Template talk:Chembox/Archive 6

Justification for Emolecules links?
All CAS numbers link to http://emolecules.com, which appears to be an ad-driven listing of chemical suppliers, completely unrelated to CAS. I don't think Wikipedia should drive traffic from all our chemistry articles to such a site without a very good justification. Was such a justification given when those links were first installed? AxelBoldt (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those links come from the template. DMacks (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have changed it to PubChem. Сасусlе 16:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if I support that change, PubChem is not fully complete, and does not supply for a type of linkfarm as eMolecules does. Moreover, PubChem is linked from their own field, 'pubchem'.  AFAIK there is no other site like what eMolecules delivers.  But I'd like to hear some more input on this.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think that coverage is a big problem as almost all Wikipedia compounds are in PubChem. The problems I noticed were related to polymers and complex compounds, the absence of a documented CAS filter in PubChem, leading to false hits, and the absence of and database supplier crosslinks. PubChem is linked to from the emolecules results page, so I tend to change it back, even if I do not like the commercial nature of that site. Сасусlе 18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What I meant was that I do not like the nature and set up of PubChem, the links they provide are not complete, selected literature, but not into the documents themselves, etc. What eMolecules offers is more broad, it links to commercial suppliers (a good source of information about compounds), it links to pubchem and other literature databases.  I think that for now eMolecules is a good one for CAS (a good linkfarm), even for the commercial part of eMolecules (as long as their information is unbiased).  I do see the point of AxelBoldt that it drives traffic away to a commercial site, but since there is no good alternative (except for not providing the information at all, with the follow up of biased links or linkfarms in the external links sections, since there are many suppliers for most chemicals), this is fine for now.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have changed it back to emolecules. Сасусlе 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ChemSpider has been encouraged to provide further information about chemical vendors so we have started to enable this. One example of the efforts has been discussed here.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

HMIS
Has any thoughts been given to including the HMIS Color Bar? I know in my lab, we pay more attention to the HMIS over the NFPA diamonds. &mdash;MJCdetroit (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Units
I am in the process of systematically comparing the data in the infoboxes. Is there systematization of the units (e.g. g/cm^3) either in the actual units used or the syntax used to represent them? Petermr (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally, g/mL for liquids and g/cm^3 for solids, though some liquids are quoted in g/cm^3 as well. There is some use of kg/m^3, but that is rare. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are the WP:MOSNUM and the WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines, which clearly make you write  100&amp;nbsp;g/cm3  and &amp;minus;10&amp;nbsp;&amp;deg;C (for 100 g/cm3 and &minus;10 &deg;C). Note that there are bots and editor tools which replace &amp;deg; with the unicode ° symbol.  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  20:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Semantic information
I am interested in extracting the data in the infoboxes in a semantic manner. Given that the data are added into to templates is there a way of accessing these templates for the data? Scraping the HTML leads to several problems. Petermr (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Screen-scraping is strongly discouraged, but the database is freely downloadable. (See Database download.) You can then run a SQL query to identify the records containing the infoboxes, and then use regular expressions to parse out the needed fields. --Arcadian (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks very much. I would prefer the XML dump - do you know how large it is? I presumably have to filter out the molecule from that. Petermr (talk) 11:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Triple point
Could we add a field for triple point? I tried to but screwed it up. Furmanj (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion
Please add the property Coefficient of thermal expansion. Uiteoi (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Specific Heat Capacity
Please add a property for Specific Heat Capacity or Specific Heat in J Kg-1 K-1 -- 10:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a Heat Capacity property in the Thermo-chemistry section but heat capacity relates to an object and not to a material and therefore which unit is J K-1 -- Uiteoi (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The heat capacity property actually refers to "molar specific heat capacity" according to Template:Chembox HeatCapacity. Molar specific heat capacity is only one sub-unit among others (kg, g) used to represent the amount of material. -- Uiteoi (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the pages referring to the heat capacity template (only 2 at the time), I found that contributors have always been referring to "specific heat capacity" and since no page was referring to "molar specific heat capacity", I decided to change the template to reflect this actual usage. Another option might have been to modify the pages but this would have required to calculate the molar heat capacity which contributors are not supposed to do. -- Uiteoi (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC).
 * You could have calculated if you had wished to, we regularly calculate our own molar masses etc., if only to check the results! Specific heat capacity and molar heat capacity are two separate concepts but, as you point out, the only uses of this template are for specific heat capacity and so I have left your changes. Physchim62 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WLN
Please add a field for WLN. 82.207.115.213 (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Chembox Related: Isomers, by Oxidation, by Reduction, by Hydratation, by Dehydratation, OtherFunctionalGroup, etc
I think the Chembox Related could include other naturally ocurring related chemical components. Namely: Isomers (ex: isopropanol in the propanol chembox, ammonium thiocyanate in the thiourea box), by Oxidation (ex: iron(III) oxide in the iron(II) oxide box, propanol in the propane box), by Reduction, by Hydratation (or is it Hydration?) (ex: sulfuric acid in the sulfur trioxide box, ethanol in the ethylene box), by Dehydratation, OtherFunctionalGroup (ex: ethylamine in the ethanol box, sulfuryl fluoride in the sulfuric acid box). Albmont (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC) I didn't add links because I don't want to pollute the "afluent pages" with a discussion

Extracting semantic chemistry from the infobox
I am interested in extracting the information from infoboxes and putting it under RDF and CML. This is motivated in part by DBPedia's demo that WP can evolve as a machine-parsable knowledgebase as well as a human-readable encyclopedia. I appreciate that there have been more than one generation of infobox and have read chembox new and some of the subsequent links. I have posted an initial example of a WP molecule in RDF at. The information was taken from the XML representation of the information. I have a number of questions - please forgive the rather long list and also my ignorance of current WP activities or practice: Petermr (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * are there other activities in creating semantic chemistry for or from WP that I need to know about?
 * is there a BNF or software for parsing the Chemistry infobox - ideally into RDF or XML? If not I'll probably end up writing one
 * is there any check on the syntax of the information submitted in a field? if so does the contributor get an error flag?
 * what is the policy on scientific units? To conform to a controlled vocabulary?
 * what is the range of allowed characters and character encoding. Even in the XML I have encountered many characters outside the ASCII (32-127) range and many outside ISOLatin-1. Unless the encoding is given these can cause problems.
 * what percentage of infoboxes are in the new format and is there a policy for converting old ones to new ones?
 * if data are available elsewhere is it possible to add them automatically to WP by creating infobox entries.

Hi Peter, interesting lead. Would you please be so kind as to explain what RDF, CML, and BNF actually mean?  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

My mistake - sorry. They all have WP entries: More generally I think that the data in WP could be very important. I have already gone on public record as saying that I think WP chemistry will start to become the de facto standard for undergraduate chemical reference, at least for common compounds. Petermr (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Resource_Description_Framework perhaps best seen here as the basis for the Semantic Web. By creating all the chemistry in RDF we get a completely semantic collection. This means that there are many pieces of software that can process it already.
 * Chemical Markup Language (CML). Chemistry represented in XML. This allows molecules, properties, reactions, spectra and crystallography to be formally encoded and therefore machine-parsable. At the risk of being immodest it would be a great thing if chemical data in WP were in CML.
 * Backus%E2%80%93Naur_form BNF. A formal description of syntax that allows the automatic generation of parsing software. I assume that the infobox syntax has a BNF somewhere. At present I am guessing what the syntax is and how to parse it.


 * Hi Peter, this explains it well. For the machine-readable chemical wikipages, people are currently introducing InChI coding into the chembox. There's even a nifty thing in there to make it now show when you don't want it (they tend to be over-long). I presume that INCHI would be the thing you'd be looking for. And for promoting Chemistry on Wikipedia, you definitely need a word with dr Walker, who have given presentations in the real world promoting exactly that!  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  19:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

Thanks very much, Wim. It's actually EVERYTHING in the infobox that I want (not just the InChI). Appearance, physical properties, etc. So, for example RDF allows you ask questions like "give me all compounds that are yellow and melt over 200 Celsius". I mailed Martin recently but it's holiday time... The technical questions are probably general WP-technology ones and I don't know who the Template experts are in chemistry. In principle it should be possible to extract all the chemistry automatically. A bonus is that this will automatically detect errors in syntax (and possibly in values - e.g. a constraint that Mpt must be less than Bpt can be checked).Petermr (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Along these lines, I've written a python program to extract wiki pages with chembox new on them, and another to extract the chemboxes from these pages so I can extract density information. FWIW, there were 3553 entries as of mid-March 2008, of which about 1600 have values entered for density. My density parser is not very clever, and I've edited a number of the wikipedia entries to fill in the gaps. It won't be enough for a complete RDF converter, but it is a start. [PAK] 69.140.172.225 (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! I'll email some interested parties. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

extractchem.py:

processchem.py

xmlescape.py:

Capitalisation
The standard style on Wikipedia is to avoid unnecessary capitalisation: see Manual of Style (capital letters). So "Material Safety Data Sheet" should become "Material safety data sheet". It's already capitalised this way in the main article (Material safety data sheet). The only reason I don't do this myself is lack of time to deal with the consequent broken links. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting…I've usually seen it written with Title Capitalization (and I've never seen it abbreviated as "msds"). Pinging Talk:Material safety data sheet. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've generally seen it used in title capitalization, and that's how I've written it for some 30 years. But I am less concerned about how it is written out in full that I am as an initialization.  As an initializaiton it is always written in caps, as MSDS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzavon (talk • contribs) 01:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the chembox new stable and complete enough to formally replace chembox?
Hi all, since 2005, we formally use the wikitable formatted chembox. Approximately a year ago, the chembox new was developped for transcluded instead of substituted tables. During 2007, several problems with the transcluded were solved, and overall it was well enhanced, up to the point that last November quietly the old template was adjusted to work for the new template (Thanks, Dirk, PC). I have not been including many chemboxes in new articles recently, but on the whole I have the impression that all practical problems with the chembox new have now been solved. That would now allow the discussion to formally move away from the old-style to the new-style, including updating the project page. Any comments?  Wim van Dorst  (talk)  17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC).
 * I strongly support this. --Arcadian (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we make a change to chembox to replace 'Molecular formula' with 'Chemical formula'? I have been looking at the lead(II) nitrate article, and every time I see Pb(NO3)2 next to 'molecular formula' I grumble - no molecules in lead(II) nitrate, after all. EdChem (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Wim, I guess you missed the major sweep performed by Rifleman 82 (well, his bot, chem-awb), which has replaced many, many chemboxes with chembox news. Formally chembox is now 'obsolete', though there seems to be a problem in removing it altogether, which is something PC and I have looked into.  There are still some old chemboxes there, which will have to be done by hand (some contain formatting which could not be caught automatically, some have strange fields, and there are probably also some that we did not find).
 * Re EdChem, you are right, I guess that has to be changed, feel free to edit these templates, only the top templates are protected because they are quite sensitive, intricate and transcluded to many pages (see Category:Chembox templates, it should be in there.
 * Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Chembox new has been stable for at least 18 months now, with one exception linked to a change in the documentation. It can be expanded beyond my original plans (and has been, thanks to all involved), but the basisc structure has been thoroughly tested. As Dirk mentions, many chemboxes have already been automagically converted: I'm waiting for info as to which need more delicate attention or greater community input. The box we have on xylene, for example, cannot be converted into the new format. Physchim62 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please could somebody then update Chemical_infobox. Сасусlе 16:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe there are about <1000 entries left to be fixed, but AWB doesn't seem to be working for quite a while. Let me try again, to finish them all. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've done a final run to clear the 400 or so remaining. There are 89 left which require hand coding. See the remaining worklist: Help would be appreciated! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is The Presidents (song) actually supposed to be on that list, or is it a mistake?  ~ Xar Bio Geek   (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a few strange articles such as Muhammed which transclude our header. I removed the few I saw, but I must have missed this one. You can ignore it. I'll remove it by hand now. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any consensus as to whether infoboxes like NatOrganic or LabChemical will be taken under the general Chemical infobox? I occasionally see these kinds of infoboxes, but don't know why they are differentiated from other chemicals. It also seems that a lot of inorganics don't have infoboxes, is that just my perception? Casforty (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you may freely replace NatOrganic and LabChemical. --Arcadian (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Link for Basicity
It appears that the template automatically creates a link for pKb and points to Acid_dissociation_constant.

I didn't find that link to be helpful.

I clicked the "Basicity" link in the table of properties here Sodium_hydroxide. It took me to Acid_dissociation_constant, where the word "basicity" appears only once -- and without definition.

I was familiar with pH, but not pKa or pKb.

My suspicion as to the meaning of "basicity" was encouraged here: where the word appears only twice, but contains this:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basicity#Bases_and_pH
 * pKa + pKb = 14

Which, when combined with this:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_dissociation_constant#Usage

leads to the (perhaps erroneous) conclusion that, except for strong bases (which Sodium_hydroxide may or may not be):
 * pH + pKb ≈ 14

That was a long way around to come to an uneasy conclusion.

And pH is a quantity for an aqueous solution. Can a solid have a pKb value? Is the pKb value of -2.43 for Sodium_hydroxide at the point of maximum Solubility in water (111 g/100 ml at 20°C)? If so, it might helpful to note that the tabulated pKb value is given for the point of tabulated maximum solubility (which is temperature-dependent). -Ac44ck (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture layout
I think it would be helpful if you included an explanation of how to manage the pictures (i.e. ImageFileL1 vs ImageFileR1), as I was unable to convert an older chembox template's layout to this one without an extensive search for an example. XarBiogeek (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That information is in the documentation of chembox new, the older chembox should be replaced with that template, if possible. Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Line wrap problem for long chemical formulas
A problem with a chemical formula in the currect version of Solanine (if you see a "[show]" link in the "InChI" field then click it) was reported at Help desk. In my Firefox (and Opera but not IE or Google Chrome), a long string without certain characters (spaces, slashes, maybe others) doesn't cause line wrap but instead lengthens a line or widens an infobox. The problem here was the parameter (apparently an International Chemical Identifier):

StdInChI = 1S/C45H73NO15/c1-19-6-9-27-20(2)31-28(46(27)16-19)15-26-24-8-7-22-14-23(10-12-44(22,4)25(24)11-13-45(26,31)5)57-43-40(61-41-37(54)35(52)32(49)21(3)56-41)39(34(51)30(18-48)59-43)60-42-38(55)36(53)33(50)29(17-47)58-42/h7,19-21,23-43,47-55H,6,8-18H2,1-5H3/t19-,20+,21-,23?,24+,25-,26-,27+,28-,29+,30+,31-,32-,33+,34-,35+,36-,37+,38+,39-,40+,41+,42-,43+,44-,45-/m0/s1

Above it's written with a leading space so no line wrapping is supposed to occur. Here is the same source line without a leading space:

StdInChI = 1S/C45H73NO15/c1-19-6-9-27-20(2)31-28(46(27)16-19)15-26-24-8-7-22-14-23(10-12-44(22,4)25(24)11-13-45(26,31)5)57-43-40(61-41-37(54)35(52)32(49)21(3)56-41)39(34(51)30(18-48)59-43)60-42-38(55)36(53)33(50)29(17-47)58-42/h7,19-21,23-43,47-55H,6,8-18H2,1-5H3/t19-,20+,21-,23?,24+,25-,26-,27+,28-,29+,30+,31-,32-,33+,34-,35+,36-,37+,38+,39-,40+,41+,42-,43+,44-,45-/m0/s1

In my Firefox and Opera, it only wraps at slashes and this part is displayed on one line going off the right edge of my screen:

c1-19-6-9-27-20(2)31-28(46(27)16-19)15-26-24-8-7-22-14-23(10-12-44(22,4)25(24)11-13-45(26,31)5)57-43-40(61-41-37(54)35(52)32(49)21(3)56-41)39(34(51)30(18-48)59-43)60-42-38(55)36(53)33(50)29(17-47)58-42

Is there a chemical rule requiring such strings to be written without spaces or something else that will allow line wrapping? Even if there is such a rule, I think it's better to break it than to break a page display for readers with common browsers, at least when the result is as bad as the infobox in Solanine. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a bit perennial (and goes for the InChI's, SMILES and for some IUPACNames) - It is exactly why there is a show/hide button (standard set to 'hide') - 'breaking' these identifiers gives as a problem that searches (internal and external, both incoming and outgoing) would be 'broken'. It is a common problem, but a simple 'F5' or a click on the 'hide' solves the problem in both cases.  The only really sensible solution would be to 'force' the width of the cell to a maximum (hints welcome - I've tried some things but nothing seems to really help), and that the contents then is either 'force-wrapped', or that it gets a horizontal scroll bar below.  Except for restricting cell width giving force-wrapping, most are ugly solutions .. It should be noted, that for most people, seeing this value is not of prime importance, but it is important that the values get rendered into the final result of the page, as that is what gets indexed by Google - and also, especially the StdInChI is the identifier to find these compounds by (in different modes), all others are less specific and more error prone than the StdInChI - breaking the full string or similar will make these compounds 'unfindable' - a problem which is less important (though might still be annoying) for SMILES and the full IUPACName.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. With JavaScript disabled in Firefox you get http://i.imgur.com/HdPV5.png at Solanine with no hide option. I don't know a good portable solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we've looked at adding horizontal scrollbar to those long strings. Can't remember if there was a technical impossibility, a rendering mess, we just forgot to deal with it, or actually we never thought of it until now. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the Help desk thread after this one. Sigh.  This will affect only a very small number (the relative few people who have Java turned off, and who visit one of the few chemicals/drugs which have an impossibly long and unbreakable InChI/IUPACName/SMILES) of people (I agree, it should not happen at all ..), so I guess that for now we could leave it, but it adds to the (already existing - 'We' are already waiting for a long time to be able to force the (maximum) width of a box to, say, 25% of the pagewidth, something that, AFAIK, can not be done with the code at the moment.) urge of finding a permanent solution.  Aargh .. now that we put so much effort in making sure that these chemicals can reliably be found, it is that same key that is breaking things ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate warning
Is it necessary to issue the same warning twice? Once before the main text body and once more inside it. I think only one of these should be used, preferably the one inside the text body. Nutster (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ticks and crosses for validation
Just looking at Aspartame and I noticed that there is an unverified change. What particularly drew my attention is that the ticks are (correctly) not linked, but the red cross next to the KEGG entry is linked.

I'd submit an editprotected request, except I can't work out where the cross actually is in the code. Could someone more familiar with the template locate the cross images (both the one next to the field in question and the one in the footer) and add  to the end of the   or   call?

Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is in vs : exactly as you say, Tick has link= but Cross does not. There does not seem to be any standard for this among the Template:Check mark templates options and I'm not sure what centralized place would even discuss them. DMacks (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't quickly locate a place to discuss the general issue and per a nearly-year-old non-responded-to query on Template talk:Cross there doesn't seem to be anyone actively working on them, so I added link= and will watch if anyone complains there. May take a while for that change to propagate up through the levels of templates that create the infobox and eventually regenerate the page with that new behavior. DMacks (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Need critical point temperature/pressure
That really seriously needs to be an optional parameter.Rememberway (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging drugbox into chembox
There was an unanimous support from the wp:WikiProject Pharmacology to merge Template:Drugbox into chembox (see Template talk:Drugbox). Therefore, I'd like to ask here at the chembox side, is this a good idea? Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Making chemboxes in separate templates
With the WP:STRATEGY of making it easier for newcomers in mind, I propose making chemboxes as separate templates, so that, when pressing an article's edit button (such as that of methanol), a is shown at the top of an article, followed by a hopefully humanely presented intro text, rather than the daunting wiki-syntax that currently overwhelms the poor editor. (This has been supported for the drugbox at talk:Drugbox#Make separate templates of drugboxes.) Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cross namespace link to the WikiProject
Policy or guidelines don't allow for links from article to WikiProjects yet this template has one. Can we have it changed? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Has been discussed before .. hardly anything is not allowed (for almost everything WP:IAR applies), leaving it out is not an option (no-one would understand), and unless someone comes up with a proper solution, I do not think that it is replaceable. I'll dig up the earlier discussion now.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't find the discussion, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation I think? DMacks (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

JMol structure problem: multicomponent compounds
It appears the external system that does the JMol 3D images (based on infobox  parameter) does not work correctly for multicomponent compounds that have specific geometric relationships for the components. For example, ferrocene and chromocene are rendered with the two Cp rings and the metal atom all coplanar rather than the actual positions and orientations of the sandwich compound. That makes sense, because SMILES is only connective data for individual components, not geometric relationships among separate components. So we need a field that can provide additional/alternative data to feed to the JMol engine (or if that cannot be done easily, a field to cause the infobox to suppress the JMol field). DMacks (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Too long! Too long! Too long!
The chembox for the caffeine article is absurdly, ridiculously long. I would like to move a lot of the information, such as the Identifiers, Properties, Hazards, and multiple pictures, onto a separate data page, but as far as I can see the template provides no support for doing so. Is there any reasonable way of handling this sort of problem? Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice: The user just removed lots of important information from the chembox without waiting for an answer. I restored it. There is certainly no need to hurry here. --Leyo 07:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Was not removed just split and placed lower in the article.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

LD50
Should the LD50 be included in the chembox? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 22:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's already included in the Chembox_Hazards module. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 03:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Prototype merged chem/drug box
A prototype merged chem/drug box based on the infobox system has been written (Chembox Drug/sandbox) and one example can be seen here ( left right-side testcase). In common with the current chembox, the order to the sections can been changed. What is new is that each of the sections has an optional "State" parameter that can be set to "collapsed" or "expanded". In addition, an "path" parameter may be added that supports special purpose transcluded templates (see the "v·d·e" links at the bottom of the example). At the moment the IUPAC Name and a short Chemical Properties sections are hard wired to appear at the beginning of the infobox in an expanded state. Please note that this is very much a prototype template and there is a great deal of more work needed to handle special cases, debugging, and most importantly making sure that a majority of both the Chemical and Pharmacology Project members are happy with the template. Boghog (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we move the clinical data after the IUPAC name? Otherwise looks good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The clinical data is after the IUPAC name. Were you actually suggesting the opposite? I think it is very reasonable to place the IUPAC name right after the chemical structure these are closely linked.  At the same time, there may be cases where including an IUPAC name may not be appropriate (e.g., biologics).  I have therefore converted the hard wired "IUPAC name" and "Chemical data" sections to sections that are now optional and can be moved up or down if desired. Boghog (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like it is after the chemical data rather than the IUPAC name... -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I see you meant moving the clinical data directly after the IUPAC name. In the latest implementation of the template, all the sections are optional and can be moved up or down as desired (see for example Template:Chembox_Drug/testcases, top right vs. bottom right).  In addition, there is now a "IUPAC name" (see top right testcase) and "chemical summary" (see bottom right testcase) sections.  Both contain the IUPAC name.  The intention is that one or other can be used, but normally not both in the same infobox.  Again, the idea behind "chemical summary" section is to summarize the most basic information that is contained in the "chemical data" section if the later section is collapsed.  If the "chemical data" section is not collapsed, then there would be no reason to include the "chemical summary" section. Boghog (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose you mean the right-hand side? Yes, that looks good to me. When other people are happy with it, I suggest we collect a list of differences between drugbox and chembox that will have to be considered before the actual merger is done. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are right. I meant right-hand side.  Also good suggestion concerning compiling a list of differences.  These differences could be divided into aesthetics (e.g., borders in chembox vs no borders in drugbox), parameter names,  displayed names, external links, etc.  In addition, there is some duplication of parameters between the sections, some of which in unavoidable since not all sections will be included in all infoboxes.  Boghog (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to merge the Chemical data and Properties sections? At the moment, formula and mass occur twice. The caption "Chemical data" would be better in my opinion because it is more specific, and because (for drugs) it nicely matches "Clinical data" and "Pharmacokinetic data". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I was not planning on merging these two sections. I created the Chemical Data section in response to Rifleman's concern above that if the properties section were collapased, then a certain amount of basic chemical data (i.e., "vital stats") should be displayed.  Perhaps conditional code could be added to the template so that if the chemical properties section were included, the display of the formula and mass in the properties section would be suppressed. Boghog (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So is the proposal than to use the second one for substances that are primarily medications/recreational drugs and use the 4th one for substances that are primarily chemical substances? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is basically what I had in mind. In order to be acceptable to both projects, I think some flexibility in the template will be required. Boghog (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Viscocity?
Would it make sense to add a field to the properties section for listing the dynamic viscosity of the chemical at a specific temperature? Regards, RJH (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Viscosity' is there .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

doesn't reflect topmost name in
Is there a way to make the template check for the  template's name in the body of the article for the article title? That is, before the chembox template automatically uses the article name itself? Many chemicals have italicized lettering for cis/trans etc., which would be more proper of the heading box in chembox, using as it does the chemical name for the molecule in question. Nagelfar (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Merging drugbox into chembox: take 2
The section immediately above and the discussions here and here illustrates a general problem that we are facing in articles where the subject is both notable as a drug and as a chemical. One potential solution is to (1) merge the drugbox into the chembox, (2) make various sections of the merged infobox optionally collapsible, and (3) provide some flexibility in the order that sections are displayed (e.g., current order for chemicals that are not drugs but clinical section near the top for chemicals that are drugs). There is consensus from WP:PHARMA for this merger. Finally while we are at it, it would be good if the chembox could be updated to use the more modern infobox system which offers a cleaner, less clutter syntax and a built in mechanism for special purpose templates (where each chemical would have a separate page for its chemical template that is transcluded back into the chemical article as proposed here). I realize that implementing this proposal will require a substantial effort, but I think the long term benefits justify the effort. Is there support from WP:CHEMS for such an undertaking? Boghog (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We could also merge the chembox into the drugbox for drugs that are both chemicals and drugs. Usually most people are more interested in the drug properties than the chemical properties. Collapsibility is definitely needed. Else it screws up the formating of the rest of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Point (3), the order of sections, is already configurable in the chembox. We'd only need to add the recommended order for drugs to the documentation.
 * Collapsibility is a good idea. The chembox has also got the possibility to move information to a data sheet (a subpage of the article), though I've never really understood how to do this. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that most chemists would be agreeable to a merger. The boxes can be quite long, but they are fairly unobtrusive and if various sections were made collapsable, so much the better.  One reason to merge these boxes is to reinforce the unity of molecular sciences, all drugs are organic compounds and all organic compounds have biological effects.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the suggestion to merge them completely for all pages or just for article that have both chemical and pharmaceutical uses. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many chemicals with pharmaceutical uses already use the new chembox. As do chemicals which can be used as explosives, e.g. nitroglycerin. I think the issue is for drugbox to be merged with chembox, something which we have supported when polled, but have never implemented. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea is to add all of the drugbox's fields to the chembox as far as they are missing (like the monoclonal antibody fields) and then delete/redirect the drugbox. This would give a unified appearance, and it would put an end to differently named fields (eg. ATCCode_prefix in chembox vs. ATC_prefix in drugbox). Of course, not all chemicals would show all drugbox fields, as empty fields are hidden anyway. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can someone create what this would look like for say the medication lisinopril so that they can be compared? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Template talk:Drugbox/Archive 7 provides an example for policosanol with a chembox. However, if the chembox would be redesigned to use infobox as Boghog proposed above, it would probably look more loke the present drugbox. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This example is missing the "clinical data" section... Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's because the chembox doesn't have such a section yet. And that's why I wrote "The idea is to add all of the drugbox's fields to the chembox as far as they are missing" above. The Clinical data section will look just like all other sections except that it will have "Clinical data" written on top. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the status of this proposal to merge Chem and Drug boxes, it's over a month since there was any discussion about taking this further (apologies if the discussion has continued elsewhere and I haven't seen it. --The chemistds (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Crystallography Open Database (COD) numbers in Chemboxes?
Would the Wikpedia community be interested add reference to the Crystallography open database (COD,http://www.crystallography.net)? Data in COD come from peer-reviewed scientific press, the database is free (as in freedom), and we offer persistent URIs to link to HTML pages or CIF format files (like http://www.crystallography.net/7050897.html for Aspirin or http://www.crystallography.net/2001546.html for Ibuprofen). The COD number (uniquely assigned persistent identifier) could be quoted in Chembox, linking to the appropriate crystal structure HTML page or file. Saulius Gražulis, grazulis at ibt dot lt, 158.129.151.7 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

global Template:Chembox
As I used the chemical infobox as an example what could be possible for my idea of GlobalTemplates I just wanted to let you know of it. Matthias M. (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Organic table information" & "Inorganic table information" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Organic table information & Inorganic table information. Since you had some involvement with the Organic table information Inorganic table information redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID nominated for renaming
See Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 22. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

How much info to display?
What's the general philosophy on how much information to display in the chembox? I ask because for the article psilocybin, another user recently expanded the chembox to now include physical data that I cannot easily verify, and which isn't mentioned in the article text itself (like boiling point, log P, acidity, basicity and others). I don't know whether to trim some of this info, or leave it in under the assumption that it might be useful to someone sometime. If there is info in the chembox not in the text, should this also be cited inline? Sasata (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I think you should DEFINITELY cite it if not cited in text (ideally, would cite both places, given the template issue)

2. Yes, there definitely should be stuff in the infobox that is not discussed in the text. It is just a data table. Let's say we had a table at the END of an article. It would have some listed data that was not discussed in prose. Putting in a table is a very efficient way to handle some factoids like that. Same thing applies with articles on cities (they will have some details like lat longs or the like that is not in article).

TCO (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

PDB info
The Chembox info is excellent, could PDB info be added to it? ie a link to macromolecular structures which contain a particular molecule. Just a link to the Compound browser would be needed, eg Choline or biotin to be continuously up to date with the PDB archive. I have a mapping between Inchi and the PDB three letter ligand code which would aid doing it automatically. A2-33 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

More information
Can we add more information such as heat of fusion, heat of vaporization,...?--Kc kennylau (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DrugBank link broken
The Chembox DrugBank link currently points to for example (see Levothyroxine): which is broken. The following link works: I would appreciate if someone would fix this. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.drugbank.ca/?CARD=DB00451
 * http://www.drugbank.ca/drugs/DB00451
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Chembox_DrugBank&diff=prev&oldid=486397760 Done]. --Leyo 09:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! I would have fixed it myself, but I was having difficulty locating the appropriate sub-template. Boghog (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Chemical InfoBox Queries
I have noticed that for the most part, properties in the Chemical Infoboxes do not have references. The Infobox Reference link at the bottom gives a link to a list of generic references. Are these the only sources for the properties in the Infobox? If so, some of them are a bit out of date (7th edition of the Merck Index for example - I'm working from the 10th and feeling out of the mainstream).

Also, I have noted several places, notably Phosphorus tribromide where there is a picture of a bottle containing a liquid. The documentation for the photo indicates that it is PBr3 - but it could just as easily be water. Is there any real need for something like this on a generic liquid like this? I can see including a photograph if the compound had some interesting feature, but otherwise, I'm not sure that it adds much value. JSR (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Naming updates
Has anyone noticed that an editor is systematically removing names from Chemical Infoboxes? He puts a citation needed reference on the name and then 1.5-2 months later, he removes them or demotes them to other names if they were originally listed as an IUPAC name. JSR (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Line wrap problem revisited
The painful line wrap problem is still there, and in some cases the chembox extends so wide that its left side extends outside the viewport and/or under the left-side menu. This is a problem in older browsers (that use Gecko 1.8.1 like SeaMonkey 1.1 and Firefox 2) that support CSS well, and newer browsers when JavaScript is turned off either manually or with NoScript. The template appears to lack effective line wrap code to deal with it.

http://toolserver.org/~cbm/20090127b.png shows a horizontal scrollbar (in Firefox 2.0, possibly from using overflow in CSS), which should be the solution for very long names. An earlier discussion here mulls the use of a zero-width space (&amp;#8203;), but there was no definitive decision taken. For example, in Oxytocin I added zero-width spaces (not knowing where exactly to position them) to the IUPAC name, but left the InChI name as is. -Mardus (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Having just stumbled upon this conversation I just want to raise the point that the zero-with space solves one issue only to create another one. While a zero-width space is invisible to a human, except by the virtue that it exerts the properties of a space (in this case facilitating the breaking of the name) it  has significant implications wherever the name is processed by a computer. The space is visible to search engines, and any other data processing software and is preserved by cut-and-paste operations. I understand that the wrap problem is a significant issue for the users that experience it, and that for many there are reasons why they do not upgrade their browser. But this seems to be a case where the solution to a styling problem affecting a small group of users is actually to change the underlying data that everyone uses. I'd really like to avoid changing the data (which is what Wikipedia seeks to preserve), wherever possible. --The chemistds (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The only real solution to this is an enforcement of the maximum width of an infobox (to say 20-40% of the pagewidth) - if a string is too long to fit in there, it should just break at an arbitrary position, see the problem in the next line:
 * aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 * Wikipedia does NOT break that string, putting a horizontal scroll bar at the bottom of your page, but when you look at the same string in the edit window, it is just broken at the position where it should break due to edit-box size.  If you click show in the top chembox here, you see it is randomly wrapped (as one would like) at a position resulting in a screen-wide chembox (which we don't like) - not in 2 equal parts, or with some enforced width.
 * Note that it gets stranger with when inserting one dash:
 * aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


 * which both in the edit window and in the wikipedia rendered page are wrapped at the 'dash'. But in the bottom chembox, the same string is now again broken at a random position, getting (in my case) to a 50% width chembox - and not wrapped at the dash, but randomly somewhere to make the first half fit in a 50%-pagewidth chembox, and the rest on the next line.  There must be a system in this .. but it escapes me.  I have been playing with enforcing the width of the chembox, but have until now failed - if we manage I suggest we drop the show/hide button for IUPAC name (leave it for InChI and SMILES, specialist data).
 * Although I can live with a broken IUPAC name (which is annoying when using the string), breaking the InChI and/or SMILES like that will break other functionality - rendering of images based on the broken strings does not work, searching for the strings on internet may break the possibility to find the Wikipedia page (people do search in Google for SMILES and InChI-codes), or linking into other databases may result in failures depending on the external string-cleaning capabilities. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've solved this on chinese wikipedia. Just need to add "max-width:22em;" before "word-wrap: break-word;" in Chembox IUPACName. The same goes for InChI and SMILES.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've per . Looking at the above before and after, it seems to have worked. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

R-phrase template
I have concerns about the use and accessibility of R-phrase. Please join the discussion. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

HELP! InChI information breaks whole infobox
Seen in article BINAP. Tried to remove the InChI and StdInChI lines, and the article displayed as it should. I can't do anything from my side here, unfortunately. Maybe they will even have to include a fix in their template themselves. -andy 77.191.33.193 (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The chembox at BINAP looks perfectly normal to me. Can you explain a little more about what you see?  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The infobox just gets quite wide when clicking on [show]. --Leyo 16:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only wide because the image of the structure is wide in the Infobox. If the image was smaller, the InChI wouldn't show up that wide. Thricecube 01:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A proposal
is anyone in favor of adding electroconductivity to the chembox? I could see this as useful information that one may want to have immediately present when visiting a page. I've been spurred to action because I myself have been scouring the internet for hours looking up various compounds and whether or not they were electroconductive. I couldn't help but think how much easier it would have been to have a simple yes/no box or even something a bit more detailed (if any of you are feeling ambitious)

Nxtfari (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Template Problem
Hi... I was editing niobium(V) ethoxide and ran into a problem here - notice the invalid ref. I figured out that the problem was that the solubility parameter in the chembox was in the section for chembox thermochemistry rather than in the chembox properties section. Looking at the chembox template documentation, it shows parameters solubility, solubleother, and solvent under chembox thermochemistry in the full form version but under chembox properties for the medium form version. I presume this is easy enough to fix, and I presume that the latter is correct. However, if you look at Template:Chembox Properties you'll find that has not solubleother parameter, but it does have solubilityother. So, I suspect that the properties template has had parameters changed but the overall chembox documentation does not match. Would someone who is good with untangling templates please sort out the documentation?

Secondly, it seems to me there is a problem that a bot could fix in sorting this out in article space, moving any solubility and solvent parameters within chemboxes from the chembox thermochemistry section to the chembox properties section. Any occurences of the solubleother parameter need to be changed to solubilityother and likewise moved to the chembox properties section. Does that sound right?

Thirdly, is this the only time when a problem like this has been created by renaming parameters and/or moving them between chemboxes, because if it isn't then it would be good to fix those too. My knowledge and understanding of templates is poor, hence my request for others to sort it out rather than trying myself. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dear EdChem, thanks for catching this. This change occurred somewhate randomly in 2010 already luckily there are only 20 or so wrong usages I will try to fix them in the next days. It seems like the Parameter was called solubleOther all the time and was never correct in the example in Template Properties. I try to find out how much confusion that caused.--Saehrimnir (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Saehrimnir. I'm glad to hear that there are only about 20 articles needing fixing.  I can understand the confusion issues like this can cause as some editors (like me) are not too great with templates.  EdChem (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)  PS: Please remember to update the template documentation once you have sorted out the problems.  Thanks.  :)  EdChem (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is currently a BRFA open for this task. Any input is welcome (particular if you know a reason why this bot should not go ahead) -- Chris  14:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. EdChem (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up thought: I've noticed a number of pages have both the EINECS parameter and the Ec-number parameter completed, which simply leads to a double entry of identical information in the infobox (see this version of the tantalum(V) ethoxide article, for example). The EINECS article confirms these parameters refer to the same identifying property. Would it be appropriate to (a) note in the documentation that only one of these parameters be completed (b) have a bot remove all the duplicates and remove the blank parameter when the other is completed? Perhaps even have a bot consolidate all the entries under a single parameter and we remove the other from the template? It just seems to me that duplication in who knows how many templates is pointless, and keeping both parameters just means that more duplicates will be introduced in the future. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * here it states that the difference is the hyphenation and that only one should be used. The more bothering thing is that none of the links does work right now because ESIS does not allow deeplinks anymore. I will try to find ou which one is used more often to see to which we should consolidate.--Saehrimnir (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Gibbs free energy of formation
Why isn't Gibbs free energy of formation included, when enthalpy of formation is? It's an important number for checking feasibility of reactions and estimating the temperature at which the Gibbs free energy of a reaction changes sign (using ΔH/ΔS which equals 298.15K×ΔH/(ΔH−ΔG), see Ellingham diagram). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional fields
We need additional fields for sublimation points and triple points. Currently, carbon dioxide and acetylene are making do in mutually exclusive ways. DS (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hill system
The rule
 * When the formula contains no carbon, all the elements, including hydrogen, are listed alphabetically.

is not considered in the chembox (see e.g. Chlorosilane). --Leyo 08:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * From my recollection, there is consensus to use the Hill system for organic compounds, but not necessarily for inorganics. Applying that rule in the chembox is therefore unnecessary.  The "Formula = " parameter can be used to force display in whichever order is preferred, rather than using the current automatic display derived from the parameters "|  H = 3 |  Cl = 1 |  Si = 1".  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

LD50 feels alone...
Hi,

Why is there en entry for LD50 and not an entry for LC50? It could be of importance too...

--XonqNopp Tk 06:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There really should be one for LD50, LC50 and LCt50. Just use whichever is the most appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.221.149 (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Design suggestion
Could we change some details in design of this infobox? For example:
 * 1) remove tr borders
 * 2) add some border-spacing
 * 3) and maybe move title outside the box

I think it will be better to watch and shouldn't destroy the content, like here - Glade Interface Designer. --Rezonansowy (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For the reasons stated here, IMHO titles should stay inside the box. Boghog (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, but what about the rest of things placed above? Do You agree with my proposition? --Rezonansowy (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, change these things: --Rezonansowy (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) delete bordered property from the table class
 * 2) delete border-collapse: collapse; property from the table style
 * Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Are you talking about Chembox, or maybe a different template? Also, could you add your proposed code to the relevant template sandbox so that it can be tested? There is some guidance available at WP:TESTCASES if you need it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've disabled the edit protected template for now. Please reactivate it when you have some code in the relevant sandbox, or if you need any help with the coding feel free to ask me about it on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 08:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2013
The Parameter is still in this template but belongs into {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Chembox_Structure structur subtemplate] where it already is listed and inplemented so it just has to be deleted here.

Saehrimnir (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted&#32;on Template talk:Chembox Properties&#32;([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Chembox_Properties&diff=prev&oldid=563861719 diff])
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The template doesn't appear to be broken, and there is a significant chance that trying to fix this would actually break things instead. If you can show that you have tested your change per WP:TESTCASES, however, then the risk would be smaller and I would be more willing to make the edit for you. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 03:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand I will propose sum changes to the box anyways and if an consensus is reached I will make an test case and will get back to you.--Saehrimnir (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Parameter discussion
Hi I started this discussion.--Saehrimnir (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Finding parameter errors
Lua enables finding articles with template parameter name errors. I [//de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vorlage:Infobox_Chemikalie&diff=122193296&oldid=121931791 implemented] this into the de-WP version of the chembox and other templates. The affected articles are categorized. The display of error messages may be restricted to autoconfirmed users (MediaWiki:Group-autoconfirmed.css would need to be created), since we do not want readers to see them. The [//toolserver.org/~kolossos/templatetiger/template-parameter.php?lang=enwiki&template=Chembox TemplateTiger query] does a similar job, but is usually outdated. Thoughts? --Leyo 16:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Add European food additive E number
I think it would be useful to also include the E number for food additives in this template. It's a very common identifier used on food labels in Europe. -- intgr [talk] 16:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Also, prior to determining consensus, please put your proposed modification into the template's sandbox and demonstrate at the template's testcases. More information at WP:TESTCASES. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Use en dash instead of hyphen for temperature ranges
It has been more than a year since a similar error was reported in the section "Use minuses instead of hyphens for negative values", and nothing has been done to fix the Chembox properties template. A similar error is that a hyphen is used instead of an en dash to indicate a range of temperatures when values are provided for MeltingPtFL and MeltingPtFH or BoilingPtFL and BoilingPtFH, or if the temperatures are given in K or °C. I could give it a shot, but if you think that would probably work out well, you really shouldn't be using nitrous oxide and working in Wikipedia at the same time. Chris the speller  yack  02:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Temperature still displays hyphen instead of minus for negative values and hyphen instead of en dash for ranges, after more than another year. Also, if one or both of the range limits are negative, the word "to" should appear instead of en dash, e.g. −12 to −5 °C, or −5 to 5 °C. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this needs to fixed, please. Tony   (talk)  14:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals -DePiep (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

En dash for ranges
Hi! In chemboxes, ranges (of temperature, for instance) are separated by a hyphen (-). They should use the en dash (–), as explained on en (typography). Thank you!

Nirmos (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The entry in, which is what brought me here, suggests that the page to be modified is Chemical infobox, but I'm sure that's not the case; observe that it shows "Not protected" in the third column (the pink background reflects the protection state). It's showing like that because you've not filled in the first positional parameter of your - the part that presently says   - so it's not clear which page you wish to be modified. I cannot assume that it's Template:Chemical infobox either, because there is no template of that name. If you look at the previous section of this page in edit mode, you'll see that it begins , so I was able to determine that a modification to Template:Chembox Identifiers was desired, but I cannot be certain that this request concerns the same template. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Redrose64, and thanks for answering! My apologies for not using the template correctly, but in this case I'm afraid it wouldn't help, because I'm not sure which template that needs to be edited. It could be Template:Chembox Properties. I'd love to be more specific about what the problem is, though. If we take a look at dimethylglycine, for instance, we can see that it says 178-182 under melting point in the chembox. That hyphen should be replaced by an en dash. The reason I described it so generally in my last post is because it probably needs to be changed for other similar things that can be expressed in ranges, such as boiling point, and possibly other things. I did try to find exactly which template that decides this, but it was too complicated for me. Thank you for your patience. Nirmos (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, from that I can see that the hyphen used for the melting point range is in Template:Chembox MeltingPt, which seems to use a hyphen for ranges in no less than nine places. As you suspect, boiling points are handled elsewhere (Template:Chembox BoilingPt, which also uses the hyphen nine times for ranges). I notice that the former template (but not the latter) is in, and the omission of Template:Chembox BoilingPt from that category suggests that there is an even larger group, all of which should probably be kept in harmony. I would not wish to change just those two in isolation, so Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I think that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry should be informed and have their chance to comment. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Done by using convert for temperatures. To be added to flashpoint and autoignition temperatures. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Revert last edit (edit request)
Last edit was not discussed, and there is no reason to use Convert to a value which is the same on all pages. And the text should not be "standard state (at 25 °C or 77 °F, 100 kPa)". It is not a "or", its the same value, so it should be like "standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)". Christian75 (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The last edit, which hardly seems likely to have affected the presentation of physical properties or their conversions. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox&diff=586486698&oldid=586471105 this decline] at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox, you were looking at the direct namespace match Chemical infobox. That talkpage is also used for the whole Template:Chembox suite of spaghetti. The request was probably talking about [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Chembox&diff=586367040&oldid=577834052 this last edit]. DMacks (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In and similar templates, the first positional parameter should be used to specify the name of the page that is to be edited, when that is different from the . I had already explained that at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You and I know that, yes. This is a different request from an editor who appears to have not been involved in that other request. DMacks (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To avoid guesswork, I would like to confirm that is the edit to revert. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, if it is that edit, I would like to show where that edit was requested. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That edit appears to be in keeping with the plans discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals (talkpage of project that handles this template suite). It's certainly discussable whether this piece of it is going too far, or consistency for consistency sake, or somehow else makes things look poor/confusing in some way. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did the edits. Which questions am I supposed to answer here? -DePiep (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Original poster disputing the change to the infobox footer. I agree with him...use of "or" for the alternative units in the standard-state note of the footer is some combination of wordy, ambiguous, and/or out of sync with the rest of the infobox. DMacks (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My mistake - I didnt notice that Template talk:Chembox redirected to this talk page. I was talking about this edit. I cant see any reason to use convert when the input is the same for all chemical boxes, and I think Fahrenheit should be in . Christian75 (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The original post is contradicting itself. Reverting the edit does not write "(77 °F)".
 * I'll change "or" into brackets first next edit. So it will read: "standard state (at 25 C, 100 kPa)". It's just that I tried to prevent nested brackets.
 * - Side notes: Noted here. Of the possible options, I went to WP:CHEMS to talk preparation, and I put a note at WP:CHEM . Then there also appears to be WP:CHEMBOX, while actually working with template:Chembox. These appear to be four different projects, and I don't feel any responsibility for confusing them, nor can I blame anyone else for confusing them. I'll make the change shortly, together with other changes due in the Chembox family so that cache reloads are reduced. I used the convert template to get standard wp formatting. I understand this solves it. Please continue related talks at WT chemicals. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, no waiting. These other edits that could be done simultaneously (in temperatures) should not have this time pressure to develop & discuss. -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Padding-left is 0
Please compare the chembox in Niobium(V) ethoxide and Tantalum(V) ethoxide (todays versions). In the first one, the text in the value are tight to the vertical border (to their left); in the second chembox there is one pix of space. The second one looks good. Probably somewhere in a subtemplate a "padding" or "cellpadding" is set to 0. -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I see 1px padding in both, using Firefox 26. Which browser are you using? -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK for me today too. Probably some bad cache/table management on my side. Consider end of topic. -DePiep (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Spectra on Supplementary data page
The GMD has GC-MS spectra identifying 67 spectra in the list of biomolecules. I would like to link to these GC-MS spectra. I thought the best for this would be in the data page of a molecule, which leaves me with some questions: Do I replace the MS link on the data page? Or add a GC-MS link and keep the MS link? Just as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alanine_(data_page)

Secondly, how do these data pages work. Is there a template for new new pages? Does the information on this page get processed and shown in the "Supplementary Data Page" section of the chembox? Billiauk (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be useful to put the MS Spectrum link into the chembox ? Billiauk (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added the Ms Spectra to the 'External links' section on the biomolecules pages. If existing, I also added it to the data page. Billiauk (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Gibbs free energy added
Notification: DeltaGf for Gibbs free energy is added to Chembox Thermochemistry, working. -DePiep (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Temperatures in chembox: more improvements
-DePiep (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC) In chembox, we can show temperatures for melting point, boiling point, flash point and autoignition temperature. Their value can be in plain text (any text), or calculated into °C, °F, and K from a single value (in C, F or K). Calculating & formatting was changed in December 2013, now using convert. Below is a next set of related changes I propose, a follow-up. I have added demo's and a preliminary documentation below. -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Current issues
 * 1) Notes are always bracketed; reference can not always be added correctly. Effects:
 * 50 C ([1])
 * 50 C (Some note[1])
 * 50 C[1] (Some note)[2] -- correct referencing, not possible (twice)


 * 1) A prefix (like "&lt;") disallows calculating temperatures
 * 2) Flashpoint and Autoignition point are limited in options (e.g., no temp range)
 * 3) In certain situations, we could add brackets as in 50 C (see below)
 * Proposed changes
 * 1) Add parameters MeltingPtPrefix and Melting_ref to allow correct input
 * 2) No automated brackets "" around the notes
 * 3) Give  and   the same set of options
 * 4) Using brackets is possible when calculated from °C (to choose for us now)
 * 5) Chembox had one category misspelled ("depracated" for "deprecated"). No material consequences btw.
 * 50 &rarr; 50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K -- Current format
 * 50 &rarr; 50 °C (122 °F; 323 K) -- Example, input in &deg;C. Using brackets is an option (once for all temps, all chemboxes)
 * 50 50 &rarr; 50 to 75 °C (122 to 167 °F; 323 to 348 K) -- Range calculated from &deg;C will have brackets too
 * 122 &rarr; 50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K -- Example, input in &deg;F (brackets not an option; same for K input)
 * When saying yes to these brackets, understand that: a. there will be differences between chemboxes (page 1 had input in "C" so brackets, page B in "F" so no brackets). Also, within one chembox: Melting point can have, from &deg;C, "C (F K)". While its boiling point, from &deg;F, must have "C; F; K" format.
 * 5. Technically, the parameters "_L (Low of a range)" like MeltingPtCL are deprecated (kept, but removed from documentation). MeltingPtC does the same job already. Reduces documentation and complexity.
 * 6. Just a question: is "autoignition temperature" the right wording, not "autoignition point"? (we could switch over silently now). -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Todo after these changes:
 * 1) Plain convert input errors are listed with the convert maintenance tag plus categorization.
 * 2) The notes and references can be checked for correct display. The template will list those pages in a tracking category. Expect few 1000.
 * 3) Another tracking category lists pages that could be misrepresenting data (e.g., hiding plaintext input). These can be checked too (expect 100's).
 * I have planned to check them all systematically. Note that this is mostly about correcting text format, not actual data change.

Any comments, questions? Preference in the bracket question? -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping: (with sign this time) -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm on semi-vacation next few days, will read/comment when I get back to my online self. DMacks (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: As of February 17, 2014 I am rewriting the proposal. When that is finished, I'll reopen the discussion here. -DePiep (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Documentation and background
Below is a preliminary documentation (and background) for the parameters & their effects.


 * Output


 * Composition of the data


 * Input, parameter options


 * Parameter list

by default. This can be overwritten by the editor: &amp;nbsp;kW → 100 kW (example). Is this OK? No unit added by the template.
 * References (from demo)
 * 1) Anything about the other three proposed parameters, below?
 * -DePiep (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

✅, with other changes in Chembox Thermochemistry~, see documentation there. (Sequence, sp, fmt). -DePiep (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't understand from your message on my talk page that you had left questions here for me.
 * The text should actually say "Standard Gibbs free energy of formation".
 * I would put it after the standard enthalpy of formation, but it's not important.
 * For the other parameters, see below.
 * Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, to be repositioned below enthalpy of formation. And I can understand that "Standard Gibbs free energy change of formation" or Standard Gibbs free energy of formation" (change added) is the perfect description, but why is the descriptive article named different (and the long name redirects, to the list only)? Also, it is a long wording, if a shorter text is acceptable then please suggest one. -DePiep (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ changed the sequence into Hf - Gf - HC as requested. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And the enthalpy values

 * ❌ Proposal needs fleshing out. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Eric Kvaalen@undefined. While we are at it, are Solution Ethalpy, Vaporization Enthalpy, and Melting Enthalpy you mentioned to be added (or are they disputed)? Please suggest parameter name, wikilink page, lefthand-text, and relevant notes. My first guesses (edit them here it you like): -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Solution Ethalpy Enthalpy change of solution ΔHo → SolutionEnthalpy
 * Vaporization Enthalpy Enthalpy of vaporization ΔHvap → VaporEnthalpy
 * Melting Enthalpy Enthalpy of melting or Enthalpy of fusion (?) → MeltingEnthalpy
 * Update: Found Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_26. Changed proposed parameter names (write "Enthalpy" in full). Write dimension in HTML not with &lt;math&gt;. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The default unit (added by the template, no need to type it) has a prefixed space (nbsp).
 * Proposals. In development -DePiep (talk)

Note done: not clear enough. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As I have just written above, it should say "Standard Gibbs free energy of formation", with a link to Standard Gibbs free energy change of formation. The names of the other wikilinks are fine as the left-hand text. Could use "Enthalpy of solution" instead of "Enthalpy change of solution" to make it shorter, but with the link to the latter. "Enthalpy of melting" simply redirects to Enthalpy of fusion – I would use the latter.
 * Thanks!
 * Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Improved temperature options in Chembox
In chembox, we can show temperatures for melting point, boiling point, flash point and autoignition temperature. Their value can be in plain text (any text), or calculated into °C, °F, and K from a single value (in C, F or K). Calculating & formatting was changed in December 2013, using the renewed (Lua) convert. Below is a next set of changes I propose for these four temperature values. I have added demo's and a preliminary documentation below. -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Put on hold, waiting for a convert code change. -DePiep (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Implemented, except for the "single input" option (waiting for convert). -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Brackets in temperature values format
The output format will be: 50 C when temperature is defined in °C.
 * Currently all formatting of temperatures is: 50 C. To improve readability, we add brackets as in 50 C. This is only possible when calculating from &deg;C. When defined in &deg;F or K, the formatting will stay: 50 C. This last format is a limitation of the current convert template. Calculations & values do not change.
 * This implies that within one Chembox both formats could be present (visible in some of the four). That is not ideal, but I think the easier reading with the brackets trumps the old format. My impression is that most temperatures are defined in &deg;C, so those chemboxes will show one format only. The alternative is: always show the unbracketed form (as is today).

Demo:

10 (in C) 100 (in F)

Endnotes not bracketed, allow reference
Today, Melting_notes are always bracketed by the template. A reference can not always be added correctly. Effects:
 * 50 C ([1]) ❌
 * 50 C (Some note[1]) ❌
 * 50 C[1] (Some note)[2] -- correct referencing, not possible (twice) ✅
 * Changes: a. no automated brackets around Melting_notes. b. Add parameter Melting_ref that will add the reference right after the temperatures.

The editor is in control of the output.
 * All articles which have these notes will be listed in Category:Chemboxes with temperature notes. They should be checked for correct formatting (a sweep).

Demo: (the references here are constructed for the example. One should use &lt;ref> ... &lt;/ref> tags). [ref1] Some note [ref2] (Another note)[ref3]

Prefix before numbers
When temperatures are calculated, there can be no prefix added. New MeltingPtPrefix allows a prefix. It has no effect on the calculations at all.

Demo:

&lt; 10 ~ 100

Flash point and Autoignition temperature: same full set of options
Flashpoint and Autoignition temperature will get exactly the same set of parameters. That is, the new MeltingPtPrefix and Melting_ref parallel parameters. And also the range options. Note: because of regularity, AutoignitionPt will be the base parameter name.

Demo:

ca. 50 60 (High end of range) &lt; 100 120 (High end of range) [ref3]

Unchanged
MeltingPt is for plaintext input (anything goes). When any of the numeric temperatures has input (like 50), this plaintext will be overwritten.

Deprecated parameters will be supported (but not documented).

Tracking & maintenance categories
Category:Chemboxes with conversion issues lists articles that contain errors or checks:
 * Sort under 1: Too many numeric input (eg, temperatures for C and F together).
 * Sort under 2: Plaintext and numeric input (plaintext is overwritten).
 * Sort under W (Melting), X (Boiling): Deprecated parameter _L is used BoilingPtCL; BoilingPtC will do).

Category:Chemboxes with temperature notes
 * has articles with has temperature _notes, sorted under M, B, F, or A (for Melt, Boil, Flash, Auto). These pages need a check once, because reference and bracket foramt may have changed.

Category:Convert error categories
 * The template convert lists problematic pages in this category. (These pages may also show under sort 1, see above).

More technical testcases are in Template:Chembox MeltingPt/testcases.

Another new feature for many temperature types
Convert now automatically handles ranges, so we can scrap some of the  fields. Compare:

{| 10 15 10-15
 * colspan=2 |legacy separate second parameter if range
 * colspan=2 |range passed as single parameter
 * colspan=2 |range passed as single parameter
 * colspan=2 |range passed as single parameter


 * }

Note that this is already available in Chembox Properties and anywhere else that relies on the low-level Chembox CalcTemperatures template for conversion and formatting. However, we should standardize the display syntax. If "to" is the preferred range signifier (and I do agree with that rather than the default "whatever the value uses", which would be some form of hyphen/dash as I assume one would most likely use in the value), I'm not sure convert supports that yet...

Passing the range-token without a second value (or with a null second value) doesn't work. Is there a named parameter we can use? DMacks (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting! Didn't even think of this. I agree, and don't see a complete solution.
 * Just noting. AFAIK, convert now is chembox used in the four temperature points only: Melting, Boiling, Flash, Autoignition (2 Properties and 2 Hazards). Didn't see other temperatures, didn't look for other candidate units.
 * I agree with aiming for the standard-format (and that being "to"). OTOH, we should not prevent an editor to use that dash-feature with its outcome. So an editor can start using the dash-input legally & correctly, since last December. This edit-friendly feature should prevail (we can always categorize them for a check btw). We could document it (publish it)?
 * How to proceed? I asked at Convert talk. With or without solution, we could proceed with the other changes if accepted. They are independend (so far), and the cleanup is worth moving fwd. I do not believe in advising for this in the documentation, i.e. advising to use one input format. -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember why we should not allow dashes in the range output: makes negatives illegible.
 * -50--30 &rarr; -50--30 F. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Working on this. Talking with convert people. Found out why knew about this ;-) .-DePiep (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Update. Looks like this nice improvement will work, but the core convert template has a bug with this. (Entering -20 to -15 C today returns an error: -20 to -15 C). Expect this to be solved in a few weeks. Then we can use it in {chembox}. Very editor friendly! -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Chembox code update 27 March 2014
Changes in the Chembox templates.


 * Chembox Thermochemistry
 * (m). sequence changed for new Gibbs free energy: . Talkpage request. Potassium permanganate. -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Chembox Supplement
 * (m) -- added data page pagename to set overrule the default "pagename (data page)".


 * {Chembox} images
 * Chembox itself. And Chembox image, Chembox image cell, Chembox image sbs, Chembox image sbs cell (new).
 * Parameter cleanup: simple name, removed unuseed params (e.g., default width is set was already set to 200px etc.). Code reshuffle. In {Chembox} internally, re ordered al params for easier reading. Renamed some params "par_file" not "par_value" (internal change only).


 * Column widths
 * sbs (side-by-side) images now get true 50% width. Before, it was tugged into uneven widths (ugly for the eye). Because each column width was also set by text content below in the infobox. That is now separated. Images do listen to width (Size) settings, withpout disrupting the texts.
 * Another column width is set separately for the text columns. Default is 40%. This can be set in main Chembox.
 * Total box width is set by width. Default is 22em. With these two sizes settings plus individual image size setting, you can play with the layout.


 * NFPA 704 diamond added
 * The new general {NFPA 704 diamond} (see doc there) is used. Allows references. Via Chembox NFPA. Behaviour change: default value is "blank", not "0" any more. Does code checks.


 * Temperatures
 * Melt, Boil, Flash, Autoignite. Now all have params for prefix, temperature range, reference. That's ten params per value ;-). Reduction for easier input is to follow. But full support is there.


 * Chembox Footer
 * New subtemplate. It handles most footer jobs for the infobox: below texts, verification, ccategorisation (maintenance), column width style. This way less code in main {chembox}.
 * Chembox verification. Categorisation job moved to the footer (with other such jobs). All categorisation uses : no other pages more in the categories. Instead of categorising, these other spaces (like Draft:) now get a message:  (instead of the category).


 * Tracking categories
 * See Category:Chembox maintenance categories and WP:Chembox/Maintenance categories. More parameters are systematically tracked, useful to cleanup articles. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * First results: no problems found with the changes. Though maintenance categorisation went a bit off: there were bad Unicode characters in the names, and the huge numbers made some listings useless. Bit this does not affect infobox presentation at all.
 * NFPA 704 shows nice(r) and has no individual issues any more (maintenance cat is empty). I like the improvement, also available for other templates.
 * Temperatures for melting, boiling, flash, autoignition points mostly are by convert, which also brings in uniform formatting. (The 'any text' option is available, and used in ~300 pages). This is the major improvement asked for last December. Flash and autoignition now take all fancy input too as melting had earlier: range, prefix, reference, notes (See documentation). Now remaining (or: introduced) there is the issue of ten parameters for a temperature value (sort of lol). That is to be addressed next. Target: single input option for our convert temperatures, that would be nice! At least we have quality controlled input now, correct & complete output, in mostly similar formats.
 * Image sizes and handling. Nicely, the paired images are given equal width by default now (Before, they were tugged and squeezed by the text content in the same columns below). We are in control. Default size is 200px for the lone ones, and 100px for a paired one. That means that only the exceptions need a size set 80px, usually for stranger image proportions.
 * Infobox width & text column width is controlled by width and style-left-column. Best is to avoid individual settings. (note: this sizing required an empty row below the whole box, slightly visible. I find that acceptable given to other improvements is brings).
 * Documentation is being adjusted accordingly. New is Navbox Chembox.
 * Maintenance categories can be filled changingly, helping development.
 * Me happy. Since I know a lot of you take sharp looks at this box, and no complaints emerged, I am convinced we have improvements. Making these multiple changes without breaking the infobox makes me Smiley.svg. -DePiep (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that some 400 article edits made today by me in AWB are suspect for changing image width into a wrong size. I am preparing a reversion. The bad effect is visual only: a pair of images showing uneven in positioning or proportion, so there is no fire brigade invited. -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Format suggestions on images
Two suggestions: ––Agyle (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Make table cell's vertical alignment "centered" for images cells. Or make an option for this. In this version of Ethanol, I think the upper right image and lower left image would look better vertically centered.
 * Reduce the horizontal "white space" (or "padding") between sides of images and edge of cells. In the previous link, the 4 images have about 2 pixels between their top edge and the top edge of their cell border, but have about 10 pixels between their sides and the sides of their cell border. Pixels isn't exactly the right word, and measurements like 2 and 10 change if you change rendering sizes, but I think in most browsers you will see around 5 times more white space on the sides of the image than at the top.
 * Maybe related to the last suggestion: reduce the horizontal "white space" (about ten pixels) between the right side of the [hide]/[show] after "Systematic name", "IUPAC name", or "Other names" so it is horizontally aligned with [hide]/[show] after "SMILES" and "InChI". For an example, again see the link to Ethanol.
 * The chembox is set to 32em wide, and has class=infobox settings. The paired images are 100px size (wide) by default. A single image has size=200px by default. See section above for the changes (columns separation). It is possible to change the defaults (chembox width of image defaults, or both). Setting image width in the article page should only be done to deviate from a default with reason.
 * An unexplored issue is the image caption (text below). That can push an image wider. We'd rather have that controlled (to image width maximum). I'd rather have this solved before changing the chembox layout. DePiep (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The "new" layout has a box in the bottom
There is a white box in the bottom of the infobox. Why? (mistake?) Christian75 (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A necessity, which I found acceptable given the profits it brings. It is where the column widths are set for the two textual columns.


 * Before last week, Chembox simply had two columns. In there were both the paired images L+R, and the texts. Their width was determined by the algorithm that used text widths and those image widths. It ended up as a compromise, squeezing some texts and displacing the image middle line. The images ended up being given uneven space. This was a pain to the eye at best, and ugly for sure. This was sort of outside of control.
 * The new chembox puts the paired images in a separate subbox (a subtable, which is technically put in a column=2 row in the infobox). Within that subbox they can arrange their own space, true 50/50 widths by default.
 * Meanwhile in the infobox, the two columns widths are left for the texts. Their column width is an outcome of these texts only. At first, left free in testing, it appeaared that the lefthand column was reduced to a small width, and the data values given more width. I then decided to set the LH column to width=40% as default. For the RH column is left 60% then. (before, it looked like LH ~45% I guess). The values now have a little more space (whitespace), I preferred because of better legibility (not too cramped, with these numbers).


 * To set and control the column width, there must be a 2-column row present. But where? All sections values are optional, so there was no guarantee in there. I added an empty row to the bottom. That is what you see. It is where the column-width is set.
 * This way we do control most of these width settings.


 * That column width can be set per article by 50%, a chembox parameter (top level, not a section thing).
 * You can experiment with the parameter as you like (sandbox, draft). Its big brother friend is width, for the infobox (default=32em).
 * Image widths are detailed in the sections above.


 * The default setting can be set changed of course, for all 10k chemboxes that is. That is a matter of personal preference too and so should be discussed here.
 * -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Consideration: for many pages, there are two rows (one for verification status, one for 'disclaimer') - use those two rows and convert them to the 40/60 columns (use the left box for 'verification status' (red cross if CheMoBot has not added a verified revid, green tick if it did) and the right box for the disclaimer (always there))? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Verification row is not always there. Changin the 'disclaimer' (standard state notice, I understand) was always there but now can be opted out by the editor (no. Editor in control, to not add when nonsensical). I could not make the prose sentence into two boxes. And last time I changed the brackets in this row, there was a riot for no-consensus so I'm staying away from that.
 * Better: change the template to Lua infobox.
 * Higher priority: how to handle larger captions with the images (now: widens the chembox (bad), hardcoded settings for textual input are done (bad)). -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Hardness
Couldn't Mohs scale of mineral hardness be included in this template? - Technophant (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about relevance of this one. But if & when added, should it look like this?:
 * In section: Properties. Input MohsHardness (expect 0–&gt;10 dimensionless; with decimals)
 * {| class=wikitable


 * Mohs hardness || 9.5
 * }
 * Row position in Chembox Properties: below all others?
 * -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Add: row position. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Add: row position. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Image size
In Chembox image sbs cell the default size is |sizedefault=200px, why not remove this line? If we do so the defaultsize is the thumbnail size which a logged in user can change in their preferences. Otherwise I will suggest we change it to 220 px which is the normal thumbnail size. Christian75 (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It says  twice (sbs=side-by-side images).
 * Chembox image cell has . These were the long time default sizes (not changed recently).
 * Primarily they should be kept the same in total (single image = twice sbs image). When going full chembox width (see below), the 2+2px midpadding in the sbs row could matter. Enlarging the width also affects the heights by the same proportion. This is substantial when there are two or three rows of pictures.


 * I don't think we need to use "thumbnail" default size. More important for the result is the infobox (chembox) width. Any size should flow nice in the 32px size set. Keeping or changing the 32em width is part of the topic too. That said, at 32em there seems whitespace to enlarge to about 220px (110px) - in my screen.
 * But first we must solve this. At the moment, a caption (text below image) can widen the image by itself. That way any width setting is useless, and the chembox ends up being unevenly wide (widening caption of course mostly occurs with sbs images). -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * . I am not reluctant to go into the image setting issues you opened up. It is just that I want to see the new situation stabilized first, with documentation and maintenance categories and all. After that, I expect I'll be happy to produce new demos and sandboxes by the dozen :-) . Meanwhile, pages like Chembox/testcases and Draft:Chembox demo are available for experiments with the already available parameters. -DePiep (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info, I appreciate all your work on Chembox. :-) Regarding the cell width, can't you just set the width of a table cell for the caption? For example in this sandbox page, I put the captions in width:100px cells, to match the 100px ImageSize set in the Chembox, so text can't affect the width of the cells. Or is that too browser-specific? ––Agyle (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, somehow that's the way to go. I was thinking about setting (restricting) the width for that caption text only, internally. Not the whole image. -DePiep (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Upgrading external jmol
Do we have an official contact for the Jmol applet server at chemapps.stolaf.edu used by the "Image 1", etc. extlinks that are generated by Chembox SMILES? It is currently serving a java applet, but Jmol now also has a javascript applet. Switching to javascript would improve portability of the chembox (allow 3D model display) onto platforms that don't support (or have disabled for various reasons) java. DMacks (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with changing it .. I think this is a good idea. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My current roadblock is figuring out if that server already has a js equivalent available, or else who to talk to about it. Do you know how we got hooked up with them and who there was involved? I can't find it in the wikichem-IRC or WT:CHEMS archives. DMacks (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't know anymore either. Not even sure if we had a contact there.  User:Walkerma, do you know?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the person to talk to will be Bob Hanson ([]) the principal developer of Jmol (and JSmol) who as you may notice also works at the same institution that the current server hosting the Jmol app is based. I'm just making an educated guess here but he would seem to be the best bet. --The chemistds (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is indeed Bob Hanson. If you need me to contact him, I can. Walkerma (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been upgraded on their server, no need for us to change anything. Looks great on ipad now. Yay! DMacks (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Chembox to work more useful for eponymous files
Template:Chembox preforms a check on whether an eponymous file exists. That is, for example, whether for article Ammonia a file Ammonia.gif, .png, .svg or .jpg exists (ammonia.gif does). If so, that article is added to Category:Chemical pages with an eponymous image available. Currently, the ere are 5674 eponymous files found, for 9840 chembox transclusion (~57%).

Following a discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diadinoxanthin.png, we can optimise this file check. It better only be done when no file image is used at all (so there is an automated hint to use the eponymous file, through the category). The template will work like this:

''When no image is entered at all in an article chembox, template:chembox will look for eponymous images with extensions gif, svg, png and jpg. If there exists one, the page will be added to Category:Chemical pages with an eponymous image available''.

Technically, the test is performed in template:Chembox Footer. And: the category will contain only a few pages, not 5000+. Also the original problem in the commons link will be reduced: the image appears "in use" while only being checked for existance - that will be gone too -- except for those listed. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ping -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tracking down and fixing it! The other one I was watching, commons:File:Isosorbide.png in en:Isosorbide, is now also cleared. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * +1. BTW: Category:Chemical pages with an eponymous image available is almost empty. --Leyo 00:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good, also remember #ifexist is a expensive parser function, see Ifexist Christian75 (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * re Leyo: yes, 27 now. These are actually pages that could use a image, but we do not know if the eponymous image is a molecule structure. Someone might do a sweep.
 * re Chrtistian75: expensive indeed, but for me that is not a reason to remove it. (500 expensives are allowed on a page, and below that number I do not restrict anything by myself). -DePiep (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the 21 articles that remain, several are supposed not to have an image or even not a chembox at all (Silylene, Phosphite). --Leyo 20:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been adding images when they show a structure. See my user contributions. Remove & edit these chemboxes as you think good. -DePiep (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no need to edit after a removal. Or before. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * re: DePiep; Maybe not a reason not to use #ifexist, but its a reason not to use it careless - it is slow. Christian75 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Element-ordering in chemical formula
When using the "automatic" formula method (, the results appear to display according to Hill order (C...H...everything-else-alphabetically). It's actually generated by an inner template: gives:

When there are no carbons, Hill says H goes in its place strictly alphabetically. But gives:
 * }

still "C/H first". DMacks (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * }
 * And now I see this was already discussed last April here . But that answer sounds like the implementation has changed, or else I'm misunderstanding...something. There, the problem was that Hill was not being applied because NOCONSENSUS for inorganics (presumably "contains carbon" for this context?). But now it looks like it is being applied, but is being misapplied for inorganics that happen to contain hydrogen. But Chembox Elements has not been changed in any relevant way since that discussion. could you explain or clarify what you were remembering (or what you can now re-determine)? Regardless, we should figure out what's happening now and document it (possibly after changing what's happening now if we don't like it). DMacks (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't follow yet. DM writes: "Hill was not being applied because NOCONSENSUS for inorganics". But in, Edgar181 writes "there is consensus to use the Hill system for organic compounds, but not necessarily for inorganics". So Edgar writes that there is consensus to "not necessarily" us Hill in inorganics. If we take Edgar's wording as the rules to be applied here at enwiki, it is not illegal to have "H" opening an inorganic formule. And currently, the Chembox implies the rules correctly in that it uses the freedom of "not necessarily" to the effect of '... but by my choice I do'. So in inorganics, Chembox puts H as a prefix. (Chembox Elements does not check for organic/inorganic, not now and not in 2010).
 * Topic limitation: for organics, Hill's rule is applied and there is no issue. Also, when an editor enters a Formule it is by the editor that the sequence is set. OTOH, shouldn't this issue also include "C when no H is present" (as an inorganic formule)?
 * Moving forward now. I understand that DMacks proposes to apply Hill's rules for inorganics in Chembox. There is no explicit discussion into non-/consensus found. I don't think we should to rely on memories. IOW, we can discuss DMacks proposal. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is that I do not know what standard calls for H first in inorganic cases. That is, are we actually following a common method from chemical literature? I agree that we are not currently using hill for inorganics, and I accept that there might be no consensus to do so, but I'm trying to understand the basis for what we are doing. DMacks (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Clear, and in fewer words. Let's forget what we do/did. Let's base our guideline on what Hill system says. But the linked article is bad (incorrect & incomplete even). I cannot get the 1900 Hill text. Anyway still, we best aim at "use Hill". -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Triple or critical point of molecules?
Molecules have triple points, and they also have critical points. Those points represent when there is enough pressure for all 3 states of matter to exist, and when there is enough pressure that the gas and liquid states blend together, respectively. So can somebody add those parameters? DSCrowned (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean: triple point, by two parameters: pressure and temperature. And Critical point (thermodynamics) can be multiple for a substance ? (added question mark; DP) . Which which ones should we include, and which parameters go with that? Also, is there a need to add it? -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Inter wiki
I've just copied all relevant templates to cy, I should think a good 80 of them. It looks good and thanks to all for really hard work. Just a suggestion: can you please keep in mind the other languages when creating the next draft! There must be a way of creating a file of all relevant templates that could be 'dumped' into another language wiki. If only life was that simple - I suppose I want it on a plate! Thanks again. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please clarify. Did you copy the whole chembox set? (that is more like 146 subtemplates, see Category:Chembox templates)? Did you translate the (English) parameters like "| IUPACName", and why would that be a problem? In general, I do not understand what changes you would like to the English Chembox (next draft). If it helps inter wiki translation, we sure can do that. -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * is Welsh. cy:wikipedia has Latin script. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes in {infobox element}
We have some 125 element infoboxes (see Category:Periodic table infobox templates). I have prepared changes to change the box into a wiki-standard Infobox. See Change_Infobox_element_to_use_{Infobox} for an overview and comments. Some questions are open.

You can check your favorite element for changes (e.g., fluorine). An all-parameter demo is here. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have finalised the new version, it is about ready to go live by now. Check some value-formatting or element showing if you like. If you have any questions, ask me.
 * . -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

New Hidden Category
Would it be possible to create a new Hidden Category of "Pages with a Chembox which have not been assigned to a wikiproject"? It would be useful as a curating tool. --Project Osprey (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. How would that be triggered for an article? I cannot think how to automatic by code. Manual parameter setting like no? Consider this alternative: we list lists all articles with a chembox and without any WP-assesment template on their talkpage. Like that? Not a category then. (Maybe done by a bot or AWB manipulation or WP:CATSCAN). While you're at it, aim at same thing for drugbox articles? -DePiep (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to have a template parse data from another page, especially something generic like "*any* WikiProject" because there are so many different possible tags to look for. Could *possibly* look membership in a certain specific category (hrm, can't find a parserfunction for that:(. But it would be a trivial bot task or WP:DUMP scan because those processes can easily read and compare multiple pages (i.e., article + talk) and have arbitrarily complex heuristics. DMacks (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't want to be burdening people too much with this. Could it be done the other way around? Can we generate a list of pages using a Chembox and then (independently) generate a list of pages in currently Wikiproject Chemicals; then compare one against the other to give us a list of pages about chemicals which we're not currently curating? --Project Osprey (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the trivialish way to do it. I don't have a stable enough network connection until later today or tomorrow to try it. DMacks (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find the parserfunction because the extensions that have things like  aren't installed on Wikipedia. Oops. DMacks (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You might try this tool. You could put "chembox" in the "Has all of these templates" field and "WikiProject Chemicals" and "WikiProject Chemistry" (or others if necessary) in the "Has none of these templates" field and checking the "Use talk pages instead" checkbox below it.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That might work, the only problem is that there doesn't seem to be a hidden category for "Has Chembox". That in itself would be interesting, I wonder how many such pages there compared to how many we list in the wikiprojects. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought that tool could generate a list of articles that contain a certain template regardless of whether there is a category associated with it, but I can't seem to get any such results from the tool today. Maybe I am misremembering, or maybe there is a problem with the tool at the moment.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This should give you at least a partial list. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it enjoyed running that... my network connection is good and that took a long time to load. End result was 228 pages, some of those are polymers (although a lot fewer than you might expect). A lot of what's there is what I'm looking for: pages that are ours but have gotten lost. Many thanks! --Project Osprey (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you post a list here (with timestamp when you ran it) so others of us don't keep killing wmflabs with our curiosity? DMacks (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'm heading home now so I'll post it up in a couple of hours. In the meanwhile do try to refrain from using this to set the servers on fire. --Project Osprey (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Rephrase the question.
 * Chembox only (not Infobox drug? They overlap, are not fully distinguised)
 * Which WikiProjects should be checked? (A list would make things easier, as opposed to a WikiProject). A try:
 * WP:CHEMICALS WP:ELEMENTS
 * WP:MEDICINE WP:PHARMACOLOGY WP:ANATOMY WP:BIOLOGY
 * WP:WikiProject Microbiology
 * WP:VET
 * -DePiep (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not infobox-drug, those pages tend to focus on medical rather than chemical properties, so they're not something we should automatically be looking for (at least to me, other might feel differently). The idea was to find any 'lost' chemistry pages not yet assigned to WP:CHEMICALS WP:ELEMENTS or WP:POLYMERS. There may be a debate about whether to include WP:PHARMACOLOGY. Personally I wouldn't, I know that will result in a lot of hits but I think that a chemist might focus on different content that a pharmacist e.g. synthesis rather than biochemistry. If its a lot of work then I can just use CatScan, it does seem to do a fairly good job. --Project Osprey (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I already made a simple crosscheck with WP:CHEMS, see link below. Once your WP-list is stable, it may be worth running the process once again. Technote: I used AWB, because it nicely allows to switch a list from "talk" to "subject" page. Enjoy the jions. -DePiep (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a good excercise! I would perform the same for infobox drug as well, there are quite some compounds that are also within our focus there, and even if only as a service to our drugbox friends, and after all, except for a handful of concoctions, most are well defined chemicals.  Also, some pages with a ChemBox actually should have a DrugBox (though personally, I am still in favour of merging the two templates ..), and some of the compounds mentioned below seem candidates for that.  User:Anypodetos, any comments?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * please add the exact filtering used with the CatScan list below, as a documentation. I count 229 articles (6&times;38+1). Does this CatScan list answer what you were looking for? -DePiep (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC) (before this reply, I had not seen Ospreys reply below the AWB list). -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

CatScan output
This is the output from CatScan, apologies for the delay it took a bit of time to format. I'll probably start sorting through it tomorrow but I would like to take a moment to express my delight at the existence of Beefy meaty peptide, what a brilliant name! --Project Osprey (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CHEMISTRY and Template:Chembox articles

 * See Wikipedia:Chemical infobox/WP:chemistry and Template:Chembox articles
 * (page moved to have the WP-:-colon name) -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Three-way list: A only, B only, A and B. Lists 14435 articles. -DePiep (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Improved list
 * Chemical infobox/Articles with a Chembox not in certain WikiProjects -DePiep (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is much better, I'm seeing 808 pages with 'TEMPLchembox only', If they all get moved to WP:CHEMS then it would increase our total page-count by 5%. One question though, this shows 13627 pages in WP:CHEMS, that doesn't correspond to the pagecount for either WP:Chemicals or WP:Chemistry, I know these are different tools but they're still parsing the same data. Is AWB just rejecting lists and diambig pages? - Either way though, well done! --Project Osprey (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * re. I did not use any labs tool at all. I do not know exactly how these tools list, so I cannot clarify that difference directly.
 * The list of WP:CHEMS is build, these steps done in WP:AWB:
 * 1. List all pages in Category:Chemistry articles by importance and 2 levels below (2 deep). These are the talkpages, by Chemistry WP-assessment tag (and more, below).
 * 2. Note that these include subcategories (daughter WikiProjects) like Category:High-importance chemical elements articles (47 P) Category:High-importance chemicals articles (314 P). Hence the two-deep (otherwise one-deep would do).
 * These talkpages have the template like
 * (example from Talk:Azide)
 * (example from Talk:Furan)
 * 3. Turn each talk page into their subject page (AWB List menu option).
 * 4. Remove double mentionings into singles (rm one); remove all non-articles (keep mainspace pages only)
 * 5. This is the list "all articles in WP:CHEMISTRY", currently 13627 P.
 * 6. The List is saved in useful format (AWB-option)
 * 7. Cross-checks were created in Access database (we need three crossings (A/B/A&B), by L/R/OUTER JOINS in SQL)
 * 8. Those three lists put in a spreadsheet (I am familiar with) to add wikicode table format.
 * FYI: you do not need WP:AWB license to create & manipulate these lists, and no wiki-login in AWB! Because it is read-only; it does not take editing. -DePiep (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Osprey, the lab tool link took all pages. When set namespace=0 (articles only), the number is 13737 . That is closer.
 * todo: I expect a "list" and "redirect" be in article space just as well (that is set in the CHEM temaplte parameter, not by namespace). Will take another look. -DePiep (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Checking example Timeline of chemistry, a WP:CHEMISTRY list in mainspace & assessment category. Not in the overview page - omission. Strange. The list (in linked page) might not be correct. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The list is incomplete. Will have to reprocess the big page. I do need the confirmed definition first. -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All pages with a chembox not part of WP:CHEMICALS WP:ELEMENTS or WP:POLYMERS. Project Osprey (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So,
 * You say "pages" not "articles" (pages=all namespaces, articles=mainspace only).
 * You don't need the list of "pages in WP:CHEMISTRY that do not have a ". (for all three projects).
 * There will be no differentiating wrt "List" or "stub" or any other project assessment.
 * -DePiep (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, by pages I meant articles (although I doubt the results would be much different either way). The rest is correct. --Project Osprey (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. We have WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Chemicals and maybe more. What a mess. Which (talkpage) WikiProject tags am I to check? What the funk is a "Daughter project" (don't start explaining, it is rhetorically). -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the pure chemistry ones, so WP:CHEMISTRY, WP:CHEMICALS, WP:ELEMENTS and WP:POLYMERS. I do appreciate the amount of work you're putting into this but if it’s becoming a mess you could always stop here, we've already found 800 pages. --Project Osprey (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * List is in Chemical infobox/Articles with a Chembox not in certain WikiProjects
 * The number is 604 P now, not strange then (polymers reduced the earlier number 808). You can delete the big section you might not need, to speed up the page. Let me know if you see issues. -DePiep (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

New: Odor threshold value
I think that odor threshold value is a very important piece of information (see Odor detection threshold). Various sources are available: What do you think? Mintz l (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.timestream.com/vgh/downloads/NO2articles/Ruth%201986.pdf
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8472679
 * https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=093262734X
 * chemical-specific publications in various journals
 * Dunno, but what would a data row look like? (label text & link, expected/fixed unit)?
 * Odor treshold | 7&times;102 ppm
 * -DePiep (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Whitespace in {Chembox}: a standard
In article code, whitespace can be very helpful & distracting. Irregularities are distracting & confusing.

For Chembox I propose to use whitespace one way ✅:


 * That is
 * Use single space after parameter pipe, before/after =symbol when value present
 * But: inner section-closing  on newline and with double space (to align with the opening Sectionparameter).
 * Also: No space at end of line. No empty whitelines in between.

This does not have any effect on presented result.

This is to prevent iregualrities like ❌:

Any comments? -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The space after the pipe is unnecessary, and it is more usual to see equals signs aligned:

which aids readability. However, editors may use any form; it's not clear what you're proposing, It would be impractical to impose one style on all editors, and it would not be acceptable to make mass edits solely to change the use of whitespace. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All spaces are unnecessaryu; I'd like to have the indented inner "}}" to show the sttructure, aligninh the "=" looks good for the editor but is a hell to maintain (esp in AWB). I did not write about imposing or mass-edit, but about voluntary keeping the same standard. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is going to be very dependent on the editor. Personally I like a variation of option II above:

Main template parameters with one space, the in-section parameters with 2 spaces (but this may be my programming-instinct at work). In the end it does not really matter, except for being able to see what is in where. I think this is why I made CheMoBot putting two spaces before the _Ref parameters and 1 space before the 'verified'-parameters in the body of the template. I don't have any preference in any form. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I know the programmers habit to indent. But here it ends up in a chaos, also because other indent-rules are applied (like indent the nested section). -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing links

 * What should Atmospheric OH rate constant link to, or what does it mean? Used in Phenyldichloroarsine ( = 1.95E-12 cm3/molecule·s). -DePiep (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A link for EU Index? Is not Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC) (EU Classification) -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 3DMet? Tetrahydroharmine has http://www.3dmet.dna.affrc.go.jp/html/B00115.html broken link. More. Remove? -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)