Template talk:Orgchemsuffixes


 * Why isn't this template a box?129.31.72.52 09:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it is intended to make an ordinary ==section== in the host article. Anthony Appleyard 12:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Navbox
I think a navbox would look better here, something like this:

Generally, it seems that a navbox is preferred when you have a list of links to other related articles, (see WP:NAV and Ice II). I don't know why this needs to be an ordinary section; if you have a special reason please tell us, otherwise, if no one objects in a couple of days, I'll go ahead and replace this template. Jkasd (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added groups to the navbox, if anything is missing or out of place, please fix it. Jkasd (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the template to a navbox. Here is the old version:

Other organic chemical word components

 * Obviously, one could continue creating pages for every organic chemistry affix (e.g. meth-, eth-, prop-, cis-, trans-, etc.), but this begs the question, when do we stop? Do we even need the ones here? I'm starting to think that most of these pages are unnecessary. Jkasd (talk) 22:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. This information should be in wiktionary not wikipedia. All prefixes belonging to any topic can be categorized there. – ishwar  (speak)  06:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Or we could merge them all into one page about components of organic chemical names, but keep it on Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)