User talk:Wostr

Archived discussions

Archive 1 (25.03.2013 – 20.02.2018)

Archive 2 (11.03.2018 – 18.12.2023)

Thanks for your fixes in 2,4-Nonadienal

Hi Wostr. Thank you for fixing the above mentioned item and the related isomers. I was confused about the fact that two of them had the same CAS-number and agreed upon merging, sorry for the mess we made. Now it has become clear, I will re-check the linked databases. Tinux (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tinux: Hi, the best option to distinguish different structures is to check InChI/InChIKey, CAS numbers are often imported from external databases and may be incorrect. In these items, CAS number in one of these items should be deprecated, but I don't have access to CAS Registry, so I can't tell for which structures it should be deprecated. Wostr (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Q81976205

Could you pls doublecheck if the Chemspider ID is right wich I have add... Tahnk you Calle Cool (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Calle Cool: it seems that CSID:7869432 belongs to Q27295567 (both stereocenter and double bond configuration are defined → S and E respectively), so I've changed this ID in Q81976205 to CSID:57523144 (here the double bond configuration remains undefined). Thanks, Wostr (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for you update --Calle Cool (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Could you pls also have a Look to Q129063631? - thank you --Calle Cool (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Calle Cool: based on the CAS entry I've added InChI/InChIKey and other statements. However, the same InChI/InChIKey has 14343-71-6 and for this reason [1] and [2] exist. I suspect that 71662-11-8 was meant to describe a mixture of stereoisomers with different amount of tartrate and 14343-71-6 was meant specifically for 1:1 ratio, but I don't have enough info to properly split this item into two separate items (one for a mixture and one for 1:1 ratio). Wostr (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Benff: Perhaps you Could somthing said to this?--Calle Cool (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The German name Furaltadonhemi[(R,R)-tartrat] originates from the drug catalogue maintained by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. There the molar ratio is given as 2:1 (in other words 1:0.5). Common Chemistry gives it as 1:x. --Benff (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any record of 2:1 ratio in PubChem/ChemSpider or other similar databases... Wostr (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Q128587536

Could you this also check? Perhaps you find more... --Calle Cool (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Calle Cool: not much, but I have to check to what extent it overlaps with nitrocellulose (Q143874). Wostr (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. And one last request for today - could you take a look at Q128589505?--Calle Cool (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Calle Cool: I've found other items about these two types of nitrocellulose and they are now merged. I don't thnik that there are many database entries about specific cellulose nitrates (nitrocellulose is usually described collectively, including smokeless powder based on it; also Polish chemist Urbanski wrote a chapter on it in Chemistry and Technology of Explosives [3], but the information from there is best suited for Wikipedia, not WD). However, I'll try to find if I have any other data about specific types of nitrocellulose in my pdfs (but the speed of pdf search takes several hours on my computer) and in the coming days I'll try to sort out nitrocellulose (Q143874) and collodion (Q898735) as well. Wostr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the whole thing is an exciting topic. I'm also asking me if cellulose dinitrate (Q4161930) and Q1779465 can be combined. According to the German article, these are also synonyms... But I wanted to ask the de-Chemie editorial team about this because the German articles are not exactly precise on this...--Calle Cool (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Calle Cool: I don't speak German, so I can't really say for sure, but cellulose dinitrate (Q4161930) is not a type of polymer with an exact atomic composition (its nitrogen content vary) and the nitrogen content described in de:Kollodiumwolle suggests that these two concept may be synonymous. Wostr (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

PS I've found pl.wiki article about the same I think. I'm inclined to actually merge these two items, but to be sure it might be helpful to ask the Redaktion Chemie in de.wiki. Wostr (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Done --Calle Cool (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Q144917

In object ethylene-vinyl acetate (Q144917) we have now two Echa ID. In bos ECHA-ID You can find the CAS-Number 24937-78-8. But I think ID 100.133.085 is for Ethenyl acetate--ethene (1/1) (Q82878860) and ECHA have the wrong CAS-Number at his side... What do you think!? Calle Cool (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm but for CAS 104912-80-3 Echa have ID 100.167.368... So it is perhaps right that ethylene-vinyl acetate (Q144917) have two ECHA-ID`S--Calle Cool (talk) 07:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Calle Cool: Q82878860 is not a valid entry and it should be cleaned up to match the CAS entry (it is some sort of EVA oxidized copolymer, but I'd need to check it more thoroughly and I'll try to clean this item up in the coming days). Regarding Q144917, I suppose that there are some differences between the two ECHA entries, but it's not the first time I see such a situation. As long as there are no more detailed information in the ECHA entries about the differences, these two ECHA IDs would probably need to remain in the same item. Wostr (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Q82919099

Could it be that the CAS-Nr. have to change to 77350-58-4? SciFinder don´t find the Number 201058-08-4 -> So perhaps it was deleted... Have you sources to verryfy this? Calle Cool (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Names for 77350-58-4 in Scifinder is

• Benzenemethanol, 4-[(4-methylphenyl)methoxy]
• 4-[(4-Methylphenyl)methoxy]benzenemethanol (ACI)
• 4-(4-Methylbenzyloxy)benzyl alcohol
• [4-[(4-Methylphenyl)methoxy]phenyl]methanol

--Calle Cool (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK deprecated CAS numbers should also be present in the CAS Registry and 201058-08-4 seems to be a formally valid number, however, I have not had access to this service for many years now. There is no better source for CAS numbers than CAS services like SciFinder, so I'd consider this result (77350-58-4) as correct, however, due to the presence of the first CAS number in various sources, I would not remove it, but change the rank to deprecated, with a proper qualifier – something like that Q82919099#P231. There is also a possibility that 201058-08-4 refers to some polymeric form, prepolymer, resin etc.? But without any info about this CAS number from CAS Registry it is impossible to say for sure. Wostr (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

201058-08-4 is not in the CAS-Register (Clarified in a german discussion: de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Rjh#(4-((4-Methylbenzyl)oxy)phenyl)methanol)--Calle Cool (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I understand this discussion and it seems that the present solution in WD (with 201058-08-4 deprecated and 77350-58-4 with a normal rank and SciFinder as a source) is optimal given the limited information we have. Perhaps someone in the future will have sources explaining where this CAS number comes from and why some sources provide it but CAS does not. Wostr (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

International non-proprietary drug names (INN) and wikidata labels

(RS)-furaltadone (Q27144914)(RS)-furaltadone hydrochloride (Q27256693)(RS)-furaltadone (R,R)-tartrate (Q27268387)(S)-duloxetine (Q411932)(S)-(−)-carbidopa (Q71133637)(S)-(−)-carbidopa monohydrate (Q414225); see talk pages there.
If stereo descriptors are obligatory for any systematic reasons, this is absolutely not a problem, as they could be prefixed to the corresponding systematic chemical names, as it is appropriate and correct and scientific practice. However, in connection with an international non-proprietary name (INN), as designated by WHO and in most cases defined as a specific geometric molecular arrangement, such descriptors – because not being part of the designated INN – are mostly not acceptable in a label. It is acceptable to list them in the aliases. You wrote “Other databases uses them as well”. However, for a pharmaceutical substance assigned an INN by WHO stereo descriptors usually do not appear in the labels in databases. Databases use INNs in combination with descriptors mainly if the respective substance has a different stereochemical structure than the WHO assigned substance and needs to be disambiguated from it − and not the other way around. So, to stick with your example, DL-carbidopa [4], however, not (S)-(−)-carbidopa [5]. (S)-(−)- is not a part of the designated name WHO has assigned to this entity. It is even misleading as it suggests there is a difference to ‘carbidopa’, especially since ‘carbidopa’ isn’t even mentioned at all in the wd item now. You also wrote “Since labels and aliases are not meant to be reused by other project” which is not tenable since other (external) databases of course do reference Wikipedia and consequently also the automatically connected WD items. You wrote “it’s not really a problem that a name is more detailed than needed” which is not true: such name is not “more detailed” but simply neither officially assigned nor commonly established. It violates Help:Label with regards to ‘reflect common usage’ and ‘disambiguation information’). I don’t think that your changes and reverts is a consensual approach. Kind regards --Benff (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Q24629934 Tetraphosphorheptasulfid

Hi - Which Chemspider ID is the right one? At 23621421 is the Formular right but 23349338 look the molar mas more right... Calle Cool (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Calle Cool: I'd say that 452389. Both 23621421 and 23349338 have incorrect formula among other things – however, these two records were created for tetraphosphorus heptasulfide just as 452389, but some chemical databases have some duplicated records with incorrect data – for various reasons, I once tried to report some errors to them, but they answered that such records are valid from their point of view and serve some purpose. Wostr (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that this discussion is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, don't hesitate to replace this template with your comment. Thank you for check Calle Cool (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Q82898011 Diphosphorus trisulfide

Is the mention ECHA-Card here right? Because the Formular at ECHA is H6P2S3 but Diphosphorus trisulfide have P2S3 or not? Calle Cool (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

@Calle Cool: I suppose it is correct, despite the wrong molecular formula. In the now defunct EINECS catalog it had the correct formula [6], maybe this 'H6P2S3' were imported from some external source or calculated in the wrong way. I wrote to ECHA about this, but for now I would leave this as a correct ID. Wostr (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious to see if ECHA will correct it...--Calle Cool (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Q129752086 + Q129752220 P4S7

Hello - do you find a few things to add here? Perhaps on Chemspider? You better in this than I... Calle Cool (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Calle Cool: I think I've found the correct entry for alpha form in PubChem. I'm not sure however if this COD entry refers exactly to the beta form (as I don't have access to [7]). Wostr (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok - I ask in the gernman community perhaps there sombody have access... But by the way -> could you also check Q129752414 and Q129752338. Thank you verry much --Calle Cool (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Calle Cool: the existence of Q129752338 required to move some statements from the main Q24629934 to Q129752338. But right now I see that Nadir is adding new content, so I'll wait until it's done. Wostr (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah NadirSH and you are in direct contact - that´s good... --Calle Cool (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)