Both pages Ammonia and Ammonia (data page) are true mainspace articles; there is no actual "subpage" construction (not by name using "/", and because in mainspace subpages are not existant).
{{Chembox}} and {{Infobox drug}} each automatically link to such "(data page)" when it exists. Also, these parent articles are categorised in Category:Chemical articles having a data page (130). This makes sure editors take a good look at the data, instead of mass-automated-deletion.
Excluded for this cleanup are (untouched by this Cleanup Task):
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
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.
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.
A data page can have tag {{Merge to}}. Preferably that data page has an entry here (a section or {{anchor}}) here, as |discuss= link. {{Merge to}} does not require a complementary tag on the target article page.
{{merge to |ParentArticle |discuss=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#{{subst:PAGENAME}} |date=January 2022}}
editsummary suggestion:tag: merge to [[ParentArticle]]
Moved to CAT:discuss, just to keep this DP in view for later judgement.
I'd say: when it adds substantial data to the parent article (-topic). As in: 40–50% of parent article size (without that data). So that's purely by page size reasoning (see also WP:SPLIT). Smaller data blocks can be added in a dedicated section (I promote section ==Data sheet==) -DePiep (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Data page based on www.chemeo.com chemeo: not in Category:Chemical databases (49). A commercial background (Céondo) with different aim (modelling not sourcing). Not updated since 2016, on enwiki not mentioned outside of this compound. iow: I declared unsourced, so delete. -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Toluene (data page) (article): to delete. (Not here for a question, just illustrating my line of thought)
Sources too bad/old to check data points. Maybe NIST is OK, but the page has not been seriously updated in 15 years, iow: anyway not up to date wrt NIST.
Other sources mentioned: /www.cheric.org mostly in Chinese so cannot read it, surely not updated lately (latest discovered element in their periodic tabel: 109Mt: ~1992); Lange's Handbook of Chem 10th ed = 1967 (today's = 15th from 1999); chemeo.com: not updated, not a RS (see also above), not known in enwiki, WD.
Do basic data on substances change so much? Surely these things are constant within the margin of error that most of us need. I don't see the point in just deleting useful information with no real gain. Is the 1967 Lange's information wrong? (I use my 1960 Merck Index all the time to find solubility info, and it works fine!) Walkerma (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re pageviews: parent page toluene had 350,000 views in 1y [3], 950/day. Now 24/day for the data page is serious, but let's not forget the data page is advertised always in the IBox by "Supplemental data page". We don't know if these 24 Readers/day were satisfied with what they found. Those pageviews do more likely say 'make the page worth wile' not 'the page is popular so it must be useful'. -DePiep (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re Change of data: for example in pages [4][5][6] I found that the XLogP value then read from PubChem seriously differs from today's PubChem value (much more than uncertainty reach). So, if we want to (re)publish that quantity in the parent article, we'd have to use a different source & value (different from 2007). This illustrates that data does change, and old data from that source is not useful IMO. BTW, in such pages there is not much other data that is not already in the IB (chembox). -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that computed data from PubChem will change a lot - especially data from 2007 when PubChem was still a new site. We should try to replace these computed numbers with experimental data whenever those are available. Walkerma (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
—That is, keep & update this Chembox if Beetstra's plan happens: full IB Chembox in DP too (along with much extra new data) -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the data: 1. synonyms copied into article Chembox but commented out before checking. No extra data in this (data page). Will propose for deletion. -DePiep (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sounds like a good move. But if articles are to get a drugbox and a chembox, should overlapping info be removed from the second box? eg no need to repeat Drugbank, ehcmSpider entry etc. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
re new section =Props=: a bit strange if only has a IB Chembox... OTOH, if that section has some "lede"-like intro, the IB is at home.
And yes, GB, no double info (images) (except main thngs like chem formula?). IB Drugbox takes the lede and all med info, IB Chembox its own, more chem like, specialties. I guess. BTW, the Chembox needs a good check for info quality.
I am very confused. The data page was first proposed for merging, the data then was deleted from the page before merging, and then the page was proposed for speedy deletion because it contained no content. Concerning the merger, I am not sure that it is a good idea to have two large infoboxes in the same article. The Caffeine#Chemistry section contains some of the highlights of the data, but certainly not all of the data. Furthermore, the end of the {{infobox drug}} just below the Chemical and physical data section contains a link to Caffeine (data page), which I think makes sense. What is the problem with the present setup? Boghog (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chemical data pages cleanup has some 140 data page articles that are up for cleaning: source the data, merge into parent unless the data page has substantial data and merits its own existance (think Water (data page)), remove unsourced data, and delete when empty or duplication.
Of course the unexpected link you mention was caused by incomplete/manual reversal [7] (btw, removing a speedy is incorrect). IOW: a DP should be either a fullblown article, or merged & deleted. All data must be sourced. re your concerns about two infoboxes: happens more often, no problem met, solves overlapping Chem/Drug topics and other issues. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was the rationale for the speedy deletion. The justification given was the data page had no data which was based on the assumption that the data had already been merged. The data has not been merged, hence the rationale for the speedy deletion is flawed. The main issue is that the data is not sourced. The solution is to source it. I will do so. Boghog (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your second check is exactly why we didn't do mass-AfD right away. (Which would invite more hard and hurried 'solutions' by non-WP:CHEM members). When working via this WT page, chem people can take a second look at the data & the sourcing. As you did, so it's working.
This does not change the fact that these DPs could be up for deletion (they are really bad articles). We're just buying time to improve (otherwise, must be done in 7 days).
The issues are manyfold. Yes lacking sources is one. (btw, "will be sourced in the future" does not solve this). But first, there is the consideration: why a separate article at all? First thought & solution is: add DP to the parent article full stop. Only a few examples have reason to stay. That reason is always re WP:SPLIT (think size), by reverse thought ("when in teh parent, would it be cause to split?"). For example, the Chembox added to Caffeine changed page size ... from 179k to 183k. No reason to split there, the chembox will stay there. This reverse-SPLIT argument is a reason to enforce the merge. Say, c/p the data page into the parent, & delete DP. They are both articles, so in whichever article (DP or parent): data must be sourced. Cleanup can continu in the receiving parent page.
TL;DR: 1. copy/paste DP into the parent, 2. Delete the DP, 3. Improve sourcing & layout in the parent. (do not: keep the DP at all cost, do not: depend in future sourcing). -DePiep (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) source the data, regardless whether it is in the mainpage or not it should be sourced. Delete data for which sources do not exist. 2) do not create massive lists of tangential data in the mainpage, it is just table creep and clutter, as I explained elsewhere: the magnetic susceptibility of benzene is a useful piece of info for people who are using it for specialized data. I expect it in an encyclopedia, but it has no significant reason to be on the mainpage. Keep the datapages for data that is useful, sourced/sourceable and format them alike. This is exactly why I suggested that we first reach consensus on what we want in the future with datapages. One person drives to delete them regardless whether there is data that can be salvaged, others want them unified upgraded and try to keep them unless there is not enough (and Caffeine seems something there is enough data). Dirk BeetstraTC14:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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 BeetstraTC06:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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 BeetstraTC06:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 BeetstraTC06:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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 BeetstraTC07:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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[10], [11].
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)[reply]
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 BeetstraTC07:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Some properties (aka quantities, LH-labels, or data points) like "XLogP3" and "Std enthalpy change of fusion, ΔfusHo, reoccur in many data pages. This thread is to find a general way of handling (ignore & delete or add parameter to IB Chembox?). -DePiep (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Both enantiomers must have the same value (for this property), but it might differ for the racemic mixture. --Leyo16:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Pubchem [12] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 BeetstraTC08:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 BeetstraTC13:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The DPs reuses templates, tables and standard layout (like sectiontitles). Ofthen, these are hardcodedc (=copy/pastes table & new data entered). In case of usefulness, just listing them here. -DePiep (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Data Tables, hardcoded & reused (100 DPs? eg Boric acid DP): Copy/pasted, then specific data entered. Default value="?", no skipping of empty data rows....
DP standard Data Tables used in 16 regular articles
Fixed TOC section titles are used (to help incoming #links); their maintenance & reliability: unknown. At least {{Chembox}} does not use these any more. -DePiep (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: suggest adding a note & link into each of these AfDs before they start drawing separate and confused commentary - hardly anyone is going to be aware of this discussion / consensus! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do afterwards? Maybe gather a list here, then they will appear unused later on. I'd prefer not to use the dedicated Categories for these. -DePiep (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we first should have a discussion (maybe even an RfC?) on what we want to do with these chemical data pages. To me, I think they do serve a purpose. WikiData is nice, and all the data is there, but it is a data-database. WD's way of displaying is not reader-friendly, and figuring out (on WD) what e.g. ionization energy is does take you a couple of clicks. A datapage here is a way to display ALL chemical data onto one single page in a structured, reader-friendly way. We can also use them to make some infoboxes smaller. Especially the 'more known' compounds have sometimes infoboxes that span large parts of the page (see Benzene (~1/3), Toluene (~2/3)), and some of those infoboxes contain data that is not of 'interest' to the general reader (the man in the street), but more to chemists (and even there, I've used the magnetic susceptibility of benzene a couple of times, but I am pretty sure that 95% of us never actually used that number; someone ever used the viscosity of benzene at 10°C???). Datapages could also include then graphs that we typically do not use in articles - UVVis spectra, IR spectra, representative Mass spectra. Much of the data in infoboxes is not re-used (or discussed) in the article.
I would therefore argue that we should have properly structured data pages for chemicals, unified in layout, just a short standardized lede, standard sections for the different data. Include graphs for certain data where available (we have 6 datapoints in the infobox of benzene for its solubility in water, IR/UVVis/Mass-spectra). We make these data pages only for those chemicals where we and WD combined have, say, at least 10% more 'data' than what can be argued to be stored in the infobox. And all data properly referenced. --Dirk BeetstraTC07:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: TL;DR: agree data pages can exist (for example). But current ~140 dp's lack: sources, updates, new info wrt IB Chembox, layout. So merge good data into parent article, & delete. Recreation possible if usefulness more convincing. The discussion/RfC Beetstra proposes can be started any day. But they are aimed at future data page requirements. Does not prevent deletion of current garbage.
longer: I agree with your main line: data pages can exist. Example candidate: Water (data page). However, I also think that all other current ~139 data pages do not meet the standard for being an article, being separate from the parent article, or even exist.
Problems with current data pages: data not sourced, data not updated (many were created in y 200x), bad layout, no extra data at all wrt parent article/IB chembox, often "?", repetition of basic IB Chembox data (image, synponyms, m.p./b.p.).
So, the process I advocated here is: each page must prove its right to exist in mainspace. Therefor its content must be checked for relevant & being sourced. Then, to consider is if well-sourced data can be merged into the parent article, maybe in its IB Chembox or in appropriate body text. If so, the remaining 'data-empty' page can be deleted.
I add: between "in IB Chembox" and "in separate data page", there is a midway option for data like this image: a dedicated data section in the article. More space, less strong requirements wrt IB data. (I propose standard naming ==Data sheet== btw).
I add: Agree that WD is not very good to present at enwiki. However, I see usefulness in comparing enwiki input and WD data (& track categorise when different, of course). -DePiep (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit uncomfortable with deleting material and then later (possibly) recreating it. I also am uncomfortable with merging the data into the top article whereas I would say that we already have data there that does not belong in the article. We could just try to see where we end up when improving the current datapages. Throw most of them into a draft area (subpages of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Chemistry/DatapageDrafts?), work on them, move back when we have a working concept or MfD when insufficient? Dirk BeetstraTC10:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To consider as proposed here: 1. All data in DP must be well-sourced full stop. 2. DP pages with a serious body of data can stay (think Water). 3. dp with few data additions: merge that data into parent article, then delete DP page. DP with no sourced data: delete right away.
So, no good data is deleted. Bad and redundant data is. iow, for any data point to stay in mainspace, it must be deserve its place (= well-sourced). If a data page is deemed useful & needed, (for any of the 20k Chem/Drug compound articles), it can be created. Based on the new requirements you want to achieve.
We can keep in mind that the job of DP (re)creation is just as tough as well-sourcing current data in a DP and prove that merging into the parent is not feasible. Move to Draft space: no problem. Worst case: aks a WP:REFUND. -DePiep (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point was more that a lot of the data (also in current infoboxes) IS badly sourced, but certainly not incorrect (we do not delete every sentence that is unsourced, we generally either add a reference, or we {{fact}}-tag them). For those that really do not contain any data: they can be populated from the infoboxes; for those that are not referenced: that may be worth the effort. The deletion/recreation is a bit bureaucratic, and leaves a lot of data 'gone' for non-admins. I'd prefer the deletion only on the merit of 'this will not likely contain much more data than what we already have in the article'. Dirk BeetstraTC13:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current DP pages are very poor articles in every sense. "badly sourced but not incorrect": hard to work with that, there is only one route to prove that. To be clear: all unsourced/badly sourced data in the DPs is disputed, so must be made verifiable (it's not just unsourced, but this in these it requires sourcing; we have all reasoin to dispute the data). Then, next step, one is invited to prove that current DP data cannot be added reasdonably to the parent article.
re "populated from the infoboxes": ??? No, that would be duplication. Again, merge good data into the parent article, then delete DP. -DePiep (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add. Why or how, Beetstra, could any of these 139 DP pages survive a full AfD? They're supposed to be worthy articles. By taking time in this WP:DPCLEANUP process we are buying time to save some data, WP:CHEMICALS friendly. There is no need to save the full substandard article setup of these data pages. -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be clear, I suggest to 1) move all questionable DP to a project-draftspace, 2) populate all those from the infoboxes (yes, duplication, but it is silly to have an article with a boiling point at 1 atm and leave it out on the datapage), 3) clear from the infoboxes all information which we think is too specific for that, 4) expand on the DP what is appropriate & pull in all WD data, 5) in the process - make all DPs format the same (you know from the more obscure ones which data we have and what we have to prepare others for), 6) move back those that are passing the bar (e.g. my suggested 'more than 10% more data than what is in the mainpage'), 7) MfD the rest. I am against merging the data into the mainpage, as some of the mainpages already have way too much data: lists of boiling points at different pressures, specialized parameters that adds nothing to the understanding for the general public (see mag.sus of Benzene?). Some infoboxes are 2/3 of the prose-length on a widescreen. Sourcing is a problem throughout, much of the data in infoboxes is indirectly sourced (see the disclaimer), that will be true for the DP as well. For many of the compounds the information can easily be checked against the CRC, chemical suppliers, WD (which does for some have references). The reason that I am somewhat against deletion is because it deletes pages which are very clearly salvageable (Hydrochloric_acid_(data_page), there is more than enough data to make a massive datapage), they do give examples sometimes of what may be of interest and it retains the edit history/attribution (yes, we can delete now, write a new one, then undelete the old versions to regain the history). -- Dirk BeetstraTC06:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support this general line, especially the Draftify-part #1 (gives breathing space for all). However, I'd oppose the data separation (article design) as mentioned. Better, first use a ==Data sheet== section in top article. Could unload the Chembox, good, without directly need for a DP (your 10–20% goes here nicely). Need s good design, with tables &tc.—as any data page article would. A DP should have massively more data to deserve separate article (maybe like Water (data page) today). In other words: forking out a DP is a WP:SPLIT issue, not a goal in itself. To be fleshed out later. So, can we propose the mass MoveToDraft? -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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 BeetstraTC06:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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?) ..." ([14]). Should be clear. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Leyo20:20, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Background of my opposition is this: when this thread was well under way, User:Leyochanged the conclusion of a closed AfD to their personal preference[15]; did not apply a Speedy template; when deleting, did not refer to the AfD discussion [16]; 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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) (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).
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself.
Background: a spin-off AfD closed as no consensus; consensus to gain elsewhere. From that, this discussion has become stale with reason. However, since followup-talks could be useful, and be initiated after this main thread.
The {{hat}} wrapper has the right text: it allows nicely that talks continue in a new thread here (and so please |collapse=no). If you think the structure (discussion setup), please discuss first.
(I am an involved editor, initiator of the thread. Given the AfD, I assume this closure/request is without prejudice or enforcements).-DePiep (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)