Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/IRC discussions/7 April 2009


 * [2009-04-07 17:01:38]  shall we start?
 * [2009-04-07 17:01:44] Hello, glad that lots of people could make it. I'll email ChemSpiderman
 * [2009-04-07 17:02:09] Sure. Will you moderate, PC, or should I?
 * [2009-04-07 17:02:42]  i need to get a shower, give me about 10 minutes or so
 * [2009-04-07 17:02:49]  but i'll be "here"
 * [2009-04-07 17:04:07]  I'll moderate if you like.
 * [2009-04-07 17:04:13] OK
 * [2009-04-07 17:04:34]  I think the most important thing to discuss is the new CAS website
 * [2009-04-07 17:04:54]  CSM might want to talk about structure diagrams if he's around
 * [2009-04-07 17:05:13]  if there's time, I've got some infoon safety issues
 * [2009-04-07 17:05:44]  so, Martin, what is the feedback from CAS?
 * [2009-04-07 17:05:47] I've emailed CSM, we'll see if he joins us
 * [2009-04-07 17:06:03]  safety?
 * [2009-04-07 17:06:09]  feels like group seminar...
 * [2009-04-07 17:06:15]  chemical safety!
 * [2009-04-07 17:06:30]  it IS a group seminar! :P
 * [2009-04-07 17:06:35] OK, I heard from Jim Corning last week - he's their web person, he's the main person putting the new website together
 * [2009-04-07 17:07:22] He said they got approval from higher up to go ahead with the changes to the website
 * [2009-04-07 17:07:50] "We have a little bit of cleaning up, rebuilding and testing to do before
 * [2009-04-07 17:07:52] we issue a news release but at least the process can now start. "
 * [2009-04-07 17:08:48] They asked if I would help test the site - is anyone else here interested in doing that for them?
 * [2009-04-07 17:09:07]  i'll be happy to
 * [2009-04-07 17:09:11]  i wont' go out of my way
 * [2009-04-07 17:09:17]  but i'll just do it while ordering chems
 * [2009-04-07 17:09:32] I will (of course) help with that
 * [2009-04-07 17:09:40]  I can do some testing as well
 * [2009-04-07 17:09:50] <Physchim62> what do they want testing?
 * [2009-04-07 17:10:30] <Rifleman_82> mentioned something about links to WP?
 * [2009-04-07 17:10:50] <Physchim62> yes, there are some links to WP on the alpha-version
 * [2009-04-07 17:11:16] <Physchim62> CSM mentioned on his blog that they might like to include the lead section from the article as well
 * [2009-04-07 17:11:55] Well, they regard the version of the website that will go up soon as a BETA version, and so they want to find us to do beta testing - to find the bugs before it goes official
 * [2009-04-07 17:11:56] <Rifleman_82> hmmm
 * [2009-04-07 17:12:00] <Rifleman_82> duplication with chemspider?
 * [2009-04-07 17:12:12] I already proposed a lead section from WP as well
 * [2009-04-07 17:12:45] back in January - they seemed moderately interested in the idea
 * [2009-04-07 17:13:06] One important point that was very clear when I met with CAS in Salt Lake City:
 * [2009-04-07 17:13:11] <Physchim62> might be good as an upgrade
 * [2009-04-07 17:13:45] They regard this website not as a potential moneymaker or anything like that - they see it purely as a public service/outreach project
 * [2009-04-07 17:14:30] <Rifleman_82> fair enough?
 * [2009-04-07 17:14:30] It is not going to grow into SciFinder Lite or anything like that - it is aimed at the lay person, not the chemistry professional
 * [2009-04-07 17:14:35] <Rifleman_82> public service more than anything else
 * [2009-04-07 17:14:43] <Rifleman_82> hmm
 * [2009-04-07 17:14:54] <Rifleman_82> 9000 cpds?
 * [2009-04-07 17:14:55] <Physchim62> I think that's farly clear from their press release, and the style of the site
 * [2009-04-07 17:15:04] <Physchim62> 7800 I think
 * [2009-04-07 17:15:09] I think that's why they registered a separate URL
 * [2009-04-07 17:15:23] <Physchim62> of which only about 1200 have been verified on WP
 * [2009-04-07 17:15:35] There are 7800 compounds currently, but that will probably creep up a little, once they add in the hydrates that PC requested
 * [2009-04-07 17:15:47] <Rifleman_82> those aren't really distinct cpds?
 * [2009-04-07 17:16:04] <Physchim62> yes, but they're distinct CASRNs
 * [2009-04-07 17:16:11] <Physchim62> 7800 CASRNs
 * [2009-04-07 17:16:53] <Physchim62> my wshlist contained just over 100 compounds: no doubt we will have other wishlists as the validation process procedes.
 * [2009-04-07 17:16:59] We would like to have verified CAS#s for things like CuCl2.2H2O, not just anhydrous CuCl2. A high school teacher, say, is much more likely to be working with the hydrate
 * [2009-04-07 17:17:23] <Rifleman_82> maybe a redirect page like we have on WP?
 * [2009-04-07 17:17:47] <Physchim62> I based the list on the idea that if a hydrate was notable enough to be mentioned in the WP article, it was notable enough for me to ask for its CASRN
 * [2009-04-07 17:17:55] Physchim62: We also have new compounds being added to WP every day, and so I think we will have another wishlist within a year or so. But CAS are very open to that, as long as it's not a million compounds
 * [2009-04-07 17:18:14] <Rifleman_82> so i need a cas? okay i'll write a stub!
 * [2009-04-07 17:18:20] <Physchim62> I think the important point is that we need to get on with validation
 * [2009-04-07 17:18:38] <Rifleman_82> might game the system, but so long it's a legit stub, it's too labor intensive for data mining
 * [2009-04-07 17:18:55] <Rifleman_82> hmmm maybe we should push CAS for that? so long as it has an article on WP they'll validate the cas?
 * [2009-04-07 17:19:09] <Physchim62> that way we can look at the compounds which are on WP but aren't on the CAS list, and make a plausible case
 * [2009-04-07 17:19:12] <Rifleman_82> a terribly obscure compound won't survive for long anyway
 * [2009-04-07 17:19:21] <Rifleman_82> not notable, etc
 * [2009-04-07 17:19:26] <Rifleman_82> shower, be right back
 * [2009-04-07 17:19:34] <Physchim62> I think we need to be careful about things like drugs under testing
 * [2009-04-07 17:19:55] <Physchim62> CAS might well turn round and say to us that that information is too valuable
 * [2009-04-07 17:21:09] <Physchim62> but if we can say "well we can either put in the number we found in the Aldrich catalogue or we can put in a validated number", CAS will probably validate it for us
 * [2009-04-07 17:21:33] I think this is why THEY want to retain control over what CAS registry nos get released - they don't want people trying to game the system - but if we have a genuine suggestion that is very reasonable, they're very open to our suggestions
 * [2009-04-07 17:22:10] <Physchim62> OK. you mentioned in your email that hey are interested in linking to other sites
 * [2009-04-07 17:22:43] <Rifleman_82> seems upside down for the "authority"
 * [2009-04-07 17:22:48] <Rifleman_82> people should link to you, not the other way around?
 * [2009-04-07 17:23:02] <Physchim62> I haven't had any requests for my consultancy services from Columbus, Ohio! ;)
 * [2009-04-07 17:23:13] It's not upside down if you see it as a public service!
 * [2009-04-07 17:23:22] <Physchim62> Rifleman_82, they seem to want to make a useful site
 * [2009-04-07 17:23:28] <Rifleman_82> hmmm
 * [2009-04-07 17:23:44] <Rifleman_82> easier to give cahs to WP/CSM and let us put their mark of approval?
 * [2009-04-07 17:23:47] <Rifleman_82> but that's off topic
 * [2009-04-07 17:23:50] <Rifleman_82> *cash
 * [2009-04-07 17:24:13] <Physchim62> It's only an "authority" as far as we're concerned. Most people treat the Aldrich catalogue as the final source of all CASRNs
 * [2009-04-07 17:24:23] However, I think they will shy away from what they regard as "competition" such as ChemSpider or PubChem
 * [2009-04-07 17:24:26] <Rifleman_82> promoting the advancement of the chemical sciences by monetary and nonmonetary support to WP/a chemical structure database
 * [2009-04-07 17:24:50] <Physchim62> well, it sort of came out of that
 * [2009-04-07 17:25:10] <Physchim62> they gave us the list of CASRNs, and we said we couldn't use it unless it was public
 * [2009-04-07 17:25:24] <Physchim62> so they made it public so that we could use them on WP
 * [2009-04-07 17:25:55] <Physchim62> The website itself is nonmonetary support to WP
 * [2009-04-07 17:27:08] <Physchim62> speaking of which, now that CAS has put the press release out, we should write something up for Wikipedia Signpost
 * [2009-04-07 17:27:49] Actually, PC, they still haven't done their main press release - I think they want to get the new search algorithm stablised and the testing done first
 * [2009-04-07 17:28:14] <Physchim62> OK, that gives us more time to write the Signpost piece then :)
 * [2009-04-07 17:28:18] But I agree that once that happens, we should tell the Signpost and others
 * [2009-04-07 17:29:24] <Physchim62> I'll try to draft something and email it to you
 * [2009-04-07 17:29:55] Good
 * [2009-04-07 17:30:36] <Physchim62> is there anything else that CAS wants from us urgently?
 * [2009-04-07 17:31:44] Not yet, AFAIK
 * [2009-04-07 17:31:48] Anyway the good news is that: (a) We can now link our validated CAS#s to the CAS website directly (I think Dirk already enabled that) - and that is the perfect validation IMHO. "You don't believe that Wikipedia has the right CAS No.?  Then click on the CAS No. link and see what CAS says!?"
 * [2009-04-07 17:31:55] (b) We can validate our structures against the Common Chemistry website in cases (such as ajmaline) where the 3d structure is in doubt in the SDF.
 * [2009-04-07 17:32:15] <Physchim62> Dirk's fix doesn't work, I was just waiting until you'd finished to discuss that!
 * [2009-04-07 17:32:55] So I think we're making progress. Once I finish the 0.7 release (still going through lots of F**Ks and things) I will focus a lot of time on the validation effort again
 * [2009-04-07 17:33:51] <Physchim62> yes, we're definitely making progress. I've been involved on another project, so I haven't been doing much validation recently, but I can get back to doing some.
 * [2009-04-07 17:34:39] <Physchim62> the problem with Dirk's fix is that it links EVERY SINGLE CASRN to the CAS site, whether they've been validated or not, whether they are on the site or not
 * [2009-04-07 17:34:39] Physchim62: Can you send me a final list of all the inorganics? Or is the CaVer list on wikichem.org the complete one?
 * [2009-04-07 17:35:04] <Physchim62> what do you mean "a final list"?
 * [2009-04-07 17:35:23] <Physchim62> CASRNs vs. wikilinks?
 * [2009-04-07 17:36:12] I think you sent a partially validated list to me, which I forwarded to them, but since then you have validated all of the inorganics in the CAS list. I'd like to send CAS that list, including all the wikipage URLs
 * [2009-04-07 17:36:58] <Physchim62> I *think* the list on wikichem.org is the final one, but I can easily pull it out of CaVer if you tell me exactly what data you want and in what format ;)
 * [2009-04-07 17:37:46] <Physchim62> I assume that CAS will want a list of CASRNs with the corresponding wikilink
 * [2009-04-07 17:37:51] OK, we'll talk on email
 * [2009-04-07 17:37:55] <Physchim62> the rest doesn't matter to them
 * [2009-04-07 17:38:13] Regarding the problem with "Dirk's fix": What should we do?
 * [2009-04-07 17:38:25] <Physchim62> anyway, is Rifleman_82 out of the shower yet?
 * [2009-04-07 17:38:36] I'm scared to look...!
 * [2009-04-07 17:39:00] <Physchim62> do we want to have the link up and running at this point, or do we want to wait until the CAS site is out of its testing phase?
 * [2009-04-07 17:39:44] Well, it sounds like we need to be testing the linking method!
 * [2009-04-07 17:39:59] <Physchim62> If we wait until the CAS site is tested, then we simply revert Dirk's laudable BOLDness
 * [2009-04-07 17:40:48] <Physchim62> If we want to have links now, we need to make sure that we're only linking validated CAS numbers, and that needs a different solution to the one that Dirk has implemented
 * [2009-04-07 17:40:52] <Rifleman_82> back
 * [2009-04-07 17:41:07] <Physchim62> for either of those, we need an administrator ;)
 * [2009-04-07 17:41:50] <Physchim62> a secondary question is "how do we want these numbers to be formatted?"
 * [2009-04-07 17:42:05] OK, can we set it up so that only "Green" CAS Nos link to the CAS website?
 * [2009-04-07 17:42:12] <Physchim62> yes
 * [2009-04-07 17:42:57] And we'd also want to link the red ones (i.e., "someone has vandalised this green one") - until we get the bot to do autoreverts
 * [2009-04-07 17:43:32] If that's possible, I think that should solve the problem, shouldn't it?
 * [2009-04-07 17:43:54] <Rifleman_82> hmmm
 * [2009-04-07 17:43:59] <Rifleman_82> so how can an admin help?
 * [2009-04-07 17:44:00] <Physchim62> we just set a parameter in Template:Chembox CASNo and then get Template:Chembox Identifiers to check for CASNO_ref = and send the parameter accordingly
 * [2009-04-07 17:44:47] <Physchim62> but these are fully protected templates, so I can't edit them myself
 * [2009-04-07 17:44:54] <Rifleman_82> oh okay
 * [2009-04-07 17:45:03] <Rifleman_82> are we ready now?
 * [2009-04-07 17:45:25] <Rifleman_82> can you create a Template:Chembox CasNo temp with the correct stuff?
 * [2009-04-07 17:45:26] Don't see why not!
 * [2009-04-07 17:45:27] <Rifleman_82> test it
 * [2009-04-07 17:45:33] <Rifleman_82> and then i'll move it onto -temp
 * [2009-04-07 17:46:14] <Physchim62> yep, that's a good idea. I'll set them up in /Sandbox and then drop a note at WT:CHEMBOX when they're ready
 * [2009-04-07 17:46:21] =-= as_leep is now known as ali_as
 * [2009-04-07 17:46:28] <Physchim62> hi ali_as
 * [2009-04-07 17:46:43] <ali_as> Aloha, sorry, bad form, I think I must have had the time wrong.
 * [2009-04-07 17:46:43] Hello ali_as
 * [2009-04-07 17:46:48] <Rifleman_82> okay
 * [2009-04-07 17:46:52] <Rifleman_82> hi ali_as
 * [2009-04-07 17:47:00] Were you logging the discussion?
 * [2009-04-07 17:47:08] <Physchim62> I've got a log
 * [2009-04-07 17:47:27] We met earlier today to accommodate Rifleman_82, who is in Singapore
 * [2009-04-07 17:47:46] <Rifleman_82> appreciate that, thank you
 * [2009-04-07 17:47:59] Is this a good time for everyone, by the way?
 * [2009-04-07 17:48:04] <ali_as> I can read this log.
 * [2009-04-07 17:48:13] <Physchim62> It's OK for me, apart from the class
 * [2009-04-07 17:48:39] <ali_as> Ok, I should have checked the IRC page, sorry all.
 * [2009-04-07 17:48:43] <Physchim62> 1430-1600 UTC most Tuesdays
 * [2009-04-07 17:49:14] OK, so we will either lose Rifleman or PC...
 * [2009-04-07 17:49:29] <Physchim62> I can always join later
 * [2009-04-07 17:49:37] <Physchim62> Rifleman can't
 * [2009-04-07 17:49:43] <Rifleman_82> hmm
 * [2009-04-07 17:49:44] OK
 * [2009-04-07 17:49:58] <Rifleman_82> well...
 * [2009-04-07 17:50:00] <Rifleman_82> we can straddle it
 * [2009-04-07 17:50:06] <Rifleman_82> start at 1530
 * [2009-04-07 17:50:07] <Physchim62> well, not if he's to keep something approaching easonable sleep patterns ;)
 * [2009-04-07 17:50:17] <Rifleman_82> yeah well
 * [2009-04-07 17:50:17] <ali_as> Heresy perhaps but mightanother day be better then?
 * [2009-04-07 17:50:42] <Rifleman_82> any day's fine for me
 * [2009-04-07 17:50:57] Tuesday is MUCH the best day for me - the only other day I can do is probably Saturday
 * [2009-04-07 17:51:03] <Physchim62> any day risks to give me problems from time to time ;)
 * [2009-04-07 17:51:44] <Rifleman_82> hmmm
 * [2009-04-07 17:51:46] <Rifleman_82> i can come at 1530
 * [2009-04-07 17:51:53] <Rifleman_82> i'd like to sleep at 12
 * [2009-04-07 17:52:00] <Rifleman_82> but if i can push it a little, it's not so bad
 * [2009-04-07 17:52:56] <Physchim62> OK let's make next week's meeting at 1530 UTC, 1630 BST, 1730 CEST and sometime or other which I can't be bothered to calculate in the Eastern United States
 * [2009-04-07 17:53:13] <Rifleman_82> yeah okay
 * [2009-04-07 17:53:17] OK
 * [2009-04-07 17:53:23] <ali_as> Ok.
 * [2009-04-07 17:53:42] <Physchim62> fine. so to get back to these links to the CAS site
 * [2009-04-07 17:54:06] <Physchim62> do we want to have the links in place NOW for those compounds which are validated
 * [2009-04-07 17:54:10] <Physchim62> ?
 * [2009-04-07 17:54:40] <Rifleman_82> y not?
 * [2009-04-07 17:54:55] <Physchim62> if so, do we want to keep the green colour? (not sure if that's possible, but I'll try)
 * [2009-04-07 17:55:04] Physchim62: I would say YES. The actual CAS pages - which is what we link to - are not going to change much.  The main work is on the CAS search engine algorithm, which is unrelated to our links
 * [2009-04-07 17:55:07] <Rifleman_82> y?
 * [2009-04-07 17:55:21] <Rifleman_82> just have it blue with the external link [arrow]
 * [2009-04-07 17:55:23] <Physchim62> and do we want them enclosed in square brackets, as Dirk has done?
 * [2009-04-07 17:56:39] I like CAS Nos in square brackets, though it's interesting that CAS abandoned that format on their website! I heard several people at the ACS meeting comment about how they always think of CAS Nos in square brackets!
 * [2009-04-07 17:57:17] <Rifleman_82> hmmm
 * [2009-04-07 17:57:17] <Physchim62> Rifleman_82, I wasn't going to have the arrow, but I can put it in if you want. our other links from that section don't have arrows
 * [2009-04-07 17:57:23] <Rifleman_82> can we have a multiple cas, cas1, cas2?
 * [2009-04-07 17:57:34] <Rifleman_82> so we can have various hydrates?
 * [2009-04-07 17:57:36] <Physchim62> yes, but it's more complicated
 * [2009-04-07 17:58:01] (In print, they ALWAYS had square brackets round them, and people like Aldrich do the same)
 * [2009-04-07 17:58:08] <Physchim62> let me propose a fix to the current problem, then it will be trivial to extend it to multiple CASRNs
 * [2009-04-07 17:58:17] <Rifleman_82> well... the casother "solution" is no longer a nice solution if we're going to have linkouts
 * [2009-04-07 17:58:25] <Rifleman_82> we can leave out the arrow if you want
 * [2009-04-07 17:58:37] <Physchim62> the casother "solution" has lived its day, I agree
 * [2009-04-07 17:58:56] <Rifleman_82> or we can put a which notes that data from cas
 * [2009-04-07 17:59:07] <Physchim62> OK, third question, do we still want validated CASRNs to be in bold?
 * [2009-04-07 17:59:56] <Physchim62> (they are at present)
 * [2009-04-07 18:00:24] <Rifleman_82> hang on a sec
 * [2009-04-07 18:00:39] Physchim62: I think we need to have some way to distinguish a validated CAS No, from an unvalidated one. To some extent, the format we adopt may depend on how we make the links to the Common Chemistry web pages
 * [2009-04-07 18:00:45] <Rifleman_82> will the CAS site accept a "blablablah?casno=64-17-5"
 * [2009-04-07 18:00:53] <Rifleman_82> or do we need to format to fit their lack of dashes now?
 * [2009-04-07 18:01:01] <Physchim62> yes, that's how Dirk did his fix
 * [2009-04-07 18:01:10] <Physchim62> it accepts the dashes
 * [2009-04-07 18:01:25] <Rifleman_82> ok
 * [2009-04-07 18:01:35] Dirk's links work, as long as there is a page on Common Chemistry
 * [2009-04-07 18:01:53] <Rifleman_82> ok
 * [2009-04-07 18:02:17] We chose bold and green, as a way of making the validated number obvious
 * [2009-04-07 18:02:23] <Physchim62> walkerma, the solution we're thinking of here is that validated CASRNs will link to the site (ie, be in light blue like other external links), whereas unvalidated numbers won't and will simply appear as black
 * [2009-04-07 18:02:34] <Rifleman_82> that's simple enough
 * [2009-04-07 18:03:43] <Physchim62> Whoever writes the code needs to know the answers to questions like "do we still want the dark green" and "do we still want the bold"
 * [2009-04-07 18:04:05] <Rifleman_82> i thought you're writing the code?
 * [2009-04-07 18:04:17] <Rifleman_82> these are details anyway....
 * [2009-04-07 18:04:42] <Physchim62> I am! I just thought when you said "that's simple enough" you might be dashing to do it!
 * [2009-04-07 18:04:44] I think personally I'd like something that says, "This isn't just some generic link" (i.e., what Dirk set up), but it is specific to CAS nos. we have manually checked before linking." So I think bold links would still be good, even if they're now blue
 * [2009-04-07 18:04:55] <Rifleman_82> hmm okay
 * [2009-04-07 18:05:22] <Physchim62> OK. *I* will write the code in the /Sandbox subpages of the relevant templates
 * [2009-04-07 18:05:27] <Rifleman_82> ok
 * [2009-04-07 18:05:43] <Physchim62> and then post at WT:CHEMBOX so that an admin can make the necessary changes
 * [2009-04-07 18:05:44] BTW: ChemSpiderman is with his kids, so I don't think he can come
 * [2009-04-07 18:05:57] He sent me a short Iphone message
 * [2009-04-07 18:06:07] <Physchim62> the change will probably have to wait for tomorrow
 * [2009-04-07 18:06:21] <Physchim62> but I'm sure that Dirk won't object
 * [2009-04-07 18:07:20] <Rifleman_82> off topic, but this is interesting
 * [2009-04-07 18:07:20] <Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.orgsyn.org&limit=500&offset=0
 * [2009-04-07 18:07:38] <Physchim62> Just to recap, I will code for: i) all CASRNs inside square brackets; ii) validated CASRNs to appear in bold light blue with a link to the CAS site
 * [2009-04-07 18:08:03] <Rifleman_82> do we want green? i'm digging around looking for the code
 * [2009-04-07 18:08:31] <Physchim62> I think I'd prefer light blue for now, to indicate that it's an external link
 * [2009-04-07 18:08:45] <Rifleman_82> ok
 * [2009-04-07 18:08:52] <Rifleman_82> ?
 * [2009-04-07 18:08:52] <Rifleman_82> :)
 * [2009-04-07 18:08:53] <Physchim62> we can always change it later
 * [2009-04-07 18:09:12] <Physchim62> yes, that coding is somewhat sub-optimal ;)
 * [2009-04-07 18:09:13] I like green personally, but only if (a) people will realise it's an external link and (b) we can get the traffic light system working. But for now, maybe blue is simpler and clearer
 * [2009-04-07 18:11:54] <Physchim62> in fact, most of the chembox coding is suboptimal, if I were to rewrite it, I'd do it differently ;) but given the pain of the last changeover, I'm not about to rewrite it any more than is necessary! :P
 * [2009-04-07 18:12:19] <Rifleman_82> hmmm
 * [2009-04-07 18:12:21] <Physchim62> Rifleman, for one, would probably fly over from Singapore just to kill me
 * [2009-04-07 18:12:27] <Rifleman_82> drugbox to chembox conversion
 * [2009-04-07 18:12:28] <Rifleman_82> hahaha
 * [2009-04-07 18:12:46] <Physchim62> WP:PHARM like their drugboxes
 * [2009-04-07 18:13:12] <Rifleman_82> drugiscts...
 * [2009-04-07 18:13:14] <Physchim62> and we never gain anything from fighting with WP:PHARM: we know that from long experience ;)
 * [2009-04-07 18:13:40] <Rifleman_82> wp slow now?
 * [2009-04-07 18:17:38] <Rifleman_82> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindlar_catalyst
 * [2009-04-07 18:17:53] <Rifleman_82> i thought we're not giving non pure compounds chemboxes?
 * [2009-04-07 18:18:17] <Rifleman_82> if anyone wants to find a collaborator
 * [2009-04-07 18:18:25] <Rifleman_82> someone can go and talk to org synth folks
 * [2009-04-07 18:18:29] Is this a good time to talk about safety issues, once we are done gratuitously hurling uranium oxides (we know how dangerous THEY are!) at WP:PHARM?
 * [2009-04-07 18:18:40] <Rifleman_82> see if they can decide on a convenient way to number their articles
 * [2009-04-07 18:18:55] <Rifleman_82> if they can adopt cv10pxxxx for the 10th and above collected volume
 * [2009-04-07 18:19:03] <Rifleman_82> it'd simplify our template a lot
 * [2009-04-07 18:19:11] <Rifleman_82> hmmm
 * [2009-04-07 18:19:16] <Physchim62> OK, sorry, I'm supposed to be "moderating" this meeting, not declaring war on the cheminfidels
 * [2009-04-07 18:19:18] <Rifleman_82> i remember someone wanted to talk about safety
 * [2009-04-07 18:19:48] <Physchim62> Me!
 * [2009-04-07 18:20:05] <Physchim62> molton lead is dangerous and should only be used on WikiPharmacists
 * [2009-04-07 18:20:26] <Physchim62> seriously, the GHS is coming
 * [2009-04-07 18:20:57] <Physchim62> from December 2010, all of our "EU classification" sections will be out of date
 * [2009-04-07 18:21:01] <Rifleman_82> GHS?
 * [2009-04-07 18:21:28] <Physchim62> Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals
 * [2009-04-07 18:21:44] <Physchim62> we have a (very bad) article on it.
 * [2009-04-07 18:21:59] <Rifleman_82> oh i thougth the EU class was nice
 * [2009-04-07 18:22:06] <Rifleman_82> better than the stupid R&S phrases
 * [2009-04-07 18:22:07] <Rifleman_82> or NFPA
 * [2009-04-07 18:22:23] <Physchim62> in essence, the UN is trying to harmonize the different systems of classification, and this time it really seems like it's managed it
 * [2009-04-07 18:23:02] <Physchim62> stupid R&S phrases (an EU invention) become stupid H&P phrases
 * [2009-04-07 18:23:35] <Physchim62> for "Hazard" and "Precautionary"
 * [2009-04-07 18:23:55] <Physchim62> GHS hazard statements, GHS precautionary statements
 * [2009-04-07 18:24:04] <Rifleman_82> so will there be a list?
 * [2009-04-07 18:24:14] <Rifleman_82> not thrilled at updating chemboxes by hand
 * [2009-04-07 18:24:17] <Physchim62> a list of what?
 * [2009-04-07 18:24:55] <Rifleman_82> chemicals versus GHS codes
 * [2009-04-07 18:25:01] <Physchim62> even less thrilling than updating chemboxes by hand is deciding what to do with them!
 * [2009-04-07 18:25:30] <Physchim62> there's not a electronic list YET, although I hoping there will be before we have to act
 * [2009-04-07 18:25:30] <Rifleman_82> close our eyes and pretend they don't exist!
 * [2009-04-07 18:25:59] <Physchim62> the problem is that, very soon, they will exist
 * [2009-04-07 18:26:00] (student here)
 * [2009-04-07 18:26:10] <Physchim62> now the EU has implemented it
 * [2009-04-07 18:26:27] <Rifleman_82> you know...
 * [2009-04-07 18:26:35] <Rifleman_82> if CAS will now be a link farm for CAS#
 * [2009-04-07 18:26:44] <Rifleman_82> we'll leave the MSDS links to them...
 * [2009-04-07 18:27:00] <Physchim62> we don't need to change any chemboxes YET, we can wait until the new classifications actually start being used
 * [2009-04-07 18:27:23] <Physchim62> but it's something that people need to be aware of.
 * [2009-04-07 18:27:37] <Rifleman_82> ok
 * [2009-04-07 18:27:39] <Rifleman_82> so it's an FYI
 * [2009-04-07 18:27:41] <Physchim62> I'm am trying to write the necessary articles which document the new system
 * [2009-04-07 18:28:02] <Physchim62> also, there is a request for new parameters to be added to the chembox
 * [2009-04-07 18:28:17] <Rifleman_82> what param?
 * [2009-04-07 18:28:25] <Physchim62> there are a few compounds which don't have an EU class but for which we can get a GHS class now
 * [2009-04-07 18:28:32] <Physchim62> see WT:CHEMBOX
 * [2009-04-07 18:29:18] <Physchim62> it's when I realsied this that I started serious work on preparing us for the GHS revolution
 * [2009-04-07 18:29:26] <Rifleman_82> hiya tony
 * [2009-04-07 18:29:44] <ChemSpiderman> hi..sorry I am late. Kids on holiday so was out
 * [2009-04-07 18:29:48] <Physchim62> Hi there!
 * [2009-04-07 18:29:59] <ChemSpiderman> hi PC
 * [2009-04-07 18:30:39] <Physchim62> I read your blog post, I will reply, but I wanted to talk to the other Wikichemists first!
 * [2009-04-07 18:30:57] <ChemSpiderman> np
 * [2009-04-07 18:31:34] <NormWork> Greetings, WC
 * [2009-04-07 18:31:45] <Physchim62> we were just discussing GHS classifications and how WP needs to prepare for them
 * [2009-04-07 18:31:54] <Physchim62> Greetings NormWork
 * [2009-04-07 18:32:35] <Physchim62> GHS is the new UN backed system of classifying chemicals by their hazards
 * [2009-04-07 18:32:41] <ali_as> Norm :)
 * [2009-04-07 18:33:29] Hi there! I'm with a student, so I can't talk much
 * [2009-04-07 18:35:26] <ChemSpiderman> nope
 * [2009-04-07 18:35:33] <Physchim62> So, anyway, the guidelines I've proposed are that we *either* use GHS *or* the older EU system, but not both at once. NFPA diamonds should stay for the time being, however many problems they give us.
 * [2009-04-07 18:36:37] <Rifleman_82> we could eventually do away with NFPA in favor of GHS ?
 * [2009-04-07 18:37:12] <Physchim62> yes, I think that will be the end result
 * [2009-04-07 18:38:52] <Rifleman_82> can we please please please have an orgsyn ID for our chembox identifiers?
 * [2009-04-07 18:39:01] <Rifleman_82> so that we can do something like http://orgsynth.org/orgsyn/chemname.asp?nameID=35861
 * [2009-04-07 18:39:05] <Rifleman_82> as in, link out to that
 * [2009-04-07 18:39:12] <Physchim62> at the moment, the US OSHA is planning to introduce GHS in the United States, but it will be a bigger change than for many other countries
 * [2009-04-07 18:39:17] <Rifleman_82> literally a web of sorts
 * [2009-04-07 18:39:23] <Rifleman_82> web of chemistry
 * [2009-04-07 18:40:10] <Physchim62> so, while NFPA triangles are still widely used in the US, there is a far case for including them in WP articles
 * [2009-04-07 18:40:17] <Physchim62> fair case
 * [2009-04-07 18:42:02] <Physchim62> yes, of course we can have that. You're an admin, put it in!
 * [2009-04-07 18:42:18] <Rifleman_82> haha
 * [2009-04-07 18:42:23] <Rifleman_82> okay, i'll put it on my to-do list
 * [2009-04-07 18:42:24] <Rifleman_82> gotta go
 * [2009-04-07 18:42:25] <Rifleman_82> tired
 * [2009-04-07 18:42:28] <Rifleman_82> have fun, guys
 * [2009-04-07 18:42:31] <Rifleman_82> good night!
 * [2009-04-07 18:42:32] <Physchim62> TTFN
 * [2009-04-07 18:42:40] I personally think that we shouldn't have Org Syn IDs in regular ChemBoxes
 * [2009-04-07 18:42:58] We should put such things on the data pages, to avoid table creep
 * [2009-04-07 18:43:04] <Physchim62> too many identifiers?
 * [2009-04-07 18:43:18] Yes
 * [2009-04-07 18:43:56] Same with ChEBI ID numbers
 * [2009-04-07 18:43:58] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChEBI
 * [2009-04-07 18:43:59] <Physchim62> at least OrgSynIDs are chemical, not like many of the IDs we currently support
 * [2009-04-07 18:45:02] <Physchim62> perhaps we need to start a deate as to what parameters the chembox should support
 * [2009-04-07 18:45:06] <Physchim62> debate
 * [2009-04-07 18:45:31] <Physchim62> a sort of "spring clean" of parameters which are not actually used
 * [2009-04-07 18:47:44] Yes, we should probably have that debate at some point
 * [2009-04-07 18:48:43] <Physchim62> I don't think here and now are a good place and time ;)
 * [2009-04-07 18:49:11] I think we need to consider what parameters are things that are going to be heavily used, and which ones are only used by a handful of people. Such things depend on your perspective - I remember being lambasted by someone who was astonsihed that we didn't have deltaH of formation values in every ChemBox
 * [2009-04-07 18:49:24] I agree, another day
 * [2009-04-07 18:49:39] Good to discuss on-wiki, perhaps
 * [2009-04-07 18:49:55] <ChemSpiderman> fyi...we are presently building WP services...
 * [2009-04-07 18:49:58] <Physchim62> I think that editor wanted heat capacities at constant pressure and volume, heats of combustion etc etc
 * [2009-04-07 18:50:06] <ChemSpiderman> I spoke about doing this before but we got busy
 * [2009-04-07 18:50:23] <Physchim62> what are WP services?
 * [2009-04-07 18:50:56] <ChemSpiderman> this will allow an author to upload a structure and we will create a nice structure image depiction plus SMILES, InChI String, InChI Key, systematic name
 * [2009-04-07 18:51:08] <ChemSpiderman> in WP format so that you can copy and paste
 * [2009-04-07 18:51:39] That would be WONDERFUL!
 * [2009-04-07 18:51:48] <Physchim62> a structure?
 * [2009-04-07 18:51:57] <ChemSpiderman> You guys can provide the details you want re. structure depiction. It's a config file list of settings for us
 * [2009-04-07 18:52:11] ACS settings are what we use, very standard
 * [2009-04-07 18:52:16] <ChemSpiderman> yes...molfile upload
 * [2009-04-07 18:52:18] <Physchim62> you mean like one of those structure sketch pads?
 * [2009-04-07 18:52:36] <ChemSpiderman> ?
 * [2009-04-07 18:55:07] <Physchim62> yes, like the structure search you already have on ChemSpider
 * [2009-04-07 18:55:44] <ChemSpiderman> no..molfile..the most common way for moving around structures ..in connection tables. They can be exported from all structure drawing packages
 * [2009-04-07 18:55:59] <ChemSpiderman> It's a structure in .mol format
 * [2009-04-07 18:56:32] <Physchim62> Hmm, to create a molfile, we already have to use a chemical software drawing program
 * [2009-04-07 18:57:22] <Physchim62> what would be interesting is to have .PNG files in standard ACS settings which are downloadable from ChemSpider
 * [2009-04-07 18:57:41] <Physchim62> or even .SVG files if you can do those
 * [2009-04-07 18:58:32] <Physchim62> That way, editors who don't have experience in structure drawing could get an image which is OK
 * [2009-04-07 19:00:36] <Physchim62> in any case, http://www.chemspider.com/controls/DrawMolecule/EditMolecule.aspx?ID=SearchMolecule must generate a molfile to go forward with the search, no?
 * [2009-04-07 19:01:04] <Physchim62> the certificate on that page has expired, btw
 * [2009-04-07 19:04:40] <ChemSpiderman> sorry...neighbor knocked on door
 * [2009-04-07 19:05:07] <ChemSpiderman> don't people who draw structures to submit to WP have structure drawing software
 * [2009-04-07 19:05:11] <ChemSpiderman> ?
 * [2009-04-07 19:05:54] <Physchim62> Yes, but we also have LOTS of very bad structures made by people who don't have access to such software and who try to draw them in normal graphics programs…
 * [2009-04-07 19:06:37] <Physchim62> but what I mean is, you already have a system for people to draw a structure on a sketchpad and to use that to search ChemSpider
 * [2009-04-07 19:06:49] <Physchim62> and hence WP
 * [2009-04-07 19:06:50] <ChemSpiderman> can't solve all problems...we'll do our bit. ANYONE can download free drawing software ...there's a million downloads of ChemSketch
 * [2009-04-07 19:07:00] <ChemSpiderman> yes...we can add integration to our online applet
 * [2009-04-07 19:07:16] CSM: Yes, I think that's what PC had in mind
 * [2009-04-07 19:07:17] <Physchim62> here!
 * [2009-04-07 19:07:37] <ChemSpiderman> BUT, I would NEVER draw a complex molecule in that applet
 * [2009-04-07 19:08:16] -->| walkerma_ (n=chatzill@admin-151-108.potsdam.edu) has joined #wikichem
 * [2009-04-07 19:08:21] <ChemSpiderman> maybe in the Symyx applet we have integrated to the InChI resovler but it is not integrated to CS and we don't have the rights to do so yet...in the future when it is out of beta
 * [2009-04-07 19:08:32] <Physchim62> I'm not sure that it's a particularly useful feature to work from molfiles, even though in practice you have to work through molfiles to do the search so why not let people upload them
 * [2009-04-07 19:09:13] <Physchim62> what would be useful is to have a button on the ChemSpider entry which would produce all of that for you
 * [2009-04-07 19:09:17] <ChemSpiderman> it's ideal to work through molfiles. Then the user defines the layout and all coordinates are retained
 * [2009-04-07 19:09:25] <Physchim62> agreed
 * [2009-04-07 19:10:02] <ChemSpiderman> ok...we could do something like that. What about when the structure is NOT in CS?
 * [2009-04-07 19:10:11] <ChemSpiderman> or someone doesn't like the layout?
 * [2009-04-07 19:10:24] <walkerma_> I have to help some folks now with an extraction, will stay logged on
 * [2009-04-07 19:10:30] <Physchim62> well, you can always have a separate entry point to run the same code
 * [2009-04-07 19:12:08] <Physchim62> I'm not saying *don't* let people upload molfiles to this, all I'm saying is that it might not be the most useful way of accessing the data. If I want to get a molfile, I will draw the molecule in ChemSketch and so I already have access to the features you're proposing
 * [2009-04-07 19:13:01] <ChemSpiderman> I don't like IRC for these discussions. It would be much easier on a skype conference call or free conference call to discuss these issues
 * [2009-04-07 19:13:39] <ChemSpiderman> Why don't you guys outline what you want and send me the outline and I'll see what we can do
 * [2009-04-07 19:14:03] <Physchim62> I've got Skype: you can always email me to fix a time
 * [2009-04-07 19:14:26] <ChemSpiderman> but then we have two opinions...
 * [2009-04-07 19:14:27] <Physchim62> I think we should probably bring things to a close
 * [2009-04-07 19:14:48] <ChemSpiderman> we need others input too.
 * [2009-04-07 19:14:51] <ChemSpiderman> ok bye
 * [2009-04-07 19:15:27] <Physchim62> in which case, on-wiki discussions are better, or IRC, or organise more people on your conference call
 * [2009-04-07 19:16:17] <Physchim62> there is the CS blog as well
 * [2009-04-07 19:16:31] <ChemSpiderman> it would be good if you guys can outline your needs and then we can see wht we can do.
 * [2009-04-07 19:16:58] <ChemSpiderman> If it doens't get done in the next two weeks it will be months before we have another time window I'm afraid
 * [2009-04-07 19:17:16] <ChemSpiderman> We'll finish up what we are doing now and let you see it
 * [2009-04-07 19:17:47] <Physchim62> that sounds like a good idea. I don't think our points of view are very different
 * [2009-04-07 19:18:06] <Physchim62> don't forget to announce it at WT:CHEM when it's ready
 * [2009-04-07 19:18:24] <Physchim62> that way, you will get more feedback than at IRC discussions