Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Chemical data pages cleanup

The process

• In short: Check an article from Category:Chemical data pages to keep for data quality (new & useful for parent article, and well-sourced), then put that info in the parent. Then recategorise the data page into Category:Chemical data pages to delete. Do not start a deletion process (do not start speedy).
• Longer:

Step 0

Initially, per 31-12-2021 12:00 UTC, the involved data page articles are categorised in working categories

Category:Chemical data pages to keep (0)

Category:Chemical data pages to delete (0)

Category:Chemical data pages to discuss (0)

Step 1

For all To Keep data page articles, each editor is invited to check the article for data quality. Quality is about: (1) Would the data be an improvement for teh parent article? and (2) is the data well-sourced? (3) Does the Parent article not already have this data (say, like melting point)?

Step 2

If any information is worth adding to the parent article, then please do so. Could be in the Infobox, or in a proper place. If needed, an new article section an be added (For example: "Properties" or "Data sheet"). Questions re individual articles can be posted below here.

If any questions arise or if the merge is possibly disputable, move the data page into CAT:to delete, and start a thread below.

Step 3

Adjust status of the data page article:

Do Change category from Category:Chemical data pages to keep into :Category:Chemical data pages to delete, or ... to discuss.

Do not tag the page for (speedy) deletion. This is because other editors migh want to folow the process, and anyway Speedy is not yet allowed.

Step 4

Shortly, we can list the 140 articles for mass-AfD. The smart AfD notion can be like: "when content editors (WP:CHEM) deemed OK, a speedy can be done -- but not before". This allows for cooperation and multiple looks at a data page before dletion.

-DePiep (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

List of data pages

Questions about individual data pages

Data pages proposed for deletion

Please list "(data pages)" here that are fit for deletion. If, after three days, deletion is not disputed, the page can be deleted by regular WP:SPEEDY tag. When tagging, one can refer to this discussion using WP:DPCLEANUP. -DePiep (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• CS gas (data page) for deletion. Chembox checked, no new data in this data page, chembox removed. See also § CS gas (data page) below. -DePiep (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Diphenylamine (data page) Unsourced, tagged since 2,5 year. Data mostly in article IB chem. Remaining 3 other datapoints. -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

• Proton affinity (data page) Table moved to parent article Proton affinity. Now no data left. See also § Proton affinity (data page)

• Dimethyl ether (data page) Obsolete. All data is in parent article. Made table into {{Graph:Chart}}, placed into Article see Dimethyl ether. Kept ref in a cite, could not verify because paywall. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Tin(II) chloride (data page) - rm 3x data (re bond struct); could not be verified in sources provided. Empty data now, up for deletion. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Trichlorofluoromethane (data page) (Trichlorofluoromethane) - removed unsourced data (10 datapoints, tagged July 2020); moved 1 thermodata to A. Chembox. No data left. -DePiep (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  @DePiep: this is just what I mean. You are deleting unsourced data but do not first do an attempt to source it. ALL that data is easy to source, and it would actually be sourced if that datapage has the same disclaimer as our infobox. The rest you merge up, where I would consider to merge some specialized data down. Please stop. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

"but do not first do an attempt to source it"? Why do you think that? I did! Some steps are even visible in history. Anyway, unsourced data may be removed. "Could be sourced in the future" is not an argument.

As ever & everyone, you are invited to make that the data page can withstand an AfD. (I understand that AfD is what you are steering at? As resolver?). I repeat & warn that an AfD has much less leeway for data improvement than this process has (WP:CHEM members involving, content editors, no closure deadline, ...). As a separate route you can propose that the DPs are moved to Draft space. I could support that too. -DePiep (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Beetstra: first of all, please stop being paternalistic . It hides anything helpful you might say in between. -DePiep (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@DePiep: if something is not sourced, we tag it with {{fact}} so that it can be sourced in the future. We do not delete data that can be sourced, and in these two cases (Trichlorofluoromethane and difluoromethane) the data can be sourced within seconds. ALL the data is in our standard sources. I am sorry, but unsourced has on Wikipedia never been a reason to delete (except on BLPs). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Beetstra: really this reads like you are blaming me for pages being unsourced. BTW, this manual tag removal is not correct. Now could you also reply to the AfD part of my post? Could be relevant for the gross of DPs at hand. -DePiep (talk) 06:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

First the merge: I disagree with merging as I said before, all this data is not pertinent to the man in the street, it is pertinent to specialists. Critical temperature is of interest to these compounds due to their use, but the value in the chembox is pure bloating, making the pages excessively long. It belongs on a datapage. The pages contain proper data (unsourced, but I could find sources so easy that I above indeed say that you did not try because then you would have known that it can be sourced - you are deleting data that can be sourced), hence there is no reason to try AfD, we are not AfD-ing stubs without sources, we are not AfD-ing stubs with sources.
I am also against a cycle of first merging data up, redesigning datapages, and then splitting it down again, because the latter will not happen and hence we stay with a massive chembox dwarfing the article.
I do not see the problem with now redesigning datapages and then upgrading these datapages when that has been done. Why the drive to wipe all but a few of them? Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: no, I am not, never blaming people for having unsourced pages, not even for creating/adding unsourced data. I am telling them only that they have to do an attempt to source if it is unsourced, and I will blame people for deleting good data that can be easily sourced. We have policies against deleting data that can be sourced, and only make exceptions on BLPs. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Overall: per WP:SPIT, a forkout article, as a DP is, can exist (ie, be created or kept) when detailed data in an article tends to go dominating the article. Of course, new articles (DPs) themselves must sufficiently notable, and substantial. So far, I have not read any weighty reason to have a DP article.

Now, your other arguments, which are non-WP:SPLIT, are not a guideline and are not a sound base (I reject them). You totally ignore the option to add data to the parent article, say in dedicated section ==Data sheet==, ===Vapor pressure===, ===etc.===. I say 'dedicated', because —as with DPs articles— data sections are expected to have a different setup like with less text. Better layout can be developed, this is wiki.

re you mentioning to move data from the infobox into a DP. That is skipping the ==Data sheet== option completely, for no clear reason. And creating a data page for seven or eleven lines of IB text? And those lines cannot be added to the article body itself? I dont't understand. Also, to me it looks like you are using the "Infobox is too large" argument ad hoc in this topic. Move data out of infobox can be a good idea, but that has to be done well-based not because it is an incidental argument for having (non-viable) datapages. I'm sure you can write a proposal on this for IB Chembox in an appropriate location. This thread is not decisive in such arguments, not even incidental.

re "data is not pertinent to the man in the street, it is pertinent to specialists" -- is not a reason to have a separate DP, at all. There is no rule or guideline that all info in an article must be "pertinent" to all readers. For example, a good TOC is a start to clarify this. Hint, repeated: such specialist data should go in separate sections, as is done already throughout WP. This is a made-up criteria. "it belongs on a data page" is not an established fact.

re "a cycle of merge up ... create DP ... split into .. massive infobox" — nobody says these things. Nobody but you says that all DP should be in te infobox (so, from now on: please stop repeating this incorrect distraction). The example of water DP has been mentioned for weeks by now, there is your route for substantial data amounts. Otherwise: add to the parent article.

re "AfD stubs": well, yes we can do that actually. Not for being stubs solely, but because there is no reason to fork at all (where stubbyness is a strong merge-indicator). Add to this undersourcing.

To be clear: whether we create a new DP of keep an existing one is indifferent: the page in itself should be notable, or be deleted.

@Beetstra: "you are deleting data that can be sourced": well, unsourced data may be deleted, as you know. The data pages are collectively challenged for data source quality, full stop. I can repeat (for the last time promised, next time I could invoke "ididnothearthat"): future sourcing does not count.

Astonishingly, after you bragging (against me) that I could find sources so easy, I note that both pages we you reverted in here, you left behind still unsourced , .

I could find sources so easy that I above indeed say that you did not tr is WP:BADFAITH. Also better stop using this commanding, parternalistic, denegrading remarks as in your es. I strongly suggest you retract or prevent such statements. Had you followed my editing in these pages, you'd have known better already. -DePiep (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Butadiene (data page) (Butadiene) Merge completed, all DP data redundant now. In article: either in IBchem or in properties table. -DePiep (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Pages deleted or redirected

See also pagelist/graveyard

• Difluoromethane (data page) Redirect. for deletion. Removed unsourced data, no data left. -DePiep (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  Also here, reverted, page now contains data again. First check if references can be found (it was easy). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  Note: Opposing merging, yet more data in the mainpage where the infobox is already long, and albeit that this data is important for the compound it is not ‘of general interest’ and better here (and more data from infobox could probably be split here). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

• Chloric acid (data page) per WP:A3, as noted by Leyo. No data at all, so A3 applies. -DePiep (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

support speedy Right Away. In this case, IMO no waiting needed, because zero data indeed (as in Zero Kelvin), and also since LaundryPizza03 and DMacks support this (see below). -DePiep (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Arsenic trioxide (data page) -DePiep (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Allow time to judge/save the SDS. -DePiep (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Only remaining page that is eligible for A3; SDS has been added to main article's external links. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I assume that after these additions, nobody is against deletion. --Leyo 13:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

+remember to tell the speedy-deletor that question marks=emptyness too ;-) -DePiep (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

XLogP3

• Example: Arginine (data page): "XLogP -3.878". In general this value is present in PubChem as XLogP3 (is same property?) example.
• In {{Chembox}}, {{Chembox Properties}}: |LogP=.

Question: is this Chembox parameter OK (its meaning, LHG-labeltext & link)? In chirals, should we list them all (for example by using <br/>)? -DePiep (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Both enantiomers must have the same value (for this property), but it might differ for the racemic mixture. --Leyo 16:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Found this: http://www.sioc-ccbg.ac.cn/skins/ccbgwebsite/software/xlogp3/ says "XLogP3" is some calculation method (older versions are P2, ...).

For example, Pubchem for Farinomalein says: "XLogP3-AA 0.1 Computed by XLogP3 3.0 (PubChem release 2019.06.18)". (eh, dunno what 'AA' means here).

IMO this value can be into main article Chembox, so no need for data page wrt this one. Question is: what value to use in IB Chembox, can we use |logP= for XLogP3?, or make new para |XLogP3=? Is the lefthand article link [[Partition coefficient|log P]] to the point? -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

There are several different logP estimation methods, see e.g. this paper or this page. I don't think that XLogP3 should be preferred over other methods. --Leyo 20:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

OK. How to enter in Chembox, add text to |logP=? Or add |XLogP3= that does add prefix 'XPlog3' to the value shown?

Also, label into name not symbol: "Partition coefficient" with/out "(log P)"?

DEMO1 datarow: |logP=-2 |XLogP3=-1.8 → | Partition coefficient (log P) | -2, XLogP3: -1.8 |

XLogP3 is one of several available methods for estimating the octanol-water partition coefficient. I am currently unsure how to deal with it. @Boghog and Slashme: What's your opinion here? --Leyo 09:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC) PS. In de-WP chembox, estimated values are not accepted.

My opinion is that we should report one value for logP in the ChemBox, and that we should indicate whether it's measured or calculated, and if calculated, what the method was. So if we know the logP of a given substance through measurement, that value should be given with a ref, and not the XlogP or XlogP3, but if only a predicted value is known (e.g. XlogP3), that should be given and the user should be given the information that XlogP, or XlogP2, or XlogP3 is, say, -2.1. In Wikidata, however, there's no reason not to give all the values. --Slashme (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Enthalpy, enthropy

• Example: Chloromethane (data page), "Std enthalpy change of fusion, Δ_fusH^o 6.43 kJ/mol"

For table structure itself not the data values: see also § Layout, tables, templates.

| Section4 = {{Chembox Thermochemistry
| Thermochemistry_ref =
| HeatCapacity = 
| Entropy = 
| DeltaHform = 
| DeltaGfree = 
| DeltaHcombust =
| DeltaHfus =
| DeltaHvap =
| DeltaHsublim =
| HHV =
| LHV =
 }}

Discussion

For most compounds these values are very technical and therefore should be on a datapage. E.g. the Enthalpy of combustion is only relevant 'to the public' on compounds that we intend to burn (major component in fuel for your car/boat/airplane - campinggas - methane/propane/butane in household appliances?). For the rest of the compounds it is purely academic (GC response factors are the next 'important' use, then it becomes specialty). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Vapor pressure graphs

Example: Methanol_(data_page)#Vapor_pressure_of_liquid (Methanol) has two graphs; data is from Lange (elsewhere, data taken from CRC).

IMO these graphs are very instructive, and should be available (kept somewhere). Is there nice solution? In new article section ("==data sheet== #Vapor pressure")? When moved to parent article, the sub-standard vapor table in IB Chembox finally can be removed ;-) -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Why don't put those vapour pressures in the Chembox? --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(oops, I thought a vapor table was in IB Chembox, but I mistook: a table is in IB element ;-) See {{Infobox hydrogen}}).

@Nucleus hydro elemon: the graphs are too large for an IBox; and they do not fit in the WP:INFOBOX concept (IB is not a data page); and info by table is not useful, bad presentation (see hydrogen IB). Hence my proposal to put the graphs in section ==Data sheet==. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How about this(see Chembox on the right) --Nucleus hydro elemon (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

yeek. Not illustrative, not a helpful presentation. 1. does not belong in an IB, and 2. graph is better. Why not put a graph (with/out the tabel) in article body? -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean - this should be in the datapage. The IB should only have the vapour pressure at a reasonable temperature (room temperature, 20°C, 25°C or 0°C or something like that). Most of the other vapour pressures are not being used outside of academic/industrial settings. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Certainly this should not be in the chembox as it is too bulky. But it is probably also too much to go in a vapour pressure third level header under properties. So if we have too much information, I think we need to format this as a spin off article. Eg physical properties of methanol. (or even liquid–gas transition in methanol). Data pages could be renamed to physical properties of ... with the information presented with more text as a stand alone article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Assuming we have the tabulated data we can always redisplay it at a more appropriate size using the {{Graph}} module. The methanol vapor pressure graph is shown right. It doesn't have to be chembox size, just whatever is useful? (I'm not very keen myself but I though I'd raise it as an option). --Project Osprey (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Graph:Chart}} example moved to WT:CHEM/DPCLEANUP data tables#Graphs for pageload reasons -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Works great, see Dimethyl ether#Vapor pressure! (DP now obsolete) -DePiep (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Data page notability

Do we need Wikipedia:Notability for DPs? --Leiem (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Leiem: I would say they are notable because the compound page is notable - but I think you would need some criterion why these pages are adding information beyond the mainpage. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We can know which pages to keep based on the criteria. --Leiem (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That's WP:Notability then. I too think that a substantial data page merits its existance as an article (mainspace). Reading WP:SPLIT for guidance, the DP can fork from parent article if data capsizes the article (I see no other reason now). Others here think different, but IMO few blocks of data first can be added to a dedicated section (like ==Data sheet==, way below). Such section & data does not disturb regular Reading of other sections. A DP must have much new data (copied IB Chembox does nto count, of course). In layout, the DP will be different (e.g., not much lede text) -- no problem. -DePiep (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I am going to speedy data pages with zero data. --Leyo 16:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Leyo — no you're not. Just join the thread. First we have to establish how & what &tc. Lest you can do is propose here. To be clear: we have established thisa CHEMICALS space to discuss & develop this. A speedy is disruptive to this discussion process. -DePiep (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

It is simple: All deletions are declared controversial, and so must be discussed. For example Beetstra @07:42: "I think we first should have a discussion (maybe even an RfC?) ..." (). Should be clear. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Beetstra was not referring to data pages with zero information, i.e. just containing placeholders (example). They only survived since nobody looked at them. A3 clearly applies. --Leyo 20:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I had reached the same conclusion, that CSD A3 may be applicable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a data-page with no actual content except a skeleton of un-filled tables would be deletable as A3. If someone has some actual content to write, write it or at least have a discussion if it should be written; we don't need a page that says absolutely nothing. DMacks (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Background of my opposition is this: when this thread was well under way, User:Leyo changed the conclusion of a closed AfD to their personal preference ; did not apply a Speedy template; when deleting, did not refer to the AfD discussion ; had to (ab)use their Admin rights to do so; did not engage in any discussion; actual emptyness cannot be checked any more. I call this serious trespassings, and won't spend much more patience on this behaviour.

Now nothing is hindering Leyo or anyone else to propose in this thread: "[[DP xyz]] is empty, shall we delete it, in three days time?" -- after all, that is the topic of this discussion. This nicely leaves others to take a look. Even better, this is a nice route to propose almost-empty DPs to be deleted without fuss but with consensus. -DePiep (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

1. I created § Data pages proposed for deletion.

2. Over there, I will add Leyo's Chloric acid (data page) with my support :-)

Shall we close this subthread here? -DePiep (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The idea is not to spend time on such clear cases and just delete them (Arsenic trioxide (data page), ...). We should invest our time in data pages that contain data. --Leyo 09:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually A3 would not apply on Arsenic trioxide (data page) as it has a link to a SDS. But I would support prod on these almost blank entries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) re Leyo: You are right in general. Only, in this case I met some overactive deletions (as described), and so we be more careful. Fellow-editors should be able to read along &tc. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

incidentally, see the GB note -- provce in case. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:A3 states This applies to articles consisting only of external links ... --Leyo 10:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

In this case an external link and useless empty tables. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I have copied it to the Arsenic trioxide page, as it was a useful and up-to-date link. So I am still happy for a prod the give it a chop. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Why did Choric acid (data page) get G12'd instead of A3'd? The given source was , which is explicitly a Wikipedia mirror. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You should complain to user:JBW who deleted it for an unjustified reason. However DMacks has restored it and then deleted as A3, as it had no data or links. There is no point in restoring it again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, Graeme Bartlett, maybe you're right, and LaundryPizza03 should complain to me, but personally I think giving a friendly message pointing out that I had made a mistake would be better. Anyway, I know now. Thanks for the ping. JBW (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The data page link in IB Chembox

• By default: if the data page exists (name pattern: {{PAGENAME}}_(data page) like Ammonia (data page)), {{Chembox}} on the parent page lnks to it (in section Supplementary).
• When the existing page is a redirect, the link is suppressed. Example: Bilirubin <=> Bilirubin (data page)Bilirubin (data page) (not linked from Chembox).
• When name pattern if the data page is not regular, one can use Chembox parameter: Properties of water => Chembox: |data page name=Water (data page).
• When an existing data page must be suppressed (link not shown), use |data page name=none (no current examples).

-DePiep (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

General note added (STP, Disclaimer)

FYI: I have added {{Chemical data page general note}} (new) to all DPs. Notes "STP" and "disclaimer data accuracy" (was often already present in plain text on the page). Best place imo is right above ==References== section. -DePiep (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)