether we should use abbreviations with parenthetical qualifiers in cases where disambiguation would be required. In contrast to the nom, I don't see any distinction here between these drugs and American Broadcasting Company- "ABC" is certainly the WP:COMMONNAME, but since it is ambiguous, the article title is the written out version.
TL;DR Follow MOS:ACROTITLE and do not use parenthetical disambiguation with abbreviations. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input Mdewman6. The feedback is appreciated and other perspectives are beneficial.
I'd just like to note that using acronyms for page titles (when there are no conflicts and other requirements met) is in line with Wikipedia article naming policies as they are currently written. I proposed a number of potentially controversial requested moves recently and they were discussed, agreed upon, and completed via consensus. It would of course be another topic to modify those policies.
We must remember that Wikipedia is written for a general audience. The spelled-out chemical names may be useful for chemists. But the vast majority of people, including those interested in these drugs, are not chemists and don't understand what these terms mean. In general, we try to simplify article titles and ledes for general audiences on Wikipedia. I think it's also notable that the acronym with a disambiguation term is more cognitively recognizable than having to interpret the full chemical name even for chemists (with pre-existing familiarity of course).
Yes, Shulgin's naming schemes are certainly niche and specialized. That said, many of these compounds have come to be known most commonly by his chosen names. For instance, "DOM" is without a doubt the common/trivial name of that particular drug and how it's almost always referred to. I would have to admit that I don't especially like or agree with his chosen name of "FLEA" for N-hydroxy-MDMA though! – AlyInWikiWonderland (talk, contribs) 06:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitate to contribute because of my unfamiliarity with much of the policy context above, which is so elegantly presented. Two comments. Many chemicals are also known only by their acronyms, e.g. mcpba, but the article is entitled meta-Chloroperoxybenzoic acid. Regarding "... the vast majority of people, including those interested in these drugs, are not chemists and don't understand what these terms mean": These readers benefit from being reminded that these drugs are chemicals, not an abstract vehicle for whatever people do with them. Here I sound like a school marm, I realize. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it may be that the abbreviations are the common names for some of these compounds, but there is a line somewhere, and I worry we may be crossing it, i.e., I stand by my opinion that nobody outside this small subject area would recognize DOTFM or DMCPA as drugs or chemical compounds by those titles, so I just wonder if they are truly the best titles per WP:COMMONNAME and other WP:CRITERIA. Smokefoot raises a valid point- all chemists know what DCM is but our article is titled dichloromethane not DCM (compound) or something. So to the specific question here about use of abbreviations when they have other meanings, I still think we should follow MOS:ACROTITLE and use the definitions of the abbreviations. Something like DOM (psychedelic) is a great redirect, and can be used easily in linking, using the WP:PIPETRICK. Mdewman6 (talk) 05:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premethylenomycin C lactone "New antibiotic found 'hidden in plain sight'"

[edit]

I just created a brief article for Premethylenomycin C lactone. Would appreciate any help from members of this project. Thriley (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

[edit]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 19:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]