Template talk:Chembox/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

the chembox is hard to use and is not as attractive as the drugbox, where drugs have chemboxes i replace them with drugboxes if possible, now i must fix psilocybin.The Right Honourable 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at {{chembox new}}, it is more like drugbox. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to get the pleasent colour scheme of the drugboxThe Right Honourable 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be possible (though quite a bit of work since certain parts of the chembox do not support colouring, yet). But I think we then have to discuss what colour scheme we are going to use. For that we first have to agree if we really want one single box for all chemical compounds throughout the wikipedia, or that we keep a bit of a difference between certain fields (taking the occasional 'is this a drug, or is this just a chemical compound, or an explosive, or all ..' for granted). Another option would be to make the chembox change colour upon the value of a certain field, but I don't know if I am able to do that with the current setup. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There could possibly be added formatting variables that could be passed to each Chembox_entry, although as you said this would be quite time consuming to get up and running. A separate formatting for the name and value of each entry could be passed with a default value if nothing is passed. Also, i started playing around with the aesthetic of the Chembox_new over at my sandbox. A drugbox-like look might be more aesthetically pleasing, but we'd have to implement style options for the entries to make it more readable. (Ccroberts^{( t · c · g )} 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

I prefer the look of chembox new to drugbox. What's so attractive about drugbox?

Ben 15:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to request an additional field for chembox new. When I get the majority of data that I use to fill a chemical infobox from a single source, I like to put a reference at the top of the box. See o-Phenylenediamine for an example. Can a simple field for adding a ref at the top like this be added? Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was easy, but Cite.php does not work inside a template. Any other place where I can add that? Maybe a plain line in the footer? (stating 'source' or something like that?) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Kind of solved. Not the nicest way .. it's not clear where you go to with that external link .. but o-Phenylenediamine has now that functionality .. the parameter is 'Reference', to be added in the header of {{chembox new}}. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm happy with the way it turned out (not your fault, of course.) I'm copying this conversation over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals so others can give input. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Now properly fixed, see the Reference parameter of {{chembox new}} --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to get some thoughts about which fields we should use with the template. So far, I've been using nine (ImageFile, OtherNames, Formula, PubChem, MolarMass, CASNo, Density, MeltingPt, BoilingPt), while User:Beetstra is recommending using the 47 fields listed at Template:Chembox_new#Small_form. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, so I'd like to hear what people think. (To avoid confusion -- we're not talking about which fields should be displayed -- I think we're in agreement that the template will only display fields which are populated. Rather, we're talking about which fields should be cut-and-pasted at the top of the page in new uses of the template.) --Arcadian 01:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I think the basis is there now, I would like to say that there still may be fields added, but that can also come from this discussion. For now, what I have planned is 'elements fields', E.g. C = 2 | H = 6 | O = 1, which gives as output "C₂H₆O" (hereby overriding the Formula field, but these are certainly not going to be standard fields). For what I would say should be there: as said ImageFile, OtherNames, Formula, PubChem, MolarMass, CASNo, Density, MeltingPt, BoilingPt, and as addition IUPACName, SMILES (search capability!), quite some fields form the hazards form (R, S sentences, mainhazards, HFPA, Flashpoint, Autoignition point), and a handful of the properties (Appearance, solubility). The optimum has to be somewhere, that the fields are general enough to be available for all chemicals (you can leave them empty when you don't have them, but we need to be sure we can expect them to be available), when omitting too common fields, people will have to either search for the parameter name and its position, or to guess. That may on its turn result in people having the data available, but not filling it in. Just as a sidenote, the old chembox just substed the whole box, and this often resulted in half-filled boxes and a lot of unintelligble code, this list is much better in that respect, but we don't want to add too much in the standard list.

By the way, removing them from these lists simply means that in the standard cut-and-paste to start a {{chembox new}} these fields are not displayed, the chembox will still support them (chembox supports way more than is shown in these lists anyway). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 02:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to give a single answer to the question. Before {{chembox new}} we had {{chembox simple inorganic}} and {{chembox simple organic}} for this kind of situation, but in general I would say add whichever fields you think are the most important for the compound in question. Physchim62 (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we're making progress here. I've created a new version of Template:Chembox_new#Small_form (copying the old one to Template:Chembox_new#Medium_form), incorporating Beetstra's comments above, to the best of my understanding. It currently has 17 fields, which seems like a reasonable number. Feel free to change as needed. --Arcadian 03:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're happy, I'm happy—I know the chembox too well to effectively go about simplifying it! Physchim62 (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have refactored the system, there is no problem in using this anyway while we are discussing whether other fields should be in the smallest form or should not be there. I also created the appropriate subst templates. Arcadian, just a note, the chembox new is divided into sections, the main chembox only recognises a couple of fields, the rest is handled by the sections (and will only work in the appropriate section), the main template will simply ignore them if they are not in the proper section.

For us, indeed, we can add as many fields as possible in a document. Wat worries me is the occasional new editor that has an acid, and who wants to add the pKa to the chembox .. that editor would not know where. Now I understand that we cannot put the complete, full list in the document, that would really be too long, I guess we are talking over 100 fields now, but for the things that are really common I would suggest to put them in the standard list. Any thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If I had to pick a rule of thumb, I'd say that it would be useful for the end of the infobox to be visible in most cases when the user edits a page, which would limit it to 26 lines. The more we include in the standard list, the harder it will be to get people to adopt the template. But I don't think that adding a couple more fields, like pKa, would be a problem. --Arcadian 15:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

pKa was just an example. I think 26 is good, that would give about 20 fields in the standard box. But I already like the small as it is now. What about making small being transcluded with {{chembox subst}}, and the two other variants with {{chembox subst full}} and {{chembox subst medium}}? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need different names for them? They all tie to the same template. --Arcadian 16:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, these are the subst-templates, not the actual template. The subst-templates give the same effect as 'browsing to {{chembox new}}, copying the required set of data, and pasting it into the document you want'. They just give an empty chembox new. You type {{subst:chembox subst}}, press save, and press edit, and the empty chembox is there, for you to fill in, no browsing required. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand the miscommunication -- I didn't realize you still wanted to use "subst" with this template. In my opinion, transcluded templates like

Template:Drugbox are much easier to use and maintain. If that's what you really want, I won't stand in your way of your efforts, but in that case, I think I'm going to stick with Template:NatOrganicBox for the new infoboxes I add myself. --Arcadian

17:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ow, we really miscommunicate, I am not talking about transcluding {{chembox new}}, that is impossible, useless, and unintelligeble. Just try and type {{subst:chembox subst}}, save, and edit, and see the effect. I apparently cannot transclude my thinking here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps part of the problem is that the word 'transclusion' can mean different things in different contexts. Under what circumstances, if any, are you recommending "subst" be used? In the past, the instructions for this infobox explicitly required it, which is one reason I was so reluctant to use it. Let's try this -- if you don't mind, edit a page so that the new template is being used in exactly the way you envision, and include a link here so we can see how it looks, both while editing and while displayed. (Or, if a page already exists like that, provide a link.) And to other people monitoring this thread -- your comments would be both welcome and helpful. --Arcadian 19:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What I would like you to try is exactly what I typed above, edit a document, and type {{subst:chembox subst}} in there (without the nowiki that is around it in the edit-version of this document). Just try and substitute a {{chembox subst}}, and see what the result is. You can do that e.g. in User:Arcadian/Sandbox, no harm can be done, there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're back on the same page, and sorry if I misinterpreted you. --Arcadian 20:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

(undent)No worries. The 'chembox subst' templates are just a trick to get an empty chembox new, without having to find the original first. Call it a shortcut. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some compounds for which the systematic name is not the recommended IUPAC name. Chloroacetic acid for example. Although its IUPAC name is chloroacetic acid - using the systematic method would give this compound the name Chloroethanoic acid. This presents a problem with this template - in that the field IUPACName in the code, results in a box titled Systematic name. Should this be changed or is this template not appropriate for use with such compounds. The specifc problem I am having is with Dichloroacetic acid. --Conrad.Irwin 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm .. that should probably be changed. I will have a look at {{chembox new}}, see if I can come up with something. I'll get back to this here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it in the {{chembox new}}, but I see now that chloroacetic acid has a normal chembox, you can change and add the fields there as you want. Thanks for the note, though! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Howdy folks! At Arcadian's request, there's now a {{chembox new}} template filler over at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/?type=pubchemid. It fills in a few chembox fields given a PubChem ID. Comments welcome. --David Iberri (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but it would be very helpful to have the European hazard signs in the infobox as well. I know that this would useful and as a British chemistry student it would mean a lot more than the American system (which no one uses over here). I know that some of the other language versions of Wikipedia use it and I know that Americans need to have their system present too so I suggest having both. Is that not logical or have I missed something? 87.194.118.241 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Might well be interesting. You've got a wikilink to it? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC).
  • I know that the Germans use the EU symbols in their version of the chembox, for example here; Polish and Dutch as well. It is quite difficult to code for, and would obviously increase the length of the box. I decided to give up on the idea when the NFPA triangle came in, although many of our articles do have the relevant information: e.g. here, which contains more complete information than the German article if you know how to decode it... Physchim62 (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place on the placement and use of infoboxes: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox SilkTork 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem: all chemboxes are meant to be used with a top-image, which keep us with MoS guidelines. We don't always have a top image available, but that is a problem which would be present regardless of the placing of the infobox. Physchim62 (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. And if you look at the Wikipedia content in other languages, those communities seem to have come to the same consensus independently. --Arcadian 13:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In my humble idea, the chemboxes are well designed, balanced and contribute significantly to the article. There's no problem with chembox as I see it. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC).

I thought we weren't supposed to have any disclaimers other than those in the official disclaimer link at the bottom of each page. ←

Should the bonding type for each chemical be included in the infobox? I noticed that this is missing from most pages and believe it is relevant to the chemical pages. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why there's no field for "Decomposition Point" in whatever Chembox we're loving this week. In most articles where a decomposition point is specified, it's at best tacked onto the Boiling Point line, i.e. Boiling Point: 64 °C (decomposes at 90 °C). At worst, it's mentioned somewhere in the article. I feel that the decomposition point is just as important to know as the melting/boiling points. I base this on the fact that of the three points, decomposition is usually the most likely point where unexpected, potentially dangerous or fatal reactions can occur. Dedicating one extra table row to provide such important safety information is well worth the space. Even better, listing the products and/or effects of decomposition after the decomp. point would also be a very helpful and educational reference. But at minimum, the decomp. point needs to be there. It certainly is way more useful to the average reader the more technical fields, like Spectral Data / Thermodynamic Data. Comments? Flames? 97.82.247.200 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• There isn't a full field for it because it is only applicable for some chemical compounds. But is it explicitly mentioned in the boiling point field (as commented-out remark) in the chembox template. Practically that has sufficed. And surely please add the info when available (or when you read it in the article, and it hasn't been listed in the chembox yet. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

A couple of requests from someone working on the

I recently ran across one of these pages, and not having seen it before, assumed it was an error until another editor clued me in. I'm sure this has happened before and will happen again. It would be majorly helpful if there was a comment at the top of the data page explaining that this is a valid page. If the comment were part of the template, people would even remember to use it. :)

Another issue we're running up against is that all the internal links (at least in this page) are in the form of templates. Unfortunately, that makes the page show up in each regeneration of the DEP list. Any easy way to get just a plain old internal link in the infobox so we don't have to manually deal with each instance of a data page? It would help us out loads.

Thanks!--Fabrictramp 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Assuming that your writing about data pages for chemical compounds, the semi-official recommendation is that one of the first lines should be a wikilink back to the original page, e.g., as in this page. Unfortunately, due to limited number of chemical editors, not all data pages are up to spec yet. I corrected the teflon page you referred to with minor work.
• The data page isn't produced from a template, just from collections of table templates by a chemical editor. So there isn't the one template to change. What we can do is make a more explicit recommendation in the
  WP:Chem
  pages about datapages that at least a wikilink back to the chemical compound in question should be the minimum.
• Hope this helps. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC).

Yes, it does. Thanks!--Fabrictramp 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Should

Please give it a try in the {{chembox new}}; Hazards section (line display is in {{Chembox LD50}}). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just added it to potassium cyanide. I also changed the format of the link slightly. --Itub 09:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I added an example section to {{chembox new}} which should explain how to add (simple) fields to one of the sub-boxes. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There's something wrong with the template "Chembox new"; it doesn't give an infobox in the articles but just plain text with pictures and headlines! 82.128.235.222 11:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It has been solved now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The bottom of the infobox states, that the information given in the infobox is at 25^oC and 100 kPa, but isn't standard pressure supposed to be 101.325 kPa ? I was just wondering, if this is a mistake, or if the standard information is really stated for 100 kPa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.185.210 (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• No, the standard state is really at 100 kPa. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC).

As

I have introduced the parameter 'EC-number', is now also the standard in the subst templates. Please give it a try (see {{chembox EC-number}} for tweaking of the links; I don't know if the external link is working correctly). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the contents of chembox so that it now can be used as a template to create an empty {{chembox new}} in a document. Just type {{subst:chembox}} in the beginning of a document, and save the document. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at a couple of pages that use it, like Ammonium chloride, and they all just say "Template:Chembox new" (linking here) instead of showing the box. Looks like somebody broke something again. -- HiEv 12:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... On further review, I note that a "fact" tag in the Ammonium chloride article just says "Template:Fact", so it looks like all templates might be broken for the moment. Neat.  :-P -- HiEv 12:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a more general bug in the caching process. I am investigating. Physchim62 (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I just noticed the same thing—no templates are showing up on pages transcluding {{chembox new}}. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Strange transclusion problem. {{chembox new}} does depend on {{chembox}} in a strange way .. I expected it was completely independent. Problem is 'solved' for now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is definitely more complicated that was thought at first. We seem to have created a template loop somewhere, but we haven't yet found it (as of time of posting). Physchim62 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem appears to have been solved for the moment. I have found one or two possible sources for the template looping and closed them, although none of these should really have caused the collapse that we saw today. I still think that there is a chaching problem somewhare in the system, and I invite all concerned to keep an eye on the template and on this page to report any further problems. Physchim62 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Still broken

Someone replaced the old chembox on

Update: never mind - if you specify "Name=" in the chembox, you can change the title.

PLEASE, folks, when you replace chemboxes in articles, pay attention to the title in the original chembox! It may be different from the article title! -

Amatulic

18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)