Talk:Chemistry

The redirect Chemical resources has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 2 § Chemical resources until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Chemistry (GWU-1966) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 3 § Chemistry (GWU-1966) until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Images relating to the six main branches of chemistry, clockwise from the upper left ^[a]: a BeF₂ glass network (inorganic chemistry), a caffeine molecule (organic chemistry), a reaction coordinate diagram (physical chemistry), a proton NMR spectrum (analytical chemistry), the RGS4 protein (biochemistry), and a glowstick using chemiluminescence (applied chemistry).

Hi everyone.

I've been aware for quite some time that this article — one of the most major science articles — lacks any lead graphic.

As I've done before with the physics article, I was thinking that perhaps chemistry, being a broad scientific field, could have a collage of several representative images in its lead. This would provide a balanced visual overview of the major branches of the discipline without giving undue weight to any single subfield.

To the right is the collage I have devised, with the source code and notes at the end of this post.

To avoid redundancy between the collage and the existing images in the article, I am also proposing to replace the caffeine molecule currently shown in the “Molecule” subsection with File:Nicotine molecule ball from xtal.png. This keeps caffeine solely within the collage while still illustrating a typical organic molecule in that subsection.

I’m posting this here first to invite comments, suggestions, or concerns before making any changes. If there are no objections after a reasonable period, I’ll assume there is consensus and implement the changes per WP:BOLD.

{{multiple image | perrow = 3 | total_width = 382
| footer = Images relating to the six main [[branches of chemistry]], clockwise from the upper left
{{efn|
Information regarding the images in the footer was trimmed; the full descriptions are below:

*'''[[Inorganic chemistry]]''': a two‑dimensional representation of a glassy [[beryllium fluoride|beryllium(II) fluoride]] (BeF₂) [[network solid|network]], illustrating the [[amorphous solid|amorphous]] (non‑[[crystalline]]) [[chemical bond|bonding]] patterns characteristic of inorganic [[glass]]es and extended network structures.

*'''[[Organic chemistry]]''': a [[Ball-and-stick model|ball‑and‑stick]] [[molecular model]] of [[caffeine]], showing the arrangement of [[carbon]] (grey), [[hydrogen]] (white), [[nitrogen]] (blue) and [[oxygen]] (red) atoms in a common organic [[heterocycle]] [[molecule]].

*'''[[Physical chemistry]]''': a [[reaction coordinate|reaction coordinate diagram]] depicting the conversion of [[reactant]] A to [[product (chemistry)|product]] C via a [[transition state]], highlighting the [[activation energy]] (ΔG‡) and [[Gibbs free energy|Gibbs free‑energy change]] (ΔG°) central to [[chemical kinetics]] and [[chemical thermodynamics]].

*'''[[Analytical chemistry]]''': a portion of a [[proton nuclear magnetic resonance|proton NMR]] spectrum (300 MHz, [[deuterated chloroform|CDCl₃]]) of a nitrobenzene [[derivative (chemistry)|derivative]], showing aromatic [[chemical shift|resonances]] near [[parts per million|6.6 ppm]], representative of [[spectroscopy|spectroscopic]] methods used to [[chemical analysis|identify and characterise]] [[chemical compound]]s.

*'''[[Biochemistry]]''': a [[ribbon diagram]] of the [[RGS4]] [[protein]], based on the crystal structure [[Protein Data Bank|PDB]] entry [[PDB:1AGR|1AGR]], illustrating secondary‑structure motifs such as α‑helices and loops commonly used to visualise [[protein folding]].

*'''[[Applied chemistry]]''': a glowstick in which [[hydrogen peroxide]] reacts with a [[phenyl oxalate ester]] to form [[1,2-dioxetanedione]], which decomposes and transfers [[energy]] to a [[fluorophore]] that emits [[light]] as part of a [[chemiluminescence]] reaction sequence.

These are just some of the many branches of chemistry. Others include (but are not limited to): '''[[theoretical chemistry]]''', '''[[thermochemistry]]''', '''[[chemical thermodynamics]]''', '''[[medicinal chemistry|medicinal & pharmaceutical chemistry]]''', '''[[materials chemistry]]''', '''[[environmental chemistry]]''', '''[[supramolecular chemistry]]''', '''[[electrochemistry]]''', '''[[quantum chemistry]]''', '''[[polymer chemistry]]''', '''[[geochemistry]]''', '''[[nuclear chemistry]]''' and more.
}}: a BeF₂ glass [[network solid|network]] ('''[[inorganic chemistry]]'''), a caffeine [[molecule]] ('''[[organic chemistry]]'''), a [[reaction coordinate]] diagram ('''[[physical chemistry]]'''), a proton [[nuclear magnetic resonance|NMR]] spectrum ('''[[analytical chemistry]]'''), the RGS4 [[protein]] ('''[[biochemistry]]'''), and a [[glow stick|glowstick]] using [[chemiluminescence]] ('''[[applied chemistry]]''').

| image1 = BeF2 glass.svg
| image2 = Caffeine Jmol Ball and Stick Model.png
| image3 = Reaction Coordinate Diagram.svg
| image4 = Purple glowstick on black background in a ring.JPG
| image5 = Protein RGS4 PDB 1agr.png
| image6 = 4-nitroaniline.png
}}

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Nice idea. Of course you might get many suggestions. I would ditch the glow stick since it seems indecipherable and hence meaningless. A central feature of chemistry, which nonchemists often fail to appreciate, is reactions. IMHO. Something going to something else. Maybe N₂ + 3 H₂ → 2 NH₃--Smokefoot (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the positive feedback!

I agree that the chemistry behind the glowstick isn’t immediately obvious at a glance, which is why the caption and efn note mention that it’s an example of chemiluminescence. One reason I chose it is that it shows a real chemical reaction occurring in situ, which seems to align with your point about illustrating “something going to something else” rather than a schematic.

I did look into Haber–Bosch, but the available Commons images are either reaction schematics (which MOS:IMAGES discourages in lead images) or industrial photos that are too visually complex and noisy at the required thumbnail size. That makes it difficult to use as a photographic example of an applied reaction.

The criteria for this slot end up being quite narrow — ideally photographic, MOS‑compliant, visually simple, recognisable at thumbnail size, and clearly an application of chemistry. Within those constraints, the glowstick seemed like the most workable option, though I agree that something more “professional” would be interesting if such an image existed.

Of course, I’m very open to alternative suggestions if there’s another real‑world reaction image that fits the criteria.

(As a small side note: I also came across File:Fructose-3D-balls.png, which might be an even better candidate than nicotine for the molecule subsection swap.)

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

No further comments after 58 hours, so I’ve added the collage as proposed. Happy to adjust if needed. Xyqorophibian (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I've been reading through this article for the past month or so and have been rather displeased by the various issues it currently has. Namely:

• Weak sourcing: sources like kamus.net (an Indonesian dictionary site) and a bunch of dead links to university webpages are inadequate for a top-importance science article.

• Content gaps, imbalances, OR and irrelevance:

- an entire paragraph devoted to reaction mechanisms (which are relevant, but should not deserve more than a mention for a general audience science article like this)

- a misleading emphasis on alchemy as part of the history of chemistry

- unsourced, unneccessary, non-NPOV phrases such as

However glassware is not central to chemistry, and a great deal of experimental (as well as applied/industrial) chemistry is done without it.

- Hardly any elaboration on organic chemistry (one of the field's two pillars) nor computational chemistry (which is what a large portion of what modern-day chemistry research is).

• Messy layout and choice of images: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry#Subdisciplines is particularly bad.

• Poor structure: there should not be a definition subsection in the history section of the article, and, ideally, the history section should be placed before modern principles. There are other rather questionable aspects of this article's structure as well.

So, over the past few days, I've been working on a rewrite in my sandbox and have just completed it. Admittedly expansive, I've ensured:

• Appropriate scope: broad enough to cover the major areas of chemistry while avoiding the level of detail that properly belongs in subarticles.

• Structural coherence: a clear hierarchy and section order that follows summary style rather than the current scattershot arrangement.

• MOS compliance: adherence to MOS:LEAD, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:IMAGES, with consistent tone and avoidance of instructional or textbook‑style content.

• Clean image placement: high‑quality, relevant images used sparingly and positioned so they support the text without cluttering or disrupting the layout.

• Neutrality: removal of unsourced, opinionated, or non‑NPOV statements, with balanced coverage across subfields.

• Rich sourcing: 145 references, all from reputable secondary sources (textbooks, scholarly works, high‑quality encyclopaedias, and modern chemistry education materials), with no low‑quality web sources or dead links.

• Modern balance: appropriate weight given to organic chemistry, physical chemistry, analytical chemistry, and computational chemistry, rather than overemphasising niche or outdated topics.

I'd appreciate it if editors could take a look at the rewrite and provide any approval, comments, or suggested adjustments. If there are no major substantive objections or concerns raised within the next three days, I intend to proceed with implementing the changes.

Beyond minor polishing (e.g. fixing typos, adding missing links, subtle grammar refinements), I recommend that the rewrite be kept largely as it is. Given the current state of the live article and the breadth of issues outlined above, there is little that requires further major alteration.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

My quick look-over was positive. Many articles would benefit from such a global revision since they are assembled in increments, sometimes by inexpert or biased editors. So, thank you.

While your approach comes across as helpful it is somewhat arrogant. I mean, its a gigantic area, and on what basis are you rewriting? In addition to citing the list of problematic areas and your solutions, I recommend that you propose and outline of the revised article, noting emphases. That way, editors can comment on the organization before getting "lost" in the details. You could seek some consensus on the scope and emphases first. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @Smokefoot.

Thank you very much for your feedback. I agree with your point regarding rewrites of such articles.

Below is an outline of my revised version of the article.

A few comments I'd make on the emphases present in my rewrite:

• Chemistry is not limited to ordinary “substances”; the article explicitly includes exotic states of matter such as plasmas and supercritical fluids.
• Alchemy is confined to a brief, self‑contained subsection to avoid overstating its importance in the historical narrative.
• Mixtures are treated with proper classification (solutions, colloids, suspensions, emulsions), improving clarity over the live article.
• Allotropes receive fuller treatment, correcting their underrepresentation in the live article.
• Periodicity is separated from “Atoms and elements” due to its significance and because periodic trends occur across compounds as well as elements.
• Chemical bonding is presented not only in terms of three classical types but also as a spectrum based on electronegativity differences; the octet rule is given a more rigorous, model‑based treatment.
• A dedicated subsubsection on stability is added, emphasising its importance across chemical processes (e.g. reactions, redox, nuclear decay) and clarifying that stability corresponds to energetic minima rather than a binary property.
• Acids are presented as historically identified by shared properties, with no single universal theory applying to all of them.
• Nomenclature and chemical formulae are given proper prominence as foundational tools for chemical communication.
• Models and representations are identified as pedagogical tools for visualisation, while also being recognised as essential in actual chemical research.
• The major pillars of chemistry (organic, inorganic, physical, analytical, biochemistry, computational, materials, etc.) are given proper attribution and concise definitions, rather than being presented as a simple list.

Given that the main talk page of this article is fairly quiet, I’ll be taking this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry so more editors can weigh in.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Good idea to elevate the discussion to a broader group. With regards to my "arrogant" accusation (trying to draw you out), WHERE did the outline come from? You dreamt it up? It is the organization of a famous text or treatise?

I cannot miss an opportunity to opine:

• Chemistry is not limited to ordinary “substances”; the article explicitly includes exotic states of matter such as plasmas and supercritical fluids.

:Very bad idea, editorializing and rewriting. I will revert anything like that.

• Alchemy is confined to a brief, self‑contained subsection to avoid overstating its importance in the historical narrative.

:Agreed. Alchemy is a minor topic clung to by hobbyists. The insights of the alchemists, while cute, are irrelevant to understanding modern.

• Mixtures are treated with proper classification (solutions, colloids, suspensions, emulsions), improving clarity over the live article.

:not chemistry

• Allotropes receive fuller treatment, correcting their underrepresentation in the live article.

:Old timey topic emphasized by small town high school teachers. Relatively unimportant and kinda obvious.

• Periodicity is separated from “Atoms and elements” due to its significance and because periodic trends occur across compounds as well as elements.

:Old timey perspective that grandpa would admire. The concept of periodicity is however the basis of the Periodic Table, which is core

• Chemical bonding is presented not only in terms of three classical types but also as a spectrum based on electronegativity differences; the octet rule is given a more rigorous, model‑based treatment.

:ok

• A dedicated subsubsection on stability is added, emphasising its importance across chemical processes (e.g. reactions, redox, nuclear decay) and clarifying that stability corresponds to energetic minima rather than a binary property.

:Bad idea.Tricky topic and non-traditional emphasis. We do not have dedicated sections on "stability" in our courses or texts. You are doing OR = WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH

• Acids are presented as historically identified by shared properties, with no single universal theory applying to all of them.

:Yeah, So what?

• Nomenclature and chemical formulae are given proper prominence as foundational tools for chemical communication.

:"Foundational"? Nomenclature is a necessary but unpleasant distraction from chemistry. The main issue (IMHO) with nomenclature is that element names are also used form ions, molecules, etc. Oxygen = O atom (very rare), O the element, O2 (the form of that element on our planet), and O atoms within complex ions and molecules.

• Models and representations are identified as pedagogical tools for visualisation, while also being recognized as essential in actual chemical research.

:Really? Oh, that is your opinion? OR?

• The major pillars of chemistry (organic, inorganic, physical, analytical, biochemistry, computational, materials, etc.) are given proper attribution and concise definitions, rather than being presented as a simple list.

:The word "proper" should give readers the creeps because it implies some special power or insight, but yes, these are traditional themes. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd largely second these with a couple additions of my own:

• A dedicated section on alchemy is probably overkill, better saved for the history of chemistry article. Even as a hobbyist interested in alchemical history: it's not chemistry any more than spontaneous generation is biology. A much better focus for the early history section would be on those processes that are still employed today, such as calcination, distillation, and pyrometallurgy. Alchemical principles and beliefs should only be mentioned as related to the discovery and development of these processes.
• Electronegativity and the octet rule are a solid start but a section on bonding should also discuss molecular orbital theory and coordination chemistry. Most compounds have more than one bond and most elements have d orbitals.
• Nomenclature is absolutely not a "foundational tool for chemical communication". Nomenclature is a tool for standardisation that usually only seen in chemical literature in parentheticals or footnotes. The foundational tool for chemical communication is "compound X in figure Y", followed closely by "as described by Author in [citation]".
• How do you define "proper attribution and concise definitions"? I would rather leave the list uncommented than elevate one definition of a field's scope over another. Even for simple things like "organic compound", any "concise" definition is going to have corner cases that can't be handled in a sentence or two (e.g. mellitic acid).

Fishsicles (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I have one impression from the proposed layout, which is that subdividing the subject this finely is going to be far too long and too detailed for the average reader who wants to know what "chemistry" is. 5 subsections on the topic of chemistry education is a lot, as is the subdivision of symbolism and formulae, as well as every single heading under "core concepts". The scope should stay the same, but it should not be so narrow in every aspect. -- Reconrabbit 17:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful feedback — it’s been very helpful to read through the different perspectives.

I'd like to clarify that adjustments to the rewrite can be made. What I proposed is the structural outline that I think the article would be better off with than what it currently has, but, of course, there may be certain changes which could be defensible improvements.

About every point of concern raised (e.g. OR, stability, exotic chemistry, structuring, nomenclature "being foundational", furthering bonding, "proper attributions", etc), I’m open to more precisely clarifying the intent behind those parts and making adjustments where needed.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone, its been a while.

I decided to re-enter this project, and make a few changes to my sandbox version of the article based on the feedback provided.

Namely,

• Merging the allotropes subsubsection with the isotopes subsubsection into one.
• Unsubdividing the chemical symbolism and formulae part.

Anyone interested in further progress is more than welcome to read through the sandbox, as the product itself will of course present what I mean with more clarity and accuracy than how I have presented it.

Kind regards, Xyqorophibian (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Proposed Technical Correction:

>> Current Terminology: Melting (colloquial)

>> Proposed Terminology: Fusion (or Fusion/Melting)

This picture incorrectly justifies the phase change between solid and liquid as it should be fusion and not melting. Although those terms both work interchangeably, the more scientific terminology is fusion. I wanted to input this change so I added this discussion post here so that the picture itself would be remedied to ensure scientific validity.

>> This is a niche topic, but I believe that this change should be made since "melting" is technically incorrect and therefore void. However, this is Wikipedia so keeping some information simple is justified. However this term is incorrect in chemistry itself so fusion, at least on this page, should be present and not melting.

Some of the scientific reasoning, for example, would be standardized enthalpy of fusion, as the energy change associated with this phase transition is universally defined as the latent heat of fusion. Additionally, in the context of phase diagrams and triple point, fusion is standardly used to describe the equilibrium between the solid and liquid phases.

Expanding on enthalpy of fusion, the energy required for this phase transition is universally defined and calculated as the Latent Heat of Fusion. Using melting creates a terminological gap between the diagram and the underlying mathematical constants. Daniel6201 (talk) 17:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Why would melting be "technically incorrect"? Latent heat of fusion is also not mentioned anywhere on this page so the disconnect isn't present. If a reader is interested in that process, they can go to the page for "melting" which will provide them with information about fusion. The common term for the point when matter changes from solid to liquid is "melting point", not "fusion point".

"Niche topic" does not seem accurate - this is the page for "Chemistry", the broadest possible review of this science, and should be kept as simple as possible to be understood by a broad audience. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree, but this decision is not mine alone. Even if it is not mentioned anywhere on the page [although there should be a subsection on some chemistry topics in my opinion], melting still is not accurate. However this issue is more technical/scholastic than practical/colloquial.

This was my logic >> melting point is the technical name for the actual phase change process, but fusion is the underlying thermodynamic property. So on a diagram picture, it should say fusion and not melting.

On the official Wikipedia page for melting: This statement proves that fusion/melting are related: "Melting, or fusion, is a physical process that results in the phase transition of a substance from a solid to a liquid." This information is related to physics and chemistry

Additional information for my reasoning >> On the official page for Enthalpy of Fusion [I am utilizing the concept of fusion itself]: Fusion is the scientific term for melting, which originates from the Latin word fundere [to melt or pour]. Fusion emphasizes the energy required to complete the transition [endothermic reaction]. Daniel6201 (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If it is the scientific term for melting, why wouldn't "melting" be an acceptable substitute that is immediately understandable by a wide audience? The article on "enthalpy of fusion" also writes about the equivalent opposite value of the heat of solidification, but we use the word freezing in this article instead. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)