Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

There is a new page List of fragrance compounds created by DanyMations who rejected a prior draftification by Significa liberdade. Almost every entry is a redlink, of the three sources one is a paper on work-related asthma while other two are wikilinks to International Flavors & Fragrances#List of fragrance ingredients and Fragrance compound. This looks to me like a fairly obvious AfD for multiple reasons, but I thought I would ask here for comments first, particularly to explore if a more experienced editor feels the list merits repair and is willing to work on it. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Is it not allowed to use Wikipedia links as citations? They are tertiary sources, so what's the issue? And if there is an issue, is it best to reference each category link, such as https://www.iff.com/scent/ingredients-compendium/?_odor_family=amber (for amber scents), https://www.iff.com/scent/ingredients-compendium/?_odor_family=citrus (for citrus scents), and so on?

Thanks! DanyMations (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page, as this is a technical editing question as against the question of whether the current list passes any of WP:GNG. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia articles are user generated content and are consequently not reliable sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The value I would see in this page is as a place to put the existing list from the main fragrance compound page, which currently {{main}}links this page despite it having less information and no organisation. What information exists in the table should be draftified and integrated into that scheme.

Further, the large number of redlinked trade names raises my WP:PROMOTION hackles; I don't know what "Floral Super" is, but I doubt that's what its PubChem page is called. All of the page's sources are the catalogues of R&D firms in the fragrance industry, which doesn't even pass my low bar for WP:PRIMARY reporting on compounds. Fishsicles (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your response,

Is it best to use PubChem names as the title of such article? I can change the name of Floral Super to 4,8-Dimethyl-4,9-decadienal per PubChem,^[1] as well as any other chemical.

Also, per WP:PRIMARY policy 3, it states that straightforward facts, such as the existence of a compound and its characteristics, can be from primary sources. DanyMations (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with existence being established by primary sources, I'm concerned with establishing notability. It is a vested interest of these companies to showcase as many compounds as possible, because that makes them appear more productive to investors. "We made a new compound" is chemically very simple, and the standards of "new" are often "we stuck a superfluous methyl on it"; more significant in determining coverage is if there's analysis of the usage of a compound.

I only really know fragrances insomuch as students spray them in poorly ventilated classrooms and asphyxiate me; how documented are their compositions? Is there a regulatory list akin to E numbers that could be a source for a listing? That would at least suggest some level of review outside the manufacturer's marketing team. I'd even be willing to consider some kind of industry awards, if they documented why a specific compound was worth highlighting. Fishsicles (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

So, for Floral super, would this study regarding its toxicity make the compound notable?

https://fragrancematerialsafetyresource.elsevier.com/sites/default/files/71077-31-1.pdf

If so, can any scientific study regarding a fragrance compound make such a compound notable? DanyMations (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

One study is not evidence of notability. Any known compound has a study that shows it exists by definition, and anything in consumer goods ought to have a few more that suggest they're safe for human use. Of more interest would be a literature review that establishes a wider field of substantial research into a compound.

For consumer goods like fragrances, I think they key question is of production volume. If they're only making a couple tonnes a year, it probably doesn't merit an article unless it's been in the headlines. Fishsicles (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

It is best not to use brand names, unless that is by far the most used name, including in scientific literature. So better to use a systematic name if there is no common name. On whether the list exists, see if you can find books or papers that have such lists of fragrance compounds. Databases devoted to the topic may show notability, but if the company is trying to sell the product, then it is not independent. For content of an article on a fragrance, if all you can say it is a fragrance, it does not justify an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

My main thought with the use of brand names is balancing two issues:

• Pages on compounds should be about the compound, not specific formulations from specific manufacturers: the main page is methylphenidate, not Ritalin or Concerta
• Pages should have names that reasonably fit on someone's screen: Allura Red AC, not "disodium 6-hydroxy-5-[(2-methoxy-5-methyl-4-sulfonatophenyl)diazenyl]naphthalene-2-sulfonate".

My thought is to use brand-agnostic common names as are common in pharmaceuticals (often derived from systematic names, not always IUPAC; e.g. para-acetamidophenol -> paracetamol), followed by systematic names of reasonable length. In the absence of either, use a brand name if you can establish notable usage of the name in secondary literature. My absolute lowest bar is brand names as used in regulatory documents, which is why I'll settle for furrowing my brow and grumbling at Allura Red AC; is it better known as Red 40 or E129? Probably, but those are defined as synonyms for that specific brand name, and I'd prefer using a brand name than elevating USA or EU regulators over each other. That said, if your most notable source for using a name is the regulatory document, there should be significant secondary coverage to establish notability of the compound, as if the most notable independent references you can find are regulatory paperwork, I'd raise serious WP:GNG questions. Fishsicles (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I can see that this is well intentioned, but the IFRA list is over 3600 entries long. That is too long to be of practical use. Cross-referencing against the ECHA registry cuts this down to ~1200 chemicals (removing various extracts, tinctures and other complex natural mixtures). Limiting these further to those used in quantities greater than 100 tons per year in the EU gives a list of 413 entries. It can be found Here. There are many red listed articles, some aren't suitable for wikipedia but other are. They would be a fine place to start if you wanted into increase our content on the topic.--Project Osprey (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for assembling this list. I have cleaned up some of the links and sorted out a few more mixtures from compounds, though I'm sure there's some more alternate names etc to be found by a finer comb. Fishsicles (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Some articles fully spell out the type of substitution (e.g. para-Methoxyamphetamine), while others use a single letter (e.g. p-Dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde). Is there a naming convention? RajanD100 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

SeeWikipedia:Naming conventions (chemistry)#Capitalization of elements and compounds which says that names should be written without abbreviations. so para- not p-. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:16, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that read of the conventions. Per the linked section,

The names of elements and other chemicals should be written without abbreviations and treated as common nouns.

Prefixes that are [sic] such as sec-, tert-, ortho-, meta-, para-, α-, β-, D-, L-, (+)-, (−)-, (R)-, (S)- and the numerical prefixes are not considered part of the name

The subsequent section at WP:CHEMPREFIX notes

Article titles for compounds and related topics should reflect how the compound name is commonly written

I would say that this says either convention is acceptable, contingent on whichever form is more widely used. A quick Google Scholar turns up ~206,000 results for p-xylene and only 13200 for para-xylene; the Wikipedia page uses the abbreviated p-Xylene. I'd say when in doubt, copy CAS or PubChem - though in this case that'd mean moving both, as they use "p-methoxyamphetamine" and "4-dimethylaminocinnamaldehyde". Fishsicles (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm looking to get a drawing of Brevetoxin B5 (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tetlet.2003.10.124) for an article I'm working on. Where would be the best place to request something such as this? I did see "WikiProject Chemistry/Image Request: Revision history", but that appears to be abandoned. AxonsArachnida (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Would File:Brevetoxin B5.svg work, or would you prefer a specific style or orientation? Wostr (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh wow that's perfect! Thank you so much, I didn't expect such a quick response. AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

This website, which is used as a reference in many chemistry articles, is apparently defunct. The web address has been usurped or hijacked by a sketchy-looking website. I think external links to this website (both when in an "External links" section and when used as a reference) should be removed. I know this can be done using the procedure outlined at Wikipedia:Link rot/Usurpations, but it's a big task to do manually because there are currently 150 articles that use chemicalland21.com (Search results). Is there an easier or automated way to deal with this? Marbletan (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests, which seems to deal with issues such as this, and made a report there. Marbletan (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there are many cases where this source shouldn't be replaced wholesale. It looks more like a commerical site to buy and sell chemicals with some brief encyclopedia entries. If the information there can't be verified elsewhere it may as well get removed. On Boron, I removed where it was citing "boric acid is used in swimming pool treatments"; other text from the source read It can be used for skin cooking sensation due to good thermal conductivity. It is also known boron compounds made with all 10B isotope selectively destroy cancer cell. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

If you come up with a recipe that can be applied with automation, I can help with the application. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think External-links links can simply be removed. DMacks (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I have removed ~20 that were used solely as external links. I think those that now remain are used as references. Marbletan (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

The page Richard P. Van Duyne is a stub that could do with some improvements. I published some with him so it would be a bit close to COI for me. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

You could always make an edit request on the article's talk page. The hard bit is finding useful sources, which you may be aware of. Even WP:ABOUTSELF sources would help, as he already passes WP:NACADEMIC. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

An edit request which is a 60+% expansion is a bit much to ask; I have seen those get bounced. There are a stack of orbits on him so siurces are not that hard to find. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Would anybody be willing to help me spotcheck this GA? I tried to do it myself, but I couldnt figure out anything the sources were saying. I took it up intentionally not knowing about chemistry, so an average person could understand the article, but I didnt consider that I wouldnt understand any of the sources. :/ Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This might be a better question for WP:WikiProject Chemicals. I'm pretty sure WP Chemistry is for chemistry concepts and WP Chemicals is for the chemical compounds themselves.

UnbihexiumFan (talk | contribs) 21:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

alrighty, thanks Finnfrog99 (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I have suggested a redirect of Materials at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Material (2nd nomination); I am cross-posting here for comments as many aspects of MSE are within the Wikipedia Chemistry Project. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello. First, a disclosure: I have a conflict of interest, as I am the subject of the article Gustavo Scuseria, a computational chemist at Rice University. I have posted an edit request on the article's talk page listing well-sourced factual corrections and additions — updated professional roles, recent major awards (including the 2024 American Physical Society Aneesur Rahman Prize and the WATOC Schrödinger Medal), corrected editorship and society positions, current citation figures, and a brief scientific-contributions paragraph. Every item cites an independent secondary source.

The request is sitting in the general COI backlog. Since the article is within this project's scope, I would be grateful if an uninvolved editor familiar with the subject area could review it when time permits:

Talk:Gustavo Scuseria#Requested edits from article subject (May 2026)

Thank you. Fpscientist (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2026 (UTC)