Wikimedia Commons

Commons:WikiProject Chemistry/Deletion requests

< Commons:WikiProject Chemistry

File:Copper (I) bromide3D.png edit

Total chemical nonsense, charged atoms which are also covalently bound together. Salts should be depicted as crystal structures instead of cations + anions. Superseded by File:Copper(I)-bromide-from-xtal-unit-cell-3D-bs-17.png and other images with different orientations in Category:Copper(I) bromide. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cobalt(II) Formate.gif edit

Chemical nonsense: This appears to be Co(I) covalent and an additional unbound formyl (neutral!). If it's Co(II), then it's bonded to both (ionic or covalent). Per enwiki-cited doi:10.1142/S2251237322400020, it's a metal organic framework 3D coordination polymer. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copper (I) chloride.png edit

Total chemical nonsense, charged atoms which are also covalently bound together. Salts should be depicted as crystal structures instead of cations + anions. Superseded by File:Copper(I)-chloride-from-xtal-unit-cell-3D-bs-17.png and more images with different orientations in Category:Copper(I) chloride. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Potassium formate3D.png edit

Bizarre half-bond off the anionic oxygen. "Formate" is symmetric about the two C–O areas, and even if you declare one to be the O–, it would not have any sort of specific "bond" to the K+. This image is obviously photoshopped from other sources that are not cited, and thus fails source/licensing policy. DMacks (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file is based on Commons and is a free file. So,you must not say ... thus fails source/licensing policy. Your observations must be made on facts and not on assumptions. Such files abound in Wikipedia and Commons. Bizarre is only a matter of view. Try to be reasonable in your evaluations. Eyes that see only faults, don't see quality. Hands that do not work, should not destroy. Claudio Pistilli (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A new configuration is created and substituted the old one. Claudio Pistilli (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"File X is based on File X" makes no sense. But it sounds like the image isn't really and completey your "own work" from scratch, merely your edits using someone else's original? Regardless of how someone lets you use something they made, you can't honestly say that instead you made it. See Commons:Essential_information#Source for more information.
There are thousands of bad files on commons, which doesn't give anyone a free pass to keep or upload move of them. It's not polite to readers to mislead them by using images that are so factually flawed, which is why I choose this area to browse. Your repeated failure to follows Commons:Assume good faith policy has been noted. DMacks (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so gentle. Life will teach you being a good man.Claudio Pistilli (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Concerns raised in the nomination have been addressed in the new version,. Ed (Edgar181) 23:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potassium formate3D.png edit

Graphical composite of uncited originals (license fail). File:Sodium-formate-3D-balls.png isn't the exact original, but it's a suitable replacement. There is zero indication in the nom'd file that it is potassium rather than sodium. DMacks (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ammonium-sulfide-3D-balls-ionic.png edit

Factually incorrect & unused chemical 3D model; salt depicted as cation + anion instead of crystal structure. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination would be more credible if you would come up with an image of the crystal structure instead. Without that this nomination is little more than vandalism in disguise.̴̴ Even more so if you go to af.wikipedia to remove its use so that you can claim it is "unused". A clearly factually incorrect statement. Jcwf (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no replacement/alternative model available at the moment, it's better to have none instead of a factually incorrect one. Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 07:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If definitely is not better to have nothing. The existing image can be improved but it does show the correct ions in this ionic compound. FYI I have asked for you to be blocked at af.wikipedia. ̴̴ Jcwf (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per en:Ammonium sulfide, that afwiki article is already probably conflating ammonium sulfide and ammonium bisulfide. And removing misleading content from any *wiki article is a good-faith attempt at improving the article...feel free to have discussions on the relevant wiki about editorial decisions for how much incorrectness or misleading content is tolerable. I will also point out that the type of afwiki edit in question is explicitly excluded from the definition of vandalism at af:Wikipedia:Vandalisme. Misusing those terms is not helpful. DMacks (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete as composite of uncited originals. And replaceable by File:(NH4)2S predicted crystal.png, the published crystal structure. DMacks (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making a picture of the published predicted crystal structure. I am not aware of any published measured structure, but I do not have access to the entire litarature. The compound is generally sold and handled in the form of a solution in water because crystals can only be obtained at -20°C or so. Above those temperatures they become unstable. The picture you so doggedly want to delete is an accurate depiction of the ions in solution. Your insistance on deleting it remains therefore unfounded and incomprehensible. It would also be nice if you could actually ´´´show´´´ how I am ´probably conflating ammonium sulfide and ammondium bisulfide´ rather than just wildly accusing me of that. The article actually discusses the reference you used for your picture. Or should I say simply copied the picture from. Doesn't that violate copyrights? ̴̴ Jcwf (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always happy to back up my claims. For example:
Die stof is goed oplosbaar in water, maar die ioon S2−
 is 'n baie sterkbasis en ondergaan hidrolise:
Die oplossing bevat dus die ione 2NH+
4, OH−
 en HS−
.
from af:Ammoniumsulfied seems pretty clear that what might be (NH4)2S solid becomes a more complex situation and definitely not simply a dissociated 2:1 combination of NH4+ and S2- ions in water. Note that I already stated my source (the enwiki article), but I figured the exact article where you wished to place the image was a stronger demonstration of how the image is factually problematic in your context.
And my image it does not violate copyright, but thanks for demonstrating now three times here that you would rather accuse without basis, and contrary to various site policies and guidelines. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...but thinking about copyright-related details, my original 'delete' note for this file is a license concern, something that overrides any protest about the educational value. DMacks (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion edit

Category:"Te" standing for tellurium edit

I don't see any value in this category (and similar ones in Category:Modern element symbols (individual)), especially when chemical structures containing this element are also categorized (e.g. File:CrTe12 3-.svg, File:TetraTe Dication.svg or File:(S)-2-Chloro-2-fluoropentane.svg). Leyo 10:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that images are placed in these categories randomly. I'd like to hear from the author what is the purpose of these categories, as I don't see any right now. Wostr (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current population of these categories looks random because it is the result of a first pass through categories such as Category:LA letter combinations, which hitherto contents have been slowly dissiminated (also) into subcats classifying those media files by the semantics of the relevant letter arrangement — in that case those being not only lanthanum, but also Laos, Louisiana, Lancashire, Los Angeles, the Latin language, the word "la" in several langauges, or rail vehicles with 3 wheelsets, among others. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, a cat like Category:"Th" standing for thorium is the right place to uplink this chemical element symbol with the parent Category:Th (and other such typographic and linguistic notions for other elements symbols), which would be completely out of place if added as parent cats of Category:Thorium. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:19, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's more, moving images from regular categories about chemical elements to categories Xx standing for xxx will make it difficult to navigate between categories and find the right images. I wouldn't known at all that to find an image with the periodic table I had to enter this category... Wostr (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images akin to File:Te-TableImage.svg are all, or should/will be, also categorized in or under Category:SVG periodic table positions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete unless creator can explain the value here. Wostr is right that this makes it harder to find relevant/related images. DMacks (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d rather «explain the value» by populating up these categories properly and improving/completing the categorization of each affected media file, and, while in that process, by (further) correcting the glaring categrization errors that plague the 100-something categories about chemical elements, in some cases for decades.
    Some of the pointed examples were indeed moved from the main element category to the symbol subcategory in a way that’s not ideal, but for me this is a work in progress: I intend to go back and further refine each of them and only moved instead of copied to avoid timewasting with nitpickers who’d go about COM:OVERCAT as if this is a done deal.
    In the mentioned example of File:(S)-2-Chloro-2-fluoropentane.svg, for one, there was never a move from a main element category to its symbol subcategory, rather there was a move from a more generic "CL" cat to a more specific one.
    -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leyo: You didn’t post anything about this CdF in my talk page nor pinged me in the o.p., yet you saw fit to canvas an unrelated user. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood: User:OmegaFallon created a template to transclude the categorization of the set of categories under scrutiny here. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment I would like to clarify that my place in all of this was merely creating a template to standardize categorization, and expanding the framework that was already here. I did not create the first "[symbol] standing for [element]" categories. OmegaFallon (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the first cat of these was the one about iron, created by me more than one year ago. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OmegaFallon was informed on his talk page automatically, since he created the category (see history). --Leyo 12:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The matter raised in the o.p. was being discussed at File talk:Technetium(III) chloride.png, where indeed a «wider forum» was suggested: All that was missing was this link back to it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning another example presented in the o.p., something like this is the further/refined categorization I plan to do for all media files in these categories. Few files, if any, will be sufficiently categorized only with a category of this set, about the depicted element symbol. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete After reading this discussion I still don't see any value in having such categories. The only reasonable connection between categories like Category:TE letter combinations and Category:Tellurium should be a direct link in description of such categories. The existence of such categories would require that in the future all illustrations of chemical structures containing symbols of chemical elements be categorized in this way. It would be invalid to simply add such categories like Category:Tellurium compounds there, due to the fact that they contain many different types of illustrations, not necessarily including a symbol. Tens of thousands of chemical structures would have at least a few such categories, the categorization value of which, in my opinion, is zero. The whole Category:Two-letter modern element symbols categorisation tree should be discontinued and deleted. Wostr (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wostr says that «The existence of such categories would require that in the future all illustrations of chemical structures containing symbols of chemical elements be categorized in this way», which is just wrong. Just like the existence of Category:Male humans sticking out the tongue doesn’t endanger in any way other ways of dissiminating the contents of Category:Albert Einstein.
Rather, the existence of these categories allows (doesn’t «require» — categorization is not a duty) illustrations of chemical structures containing symbols of chemical elements to be categorized in this way, which enables a transversal topical nexus between, say, "Na" standing for sodium and Namibia or nanoampere.
I’m sure Wostr is sincere in his distate for this subtree («The whole Category:Two-letter modern element symbols categorisation tree should be discontinued and deleted») — after all Chemistry is way more important and interesting than Typography. I even agree, but I know that we can have both, at least in Commons categorization: Wostr and all others who think this tree cat is irrelevant can just ignore it and go on categorizing media about chemical formulae and diagrams as before.
Additionally, a couple questions:
  1. Is this image, now categorized as in worse state than it was before, merely categorized as Category:Tellurium?
  2. Should this cat tree indeed be «discontinued and deleted» (and drowned and quartered, its lands salted and its cattle gelded!), how should be categorized images such as this one?
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first image should only be categorized in Category:Tellurium compounds Category:Divalent cations but not Category:"Te" standing for tellurium. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? There is a "Te" there. Should it just be bundled with unrelated media files in Category:TE letter combinations? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, given the image already is in Category:Tellurium compounds, it follows that all the "Te" letter combinations mean tellurium, for the image only depicts the structure of a 4-atom ion containing only tellurium. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 17:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contents of Category:Tellurium compounds don’t necessarily include the letters "Te". These two categroies are concurrent and any media file might be correctly categorized with either one of them or both. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vitamin B1 edit

Proposing merge of Category:Vitamin B1 into Category:Thiamine, which appears to be the same topic. DMacks (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course !!!
--Lucyin (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about the subcategory Category:Polioencephalomalacia in ruminants? --Leyo 11:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If all the thiamines (including xxphosphate forms) are vitamers of B1, then Marbletan is correct that there is still a mistake in categorization, but it is instead that those all need to move as subcats (and check for other overcatgorization) rather than the merger I proposed. This is not my field of speciality. DMacks (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chemical structures edit

this cat is now mixing cats of chemical compounds and cats of chemical diagrams together. for example, Category:Sodium chloride NaCl is a specific compound existing in the real world. Category:Chemical formulas are manmade diagrams that represent something. now they're mixed up as "structures".

but i dont have no solution to how to untangle this mess. RZuo (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: Well I certainly don't have an overall solution either, but there are a few distinct observations:
There is more to do and probably some expert assessment of the contents to implement fully, but this is a start. Josh (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volatile organic compound edit

Two issues:

  1. name of the category in singular, should be in plural;
  2. is this category precise enough to exist in Commons? What should be included here? Every category about compound that is classified as VOC (which would be define as...? definition of VOC is not very helpful here)? Right now there are two files in this category (both not used and of very low quality).

Wostr (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think using this category to contain other chemical compound categories would be useful. Nearly every low molecular weight organic compound (hundreds of categories, certainly) could fit that criteria. But I think this category could be useful in terms of categorizing files related to air quality. I've added a few more images to the category based on a quick search, to show how this category might look if properly utilized. I think it would be reasonable to   Rename category to the plural Category:Volatile organic compounds or perhaps, to emphasize a focus on the air quality aspect, to Category:Volatile organic compound monitoring withdrawn per Leyo's comment below. Marbletan (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the images contained in this category deal with emissions rather than monitoring. --Leyo 20:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 23 files in this category. Is there any opposition against moving the category to its plural form (Category:Volatile organic compounds) and to close this discussion? --Leyo 12:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I would recommend. Marbletan (talk) 12:36, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opposition,   Rename category to plural. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 13:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leyo: I still think that this category is too imprecise for Commons, but moving it to plural is a must, if it is to be kept. Wostr (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I moved the category to its plural form for now. --Leyo 23:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:㏗ edit

Problematic requested move:
Nominator's (user:Beland) rational: this category to be moved to category:pH, because: "Use ASCII characters, not a Unicode compatibility-only character". Date: 2021-12-24

Affected are also:

Estopedist1 (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mention that we have also have category:Ph--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, what's the reason that move would be problematic? I expect most users won't be able to type ㏗ as a single character. -- Beland (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: these are old categories. One was created in 2007. And no earlier discussions except now in 2021 Estopedist1 (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're worried about people following old links to the single-character names, we can just put category redirects to the ASCII names. -- Beland (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beland: sounds reasonable. The other question is that maybe category:pH and category:Ph should be reserved to a single DAB page; then we need Category:pH (chemistry) Estopedist1 (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My 0.02 ¤:
  • Disambiguation page created at Category:PH.
  • I think Category:㏗ should not be renamed because it allows for a simple and robust manner to keep these two letters in the particular improper case (leading lower case "p" and trailing capital "H") it needs to be readily distinguished from other instances of "Ph" and "PH" ({{DISPLAYTITLE:pH}} only works in titles, not in subcat lists and such). Yes, it’s not easily entered via keyboard, but it can be copied and pasted.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nothing too improper about pH.
taking a science class at primary school might help. done that yet?
🤣 RZuo (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say I had science classes, as such, in primary school, other the the very basics that are covered within the more general topics. Those do not include pH as such — I had to reach mid school (5th grade in Portugal) to really learn about it. Knowing that the symbol is spelled in an unusual case is the least of it, and I confess that Biochemistry was not a favourite subject during my years as a Biology student at the Lisbon University.
What I did learn in primary school, however, was to write and read (Portuguese), starting with the very basics, the letters of the Latin alpahbet, one of those that displays casing (along with, as I learned later, the Greek, Cyrillic, and Armenian alphabets — plus argueably a few others)… but I don’t need to ask back, even if it were relevant: That’s a lesson you decided not to learn.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Rename category of all the "㏗" forms. The actual name is composed of two separate letters, not the composed glyph, and I think the difficulty in inputting the composed glyph is a key as well. (Commons:Categories#Category names says we should use what things actually are and use basic English characters where possible). No objetion to leaving the old names as redirects. If this all means that "pH" goes as "pH (chemistry)" due to MW page-name restrictions, that's fine. I think a unified disambiguation of the various capitalizations is reasonable (it's what dewiki seems to have), again to help users find exactly what they want as quickly as possible from what they type, with the current Category:Ph renamed to Category:Ph (digraph) as standard DAB when needed in Category:Latin digraphs. DMacks (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed about any redirects and a disambiguation page, but I’m sure you meant that, «due to MW page-name restrictions», the proposed new cat name goes instead as "Category:PH (chemistry)" — which is not fine. As said, {{DISPLAYTITLE:pH …}} only works on the page itself, not on categorized pages, parent cat lists, Cat-a-lot, HotCat, et c. — unlike the current cat name you guys want changed, which shows the sought capitalization in a uniquely robust manner. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I must insist that the mentioned MW page-name restrictions would render the intended "pH (Chemistry)" as "PH (Chemistry)" and that’s not acceptable: Anyone reading the latter, all caps "PH", will think first of phosphoric acid P-H bonds or some such, and only spelling it out in words (pee-aitch) will give the reader the a-ha sequitur the former, improper cased "pH", does not necessitate.
    As a replacement for the precomposed CJKV character "㏗" this discussion seeks to eliminate (needlessly, in my opinion), a new category name must have the "pH" string elsewhere than in its initial position. (See below for my suggestion to maybe follow the "dB" cat name model.)
    -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The alternative disambiguation proposed by @Alfa-ketosav below would solve the ambiguity issue. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not ambiguity, the issue is, and always ever was, capitalization. It’s incredible that two admins already come add to this discussion and neither wanted to face the actual issue. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Rename category This category should be renamed, probably to 'pH (chemistry)' as DMacks mentioned above. In some cases using non-standard (that do not have its eqivalent on typical keyboard) signs are unavoidable or even preferred (minus sign, some diacritics, apostrophe, quotation marks etc.). However, signs like '㏗' here are not meant to be used with Latin text, there is a reason why this sign can be closed in a square – it belongs to the 'CJK Compatibility' Unicode block, i.e. to be used with East Asian scripts only which are written from top to bottom and the sign must fit within a character square. Using it with Latin text is not only incorrect, it also leads to many problems with broadly defined accessibility. Wostr (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wostr says that «this sign can be closed in a square», which is not (how should I put it?)… true, really. The Unicode property "decomposition_type = <square>" is about grid spacing in CJKV typesetting, not about an actual square inked around a symbol (cp. U+20DE). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the Unicode specification ([1]), Square Symbols. Another convention commonly seen in East Asian character sets is the creation of compound symbols by [...] small-sized letters or syllables into a square shape consistent with the typical rendering footprint of a CJK ideograph. A "COMBINING ENCLOSING SQUARE" character is not the only definition of a square. Needless to say, none of that is actually relevant to this requested move. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not relevant. Only as much as it illustrates how Wostr is talking about things he doesn’t undertstand. And while knowledge about the history of Unicode is irrelevant to this discussion, understanding how Mediawiki treats capitalization of page titles is not. Wostr suggests that «This category should be renamed, probably to 'pH (chemistry)», and you, 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰, as an admin, should be explaining how and why this is a terrible idea, instead of persuing irrelevant tangents. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wostr also says that "㏗" is «not meant to be used with Latin text», which is also not really true: This character decomposition leads to "U+0050 U+0048", which are both Latin letters. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The decomposition does not change the fact that these composite symbols are encoded for compatibility with Asian and other legacy encodings. [...] The use of these composite symbols is discouraged where their presence is not required by compatibility (i.e. in regular Latin text, for instance). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My dear fellow, certainly having to add to Unicode 0.1 all that legacy cruff was a kludge they had to put up with back in 1986 or whatever, but it does come handy for us to have "㏗" as a kludge to circumvent the problem that was saddled on all of us by whover had the “billiant” idea to make Mediawiki titles irrevocably capitalized, in 2001, with no excuse nor reason. That forced capitaliazion means that this is anything but «regular Latin text», for while it’s Latin, it’s certainly not regular. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support DMacks's.
"pH (chemistry)" for the scale of acidity. "㏗" redirects here.
subcats can omit "(chemistry)" if it's not ambiguous, e.g. pH meters.
"PH" as dab. RZuo (talk) 07:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RZuo opinating about capitalization is a delicious irony. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RZup asks for «"PH" as dab.», which was created 11 months ago. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Few of the people voting in favour of renaming even acknowledged, let alone addressed, the problem that caused the choice for this unusual cat name (and nobody did it correctly). The only other option I could support is something akin to Category:Decibel symbol ("dB"), although that would mean split this cat into two nested cats: Category:Acidity symbol ("pH") for the symbol alone, as a subcat of Category:Hydrogenion potency (oslt), itself a subcat of Category:Acidity et c. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for 17 months now. But to respond to Tuválkin's specific question, as an example, enwiki uses "pH..." as the starting string for many pages that obviously are handled as "PH..." due to MW limitations. The resulting incorrect rendering can be fixed on individual pages via {{Lowercase title}} but it's true that this does not propagate to their entries on category-listings. To me, that is not nearly strong enough to overcome the fact that using a nonstandard (not just "common but not on standard keyboards") glyph makes it even harder to find categories by searching, and renders differently-weirdly. DMacks (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that only the author of the current, IMO invalid name is against the move. This matter should be resolved by moving the category to the proposed name. I'll do the move if there is no other comments, other than Tuválkin's, to the end of month. Wostr (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Said renaming will be promptly undone, of course. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The result of this discussion is quite clear with only you opposing the change. Said edit war will be promptly reported to the administrators. Wostr (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t try to bully me with your threats, guy. Rather answer the raised questions — or enact the proposed renaming and see how the technical issues I warned about and you all ignore take place and make the renamed category unusable in practice. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:18, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: Do you insist on renaming this as Category:pH (chemistry), or did you consider the alternatives I suggested? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an article, not a category. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There, typo fixed. Relax. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:pH (quantity) should be better, as it doesn't come with "fake categories". Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would any category name starting with "pH" (spelled like that, as two regular Latin letters) clear the problems mentioned above? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does it mean to «come with "fake categories"»? What do you mean with "fake categories"? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Fake categories" was my error with the typo I took at face value. There wouldn't be any fake categories. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stilbenes edit

I'm not sure what is the difference between Category:Stilbenes and Category:Stilbenoids. Both categories collect media about compounds with two benzene rings connected with an ethene-1,2-diyl bridge. According to MeSH [2] or ChEBI [3], stilbenes and stilbenoids are synonyms. While en.wiki article states that stilbenoids are polyphenolic compounds and this statement is supported in many sources, it is not however the only definition that can be found in literature and is not supported by chemical or chemistry-related ontologies (see above). In the same time en.wiki has a redirect from stilbenes to stilbenoids without any explanation and cs.wiki articles states that Stilbeny (též stilbenoidy) = stilbenes (also stilbenoids).

I propose to merge Category:Stilbenes into Category:Stilbenoids, the latter would be an equivalent of d:Q526360 and collect media about compounds with two benzene rings connected with an ethene-1,2-diyl bridge (so not necessarily phenolic) with Category:Stilbene as a subcategory. Wostr (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a small distinction between the term "stilbenes" and "stibenoids". "Stilbenoids" is, in some contexts, reserved for natural chemical compounds derived through the same biosynthetic processes (these are typically the phenolic stilbenes as well). "Stilbenes", in this context, is the broader concept that encompasses both stilbenoids and any other derivatives of stilbene, regardless of whether they are natural or synthetic. I agree that there isn't any good reason to make a distinction between these two categories, but I would suggest merging Category:Stilbenoids into Category:Stilbenes to retain the name that has the broader meaning. But in any case, I don't feel too strongly about which way the merge goes. Category:Stilbene should remain as distinct subcategory. Marbletan (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stilbenoids seem to be hydroxylated derivatives of stilbene. Hence, several (non-hydroxylated) files in Category:Stilbenoids would need to be moved to Category:Stilbenes. --Leyo 08:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an objection to simply merging the two categories, but if they are to be kept separate, I would distinguish the two categories by source. Stilbenoids would be natural compounds biosynthesized by the phenylpropanoid pathway (typically they are hydroxylated derivatives of stilbene). Stilbenes would be the parent category for any chemical derivative of stilbene. I agree that several non-natural (non-hydroxylated) files currently in Category:Stilbenoids would need to be moved to Category:Stilbenes. Marbletan (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:L-Amino acids physiological edit

Notice This is one of the category-for-discussion (CFD) which falls into WikiProject Chemistry. For more CFDs, see Commons:WikiProject_Chemistry/Deletion_requests#Categories_for_discussion

I see two issues with this category:

  1. is this category really needed? contains amino acids as they usually exist under physiological conditions (of which species? human I presume, but not necessarily). Creating such summaries is usually a scope of Wikipedia with necessary commentary and sources, relatively it can be created as a gallery. I don't think that category is the proper way for this, especially with a fraction of images that could be put here.
  2. name of this category seems to be incorrect, non-grammatical, should be more descriptive (incl. the above issue).

Wostr (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Keep The pH does not vary that much between different species. What about renaming the category to e.g. Category:L-Amino acids under physiological conditions?
    @DMacks: As the creator of the subcat Category:S-adenosyl methionine you may want to comment. --Leyo 15:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that creating such categories is not in the scope of Wikimedia Commons as it requires information (and sources) which cannot be deduced from the file itself. The description of the category would have to be very precise and every file in this category should be checked against sources whether it falls into this category or not. This is what Wikipedia or other projects' authors should be doing. Wostr (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All files in that category are from the same uploader who was an experienced member of the de-WP project chemistry. Hence, no checking is needed. What about the proposed category name? --Leyo 20:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no checking is needed → maybe not right now, but categories are not closed lists of files, there will be more files added by other users. About the name – Structural forms/Forms/Structures/... of L-amino acids under physiological conditions? I'm not so sure thatL-Amino acids under physiological conditions is precise enough. Of course with proper description in the category what physiological conditions means. Wostr (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept as in-use edit

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:3D Sodium caprylate.png edit

Incorrect structure: sodium is not covalently bound. Leyo 00:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:3D Sodium caprate.png edit

Incorrect structure: sodium is not covalently bound. Leyo 00:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:3D Sodium phenyl-acetate.png edit

Incorrect structure: sodium is not covalently bound. Leyo 23:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use Natuur12 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sodium pantothenate3D.png edit

Incorrect structure: sodium is not covalently bound. Leyo 23:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use Natuur12 (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sodium trichloroacetate3D.png edit

Incorrect structure: sodium is not covalently bound. Leyo 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use Natuur12 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sodium tellurite3D.png edit

Incorrect structure: potassium and sodium are not covalently bound. Leyo 23:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use Natuur12 (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sodium trithionate3D.png edit

Incorrect structure: sodium is not covalently bound. Leyo 22:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: In use Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This subpage of the WikiProject Chemistry lists chemistry-related deletion requests.
Find new ones using the search function
 
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:WikiProject_Chemistry/Deletion_requests&oldid=869395596"