Template talk:Chembox/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Preparing changes, new tracking categories appearing

At the moment, I am preparing changes to {{Chembox}}, like:

• Introduce like |index3_label= to prefix every indexed identifier (single replacement for |CASNo3_Comment=|PubChem3_Comment=|...=)
• Recognise & categorise |PubChem=none
• Refine tracking categorisation of |CASNo3=none (indexed compounds in a subcategory)
• All this with an eye on Wikidata checks in the near future

When the changes are fleshed out in the sandboxes, I will present proposals here. Until then, please tolerate some new empty tracking categories. (At Template:Chembox/testcases5 the sandbox development is visible). -DePiep (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Image does not turn off hidden cat

Damascone has had an image for ages, yet it comes up Category:Chembox articles without image - anyone know why? Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Below on the page is a second {{Chembox}} for alpha-Damascone — without an image. -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ronhjones You could merge the two infoboxes (by using |CASNo=, |CASNo2= etc.). However, within a week or so this Indexed_parameters setup may be improved, so it might be easier to wait that while. See #Example: Linalool in the proposal, earlier on this page. -DePiep (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Explains all. Thanks for reply. Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 14:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Chembox minor changes (March 2017)

I am preparing changes to {{Chembox}}. These won't change the article much (changing tracking categories, background & inner workings, etc.). When about identifiers, most are in parallel with {{Infobox drug}}.

Set of changes

Category name changes:

• Category:Chemical articles with multiple PubChems (0) → Category:Chemical articles with multiple PubChem CIDs (611) -- More specific name (not the PubChem SID, AID)
• Category:Chemical articles using a fixed chemical formula (0) Tracking abandoned (not that useful)

-DePiep (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Next set

• Remove margin-top:2px;. No need to overwrite default class=infobox settings (here: 0.5em). Visual effect: the infobox will be a bit lower (same top position as other infoboxes).
• Add |show_footer=no to suppress footer block. Useful for test- and talkpages.
• Use dedicated Category:Chemical infoboxes with style settings (0)
• Handling tracking categories: add separate subtemplate below the footer to organise tracking categories. Invisible effect in mainspace (and a category name listing in testcases). Has options to add temporal trackings more easily (no need to change both templates).

-DePiep (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Maybe you aren't finished, but the current sandbox version doesn't show the " verify (what is Yes ?)" in the bottom. Christian75 (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well spotted thanks!. Fixed I think. -DePiep (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Track in Category:Chemical infoboxes with tracked parameters (0): {{Chembox}} without any identifier.

 Done -DePiep (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Debugged

• I had to debug the Identifiers section. Some superfluous "}}" brackets were present, somehow without disrupting al these months... Also, tracking "No Identifiers input" improved. Note: header "Identifiers" now always shows, even when no data is present (tracked to be checked). -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done

Add PubChem CID trackings

• PubChem CID: populate

Category:Chemicals without a PubChem CID (865)

Category:Chemicals that do not have a PubChem CID assigned (1) -- |PubChem=none

Same as those categories for CAS number, ChEBI etc. All local, no Wikidata involved. -DePiep (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Input option 'none'

• Several parameters can have input none. This is to mark that the chemical formally does not have that identifier by intention (as opposed to: we don't know it). Here I describe the current/projected situation, since there are minor changes. The parameters are: |CASNo=none, |PubChem=none, |ChemSpiderID=none, |ATC_prefix=none. The effect is:

The word 'none' is shown, unlinked. The article is listed in a category named not assigned. Uppercase 'None' is accepted too. All the indexed sisters |CASNo2=none show the same, but these are not categorised (yet). The categories are:

Category:Chemicals that do not have a CAS registry number assigned (15)

Category:Chemicals that do not have a PubChem CID assigned (1)

Category:Chemicals that do not have a ChemSpider ID assigned (849)

• Jmol uses the SMILES input by default to create the 3D interactive graphic. This can also be overwritten |Jmol=. Entering |Jmol=none suppresses any Jmol output showing. This can suppress a bad image rendering. These articles are categorised in Category:Chemical articles having Jmol set (37).

These changes will be implemented together with other changes shortly. {{Infobox drug}} will apply the same rules. -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Add parameter 'ImageCaptionAll'

• New |ImageCaptionAll= is an image caption that will show below all images. Allows for a general caption when the images share a general point (like, when multiple compounds exist, and the images show just one). Example in case: Iron(II) sulfate, talked here. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That discussion got archived to here. DMacks (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming changes

For those who only follow latest sections: the long-running proposal to #Add label to indexed identifiers (earlier on this page) is ready for deployment. There is #Example: Linalool. Changes are listed in #Preparing to go live.

Please comment over there, not here. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: add label and QID for indexed identifiers (reopen)

This proposal was announced in November, see Archive. It is reopened to go live. The QID part is added.

Indexed identifiers

• (index can be:
• <blank>, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
• CASNo
• ChEBI
• ChEMBL
• ChemSpiderID
• DrugBank
• InChI, InChIKey
• IUPHAR_ligand
• KEGG
• PubChem
• SMILES, Jmol
• UNII

In {{Chembox}}, we have some 13 indexed identifiers (see box right). Using these, the {{Chembox}} can handle up to six different compounds (by entering values for CASNo=, CASNo1=, CASNo2= etc., see example linalool below). At the moment, over 500 {{Chembox}}es use more than one CAS number.

Currently, the different compounds are specified by an extra comment-parameter for each id, like |CASNo2_Comment=(R).

I propose to add these six parameters to {{Chembox Identifiers}}:

|index_label=
|index1_label=
|index2_label=
|index3_label=
|index4_label=
|index5_label=

This will happen: when used, the same label will be added before each of the values with that index. (so: index2_label will precede CASNo2, and PubChem2, and ...2, values). This simplifies this sub-identification, and it stimulates that the editor can align the indexed values (i.e, make sure that same-index = same-substance. Or: index2_label = CASNo2 = PubChem2 etc.).

With this, most | _Comment= parameters are redundant and should be removed from the article. They might be deprecated later on.

Example: Linalool

|index_label=

|index1_label=(R)

|index2_label=(S)

|CASNo1_Comment = (R)

|PubChem1_Comment = (R)

|CASNo2_Comment = (S)

|PubChem2_Comment = (S)

Linalool (sandbox)

Identifiers
CAS Number	78-70-6 Y (R): 126-91-0 N (S): 126-90-9 N
IUPHAR/BPS	2469
PubChem CID	6549 (R): 443158 (S): 67179

Linalool (live version)

Identifiers
CAS Number	78-70-6 Y (R): 126-91-0 (R) N (S): 126-90-9 (S) N
IUPHAR/BPS	2469
PubChem CID	6549 (R): 443158 (R) (S): 67179 (S)

Testcases are in /testcases5.

Also: new parameter "index_comment"

New parameters are available |indexn_comment= to add a descriptive text for each index_label used.

When such a indexn_comment is used, an extra data row will appear in top of the Identifiers section.

|index_comment=(+/-)-linalool

|index1_comment=(-)-linalool

|index2_comment=(+)-linalool

|indexlist_caption=(default: 'Compounds')

Linalool (sandbox)

Identifiers
Compounds (+/-)-linalool (R): (-)-linalool (S): (+)-linalool
CAS Number	78-70-6 Y (R): 126-91-0 N (S): 126-90-9 N
IUPHAR/BPS	2469
PubChem CID	6549 (R): 443158 (S): 67179

Testcases are in /testcases5. -DePiep (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Add Wikidata identifiers QID

A QID is the item identifier on Wikidata. By default, it corresponds with the article (-title). So, article Linalool on Wikipedia is item Q410932 on Wikidata (with English name: (+/-)-linalool (Q410932)).

{{Chembox}} will have parameters |QID1, QID2, QID3, QID4, QID5= to add items (QIDs) for the indexed chemicals. For linalool:

default QID for the article: (+/-)-linalool (Q410932)

|QID1=Q27105200 (R): (-)-linalool (Q27105200)

|QID2=Q27105233 (S): (+)-linalool (Q27105233)

For the article title the Wikidata link (by QID) is available by default. However, there might be situations where article title is not the main infobox compound. In those cases, one can set |QID= for the compound, and in the future access Wikidata for that compound.

At the moment, these QID parameters are not used. However, in the future they can be linked to the Wikidata item (to retrieve data for that specific compound). So if you happen to find them when editing, adding them might be useful. Articles will be listed in Category:Chemicals having QID set.

Maintenance tasks

All changes are in the |Section1={{Chembox Identifiers|...}} section.

1. Infoboxes in more than one compound ID can be upgraded: all indexed parameters should be 'aligned' so that for example #2 index|CASNo2=, |PubChem2=, etc. are identifying the same compound.

2. After checking this alignment, one can add |index2_label= once, to replace |CASNo2_Comment=, |PubChem2_Comment=, etc. The label is shown for every #2 identifier. The | _Comment= parameters are now redundant, and should be removed.

3. For future usage, and if you have it at hand, one can add the Wikidata identifier |QID2=Q27105233. It would support future research options (checking Wikidata for that compound).

Example edits in linalool

{{Chembox

|Name=Linalool

|Section1={{Chembox Identifiers

<!-- parameters added: -->

| index_label =

| index1_label = (R)

| index2_label = (S)

| QID=

| QID1=Q27105200

| QID2=Q27105233

<!-- existing parameters: -->

| IUPHAR_ligand = 2469

| CASNo = 78-70-6

| CASNo1 = 126-91-0

| CASNo1_Comment = (R)

| CASNo2 = 126-90-9

| CASNo2_Comment = (S)

| PubChem = 6549

| PubChem1 = 443158

| PubChem1_Comment = (R)

| PubChem2 = 67179 <!-- checked for CAS number=126-90-9 -->

| PubChem2_Comment = (S)}}

}}

-DePiep (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Late design notes

• |PubChem=none will be accepted and categorised ('not assigned'), see Category:PubChem CID tracking categories -DePiep (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• As always, {{Infobox drug}} will likely follow whatever applicable.

Nicely, {{Drugbox}} already does this prefix-labeling: TAS-108. -DePiep (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

• Format change: each list of identifiers (CASNo 0-5) is shown in an {{Unbulleted list}}, not <br/>-separated any more. This is the preferred listing form (HTML semantics). The list will show more inter-item whitespace. That is by WP webpage design, so I can trust & follow that. -DePiep (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• New parameter |ImageCaptionAll= allows to set a single caption for all images. -DePiep (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Over at WT:Chemicals (way down in the section), Project Osprey writes about 'how to know infobox edits are checked, and well checked?' (my words). This is a huge complication, Wikidata related: we are talking RS. At this moment, I have no reply. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
• So for PubChem=none, is that going to mean that PubChem currently does not have an entry for this substance? Graeme Bartlett

Yes, even stronger: |PubChem=none says that there is explicitly no id assigned to that compound, by the authority. This is different from: "we at Wikipedia do not know the PubChem CID", often named <blank>, N/A, no id entered, etc. It is a positive: none-is-assigned. |CASNo, ChemSpiderID= also recognise 'none' this way. All in Category:Chembox tracking categories. -DePiep (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

In real life; none means what you are saying, but N/A means not applicable e.g. if a provider of IDs only have IDs for pure chemical substance, and the substance in question is a mixture it should be marked N/A. Christian75 (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Should we add option "N/A" too then, for these cases? IMO the first goal is to be clear to a reader and editor: "no need to search for it" (for whatever reason). Would it help to be this more specific? Or, a different approach, shall we add "chemical type=mixture" (not-a-compound) more general? -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Should we add an "is checked" marker? Over here, @ 11:47 Project Osprey drops the idea of adding |index data checked=, so we can keep track (in a category) of edited pages. Do we think this would work?

Without this, we can track this using existing categories as follows:

1. Articles to be checked: Category:Chemical articles with multiple compound IDs (644 P).

2. Articles having new |indexn_label= added: Category:Chemicals using indexlabels (842) (not yet in use).

3. Venn & PETSCAN: articles not yet updated: [1].

General line: Articles with multiple compounds should get |indexn_label= (the edit to do). The PETSCAN lists those missing. But: this is no check on the quality (we cannot see whether the editor checked the identifiers per indexn). Now this is equally missing even when an editor adds |index data checked=yes. It still relies on careful editing. On top of this: future development will be that we can check each substance against its Wikidata properties. That would give a second, WDlink-supported check.

For these two reasons (usage of the check parameter is unreliable, and Wikidata check possible in the future) I don't think we should add that check-parameter. -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I suggested that before I knew what the new code would look like. By filling in |indexn_label= we know the data should be numerical, so we don't need another marker. I also wanted to know how we'd find pages that needed fixing but you seem to have answered that with PETSCAN (although ultimately I'd prefer a hidden cat). So I think we can dismiss my idea now; the situation has changed. BTW I like this new numerical system, good work! --Project Osprey (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, good to hear that this work is actually useful ;-).

OK, I'll make that Petscan into hidden category -- to be emptied. Let's hope it does not become one of those sleeping maintenance jobs (like, category:image missing etc). Protip: maybe wait mass-cleaning those till I have some smart Wikidata links added. eg, search Wikidata for pagename.

BTW, Category:Chemical articles with multiple chemicals in Infobox drug (0) Category:Multiple chemicals in Infobox drug (647) already works in this for {{Drugbox}}. -DePiep (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Idle edit: refrech dat wrt Archive bot. -DePiep (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Preparing to go live

I am preparing to add these changes. They are relate to multiple compounds (& indexes), in section {{Chembox Identifiers}}.

• Show indexed IDs as {{unbulleted list}} (not <br> any more). Minor ws effect.
• Add |indexn_label= (prefixes). See OP and #Example: Linalool
• Add |indexn_comment= (description for index_label). See #Also: new parameter "index_comment"
• Add |ImageCaptionAll=, single caption for all images.
• Categories affected: (note: {{Infobox drug}} already uses similar setup; hence, new categories may contain pages):

Category:Chemical articles with multiple compound IDs (2,212)

Category:Compounds using indexes

Category:Chemicals using indexlabels (842) -- OK

Category:Multiple chemicals in an infobox that need indexing (2,014) -- to be emptied

• Add option |QID, QID1, QID2, ... QID5= for compound reference. (No visible effect, useful for future editing/editors).
• Add option |testQID= for testing off-mainspace (there testQID can replace mainspace natural article QID). No effect in mainspace.
• Technical: code for tracking categories changes.

Notes

• No Wikidata connection is added or changed.
• Maintenance tasks now supported: align indexed compounds, and add index_labels. See #Maintenance tasks.
• A multi-step changeover is needed. Some 30 subtemplates need a change. That takes too much time (switchover time would be minutes, meanwhile showing broken articles). Therefor in steps: 1. Change main template to use clean sandboxes in the live template (a single edit), 2. copy the 30 sandboxes code into their subtemplate (at ease), 3. change main template to use regular live subtemplates.

-DePiep (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Y Preparing (cleaup sandboxes, rm testsettings, etc.). -DePiep (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

2017-03-19: Note on /sandboxes being used in mainspace. Some 30 /sandbox subtemplates are used in mainspace. This is under control, and for a short while! Background: a single 30x changeover+check would take five minutes or more, during which broken infoboxes would show in mainspace -- too bad. Instead, we use sandboxes now, then change 30 subtemplates (at ease), and then switch to live subtemplates in one go. -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

2017-03-20: clean, no more sandboxes in mainspace. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

MolView

Editors have brought up the idea of implementing a dynamic molecule viewer several times, most recently (as far as I'm aware) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_151#Jmol.2C_JSmol_in_the_wiki.3F

I recently stumbled across an open source project (http://molview.org/) which could be useful for this. There is apparently a way to embed the viewer. Sizeofint (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The site could also be useful for generating images of molecular models for infoboxes. Sizeofint (talk) 05:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

MainHazards

According to e.g. insource:/MainHazards *= *\{/ it seems that this parameter is partly used in a manner that was not foreseen. May we just remove such occurrences? --Leyo 15:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"not foreseen" appears to be: data put here that could/should be elsewhere. SO: move to correct parameter is OK. I understand Main hazards to be verbose, and not stuff that is elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 2017

Wikipedia:Chemical infobox → Template talk:Chembox – Note: move talkpage only (Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox), not the parent page. For many years, {{Chembox}} is treated as a single template. Works well. There are no needs to connect it with other chemical templates (main systematic connection is with {{Infobox drug}} btw). Except for {{Chembox}}-subtemplates, no other templates link here. Withdrawn by nom (see below) DePiep (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If it helps: we could first disentangle the page relations into:

Template:Chembox, Template talk:Chembox (now a Redirect), Wikipedia:Chemical infobox, Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox (i.e., into four standard pages with content). -DePiep (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

• Withdrawn. The Redirect situation needs to be cleaned up first. (Also per WPRM:Closing instructions hint. -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Request for help on cywiki

I've just copied over this template onto the Welsh (cy) Wikipedia. However, I have an error - the script is looking for a Template (or 'Nodyn') Chembox SystematicName, which I can't find. Any help please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 Is this still an issue? When I edit cy:Ffosffad and preview, there is no redlinked template listed below. -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You're right; the red link / missing template has gone. Problem solved! Just seen your edits too; many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: - Hi! There now appears the word value, instead of the actual values eg after '3DMet on cy:Amonia! I can't see any changes having been made to cause this. Any thoughts please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Will look into this. -DePiep (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• This happened. The section Identifiers is composed by {{Chembox Identifiers}}, which calls a subtemplate for each data row (for example subtemplate {{Chembox 3DMet}} to show input parameter |3DMet=)

Llywelyn2000 Recently, I changed that calling structure and parameter names.

Before (simplified code):

In [[Template:Chembox Identifiers]]
{{Chembox 3DMet | value={{{3DMet}}} }}
In [[Template:Chembox 3DMet]]
 {{!}} 3DMet {{!}} {{{value}}} <!-- data row in the wikitable -->

After:

In [[Template:Chembox Identifiers]]
{{Chembox 3DMet | 3DMet={{{3DMet}}} }}
In [[Template:Chembox 3DMet]]
{{!}} 3DMet {{!}} {{{3DMet}}} <!-- data row in the wikitable -->

Somehow the cywiki got these versions mixed up (new Identifiers section template, old 3DMet subtemplate). That's why parameter {{{value}}} was unknown and showing as it did.

Solution: update the subtemplates called in {{Chembox Identifiers}} with the new enwiki code version like this. That's a dozen or so Template:Chembox Identifiers#Subtemplates used ... (Going back to old {{Chembox Identifiers}} code would take one edit, but could give unexpected effects).

Note: this only occurs in {{Chembox Identifiers}} not in other sections like {{Chembox Properties}}. I have created cy:Nodyn:Chembox/testcases (Identifiers tests). Ask more if anything is unclear. -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Compliments to Llywelyn2000 for making this work in cywiki! It's a very complicated and error-sensitive template (150+ templates...). -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ooooh! How nice! And a BIG thanks to you for helping a small language wiki! I'm really grateful and will have a good look tomorrow. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Getting there slowly! Most seem to have been done, apart from MeSH, as you can see here. Any ideas, please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 do not change the enwiki templates. They are tested etc. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

MeSH data is broken because you edited it. I restored it (on enwiki; see ammonia). -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, when you're importing hundreds of templates/ subtemplates, sometimes you save in the wrong language, as was done here. i do appologise. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't thought of this. -DePiep (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Add Curie point, Néel point

Curie temperature, Néel temperature and related properties

I think that having fields for Curie points and Neel points (both electric and magnetic ones), and also for magnetic permeability (μ) and electric permittivity (ε), would be useful. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like help adding them as I have no idea how to go about doing so.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Technically, can be made but we we need examples and restriction. What is the label (lefthand side, text & wikilinks)? What input can we expect, and what format & checks are needed? Exemplary chemicals?

WP:INFOBOX-level: why, when & how is this relevant information? Can we expect that each of our 15k+ {{Chembox}} (and {{Drugbox}}) pages will have this data added (while both correct and irelevant)? -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: For magnetic curie point/temperature the label would be "Curie point". For magnetic Néel temperature the label would be "Néel point". For the ferroelectric Curie temperature the label would be "Ferroelectric Curie point" to specify that it's not referring to the ferromagnetic curie point. For the antiferroelectric Néel temperature, the label would be "Antiferroelectric Néel point". As for the types of input, I'd expect one or more temperatures that will be in either Kelvin, Fahrenheit, or Celsius. It'd also be useful to have a place to put a bit of text containing short notes about individual Curie or Néel points and maybe a separate place to for references. It might be more practical to combine the magnetic and (anti)ferroelectric Curie(Néel) points and just specify in the notes if it's referring to the (anti)ferroelectric one.

As for the relevance, I'd say Curie/Néel points are primarily relevant to compounds of the transition metals and lanthanides but are more generally applicable to any compound or molecule with unpaired electrons. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I rescind my request for adding magnetic permeability as it is better filled by the existing field for magnetic susceptibility, and I'm dropping my request for adding electric permitivity (and dielectric constant would be a better altenative anyway) for now. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

So far I get this:

• magnetic permeability (μ)
• electric permittivity (ε)
• Curie point (T_C). Magnetic curie point/temperature. Temperature in K (°C, °F)
• Néel point (T_N). Magnetic ordering temperature. Temperature in K (°C, °F)

But these properties I don't get understand:

• ? ferroelectric Curie temperature the label would be "Ferroelectric Curie point" to specify that it's not referring to the ferromagnetic curie point.
• ? antiferroelectric Néel temperature, the label would be "Antiferroelectric Néel point".

For example Curie_temperature#Materials with magnetic moments that change properties at the Curie temperature dscribes them as: "Material X is Ferroelectric above/below the Curie point" etc. That would be a yes/no property (obviously only the yes-materials are relevant). Could you enlighten us?

Also, I keep saying that we only should add those values when they are relevant for the material (say, could be used in real life or the article could have it described). We don't want added "the value exists, so let's add it". -DePiep (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A material can have a Curie point/temperature at which it becomes ferromagentic and/or Curie point/temperature at which it becomes ferroelectric, but they are two different types of phase transitions that generally occur at two different temperatures. Ferroelectric Curie points are probably most significant as the maximum temperature a ferroelectic can be used at, and more generally I want it listed in the properties section since it's a fairly fundamental/basic property of ferroelectrics. The antiferroelectric neel point would probably only be applicable to a handful of articles, but I see no reason not to have it in case it it ever turns out to be useful. I'm not sure if I've answered all your questions, if I haven't, feel free to ask me to clarify or to provide for more information.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

So if I understand this, there only exist values for "Curie point at which it becomes ferromagentic" and/or "Curie point at which it becomes ferroelectric" etc. (These would require two parameter names then). Then what does it mean when a "Curie point = ..." is mentioned without specifier? -DePiep (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

The term Curie point/temperature most often refers to the temperature at which the transition between ferromagnetism and paramagnetism occurs, but can also be used (typically with specification) to describe the temperature at which there is a loss of any sort of "ferroic" order. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

We can't have ambiguous parameters. What possible explicit values are to be shown? (Please check & complete):

|Curie point ferromagnetic=, |Curie point ferroelectric=, ...

|Neel point antiferromagnetic=, |Neel point antiferroelectric=, ...

And btw, I see Kelvin is commonly used. Is there any need to calculate & add C and F values (or expect C, F input)? -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, calculating the values for other temperature scales (similar to what we have for melting and boiling points) would be helpful. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you meant by "What possible explicit values are to be shown?". OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I still do not understand which physical quantity's you propose to add. For example, "Curie point" has multiple meanings. So why don't you just list all unambiguous, clear quantity values you want to add? Same for Neel points.

We will not "Add a temperature, and in the |Curie point comment= we'll explain what it means". No. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh that's simple, just the following:

• |Ferromagnetic Curie point=
• |Ferrimagnetic Curie point=
• |Ferroelectric Curie point=
• |Antiferromagnetic Néel point=
• |Antiferroelectric Néel point=

Plus associated parameters for unit conversions, notes, and references. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, all 99%. (1% deducted for your "that's simple" remark ;-) ) -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add "critical temperature" and "critical pressure"

For compounds that are commonly stored and/or used at elevated pressure, mostly stuff with boiling points below room temperature at one atmosphere, their critical temperatures and pressures are important properties. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

|BoilingPt_notes= would allow you to define the pressure of a boiling point. --Project Osprey (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Project Osprey: I not quite sure why that would be preferable over creating a new set of parameters. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox {{Chembox}} says in its footnote: "... at standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa)". Sure each data point could claim exception, because the source says 'different state', or -- as OP points to -- a different state is relevant for the specific article/chemical.

I don't have a solution (except of course giving each data point an uncontrolled comment option), but I'd like to hear how others prefer that "not-standard-state is relevant" situation. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, in the initial post I was explaining which compounds critical pressure and critical temperature are most relevant to, not talking about the properties of compounds under different conditions (although how to deal with when a "not-standard-state is relevant" is a topic that should be discussed, but in a new section, not this one). A compound's critical temperature is the temperature above which there is no clear distinction between liquid and gas, and likewise, a compound's critical pressure is the pressure above which there is no clear distinction between liquid and gas (see Critical point (thermodynamics) for more information). What I'm trying to do is to ask for the addition of two new parameters to the chembox, |Critical temperature= and |Critical pressure=. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Because it's already there? I'm not trying to be awkward, I just feel there should always be some critical scrutiny of new parameter requests. We can obviously create new fields without limit, however Chembox is currently used on ~10,000 pages and its worth questioning the appropriateness of new parameters if they're only going to be used in a very limited number of those. In this case, if something is routinely used/stored under a special set of conditions (e.g. as a supercritical fluid) then surely that's worth mentioning in the body of the article? Supercritical carbon dioxide has that information in the lead. --Project Osprey (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Oops, it is 'critical' as a defined property (not just 'where something is about to happen'). I get it. That is: 'critical point' for a substance is defined by a simple (P, T) set. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

re Project Osprey: I don't think we should add it as a boiling point comment (or melting point comment). Because that could be done in every {{chembox}}, which still does not solve the question: add it or not? As always, we're looking for a sound reason to include/exclude a data row, both in the template as per article.

Looks like carbon dioxide could use it, since Supercritical carbon dioxide is notable (has RL applications). If all CHEM editors can restrict themselves (only use the parameter when noteworthy), it would be a useful addition.

FYI, there are some 450 parameters now, plus 120 element symbols for the chemical formula. Technically not a problem (though we'd want a Lua base of course). Problem is: restriction. That requires a larger discussion, and currently I don't have the means to initiate that. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

More statistics. The subtemplates and their usage allow more analysis. There are ~112 'data block' subtemplates (eg, boiling point is a data block, which processes half a dozen input parameters). Over 10.200 articles, there are 145.000 transclusions so the average is ca. 14 data block per {{Chembox}} article. -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Add toughness

Fracture toughness (MPa·m^0.5) is an important physical property of a material, measuring how easily the material will chip, crack, or shatter. Measurements of it are increasingly becoming available (and consistent, with improved fracture propagation methods). Should it be added? Should the measurement method be specified? HLHJ (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

First I'd like to see its importance illustrated. Most convincing is several articles (chemicals) that actually have fracture toughness mentioned in their article body text After all, the infobox is supposed only to repeat info already in the article text. These would be chemicals where this value indeed is relevant e.g. in applications & design. -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Confusing style-setting

Category:Chemical infoboxes with style settings contains Methylammonium halide because a {{Chembox}} in that article contains a |style= field. But for Chlorophyll a and Chlorophyll b, the other two articles in that category, I don't see that field. Is there some other way this cat is triggered, or some sub-template that does...something? DMacks (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Chlorophyll a has |show_infobox_ref=no. The maintenance category is low in importance, and was introduced to keep some overview of, well, style settings (and yes I know, ref is not a style thing). -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that all makes sense. I came across it while browsing for a different chemical-articles maintenance category, and it had a few entries that really didn't need |style= (now fixed) and some that did. Those two did need chembox work, but I couldn't figure out the specific trigger. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: ungroup templates from this WikiProject

At the moment, this WikiProject Wikipedia:Chemical infobox aims to collectively maintain templates: {{Chembox}}, Wikipedia:Chemical infobox/Data page, maybe more. I propose to take {{Chembox}} out of this WikiProject, and maintain that one it by itself. It means giving {{Chembox}} its own talkpage Template talk:Chembox (now a Redirect to here).

Also this talkpage's /Archives should be moved there too, since most of their content is about {{Chembox}}.

Background: {{Chembox}} is the main (if not one and only) template being discussed on this page. I'v been maintaining that one for some years now, and don't see any advantage in this WP grouping. (Of course, in the early years it might have been different). On top of this, the temoplate that actually is being maintained in tandem with {{Chembox}} is {{Infobox drug}} because of its chemical data — {{Infobox drug}} is not in this WikiProject. -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Chemical infobox is not a wikiproject. Its an infomation page for the chemical infobox. This template is supported by the Wikiproject Chemistry and wikiproject Chemicals (just added, see top of this page). If I read you correct you want to move the page "Chemical infobox" to chembox. Why? The former name is more descriptive and a real word. Christian75 (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree, it is not a "Wikipedia:WikiProject" (just a "Wikipedia:" page).

Your description of the proposed move(s) is not correct.

What I propose is: change (move) this Talkpage (not its subject page) to Template talk:Chembox (now a Redirect). Intention is to give Template:Chembox its regular, own talkpage.

The page that's left behind (Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox, this page) can be a Redirect for some time (habits?), or can have its own content. /Archives could move too I suggest, because of their Chembox-related content.

I note that this Wikipage says in its introduction: "chemical infoboxes", plural. Anyway, it has not developed into the main goto-page (that is Chembox/documentation). While discussion {{Chembox}} is its main or only function already many years. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• I conclude: no objections. -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved DrStrauss talk 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Template:Chembox → Template:Infobox chemical – Move over redirect. Naming this an Infobox, which it is, looks more serious. Only other pages to follow: Template talk:Chembox, Template:Chembox/doc, all /doc subpages. (Not to be moved: subtemplates Category:Chembox templates) and true subpages by slash: Template:Chembox/, Template talk:Chembox/. (Not to be moved, and already excluded by the slash-lists: subtemplates by Chembox<space>, e.g. see Category:Chembox templates). Nothing will be broken, no article edits required, Redirects are cheap. DePiep (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Specified better list of pages, complete and systematically now. -DePiep (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

personally totally indifferent to this one I don't see it as an issue either way. EvilxFish (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

My point exactly, WP:NOTBROKEN. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Must say, Beetstra, I did not check CheMoBot effects. I only expect (ouch!) no bad effects. Because: new name {{Infobox chemical}} is covered already. Please check. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Chemobot will cope, it understands redirects. But that is not why I oppose, ‘infobox xxx’ is way less intuitive than ‘xxxxbox’, even if that is the convention, it has been a bad decision. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

re WP:NOTBROKEN Beetstra mentions. That guideline states that one should not change a link just to bypass a redirect. So in this case, we should not change, in the articles, {{Chembox| ...}} into {{Infobox chemical| ...}}. Which edits already are, correctly, explicitly excluded in the proposal ("no article edits required"). -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@DePiep: I see now that that redirect does not go where I expected it to go .. I guess that the essay WP:DONTFIXIT is closer to what I mean - I still don't think that having {{chembox}} at {{chembox}} is fine and doesn't break anything that is worth fixing - I don't see any benefits in having it at {{infobox chemical}} (as with many other boxes) and that that there are only purely bureaucratic motivations to move it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Got it. Well, this is not to "fix" anything at all. It is an improvement. {{Infobox chemical}} is a better, descriptive name, less insiders-code or shortcutting, and is more serious (professional if you like). {{Drugbox}} did this in 2013, {{RailGauge}} in 2014. Meanwhile, old habits will not be invalidated. -DePiep (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't see how it is an improvement per sé, hence still oppose. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The per sé improvement is in the name change: "Chembox" into "Infobox chemical", supported by a Redirect. -DePiep (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Templates using "Infobox..." titles are almost always built on code from {{Infobox}}. Chembox does not use Infobox code, although the documentation notes that it may be a candidate for conversion. Would support if Chembox were converted to use Infobox code. I think it's helpful to have template titles reflect whether or not Infobox code is being used. This came up a few months ago for {{Taxobox}}, which is also does not use Infobox code (although there was no formal RM). Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  No. Already today, {{Chembox}} has code class=infobox, and confirms MOS:INFOBOX. Using Lua is not a requirement in any way. -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  There was a time, likely before your participation here, when no infoboxes used a meta template. T'was a dark time, full of curious and usually frightful experimentation. I occasionally bump into such templates, and indeed, it scares and pains me to convert them. Your argument also begs the question: Why doesn't this template use the core infobox template? :) That said, I agree here with DePiep that the only question of interest is whether it is used as an infobox; such a question can only be answered in the affirmative. --Izno (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  re Izno (OT:): So far, I've not com to code it (or anyone else), it would be a big enterprise. There are 570 parameters (including 118 element symbols), but simple one-on-one encoding would make no good maintainable code I guess. A lot, like |CASNo=, are indexed. We might want to keep some in parallel with {{Infobox drug}}. Best keep an eye on i18n (transportable to other wikis), and use of Wikidata. And in the end, a bot might be involved, or multi-template child-like application is required for the Sections. That's all ;-). There is a good side to it: all these years, {{Chembox}} has been capable of adding and refining parameters after a talk, and a parameter namecheck is active. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per Plantdrew and because if the sub-pages are not moved then we will end up with two naming standard in the same template. (Chembox depends on sup-templates a lot - also directly used in the articles). Christian75 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  No. For #1, see my reply to Plantdrew. For #2: there will be no tech issues with the subtemplates and redirects, I already described. As you know, I maintain & edit & improve these 150 subtemplates for some five years. It's about time you start trusting me in this, or otherwise ask an open question. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  I do not agree about. #2 People will start using the new name for the template in the articles, and we end up with two differnent names in the "same" template, like {{infobox chemical|...|Section8={{Chembox Identifiers|...}}}}. 150 sub-templates says everything. Christian75 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  No. No issues ({{Drugbox}} already works this way for years). There are those subtemplates, that is: not exposed to editors. {{Chembox Identifiers}} unchanged. etc, etc. But hey, again: why do you "oppose", instead of "question"? -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  {{Chembox Identifiers}} is exposed to the editors - thats the whole point. Drugbox may have some "hidden" templates elsewhere but the editor will not see them. Christian75 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  For those we can create redirect {{Infobox chemical identifiers}}. Is not part of the proposal. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  And lose more customer friendliness towards n00b editors. I still do not see any benefit in the bureaucratic rename to be in line with other infoboxes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

  I don't understand. What would be the extra load to n00bs? These Redirects would be added, and so free to use, while existing names remain. -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Because people are starting to use it, and they see it in the edit window. Then the {{infobox chemical}} on a page, containing an old {{chembox identifiers}}, will get data added resulting in addition of a {{infobox chemical hazards}}, or editors, not finding the {{infobox chemical identifiers}} in said {{infobox chemical}} will add the {{infobox chemical identifiers}} next to the {{chembox identifiers}} .. etc. etc. All adding to the confusion. I don't see how it improves (really), I only see how it makes editing more difficult for those who are already not known with infoboxes/templates. The structure of {{chembox}} does not allow this to be implemented, except through a cold turkey moving all the templates without redirect and making a move in mainspace (which will annoy a lot of regulars). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this is between you two, Beetstra and Christian75. There is no requirement to rename the nine section subtemplates, we can keep them {{Chembox Identifiers}} as documented (and the remaining ~141 are not im frage at all). Now first Christian75 claims they should be renamed/redirected, after which Beetstra claims that would cause problems. Well: then let's not rename/redirect them — solved. Actually, the name is not that problematic for editors, it's the section structure itself, of course. BTW, concluding that the structure does "not allow this" is way too strong, or simply wrong. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

But then we would still have the illogical (and in my opinion confusing) systematic naming difference between the box itself and its subboxes. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Now this I call bureaucratic hairsplitting over a non-issue that is not in the proposal. It is also grossly underestimating our editor's capacity to understand and work with a sensible redirect; {{Chembox}} editors are continuously handling more serious hurdles. -DePiep (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose this would create a huge mess that may take a decade to resolve. The system just works as it stands. If it is changed many of us will no longer be able to use it. Noobs will see no advantage as they can just use the visual editor and fill the form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett Please explain what "mess" you foresee (and I do not). I already mentioned {{Drugbox}} and {{RailGauge}} as existing, similar viable move. The advantage Noobs (all editors) see is that the name is more descriptive and has wiki pattern, instead of some insiders jargon shortcut code. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The untidiness will be that there is a mixture of templates being used for the same thing. Better to stick with what we have already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, it's about single name change only, into a sensible name, covered by Redirect. Did you take a look at the examples I mentioned? -DePiep (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

• General note: already today {{Infobox chemical}} is a redirect and can be used instead of the name {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  • And I already considered to Discuss its deletion/turning it into a soft redirect (so that it can’t be transcluded). Since there is no support (yet) for the move, I think that that may be a better solution to avoid any confusion between naming of main infobox and subboxes. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no confusion, except the one you keep introducing. One time you say "Chembox names are good", next time you say that "Chembox subtemplate names are confusing". You are underestimating our editors, and even speaking paternalistically for them. -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

European drug licence: improved EMA link

EMA is the European institute that does the licencing of drugs (as FDA does for US). In section Pharmacology, I've updated the licence link, now leading to the EMApage searched by the drug's INN. It follows {{Infobox drug}} in this: same data handdling, same link target, same tracking Category:Drug has EMA link. Some 20 {{Chembox}} articles can have this link (having licence report(s) in the EMA page).

Licence parameters:

{{Chembox Pharmacology
| Licence_EU=yes<!-- required, to show the data row -->
| INN=<!-- optional, if other than PAGENAME -->
| INN_EMA=<!-- optional, if searchword differs from formal INN -->

| Licence_US=<!-- unchanged -->
| DailyMedID=<!-- unchanged -->
<!-- also accepted parameter spelling: "License" (with -s-) -->
}}

Example: Ataluren. There is no check on existence of actual data in the link (should be checked by the editor). -DePiep (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Images reorganisation

Chembox images ordering
row 1	ImageFile
row 2	ImageFile1
row 3	ImageFileL1	ImageFileR1
row 4	ImageFile2
row 5	ImageFileL2	ImageFileR2
row 6	ImageFile3
row 7	ImageFileL3	ImageFileR3
row 8	ImageFileL4	ImageFileR4
row 9	ImageFile4

I have reorganised the Chembox images into a more rational set. Changes:

• Image4, ImageL4, ImageR4 and their parameters have been removed from code. They are unused, and having over 10 images in an infobox would hardly be a good idea anyway.

I have tracked those images, and edited them out (into lower Image numbers, without changing the appearance). Some 18 parameters have gone from {{Chembox}} (talk).

• Swapped Image rows 4 and 5. Image2, ImageL2+ImageR2 now have regular order (single-image goes first). The editor does not meet irregular appearances. The order is:

Images are shown by their number order: "0"-1-2-3.

When both Image1 and pair ImageL1,R1 are used, the single-image shows above the pair. This is valid for all numbers 1-2-3.

• Added |ImageCaptionLR1= for the image pairs, to allow a caption under both images. See Periodic acid.

-DePiep (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference position

Methylcyclohexane

Hazards
Occupational safety and health (OHS/OSH):
Main hazards	severe fire hazard
Flash point	−4 °C (25 °F; 269 K)
Autoignition temperature	283 °C (541 °F; 556 K)
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa). Infobox references

For certain fields, particularly ones involving a temperature conversion, adding in-line citations causes formatting issues (see right). Can this be easily corrected? --Project Osprey (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You can use |FlashPt_ref = <ref>...<ref/> etc. in the four temp fields (melt, boil, flash, auto). Added in demo.

Any other calculating fields with this, outside of the four temperature ones? -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't spot those fields, I don't often add data Flash Point data. No other issues that I'm aware of--Project Osprey (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Parameters "style-left-column-width" and "data page pagename"

I've just filled out the TemplateData for this template. Two parameters puzzled me: "style-left-column-width" and "data page pagename". "style-left-column-width" doesn't appear to do anything, but it's documented. (It appears in a couple of places in the source but doesn't seem to be actually used; instead "40%" is passed to {{Chembox footer}}). "data page pagename" does appear to do something:

 ----- SUPPLEMENT ----- -->
{{#ifexist:{{{data page pagename|{{FULLPAGENAME}} (data page)}}}
| {{Chembox Supplement | _data page pagename={{{data page pagename|{{FULLPAGENAME}} (data page)}}}}}
}}

But it doesn't appear in the list of acceptable parameters passed to Module:TemplatePar. Has "style-left-column-width" been disabled permanently? If so, should it be removed from the documentation? And is "data page pagename" something that should be documented and passed to TemplatePar, or is it still experimental? Many thanks, User:GKFX^talk 18:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the templatedata.

|style-left-column-width=: was introduced years ago to set the width of the lefthand column (where the labels are). This being a wikitable infobox, that column width is set in the footer (a section that is always present), default is 40%. Back then, doing a redesign of the table, it was not clear if any setting was needed (it appears: no). So, research wrt removal could be initiated. IIRC, any setting would list the article in Category:Chemical infoboxes with style settings.

|data page pagename=: IIRC, added for documentation purposes only. So: to illustrate in the /doc what happens when an actual data page like Ammonia (data page) exists (clearly, in a /doc page the automated check for "PAGENAME (data page)" does not work). Since it is not intended for mainspace, it is not listed for TemplatePar (so will cause that error when used in mainspace). -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Nothing appears to use style-left-column-width, so I've gone ahead and removed it from Template:Chembox/doc/parameter list for now. Re |data page pagename=, what about Properties of water/Water (data page)? The chembox needs the parameter in order to notice the data page. (It doesn't currently have the parameter.) 1-Propanol/Propan-1-ol (data page) also appears to be suffering from the same problem. Perhaps this parameter should be on the approved list? User:GKFX^talk 11:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

•  Done

|style-left-column-width= removed from code. Lefthand column fixed at 40%.

|data page pagename= now can be used in mainspace. These parent articles too will be added to Category:Chemical articles having a data page (If you want me to search for those irregular datapage names, let me know). - DePiep (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Used in Properties of water [2]. (|data pagepage name= to be added in the top {{Chembox}} paart, with the image & name parameters). -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

ChEMBL is invisible

Although I have been adding ChEMBL parameters to chemboxes, it does not show up on the output. It seems to work on drugbox. Is there a reason for this? If not can be be revealed? Perhaps this is to do with Template:Chembox ChEMBL/format missing something. Possibly this edit stopped it working: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Chembox_ChEMBL/format&diff=next&oldid=713876231 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed Subtemplate was updated with wrong sandbox (-code). Come back if you see any issues. Thanks for the report. - DePiep (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

That worked, thank you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

3DMet data discussed

The validity of the 3DMet data is discussed here at WT:CHEMICALS. PLease discuss there. Some 120 substances are affected. -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

{Chembox Structure}: 'Point group' target link change

Per proposal by Yilloslime: In section {{Chembox Structure}} LH text "Point group" now wikilinks to Molecular symmetry. - DePiep (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for taking my suggestion! Yilloslime ^T_C 21:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Some 70 {{Chembox}} articles affected. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

See [3]. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Swap {{keypress}} with {{button}}

Replace {{keypress|Preview}} and {{keypress|Save}} with {{button|{{int:showchanges}}}}{{button|{{int:showpreview}}}} and {{button|{{int:publishchanges}}}} on Template:Chembox templatePar/formatPreviewMessage. There's no "Save" key on my keyboard and Legal wants to standardize on Publish changes. — Dispenser 04:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC) Use showpreview. —12:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Postponed. Dispenser, the first one shows: ⧼showchanges⧽: text looks like ⟨showchanges⟩ here with me. Is that OK? BTW, could you give a link to the WP-page for the <code>{{int:...}}</code> construct? -DePiep (talk)

Maybe it should be showdiff instead of showchanges? This Show changes looks right. DMacks (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Done. -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

DMacks: could do, but Showdiff is not exactly Preview, especially not to the editor in this case (and probably not for "Legal" either ;-) ). Will research this further (getting to learn the options & the int:-construct). Current version is OK enough for you? -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done, and adjusted the message [4]. - DePiep (talk) 08:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Oops. Try showpreview (Show preview). I was looking for the closes to Dispenser's, not closest to what was right in context:( DMacks (talk) 08:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, gGood to know (where did you find them?). Can you agree with current version though? (e.g. try an error in section Identifiers Carbon monoxide). Similar in {{Infobox drug}}. - DePiep (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You can see interface message keys by using the qqx pseudo-language code. I simply mistyped the key before going to bed. {{black}} should be unnecessary, I'll look into fixing {{button}} as an accessibility issue. — Dispenser 12:19, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, will see. I preferred not to see a red (errorclass) button text. Found more info at VPT. - DePiep (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Special:Diff/830042205 for {{button}}: Foreground color is now specified as black instead inherited from parent element. — Dispenser 13:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

JSmol bad 3D rendering of molecule

Here is a discussion about the JSmol 3D interactive models that do not show right. Only 3 examples so far. - DePiep (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Indexing to EC_number

Can this box index EINECS / EC_number so that we have multiple of them? When other parameters like CASNo and PubChem need to be indexed with multiple entries, usually there will be multiple EC_numbers. So then we could use EC_number1 = ; EC_number2= etc. The last time I wanted this was for Sodium metasilicate which has a pentahydrate, and a nonahydrate, as well as anhydrous form. The change would be in Chembox Identifiers. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: OK, I will work on this (may take some days). To be complete, these are the identifiers not indexed today:

| 3DMet = 
| Abbreviations = 
| Beilstein = 
| EC_number = 
| Gmelin = 
| MeSHName =
| RTECS = 
| UNNumber =

Chembox Identifiers: to index?
Current As is, 2018-05-28					Proposal (evolving)
Parameter	Example (formatted)	Usage	Note		Add index?		Note
3DMet	B00004	107			Y
Abbreviations	CPVC, PVC-C	378	(example)		?		See #below
Beilstein	3587154	516			?
EC_number/EINECS*	231-635-3	440+1795			Y
Gmelin	79	284			?
MeSHName	Ammonia	1081			?
RTECS	BO0875000	1131			Y
UNNumber	1005	556			N	Multiple UNNumbers per single compound =/= index(!)	Freetext. Enter simple list: |UNNumber=123, 456, 678
QID	Q4087	0 (new)	Wikidata		Y?	QID=Wikidata item identifier	See #Add QID?

* EC_number/EINECS are synonyms as parameters (both can be used).

"Freetext": text will show as entered, no formatting by {{Chembox}} (as opposed to: formatted, e.g. linking to a website)

Documentation for index: see /doc (|CASNo= is basic example), article linalool.

Each index formattedparameter has a |_Comment= option: (like |CASNo1_Comment=). Not needed for freetext parameters.

When a parameter |Xyz= is indexed, parameter |XyzOther= will be available for freetext, last item in its list (like |CASNoOther=)

Discussion

• Q1: Any other ID's we should reasonably index?

And Q2: move |Abbreviations= into the Names section (above the Identifiers section)? (moved into subsection below). - DePiep (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Q1 RTECS also should be indexed eg https://www.cdc.gov/niosh-rtecs/TPAAE60.html vs https://www.cdc.gov/niosh-rtecs/MG2402C0.html vs https://www.cdc.gov/niosh-rtecs/WS699740.html for hydration variants of calcium sulfate. UNNumbers do not appear to be used in a way that needs indexing, but multiple of them may apply per substance. 3DMet probably needs to be indexed too, but we only have about 1% coverage so far. Another thing to index is Wikidata reference. Often there are multiple wikidata entries applicable to one Wikipedia article. But you can only add one to wikidata. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Q2 I think you are right, Abbreviations makes more sense as a name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

PS, once you work out the exact text for the changes on the templates, I can make them for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• OK, I have added the table to keep track (the table will be updated). So far: to be indexed |3DMet, EC_number/EINECS, RTECS=. 3DMet has little use, but we can keep up the principle for free. Would it be a problem to not index |EINECS= (index |EC_number= only)?

re QID (Wikidata links): adding QID needs a discussion, because many editors here are not automatically enthousiastic wrt Wikidata. I will add a proposal. If QID is added, sure it should be indexed.

re |Beilsten, Gmelin, MeSHName=: need more info. - DePiep (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that Beilsten and Gmelin are parameters that should be indexed, but because it is in a closed access system it is not so easy to tell. EINECS is not big deal not to index as it is just an alias for EC_Number. I use it sometimes, but I prefer to use EC_Number. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The WikiData links in infoboxes are waiting for a closure of an RfC, I would await the decision there before implementing such functionality. Indexing is a good thing I think. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:12, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you link to that RfC? Anyway, adding QID (Wikidata) to {{Chembox}} is a different issue. I started #Add QID?. -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Now thinking about it, maybe it is more informative to 'sub' this? Instead of 'CAS1 for A', 'CAS2 for B', 'Chemspider for A', 'Chemspider for B' ..., do a 'for A: CAS, Chemspider'; 'for B: CAS, Chemspider'? Now we could do a 'CAS1 for A', 'CAS2 for B', 'Chemspider for B', 'Chemspider for A' .. which is to be avoided as it would lead to confusion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

"sub" as in make a subsection with each set of related parameters? That sounds OK, and clearer for editors, but then we would have about 4 different ways to do it instead of 3 (use sub section, use indexname, use name on the multiple parameter, multiple chembox identifiers). So it could get pretty confusing inside the template. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Yeah we all want this! (linalool chem infobox having section headers: basic, R, S). But linalool is a perfect example ;-). What with fuzzy compounds? Please reopen this talk elsewhereno need. - DePiep (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I must correct myself: we can do the grouping as suggested, within section "Identifiers" (theoretically at least; might involve heavy coding). However, lots of indexed Chemboxes do not have all identifiers indexed. Those would yield a large list for the first compound (the "CasNo" set), and then sections with only indexed values (compound index-1 section, compound index-2 section). I think this could be confusing for the reader, in understanding which general value applies to a compound ("does an ID in top also apply to compound 1?"). (Time to make an example ;-) ).

There is an other option: one can reuse the Identifiers section (I do not like):

{{Chembox
| Image =
|Section1={{Chembox Identifiers
 |CASNo=...}}
|Section2={{Chembox Identifiers
 |CASNo=...}}
}}

Today this would work (thanks to the modular SectionN setup), but I don't like it because it allows multiple parameters with the same name (repetition of |CASNo=). Any change into a modern {{Infobox}} would be hindered by this. - DePiep (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I was pondering that construction within the identifiers module, nest in a deeper box. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The multiple "Chembox Identifiers" is just a work around, and it would make it had for an automated process to deal with the info. Beetstra's deeper box sounds better. We could still display it the same way as now, with the parameters grouped, just allow an input in the Chembox Identifiers to be split into sections. Chembox Structure is also one that might have multiples, with substances having different forms at different temperatures or pressures. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I have added indexed 3DMet's to linalool, so yes please index 3DMet as there are different entries for (-) and (+) forms. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Move Abbreviations into the Names section?

Split, is a different, unrelated topic. -DePiep (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• And Q2: move |Abbreviations= into the Names section (above the Identifiers section)? - DePiep (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Q2 I think you are right, Abbreviations makes more sense as a name. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Restart. These are the options, given the current {{Chembox}} section structure:

1. When in |Section1={{Chembox Identifiers}} (today), a parameter can be indexed and use index settings (like reuse of prefixes, see linalool).
2. (Change) When moved to top section "Names", the indexes can not be reused. That is: it is nicely below the images and together with all other names like IUPACName=, SystematicName=, OtherNames= in outer {{Chembox}}; but it cannot use the indexes.
3. (Today) Since most names are free input (will show unedited), one can add an abbr to any name entered. Many image captions do this.

BTW, 378 articles are using |Abbreviation= ([5]).

To consider: as a principle, abbreviations should go with the names (and very close to the name it is about). Also, this is usually possible today (per #3). OTOH, when left in the Identifiers section, they can use indexes (when decided so in this parent thread).

(This is confusing, but it stems from the legacy that abbr's are not with the other names). - DePiep (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually thought that abbreviations and synonyms and others were in the body of the infobox. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

See CPVC re abbreviations. {{Chembox}} does not have |synonyms=. Now what shall we do with the abbr's? "I actually thought..." is not a really helpful input IMO. - DePiep (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It then should be moved to the body (‘names section’). Most abbrevs are not identifiers. I really recall that they were in the body, or that we discussed this before. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll take a look at them (~380 articles using Abbrev) to see if there are unexpected situations. Then make a specific proposal (moving to Names section will require an article edit). Yes it was discussed before, but I don't think it was in the body ever. - DePiep (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Add QID (Wikidata) as Identifier & external link

Opened as a placeholder/anchor. My only point is: it deserves a separate discussion - DePiep (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• From here: "let's add QID's for indexed compounds". Question now is: add QID at all?

Please understand: for now, a lightning rod (to unburden #Indexing to EC_number). - DePiep (talk)

Put this request on hold until Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC is closed. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That RfC is about infobox pulling data from Wikidata. This question is about adding Wikidata as an external link (showing like: d:Q4087; no data is imported). -DePiep (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ELNO#1 IMO applies Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I requested this for indexed entries, with the QID being indexed. The reason is that Wikidata supports one en.Wikipedia page per wikidata item. I don't know how it can do several pages, or how severval wikidata items can point to one English page. So I am suggesting that we add these links where there are multiple wikidata items for a Chembox. It does not even have to display at this point, and may be it could just be an obscure symbol. But displaying will be more useful to enable access to the multiple wikidata pages. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiData QID is in the tools. It is not an identifier for chemicals, and an unreliable source. WikiData is not an authority on chemicals either, and being an unreliable source should not be used to identfy chemicals. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The idea is that we then go and fix it based on the reliable info we have, it's not an identifier, but does store identifiers. I would like to see mechanisms to identify discrepancies between wikidata and infoboxes — perhaps it exists already. If we can get wikidata right, then all the other languages can use the correct info easily. I am worried about using wikidata, but perhaps if there is wikidata values for things missing in our chem box we can will it with yellow or something only visible in preview; so that editors can see there might be something missed. If the wikidata does not match the chembox, we could add a special symbol to indicate difference eg "≠" "💀" "☣" "☢" "☠" or "ϟ" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The detection of differences is fine, {{twitter}} categorizes on that, e.g. I am too worried about the reliability of WD itself, and have seen too many problems that I am square against transclusion of their data until they adapt their datamodel drastically. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We have, on en.wikipedia iself, sometimes problems to figure out the right link between compound and identifier. We’ve tried it. We can do it, but not on WD, or how we do it currently. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So, by now we agree that we shall not provide a WD link as an external link (Ammonia d:Q4087).

We could use the QID for analysis & checking WD data: compare a local value with the WD value (e.g., melting point or CAS Number). When article = compound then the QID is available by default. If not, or {{Chembox}} has multiple compounds (indexes), we must add the QID(s). Such analysis shall be invisible in content space, but may add hidden categories or may show messages in Preview. Note that each parameter (m.p., CASNo) would have a category.

Technically, this would add lots of code to the template, maybe we should limit the parameters to check. Also, when QID is added, it must be added to each Section template ({{Chembox Identifiers}}, {{Chembox Properties}}, ...). This would be easier when the template is made a modern {{Infobox}}.

My question is: shall we put effort in this? - DePiep (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Well the QID parameter already seems to be there as an indexed thing, even if it displays nothing. This will do to record the wikidata page for bots and crawlers that need it. Having to put this in several different template sounds like it is not worth doing. I mentioned wikidata because of the lack of one-to-one relationship to Wikipedia. When it comes to other properties (Chembox Properties), eg melting point, there could be many different measured values with different references, so making this a bit incomparable. Then it would need a sanity check to see how likely they match. I don't think that is worth doing in the template at all - leave that to data matching processes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 3 June 2018

Please replace all code in Template:Chembox Properties with current code in Template:Chembox Properties/sandbox. Effect: two parameters are added, per discussion: #Two_suggested_parameters. Testcases are here. DePiep (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Add id parameter 'Reaxys'?

In Acid fuchsin, Graeme Bartlett has added a value for |Reaxys=13196402. At the moment, this parameter does not exist (and so does not show). Shall we add it?

If yes: 1. index it?, 2. LH label looks like Reaxys?, RH side links to some meaningful [6] subpage?

OTOH, it looks like a non-free (Elsevier) website. What would be the benefit? Wikidata does not have such an WD property link for d:Q1530562 (no P1687). - DePiep (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I add: Just thinking, is Reaxyx the only ID for identification in the Elsevier database? No redundant ID like CAS Number, ChEMBI, ..., for that same Elsevier page? - DePiep (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:ELREG: better not link to subscription sites. Note that this EL would not be a source for a statement, but an EL to go to. - DePiep (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the point. CAS numbers are widely used by third parties (e.g., chemical vendors and independent databases). As far as I know, Reaxyx registration numbers are not. Boghog (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The Reaxys number seems to be the same as Beilstein number, if that exists. Sometimes I have added Reaxys where there is no Beilstein number. But I do not know if it is any use to anyone. I cannot use it for anything myself. I was thinking that I would comment all those additions of reaxys off. Instead of this there are other ids that are used quite a bit like NSC Number (database of handling instructions from ILO), SCHEMBL (patents for the substance) and ZINC, but I am not asking for them, because I don't know that they are useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

FYI, today these articles have the Reaxys non-parameter: Acid fuchsin, Arecatannin B1, Azo violet, Benzo(c)phenanthrene. They are listed in Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox. I suggest to leave them untouched until this thread closes. (No effect, no harm in visible article page). - DePiep (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• I am confused. Reading Beilstein database: "The Beilstein content made available through Reaxys is complemented by information drawn from Gmelin (which gives access to the Gmelin Database)".

@Graeme Bartlett: "Sometimes I have added Reaxys where there is no Beilstein number": in these situations, useful. - DePiep (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This proposal now makes slightly more sense. The Beilstein database has morphed into the Reaxys database. Essentially Beilstein registration numbers have become Reaxys registration numbers. However this does not fundamentally change things. Neither Beilstein nor Reaxys registration numbers have been widely used outside of the databases that created them. Hence I question the need for a Beilstein / Reaxys parameter. Boghog (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

In which case we could deprecate Beilstein numbers, or not show them. The problem is that if the parameters are available to use and the information can be found, then people like me may add them to the Chembox. But if they are useless then there no need and we should discourage their inclusion. Beetstra added the capability for Beilstein= in February 2007 over 11 years ago. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2018 (UTC){

I can agree: irrelevant when only used within their own database (not meaningfully used outside as an identifier). Same for Gmelin then. On top of this: Reaxys/Beilstein/Gmelin is a subscription database, already noted as a reason to not link per WP:ELREG. Would like to hear from {U|Beetstra}}.

"Deprecation" would mean: right away do not show any more in articles (template change) and remove from documentation; and over time removal from article source code. Invisible parameters are not maintained, and so cannot be trusted (we should not leave them as 'sleeping data, possible in future relevant'). Usage 2018-05-01: B: 516, G: 284 [7]. - DePiep (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Fix ping to Beetstra Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Two suggested parameters

I think that parameters for conjugate acid and conjugate base should be added to the infobox. I think that it would be a good idea for them only to be used when the conjugate has a separate article. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 02:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Could be linked to our parameters for pKa/pKb, and only link if target exists (otherwise just display). Useful info even if target article does not exist, but should not redlink. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Do I understand: add |Conjugate_base=, |Conjugate_acid=. LH label is Conjugate acid? Below which datarow should it appear? What is "Could be linked to pKa/pKa"? We can link automatically when the article exists, but maybe better to leave that to the editor: add wikilink in input like |Conjugate_base=[[Chlorite]] for flexibilitdefay (e.g. pipe the link). - DePiep (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarified, I hope, in my previous post. The auto-link has as advantage that creation leads to linking without having to edit. OTOH your proposal could lead to redlinks. But your proposal does make sense, not straightforward. —Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarified, I hope, in my previous post: no, not clarified. That is why I posted some five questions with question marks. I am not familiar with the core chemistry and I would be happy to add this, but please be specific. - DePiep (talk)-DePiep (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to use what I have in mind for the page for water's chemical properties as an example of what I mean.

Vapor pressure	3.1690 kilopascals or 0.031276 atm
Acidity (pKa)	13.995
Basicity (pKb)	13.995
Conjugate acid	Hydronium
Conjugate base	Hydroxide
Thermal conductivity	0.6065 W/(m·K)
Refractive index (nD)	1.3330 (20 °C)
Viscosity	0.890 cP

Obviously, partially disassociated conjugates of polyprotonic acids like hydronium and sulfuric acid are going to require us to use both Conjugate_acid and Conjugate_base. sign: User:The Nth User

References

• @The Nth User: See Template:Chembox/testcases9#Conjugate_acid,_base. Parameter names are |ConjugateAcid=, |ConjugateBase=. OK? -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Yes; exactly like that. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 21:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done - DePiep (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: I tried to add the ConjugateBase parameter to hydronium's page, and it messed up the entire table. Is this an error in the coding or the usage? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 16:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

a second closing "]" was missing. I am on mobile, so its hard to edit. Pls rv again and add the ]. DePiep (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Jsmol 3D Model in Infobox?

Surely there is a way to embed the Jsmol 3D model into the infobox; if so this would greatly improve the infobox's quality, as well as usefulness. Alas, I have not the expertise to complete such a task, were another willing to undergo the task I would highly recommend they do so. Julien Cameron (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no way to actually embed the JSmol applet in the infobox. There are wiki extensions for it, but not installed on the Wikimedia hosted sites. But instead, there is a link to open it hosted on a third-party site, which has been part of the Chembox for many years. Just look at almost any chemical article, where there is a "3D model (JSmol)" with an "Interactive image" link. But it's not obvious from looking at the template, because the link is automatically generated in most cases based on giving a SMILES string. DMacks (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Heat of combustion

Is the standard heat of combustion the "low value" or the "high value"? This should be clearly stated. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Checking
{{Chembox Thermochemistry}}
parameters

Thermochemistry
Heat capacity (C)	HeatCapacity= (wl)
Std molar entropy (S⦵298)	Entropy= (wl)
Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298)	DeltaHf= (wl)
Gibbs free energy (ΔfG⦵)	DeltaGf= (wl)
Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298)	Hc
Heat of combustion, higher value (HHV)	Hc-high
Heat of combustion, lower value (LHV)	Hc-low

Hi Eric Kvaalen. About the {{Chembox}} implementation of this value (whatever it is meant to be). I have constructed the thermo-section of {{Chembox}}, with parameter etc showing (see righthand side). Could you confirm that your question is about |DeltaHc=?

Statistics: |DeltaHc= is used in ~360 articles: [8]. All Chembox Thermo articles ~690: [9].

I will follow this topic here, and adjust {{Chembox}} accordingly.

DePiep (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Yes, I'm talkin' about DeltaHc. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Have you done anything on this yet? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Eric Kvaalen: no, I am waiting for a result (answer) to your opening question. I cannot answer it myself, I don't know the topic. Once clarified what is should be, I will gladly implement any changes in the template. - DePiep (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Well, I don't think there is an answer. Nobody ever said, so it's undefined. I suggest we add two new parameters, called perhaps DeltaHch and DeltaHcl, which would be the "higher" and the "lower" heat of combustion. We should leave the existing DeltaHc because it has already been used for many substances. But by adding these two new ones people will henceforth have the ability to specify which heat of combustion they are giving. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

|DeltaHc= is used in some 200 articles [10], [11]. -DePiep (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

See the demo: I have added HHV and LHV. The abbreviations could be different, there are options. Parameters be |DeltaHc_high= and |DeltaHc_low= (for ease of recognising). Please take a good look and comment for improvments (lefthand text, target link, abbreviation, also for the standard Hc that is already there). - DePiep (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Eric Kvaalen, OK then? - DePiep (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Yes, I think it's fine. Thanks a lot! Let me know when it's implemented, please. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes. -DePiep (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Eric Kvaalen. Added |DeltaHc_high=, |DeltaHc_low=. Please come back here if there are any questions. - DePiep (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Sorry to be saying this only now, but I just realized there's a contradiction between the names of the parameters that I suggested and the text. "DeltaHc" (whether higher or lower) is negative (enthalpy goes down during the reaction and subsequent re-cooling to room temperature), but "heat of combustion" is a positive quantity — it's the opposite of the ΔH. I think we should go with the positive number and keep the labels "heat of combustion, higher value" and "heat of combustion, lower value". But we should change the names of the parameters. Maybe just HHV and LHV. We should make this change before people start using "DeltaHc_high" and "DeltaHc_low", because people might put in the negative values. (I did myself, for glucose, and now I realize that it's a problem.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, will change that. No problem if old parameter names are used, they appear in Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox for cleanup afterwards (you can start editing using the old parameter names). -DePiep (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

Please copy all code from Template:Chembox Thermochemistry/sandbox into Template:Chembox Thermochemistry (diff sandbox).

Change: Parameters |DeltaHc_high=, |DeltaHc_low= added. Test is in Template:Chembox/testcases6#Thermo.

Discussed at Template_talk:Chembox#Heat_of_combustion. DePiep (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Cabayi (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 July 2018

Please copy all code from Template:Chembox Thermochemistry/sandbox into Template:Chembox Thermochemistry (diff sandbox).

Change: per follow up talk here, recently added parameters |DeltaHc_high=, |DeltaHc_low= are to be renamed, into: |HHV=, |LHV=. Test is in Template:Chembox/testcases6#Thermo. DePiep (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DePiep, Eric Kvaalen, the outcome of a discussion ought to last longer than 20 hours. What steps have you taken to check whether the new..., the old new parameters have been used already? If they have, then this is a breaking change. Cabayi (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Cabayi: reading the correction post by Kvaalen [12], it is clear that this is a complicated matter. I can understand that the best setup was not thought of at first instance. To me this is just a soft bug discovered after deployment, no big deal. As for the deprecated parameters being used: the template does a parameter name check, so that these articles will be listed in Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox for maintenance. -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Cabayi: Really sorry I didn't think of this when I proposed the names starting with DeltaH. It's quite likely that I'm the only one to have used one of the new parameters (I used DeltaHc_high in Glucose), since very little time has passed. I will fix the Glucose article as soon as the new parameter names are implemented. ````

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Specific heat capacity

I think that specific heat capacity, which is what this template lists, should only be measured on a per-unit-mass basis? That's what "specific" means, right? The quantity measured in J/K mol (to take the carbon monoxide example) is molar heat capacity. What to do? We could correct all the values given so that they are per mole (pretty easy, just divide by molar mass) or maybe drop the "specific" work, call it simply "heat capacity" and let the units identify the exact definition of heat capacity (molar, specific, whatever). Ewen (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

DSD data but no GHS data

DSD/DPD data may be removed on 1 June 2017 when re-labelling and re-packaging of products already on the market has to be done. This, however, will lead to a loss of hazard and safety information. There are currently 934 articles with DSD data but without GHS data: hastemplate:Chembox -insource:/\| *HPhrases *= *\{/ insource:/\| *RPhrases *= *\{/
For several of these articles, information may get imported from de.wikipedia, especially from the 1384 articles with harmonised classification and labelling data incl. a link to the C&L inventory. --Leyo 13:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the 'translation' from DSD into GHS? Or is it a different property? I don't get the relation. I mean, if DSD has to be removed on June 1, that is no loss right? -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Do the lead section of CLP Regulation and Template:Chembox Hazards answer your questions? --Leyo 14:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

That's a nice introduction. But you are giving me homework ;-), figuring out which changes (edits) to do. What I'm missing is a description of what to change in the {{Chembox}}, and in the individual articles. Let me try. When DSD is gone, we

1. Remove |EUClass= from the infobox (like {{Hazchem T}})
2. Use |GHSPictograms= (like {{GHSp|GHS04}})
3. Use |HPhrases=, |RPhrases=, |PPhrases=, |SPhrases=
4. The 1384 articles from de:wiki can be used to copy data from.

Is this it? -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Almost. To be removed:

• |EUClass=
• |RPhrases=
• |SPhrases=
• |RSPhrases=

To be filled with data:

• |GHSPictograms=
• |GHSSignalWord=
• |HPhrases=
• |PPhrases=

Harmonised classification and labelling means that a substance is listed in appendix VI, table 3.1 of CLP Regulation. --Leyo 00:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like we (e.g. I) can make this a phased fade-over. Like, first categorise to-be-edited {{Chemboxes}}, to be made empty. Later more. -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Only less than one month to go … --Leyo 22:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not as easy as suggested above, as the parameters have to have values coded in the right way, and the documentation is a blank. For GHSPictograms= there seems to be templates "GHS" followed by two digits that come up with suitable images. There is a "H-phrases" template that uses a list of three digit codes separated by pipes |. There is a "P-phrases" template that uses a list of three digit codes separated by pipes |. + can also be used between the three digit numbers. (There is also a GHS template that takes a part= parameter, also chapter section and annex parameters. Is this connected?) Can someone check that I did hydrogen peroxide conversion right? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, except that IMHO a reference needs to be added. --Leyo 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

We could start with dedicated maintenance categories ('todo', 'done'). -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done created maint categories -DePiep (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear: there is no relation or connection between the old DSD and the new GHS sets. It's just: legally, per 1 June 2017 it must be GHS everywhere. -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The Wikidata route

• New approach: how is the data quality for GHS in Wikidata? Could we simply read Wikidata values for this? -DePiep (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

  AFAIK the GHS data quality (and quantity) in Wikidata is week. A lot of manpower was invested in GHS data at de.wikipedia, i.e. the data quality is surely much better there. BTW: There is a table of harmonised entries in Annex VI to CLP that might be used. --Leyo 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Then, Leyo 'we' could copy this data from dewiki into Wikidata. Then this enwiki can read it easily. I'd trust the dewiki quality in this. Of course there are bots that can do this copy/paste.

However. Many many editors do not trust a Wikidata value unless is has been sourced again by Wikidata. So they don't trust dewiki research in this. That's a huge opposition. Today {{Chembox}} does blindly import E number and ECHA from Wikidata. These are of minor importance, maybe GHS can do that route. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

If Wikidata is the choice, the Excel list linked above may be importer there. --Leyo 16:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Technically obviously good. But as I said: Wikidata people don't trust our own wikis (not dewiki, not enwiki), so that's a hurdle. If and then, once uploaded, we need to convince enwiki people here that we can use that info in {{Chembox}}. Second hurdle. So I'm pessimistic.

I could try to start a village pump talk at Wikipedia, but I am low in battery myself. Maybe later. -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

What would suitable reference source be? I commonly use pubchem as the source. However PubChem seems to just accumulate Pictograms, HPhrases and PPhrases, so the more suppliers there are the more values will appear, some completely ridiculous for the general chemical. But individual chemical suppliers also may provide info, but they may be related to a particular formulation or packaging quantity also. I am happy enough for info to go into Wikidata and then inserted by the template back here. But we probably need some reliability and sourcing info to give confidence the Wikidata is good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe German values could be put into Wikidata, with its source. For example: de:Benzol. -DePiep (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Todo list

Created categories per the above notes. See Category:Chembox DSD GHS changeover (0). -DePiep (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Chembox having DSD data (0)

Category:Chembox having GHS data (3,642)

To edit: Petscan: articles having DSD data an not having GHS data.

Initially: 1337 P (ca. 15 May 2017).

Example input (from ABCN):

| GHSPictograms = {{GHS flame}} {{GHS exclamation mark}}
| GHSSignalWord = Danger
| HPhrases = {{H-phrases|242|315|319|335}}
| PPhrases = {{P-phrases|261|305+351+338}}

| EUClass = {{Hazchem F}} {{Hazchem Xi}}
| RPhrases = {{R11}}, {{R36/37/38}}
| SPhrases = {{S26}}

Templates: Category:GHS templates, {{H-phrase text}}, {{H-phrases}}, {{P-phrase text}}, {{P-phrases}}.

-DePiep (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I added having a sitelink to dewiki to the PetScan query. Hence, in most of these cases GHS data could be taken from dewiki. The difference in the source text there and here, however, does not allow for copy&paste. --Leyo 16:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification in infobox

We could put a notification text in {{Chembox}} for by-then outdated DSD data, per 1 June 2017. That would be with |EUClass, RPhrases, SPhrases, RSPhrases= then. Example: {{Chembox/testcases/DSD}}

Using {{Chembox DSD/warning note 2017 DSD-GHS}}

-DePiep (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. BTW: CLP Regulation#Implementation could be linked. --Leyo 19:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Link changed. And make logic: "When GHS data present, don't show old DSD at all"? -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

DSD data should just be removed from the article as soon as GHS data is present. incategory:Chembox_having_GHS_data incategory:Chembox_having_DSD_data currently finds 178 affected articles. --Leyo 16:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. Note: |RSPhrases= is also outdated data, so same treatment. -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done

Add warning to the four DSD data rows. {{Chembox DSD/warning note 2017 DSD-GHS}}

When GHS data is present (any input, 4 parameters), old DSD data is not shown (4 parameters).

Tweaked the warning.

See /testcases10.

Affected, as of today: show warning ~1300 articles, hidden DSD data: ~178 other pages.

-DePiep (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but I wasn't taking about hiding, but about removing the parameters from the source text of the affected articles (non-empty parameters if GHS data is present or empty parameters in any case). --Leyo 15:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Trivial. (And: you did not talk about empty parameters in any case really). -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is an additional aspect. --Leyo 21:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Instead of just removing the empty DSD parameters, the GHS parameters (|GHSPictograms=, |GHSSignalWord=, |HPhrases=, |PPhrases=) might be added in the same bot run. --Leyo 08:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, read from the spreadsheet. But AFAIK there is no bot preparing.

I see two options: bot-import the spreadsheet in Wikidata (enwiki will read), or in the enwiki infobox. Depends on whether Wikidata people want to accept the dewiki research (wiki people are very reluctant with local wiki research, esp when no source is present). For enwiki, there is [[WP:BOTREQUEST}]. At the moment, I have no time or urge to start those requests. -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(Do not archive) -DePiep (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation for automatically calculated molecular weights

Template talk:Infobox drug#Citation for automatically calculated molecular weights is a discussion that equally applies to chembox. DMacks (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Empty tracking category

Todo: check why Category:Chemboxes which contain changes to watched fields (0) is empty. -DePiep (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment

Comment by Markhalsey copy/pasted here from {{Navbox Chembox}} [13] (-DePiep (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)):

Note: This Chembox Infobox appears to be either formatted incorrectly. Perhaps I am mistaken, however since there does not appear to be any significant information that can be gleaned from this, I would recommend removing the Template, as all of the relevant chemical structure and scientific taxonomy has already been provided above. Mark Halsey 16:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Mark Halsey)

@Mark Halsey: I can't see how its formatted incorrectly. It seems like a fast way to go from subtemplate to another one. The chembox template is really complicate, and its not easy to remember the names of all the subtemplates or which parameter belong to which subtemplate... Christian75 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2018 (UTC) --@Markhalsey: -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox version: no consensus, not fit for mainspace

The infobox version is not supported by consensus. I reverted this in lead. - DePiep (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I just reverterd some 78 mainspace articles to use {{Chembox}} again, not {{Infobox chemical}}. The infobox version has not been approved here, nor tested nor scrutinised nor discussed even. I find it astonishing that a TE-certified editor can make this play. -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Why? I suggest its time to use the new version of the infobox. Its most more clean without 100s of subtemplates. Plese revert yourself so we can see if there was any problem. Christian75 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Christian75: NO. There is no consensus yet to use it, there is no significant testing. The infobox version should not be used .. yet. I agree with User:DePiep here, the original template is so intricate, and we have often run into small problems on pages that require further tweaking, that rolling this out to 10.000+ pages is too soon. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: It was ruled out on approx. 20 pages. No problems was discovered or reported, so why revert it? Its the only way we can figure out if there is any problem with the template. 20 days you and other used that argument, but nobody has mentioned any problems with the "live" template, except the that there could be problems if we use it. Therefore, we should not use it. Christian75 (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why the hurry? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to get really upset by now. The same editor, User:Zackmann08 first rushes to create this template, then starts without discussion to replace the main template code with the new code. When that does not get consensus he TfDs the original template, and now it turns out that he has replaced a significant number of the original template with his preferred version. I have considered earlier to bring Zackman08 to AN(/I) for that behaviour (not to mention his continuous pushing), and I am getting closer to that. This is unacceptable behaviour. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss converting to use {{infobox}}

So I wanted to start a discussion about converting this template to use {{infobox}} as a base. As I see it, there are a few options:

1. Convert this to use {{infobox}} as a base, which will change the look of the box but unify it to the style of 99% of the infoboxes
2. Create a custom Module that will exactly replicate the look of the current box.

Looking for thoughts and input! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

IMO it is poinntless to create a mimicking module. Better: create a module that reads the parameters and then feeds them into Module:Infobox. Don't bother keeping the |SectionN= parts: when the infobox is ready have a bot edit the pages (remove Section subtemplates not their parameters). - DePiep (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

• question This showed up on my watchlist, and maybe this out of my bailiwick so I might be missing something, but what exactly is the problem that this is proposal in meant to solve? Yilloslime (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Using {{Infobox}} instead of the wikitable as it is now would produce a great infobox, both in view and in websitebasics (good use of css, semantics, etc). Also, we'd get rid of the cumbersome subsections and subtemplates required. (However, must say current wikitable setup did allow for easy adjustments wrt new data rows etc.). -DePiep (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: - Its a huge project to convert with an enormous amount of parameters "hidden" in the same number of subtemplates (or more). But IMHO you (and others) should be welcome converting it. I would sugges making a template:chembox/new (or something similar) and afterwards, converting all the articles to use the new one. The current version is a pain in the *. E.g. if you want to move e.g. conjugate acids from "Properties" to "related" you have to change the template (obviously) but also change all the articles. But first you have to figure out the name of the subtemplates, etc. Christian75 (talk) 10:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

True, Christian75, but a bit moot. I have been maintaining this one for over 5 years, and always have been able to make such changes when agreed upon (actually, there were very few). Many more times this change was made: add a parameter; add index to parameter. PLus of course updatres to paramewters like external database link formatting. I do not think this is the bottleneck. -DePiep (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I would not necessarily be opposed to this, but can you please update us on how much work this would be (after conversion of the template, which in itself will be a lot of coding). The current system uses sub-templates as modules, I presume that a infobox-based system would not do that. That would mean 10.000+ edits to convert all pages. Coming from that is that then the grouping would get lost (all parameters are feeding into the main template, though they could be grouped on the page, that is then not necessary and could become a pain to maintain). So basically, if we can keep the same sectioning system as we have now, then I would be in favour, otherwise I likely oppose that change due to the loss in organisation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Question: Will this change how we edit chembox? Despite it appearing on a lot of pages I don't think there are a lot of editors who regularly interact with it. It's taken me a lot time to learn all its secrets. It would be a bother to have to start learning it all over again. --Project Osprey(talk) 12:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra, Project Osprey, and Zackmann08:. {{Chembox}} today has some 560 parameters (of whitch: 118 element symbols, 54 image-related, 120 indexed like |CASNo1=, and so 270 regular others).

A new chembox (preferred name: {{Infobox chemical}}) would a. use Module:Infobox and b. be Lua-programmed not wikitext. I strongly advise not to program directly in {{Infobox}} (like {{Infobox drug}} is) because of number and complexity (relatedness) of the parameters. INstead, create a new module that reads the parameters more systematically (recgnising indees & image indexes?), and then feeds them into module:infobox.

Both for coding ease and for article editors: the new template handles exactly the same parameters and will show the same structured infobox (order of parameter-values, section headings, ...). Expect makeup being slightly different (like: a bulleted list may appear).

I predict that the pressure for piggyback changes will appear, but should be denied ("while we are at it, let's change this parameter name" etc.).

The new template will not use |SectionN= structure. Once tested & stable, a bot can change all 10k pages (that is what bots are for) like this, but *not* parameter names & input:

Switchover to new template (demo bot edit)

{{<s>Chembox</s>Infobox chemical<!-- use new template --> | Watchedfields = changed | verifiedrevid = 464364488 | ImageFileL1 = Ammonia-3D-balls-A.png | ImageNameL1 = Ball-and-stick model of the ammonia molecule | ImageFileR1 = Ammonia-3D-vdW.png | ImageNameR1 = Space-filling model of the ammonia molecule | ImageFile2 = Ammonia-dimensions-from-Greenwood&Earnshaw-2D.png | ImageName2 = Stereo structural formula of the ammonia molecule | IUPACName = Azane | OtherNames = Hydrogen nitride, Trihydrogen nitride, Nitrogen trihydride <s>|Section1={{Chembox Identifiers</s> | InChI = 1/H3N/h1H3 | InChIKey = QGZKDVFQNNGYKY-UHFFFAOYAF | CASNo = 7664-41-7 | CASNo_Ref = {{cascite|correct|CAS}} | PubChem = 222 | ChEMBL_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEMBL = 1160819 | ChemSpiderID = 217 | ChemSpiderID_Ref = {{chemspidercite|correct|chemspider}} | UNII = 5138Q19F1X | UNII_Ref = {{fdacite|correct|FDA}} | EINECS = 231-635-3 | UNNumber = 1005 | KEGG = D02916 | KEGG_Ref = {{keggcite|correct|kegg}} | MeSHName = Ammonia | ChEBI_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEBI = 16134 | RTECS = BO0875000 | SMILES = N | StdInChI_Ref = {{stdinchicite|correct|chemspider}} | StdInChI = 1S/H3N/h1H3 | StdInChIKey_Ref = {{stdinchicite|correct|chemspider}} | StdInChIKey = QGZKDVFQNNGYKY-UHFFFAOYSA-N | Beilstein = 3587154 | Gmelin = 79 | 3DMet = B00004 <s>}}</s> <s>|Section2={{Chembox Properties</s> | Formula = NH<sub>3</sub> <s>}}</s> <!-- etcetera--> }}<!-- end of template -->

This answers the question by Project Osprey: No, no change in editing because the same parameters are available. More easy: no need to dig into what subsection/subtemplate you must add for |OtherCations=.

After the moveover is complete, proposals can be made to change the template in whichever way. -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I don't think these changes will effect me in anyway, thus I shouldn't have a role in approving them, but I certainly don't have any objections. Good luck. --Project Osprey (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

And that is now exactly the problem I have user:DePiep:

Beetstra demo: risk of random parameter ordering

{{<s>Chembox</s>Infobox chemical<!-- use new template --> | RTECS = BO0875000 | Watchedfields = changed | StdInChIKey = QGZKDVFQNNGYKY-UHFFFAOYSA-N | Beilstein = 3587154 | verifiedrevid = 464364488 | N = 1 | ImageFileR1 = Ammonia-3D-vdW.png | KEGG = D02916 | ImageNameR1 = Space-filling model of the ammonia molecule | ImageFile2 = Ammonia-dimensions-from-Greenwood&Earnshaw-2D.png | ImageName2 = Stereo structural formula of the ammonia molecule | OtherNames = Hydrogen nitride, Trihydrogen nitride, Nitrogen trihydride | InChI = 1/H3N/h1H3 | InChIKey = QGZKDVFQNNGYKY-UHFFFAOYAF | CASNo = 7664-41-7 | SMILES = NH | PubChem = 222 | ChEMBL_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | N = 3 | ChEMBL = 1160819 | ChemSpiderID = 217 | UNII = 5138Q19F1X | UNII_Ref = {{fdacite|correct|FDA}} | ImageFileL1 = Ammonia-3D-balls-A.png | EINECS = 231-635-3 | UNNumber = 1005 | KEGG_Ref = {{keggcite|correct|kegg}} | MeSHName = Ammonia | CASNo_Ref = {{cascite|correct|CAS}} | ChEBI_Ref = {{ebicite|correct|EBI}} | ChEBI = 16134 | SMILES = N | H = 3 | StdInChI_Ref = {{stdinchicite|correct|chemspider}} | StdInChI = 1S/H3N/h1H3 | ImageNameL1 = Ball-and-stick model of the ammonia molecule | StdInChIKey_Ref = {{stdinchicite|correct|chemspider}} | ChemSpiderID_Ref = {{chemspidercite|correct|chemspider}} | Gmelin = 79 | 3DMet = B00004 | IUPACName = Azane <!-- etcetera--> }}<!-- end of template -->

will be totally valid, and for ammonia, benzene, water, etc. an organisational hell to maintain. There are 560 parameters, and on some pages we might have > 150 in use. Unless they are enforced structured in groups, we will notbe able to maintain that, and n00by editors will get lost in the soup (there is N=1 in the top, let me add H=3 below it).

If we can keep the same modular approach in the article, but an infobox LUA module to display it, then fine. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:18, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: the new infobox will of course show values in a fixed order, grouped in subheaders as we like (as Chembox does today). The only change is: no hard requirement to add parameters in their own subtemplate/subsection. Not having to research those (9) subtemplates for parameter editing I call an advantage (less enforced requirement to study documentation).

The only possible disadvantage I can think of now is, indeed, that in the edit screen all parameters can be in random order, as Beetstra points out (unless 'maintenance is about code & bot maintenance? -- then please refine). Today, they "only" can be random within their own subtemplate (parameters per subtemplate: main=60, Identifiers=77, Properties=65; my experience is that they most often follow /doc sequence; why not). To help this editor's chaos away I can think of: 1. In /documentation present blank param list in standard order; use <-- comment --. as grouping titles (see {{infobox drug}}), ask the switchover bot to order all params, search for more editor's support into this (VisualEditor, TemplateData, new gadget, addordering to WP:AWB, ...) to keep them organised.

Yes this order might become too random in incidental siatuations, but no IMO the enforced grouping is too much a negative now and surely should not prohibit using {{Infobox}}. -DePiep (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I am just thinking (hoping?) that we can actually keep the structure as I believe it helps in maintaining (as you say, most 'new' chemboxes are created by copying the empty templates out of documentation, or by copy/paste and adapting from other pages). The 'logic' makes it IMHO easier to find the parameters you need (which are not 'standard'), then that it has to come out of a large list (where in the /doc, they would still be grouped. Can we use the same in-document code, but make the subtemplates pass everything through to the top level? That also avoids that we need to bot-edit 10.000+ articles for implementation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

(correction needed? Beetstra: something wrong with this? In your demo you wrote "...will be totally valid", but actually you added |N=1, |N=3, |H=3 [14]. But that's repetition of |N=: duplicate parameter. Then I tried to "fix" it by changing the second N into an H -> same sort of error duh; I revert right now. I suggest you fix it into what you wanted to show. -DePiep (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC))

@DePiep: That was my point exactly (the errors are intentionally) - In a list of 50 parameters, one needs to carefully check for that (though a module could tell you of such conflicts). It is much easier when the data is forcefully grouped as we have it now, and you end up with 10-15 per group. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: it is valid, the current system would take, IIRC, the last value you provide, just ignoring the last one. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, example of unintended but confused behaviour then. But I note that a repeated parameter a. gets a meggaage in preview, and b. is listged in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. This is the part not "...will be totally valid". -DePiep (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 3DMet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3DMet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3DMet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Deletion of this artice would give {{Chembox}} a redlink in the lefthand side. DePiep (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Parameter: talk central is here

Following the AfD for article "3DMet" (still open), I published a talk post Removal of parameter |3DMet= 3DMet from {{Chembox}} in several places. To be clear: that is not about the AfD itself, but about a consequence of AfD-3DMet-deletion. This postings invoked separate talks, which is bad. So I say: topic "Deletion of data-row 3DMet from {{Chembox}}" is to be performed here, from now on. I'll try to merge the posts. -DePiep (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Removal of 3DMet data from {{Chembox}}

At the moment, the article about 3DMet (one in the Category:Chemical databases (49)), is up for deletion (AfD). Reason is lack of WP:NOTABILITY, as measured by ~not being referenced in secondary (independent) sources. IOW, virtually no sources refer to it as useful etc. or actually use 3DMet.

If and when this article is deleted, it follows that the {{Chembox}} data row (|3DMet= in {{Chembox}}) should be removed too (we should not link or point to an irrelevant and not-notifyable database). Today, some 126 articles use parameter |3DMet=: [15].

The only way to save this information is to prove notability of 3DMet by adding secondary sources (read the AfD though for an investigation already made into this: few sources are sound).

Parameter was added in 2007. ping @Graeme Bartlett and Beetstra:. -DePiep (talk) 07:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

If there is no article, we don't have to delete the template links. Instead a Wikipedia:3DMet page could be the target. We can keep the 3DMet info in the Chembox as long as it is useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

When the database itself is considered not encyclopedic, its data has no place in Wikipedia content space. Can't have it both ways. Linking to non-content space like Wikipedia:3DMet would be like linking to a help-page, or how-to-page, or WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:LINKFARM. -DePiep (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If the article on 3DMet is deleted because it is insufficiently notable to warrant an article, that is entirely independent of whether we can use data from it or not. The two decisions should be made separately. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

How so? I repeat, if the database is irrelevant, how can its data be relevant? And, if we write "3DMet ID = xxx" in the article (as we do now), how can it be that there is nothing to answer "What is 3DMet?". -DePiep (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If the article on 3DMet is deleted because it is deemed insufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article, that does not automatically render the database irrelevant. Arguments presented at the AFD can be considered when making a decision about whether to keep 3DMet in the chembox, but the AFD does not dictate an automatic course of action in that regard. If we decide to keep 3DMet in the chembox and there is a pressing need to answer the question "What is 3DMet?", I'm confident in our ability to provide an answer. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that AfD can not automatically delete the chembox data row, but by logical reasoning it does. As the AfD discussion points out, there are no sources (publications) actually using 3DMet data. If we keep the data in the articles, that would be sort of nice-to-have information, but nothing encyclopedic by definition. Yet we are not a toolbox. (TBH, personally I had to swallow the appearing outcome of the AfD, but also must be tough on what it means. I prefer not to have trivial non-info in the infobox). -DePiep (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Idea: the 3DMet ID can be added and saved in Wikidata. WD seems to be less strickt in Notability. -DePiep (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: No 3DMet article, no related |3DMet= sub-data in {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I still don't see the case for this. We can cite a book which doesn't have an article. We can cite a scientific journal that doesn't have an article. We do these things all the time. Why should a database be any different? XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

First, linking to an external 3DMet item is not a citation (not a reference source for an encylopedic statement). Then, assuming the AfD closes as delete for missing notability: it is a link to external information -- information that is, by not being relyably cited itself elsewhere, deemed not relevant nor notable. - DePiep (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There might be a reasonable argument that material from a database without its own article is providing the wrong weight to information from that database. I don't know if I per se agree with that argument (and I might waffle on it depending on the specific source in question), but that's probably the direction of discussion you might take. --Izno (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"First, linking to an external 3DMet item is not a citation (not a reference source for an encylopedic statement)" — true, in a strict sense of the word "citation", but they seem morally equivalent to me in the present context. If we'd be fine with using 3DMet as a footnote, then it's hard to object that strongly to including a link in an infobox.

I agree that there might be an issue with undue weighting, but I don't think a line in an infobox really counts as that much weight.

I asked at the deletion discussion page but got no reply, so I'll raise the question again here: Is there some article into which the one on 3DMet can be merged? (Cf. how when journals are not quite notable, we redirect to the publisher, university or society that runs them.) I think the peer-reviewed references we were able to find about 3DMet would be plenty to support a short paragraph in some other article, to which 3DMet could be a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

re XOR'easter. I can follow your line wrt external linking & sourcing, but in this case 3DMet has been explicitly put to the test of being noteworthy (result: it failed). No secondary scientific sources refer to it, as was researched for the AfD. That says, at least to me: it has no scientific relevance. Were the database scientifically useful and adding information in any study on chemicals, that study would have reported it ("We have used 3DMet to compare these properties for substances x, y, z"). But these substance-specific sources neither did show up. Were there a proposal today to newly add 3DMet to the infobox, the same questions about relevance would be asked and so far unanswered. It appears 3DMet is more like a tool for research, not a data source that adds new data to a research. As a tool, it does not end up in the publications (nor does: "We analysed the data with spreadsheet MS Excel"). So far, I have not read a convincing argument on what the 3DMet link does add. Most advocates mention like 'useful', but that would be either WP:OR or usefulness as a nice-to-have tool.

On describing 3DMet in a suitable paragraph: could be possible, but I did not develop that option myself because I created the article 3DMet and so I might be too involved (I myself do not want to look like cicumventing the AfD; probably others could -- but doesn't it say something that it is not obvious to work that out?). -DePiep (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between being "notable" in Wikipedia's particular sense of that word and being "noteworthy". Wikipedia's meaning of "notable" is more like "article-worthy". The standard for including a datum in an article is different from the standard for creating an entire article. For example, Isaac Newton is notable, in the Wikipedia sense. Suppose that when he stayed in London, he habitually rented a room in a particular boarding house. That building might or might not be Wikipedia-notable — perhaps nothing has been written about it, apart from "Isaac Newton slept here". So, we might not be warranted in having an article about the house, but we could still mention it in a biographical article about Newton. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to note that the 3DMet ID has plenty of information that no other identifier has; one example is its data point on globularity. 3DMet has information that people might come looking for but can't find, and so linking is helpful. As such, I would be in favor of keeping the template's line.

So what of the question of linking? If deletion of the 3DMet article is denied or if 3DMet's information can be merged into a new article-- "List of chemical databases" or something along those lines-- then by all means link to to that Wikipedia! But if that can't be done, why not link to http://www.3dmet.dna.affrc.go.jp/, the databases's main page? 50.39.171.4 (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

As I wrote to XOR'easter above: if it has scientifically relevant and even unique information, it should and would have shown up in soureces. Not just sources about the database, but in sources that reseach certain compounds. But alas, the AfD shows not even that. So it is more like a tool not a information source. Useful, but not adding scientific relevance. Note that this info is in the WP:INFOBOX in the lede, so we must be tough and self-critical.

In WP:EXTERNALLINKS I could not find a convincing rule to include this data. In general, an EL in article body may not be added lightly. - DePiep (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize that general rule. Thanks for the clarification. 50.39.171.4 (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that a single link probably is not obtusely weighted. (I have a general problem with external links in infoboxes, but I don't feel like being uppity about that here as I think it's a broader discussion.) --Izno (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Converting template to use Template:Infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Initiator has apparently decided they are not interested in having this discussion, as they removed it[16] with the comment "nevermind". DMacks (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Should {{Chembox}} be converted to use {{Infobox}} as a base?

I wanted to initiate a discussion about converting this template over to use the standard layout provided by {{Infobox}}. There are a number of reasons for this change:

• {{Infobox}} is one of the most widely used and well documented templates on here.
• This change would make the infobox much easier to maintain and improve on over time
• {{Infobox}} conforms much better to MOS:ACCESS including issues with displaying on mobile devices.
• {{Infobox}} provides a standard and consistent look and feel across all infoboxes on the wiki. {{Chembox}} is one of the last remaining Infobox style templates that is not using {{Infobox}} as a base.

A couple of points that I want to emphasize right off the bat.

NO information would be lost.

As far as I'm concerned any implementation/conversion that would result in ANY data being lost is a non-starter. This discussion is 100% about restructuring and redesigning the layout so that it is more user friendly. If anyone (myself included) feels that there is some information that should be added to or removed from the infobox, that is fine but that should be a separate conversation and not part of this discussion. This includes things like auto-conversion and auto-categorization. The ONLY change I am talking about is to the layout. Other than that, there should be no functional changes as part of this RFC.

It is too much work is not a valid objection.

In a number of these discussions I have seen people object to a proposal simply because it will require too much work. I feel very strongly that this is not a valid objection. If you feel it is too much work, then you do not need to participate. However, if you are worried that because of the amount of work involved, something might be broken, that IS something to bring up, but please be specific about your concerns.

It could break is also not a valid reason to object.

Similarly the concern that it could go wrong is not a reason to object to the entire process. IF this process were to move forward, there would be a large number of people involved and we would all work together to make sure that nothing breaks. So please don't object to the proposal just because you are worried something might go wrong. If you have concerns, ABSOLUTELY raise those concerns! Part of the reason I am doing this as an RFC instead of just building the template is that I want to and need to hear from other people. There is no way I can envission all the issues myself. So, for example, please don't say "I object to the proposal because I'm worried it will break pages with <some characteristic>". Instead, if you support the change but are concerned that it will break stuff, it would be very helpful to say "I support this change as long as we consider the case of <some special case here>".

I am very interested in hearing opinions on both side of this, that is both people in favor of changing the format and those opposed to doing so. My one request is whatever side you are on, please be specific in your feedback. For example, don't say "Kill it! Time to eliminate this cruddy layout". Instead say "{{Infobox}} is much more userfriendly and would add value to this template." Likewise if you object, don't just say "If it ain't broke don't fix it", say "I'm concerned that if we try to convert such a complex template ______ may happen."

If you have any questions, comments or concerns for me directly, please don't hesitate to either {{ping}} me below or post on my talk page! Looking forward to a good discussion. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The proposal - {{Chembox}} should be converted to use {{Infobox}} as a base and moved to {{Infobox chemical}}

Please post your comments below!

Comments

• @Zackmann08: What is your brief and neutral statement? Please observe how it appears in the RfC listings. Remember that Legobot copies everything from the {{rfc}} template down to the next timestamp. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't get how this is an RfC. Nobody would disagree. (BTW, this suggestion has been discussed before, e.g., one month ago, initiated by... Zackmann08). Actually, this is a "how to" question, which better be left to engaged & involved editors (not armchair RfC commenters). Worse is this: the wording "should be" is commanding sense, and for this I would not step into a multi-month multi-issue multi-editors task because of the risk of being commanded to do certain things. In short: this conversion should be initiated by involved, hands-on editors only, without outside 'you should do' interference. The better track I envision is a strong cooperation, heavily using a talkpage, not an RfC. -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: I am more than happy to withdraw the RFC... I wasn't trying to cause problems. Was actually trying to do things the right way... I've been getting all sorts of flak for my work on {{Geobox}} because I'm not asking for enough input from others. If you'd like me withdraw the rfc I'm happy to do that. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Invalid RfC, no clear question asked. Aow chembox makes use of subtemplates in a specific way, if that structure cannot be maintained I am against conversion. Don't fix things if it isnotbroken. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: first of all there was a clear question asked... The question was Should {{Chembox}} be converted to use {{Infobox}} as a base?. Second, you clearly didn't read the RFC because you just did exactly what the RFC said NOT to do which was to use a completely erroneous argument. No one is suggesting creating a template that cannot be maintained. You literally quoted the exact phrase that said not to use "if it ain't broke don't fix it". That misses the point completely and doesn't address the question. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Critical point

Why don't we put the critical temperature and pressure in? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll prepare |CriticalTP= in old {{Chembox}}. See /testcases9.

Positioning: propose in section Propserties, following melting point and boilong point.

|CriticalTP= has free input (any input text will show, unedited). That is, the editor is expected to write the desired outcome: values, units, conversions, text separator T-P, reference. Later on we could apply standard formatting/simplified input).

-DePiep (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Eric Kvaalen See /testcases9 (ammonia demo). Could be in section Thermodynamics instead?

I hope you like the single-input here. Allows you to spell out the values (even use {{Convert}} as desired), without having to bother about parameter names & details (as m.p. and b.p. have). Comments? - DePiep (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Looks fine to me. Thanks. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 December 2018

• Please copy/paste all sandbox code into the live template: {{Chembox Properties/sandbox}} → {{Chembox Properties}}. (Note that this is not about main template {{Chembox}}).

Change: adding parameter option |CriticalTP= (critical point temperature and pressure). Test/demo in /testcases9 (first section).

Per request, proposal & consensus: #Critical_point. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC) DePiep (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The deviation

@DePiep: I'll leave it to you to update the documentation. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zackmann08. Updating the documentation was not part of my request, so there is no need to "ask" me to do so. And after all, I have been maintaining the whole {{Chembox/doc}} extensively for six years (check, [17]) consistently. I'm fine, and I also want to note that I do not like your jab with the ":-)" at all. (Usually I would thank an editor in this point for taking care. But alas). -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: oh for god's sake. Are you incapable of assuming good faith?! The smile was meant as a friendly message!!! Why do you choose to assume I'm taking a jab!? All I meant was "hey I updated the template, but I'll let you take care of the documentation"? Jesus man. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop hiding behind "AGF" for each and every dirty dish you serve. Quite simple: there was no need in any way or sense you had to write that after-post [18]. Or was there? - DePiep (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, my only attempt was to be friendly. I'm sorry you chose to take it another way. Please do not contact me again in any way. I will not reply to any of your posts anymore and will refrain from fulfilling edit requests. It is clear my help or attempts at moving forward are neither appreciated or welcomed. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You just met an (edit conflict). You deleted my edit [19]. Please reinstall my edit. -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to ping, you=Zackmann08. -DePiep (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I've restored your deletion myself [20]. Thank you for "taking care", I say cynically. Zackmann08. -DePiep (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

DePiep I don't really understand how to update the documentation. There seem to be two things, Chembox and Infobox chemical. Can you take care of it? By the way, I don't see why you got mad at the other guy. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It's OK, I will take a look later on. -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if I can help you, Eric Kvaalen. -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

DePiep Thanks. But I have figured out how to fix the fact that there was no comment to the right explaining. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Convert to Infobox (for realz this time)

Howdy all! So after some consideration, I'm seriously considering working on converting this over to use {{Infobox}}. I want to see who might be interest in helping out with this process? There are 2 main things we will need:

1. People willing to help write test cases to compare {{Chembox}} to the new converted solution
2. People willing actually dig in and write code for the new solution

Couple of things I want to make clear to all those concerned:

1. No changes will be rolled out until consensus is reached! I don't want anyone concerned that they are going to login one day and find a radically changed template. No way that will happen.
2. This will definitely be a long process. Anyone who has looked at this template knows it is a complicated one. This will not happen overnight!
3. Everyone will have a chance to weigh in. Right now I'm basically looking to build a task force. Hopefully I can get 10-20 people together who are willing to commit some time to this. That being said, once a working proof of concept has been made, I plan to SLOWLY roll it out giving anyone and everyone a chance to weigh in a raise concerns.
4. You don't have to join the task force to raise concerns. Finally, I want to be clear, if you don't join the task force, that doesn't mean you don't get to weigh in! ANYONE can raise concerns. The taskforce is just going to be people who are willing to devote time to addressing the concerns raised and implementing them.

So to summarize, right now just looking to get some names of people who are willing to join the not-yet-named Chembox taskforce. If you have concerns about the entire process, please make some notes, but right now, if possible can we just discuss who wants to be part of the process?? Thanks all!! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll help. I'm not the best with templates, but I'm decent. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 19:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@AfroThundr3007730: Thanks!!! So I've got a working proof of concept at {{Infobox chemical}}. Really need some feedback on it. I've got the technical side of the template covered so if you aren't comfortable with editing it, please don't worry. That isn't really where I need help. The help that I need is in finding the holes. What is missing. What is still broken? What needs more work? Etc. If anything jumps out at you as not looking right, please let me know. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Count me in. Sounds like fun. (And yes, that is semi-ironic, but I seem to have a penchant for painful, rewarding endeavours). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: awesome! Welcome to the party! See the message I left AfroThundr above. Same thing from you would be great. Take a look and give me any thoughts you have? Once we get a few more people to chime in I'll post a message to everyone. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Weird ref format

See Sodium bromite: data "3Dmet 3D JSmol model" has ref links in its left? "[3][4][5]: Interactive image"-DePiep (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Template needs |SIMLES_ref= to differentiate from current |SIMLES_Comment=, used differently in SMILES and JSmol. Temporally ~solved in the article. -DePiep (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Outdated ombox message

At the top of Template:Chembox/doc is:

"This template may be suitable for conversion to use {Infobox} as a base." Really?? Such a conversion is actually underway - shouldn't that be mentioned? I wouldn't want someone to start another "conversion" effort, given that one is nearing completion (live, but still "not accepted").

So I added another ombox below it:

"A version that uses {Infobox} has been prepared at {Infobox chemical}." Mostly FYI, but it seems to be seen as "promotion" of the new version. I didn't think a few more invoking pages (new or edits) could hurt. Idunno. One thanked the edit, but another removed it twice. Maybe it's okay as-is.

(This should become moot soon, if or when {Chembox} etal. become redirects to {Infobox chem} etal.) -A876 (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

That message is irrelevant to the documentation. As long as the developing version has no consensus and so is not implemented, there is no need to bother editors (those who actually use the documentation) with this. Development itself should be discussed at Template talk:Chembox. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And on top of this: even were the sandbox version implemented, that --by current design-- does not change editor's documentation at all. Parameters etcetera are kept the same. Another reason to not put such a note in the documentation top. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Where is that RfC?

Recently there was an RfC about using Wikidata in infoboxes. WP:CHEMICALS editors were involved. Can someone give the link to that one? -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC, listed in Category:Wikipedia important community decisions (18) for good reasons. -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox version: no consensus, not fit for mainspace

The infobox version is not supported by consensus. I reverted this in lead. - DePiep (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I just reverterd some 78 mainspace articles to use {{Chembox}} again, not {{Infobox chemical}}. The infobox version has not been approved here, nor tested nor scrutinised nor discussed even. I find it astonishing that a TE-certified editor can make this play. -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Why? I suggest its time to use the new version of the infobox. Its most more clean without 100s of subtemplates. Plese revert yourself so we can see if there was any problem. Christian75 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Christian75: NO. There is no consensus yet to use it, there is no significant testing. The infobox version should not be used .. yet. I agree with User:DePiep here, the original template is so intricate, and we have often run into small problems on pages that require further tweaking, that rolling this out to 10.000+ pages is too soon. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: It was ruled out on approx. 20 pages. No problems was discovered or reported, so why revert it? Its the only way we can figure out if there is any problem with the template. 20 days you and other used that argument, but nobody has mentioned any problems with the "live" template, except the that there could be problems if we use it. Therefore, we should not use it. Christian75 (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why the hurry? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Christian75, re "ruled(rolled?) out to approx 20 pages". As I wrote: I have reverted this on some 78 articles. "Its the only way we can figure out"? Why not explicitly listing changes to invite eyeballs checking? Why not testing? "more clean without 100s of subtemplates" - Using subtemplates is *not* a problem. Actually, it is one of the great features of software, allowing us to keep code organised. (There are, however, problematic subtemplates: the section templates. And exactly those were kept). -DePiep (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to get really upset by now. The same editor, User:Zackmann08 first rushes to create this template, then starts without discussion to replace the main template code with the new code. When that does not get consensus he TfDs the original template, and now it turns out that he has replaced a significant number of the original template with his preferred version. I have considered earlier to bring Zackman08 to AN(/I) for that behaviour (not to mention his continuous pushing), and I am getting closer to that. This is unacceptable behaviour. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The switch at Lead#Biological effects is a great example of why this needs a shake-down time before going live. The replacement is wider and the title has the same background as the section header—these are two unmentioned visual changes. The latter of these seems against the |title= default for {{infobox}}. Also, the chemobot verification check/cross footer is displayed even though none of the sections that are included have this feature implemented—this is a bug. DMacks (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• The template is not tested. There are several actual changes (content and behavioural) that have not ben listed, proposed or discussed. It is unclear why the change should be through article edits (template name change) not Redirect. -DePiep (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Chembox 2019

More and better (later on). Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Chembox 2018

2018 did not work out well for {{Chembox}}. We had multiple threads being hosile, unfriendly, unhelpful. I was involved in these. Also threads being technically concussing. Many of those talks are not closed yet. Still, I must say and can say: {{Chembox}} is a geat enwiki feature. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

To list a neutral and complete overview of 2018 general {{Chembox}} discussions. This list is developing.

• 2018-10-07: Archive 11#Discuss converting to use {{infobox}} OP=Zackmann08
• 2018-11-16: Archive 11#[RfC] Converting template to use Template:Infobox OP=Zackmann08; closed 2018-11-24
• 2018-11-20: Archive 11#Convert to Infobox (for realz this time) OP=Zackmann08 (last talk post 2018-11-24)
• 2018-11-25: #Conversion Update OP=Zackmann08 (open)
• 2018-12-16: Archive 11#Infobox version: no consensus, not fit for mainspace OP=DePiep

(latest edit: DePiep (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC))