This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
the chembox is hard to use and is not as attractive as the drugbox, where drugs have chemboxes i replace them with drugboxes if possible, now i must fix psilocybin. The Right Honourable 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get the pleasent colour scheme of the drugbox The Right Honourable 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the look of chembox new to drugbox. What's so attractive about drugbox?
Ben 15:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to request an additional field for chembox new. When I get the majority of data that I use to fill a chemical infobox from a single source, I like to put a reference at the top of the box. See o-Phenylenediamine for an example. Can a simple field for adding a ref at the top like this be added? Thanks. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get some thoughts about which fields we should use with the template. So far, I've been using nine (ImageFile, OtherNames, Formula, PubChem, MolarMass, CASNo, Density, MeltingPt, BoilingPt), while User:Beetstra is recommending using the 47 fields listed at Template:Chembox_new#Small_form. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, so I'd like to hear what people think. (To avoid confusion -- we're not talking about which fields should be displayed -- I think we're in agreement that the template will only display fields which are populated. Rather, we're talking about which fields should be cut-and-pasted at the top of the page in new uses of the template.) -- Arcadian 01:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
(undent)No worries. The 'chembox subst' templates are just a trick to get an empty chembox new, without having to find the original first. Call it a shortcut. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There are some compounds for which the systematic name is not the recommended IUPAC name. Chloroacetic acid for example. Although its IUPAC name is chloroacetic acid - using the systematic method would give this compound the name Chloroethanoic acid. This presents a problem with this template - in that the field IUPACName in the code, results in a box titled Systematic name. Should this be changed or is this template not appropriate for use with such compounds. The specifc problem I am having is with Dichloroacetic acid. -- Conrad.Irwin 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Howdy folks! At Arcadian's request, there's now a {{ chembox new}} template filler over at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/?type=pubchemid. It fills in a few chembox fields given a PubChem ID. Comments welcome. -- David Iberri ( talk) 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but it would be very helpful to have the European hazard signs in the infobox as well. I know that this would useful and as a British chemistry student it would mean a lot more than the American system (which no one uses over here). I know that some of the other language versions of Wikipedia use it and I know that Americans need to have their system present too so I suggest having both. Is that not logical or have I missed something? 87.194.118.241 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place on the placement and use of infoboxes: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox SilkTork 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In my humble idea, the chemboxes are well designed, balanced and contribute significantly to the article. There's no problem with chembox as I see it. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
I thought we weren't supposed to have any disclaimers other than those in the official disclaimer link at the bottom of each page. ← BenB4 07:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Should the bonding type for each chemical be included in the infobox? I noticed that this is missing from most pages and believe it is relevant to the chemical pages. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why there's no field for "Decomposition Point" in whatever Chembox we're loving this week. In most articles where a decomposition point is specified, it's at best tacked onto the Boiling Point line, i.e. Boiling Point: 64 °C (decomposes at 90 °C). At worst, it's mentioned somewhere in the article. I feel that the decomposition point is just as important to know as the melting/boiling points. I base this on the fact that of the three points, decomposition is usually the most likely point where unexpected, potentially dangerous or fatal reactions can occur. Dedicating one extra table row to provide such important safety information is well worth the space. Even better, listing the products and/or effects of decomposition after the decomp. point would also be a very helpful and educational reference. But at minimum, the decomp. point needs to be there. It certainly is way more useful to the average reader the more technical fields, like Spectral Data / Thermodynamic Data. Comments? Flames? 97.82.247.200 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
A couple of requests from someone working on the Dead End Pages project.
I recently ran across one of these pages, and not having seen it before, assumed it was an error until another editor clued me in. I'm sure this has happened before and will happen again. It would be majorly helpful if there was a comment at the top of the data page explaining that this is a valid page. If the comment were part of the template, people would even remember to use it. :)
Another issue we're running up against is that all the internal links (at least in this page) are in the form of templates. Unfortunately, that makes the page show up in each regeneration of the DEP list. Any easy way to get just a plain old internal link in the infobox so we don't have to manually deal with each instance of a data page? It would help us out loads.
Thanks!-- Fabrictramp 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Should LD50 be added to the template? It is a piece of information that is available for thousands compounds (for example in the Merck Index) and that could be of interest. It is certainly more informative than the vague "is toxic" comments that abound in chemicals pages. -- Itub 09:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the template "Chembox new"; it doesn't give an infobox in the articles but just plain text with pictures and headlines! 82.128.235.222 11:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The bottom of the infobox states, that the information given in the infobox is at 25oC and 100 kPa, but isn't standard pressure supposed to be 101.325 kPa ? I was just wondering, if this is a mistake, or if the standard information is really stated for 100 kPa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.185.210 ( talk) 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As EINECS article indicates this was only used 1 January 1971 to 18 September 1981, superceeded by ELINCS and then EC-Number, so at very least, link should be to EC-No ? David Ruben Talk 02:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the contents of chembox so that it now can be used as a template to create an empty {{ chembox new}} in a document. Just type {{subst:chembox}} in the beginning of a document, and save the document. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at a couple of pages that use it, like Ammonium chloride, and they all just say "Template:Chembox new" (linking here) instead of showing the box. Looks like somebody broke something again. -- Hi Ev 12:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone replaced the old chembox on steviol glycoside with "chembox new" and this causes the chemical in the chembox to be named after the article title, not what's actually in the chembox. I am reverting back to the old version until this new chembox can be fixed to specify a different title. - Amatulic 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
the chembox is hard to use and is not as attractive as the drugbox, where drugs have chemboxes i replace them with drugboxes if possible, now i must fix psilocybin. The Right Honourable 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to get the pleasent colour scheme of the drugbox The Right Honourable 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I prefer the look of chembox new to drugbox. What's so attractive about drugbox?
Ben 15:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to request an additional field for chembox new. When I get the majority of data that I use to fill a chemical infobox from a single source, I like to put a reference at the top of the box. See o-Phenylenediamine for an example. Can a simple field for adding a ref at the top like this be added? Thanks. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to get some thoughts about which fields we should use with the template. So far, I've been using nine (ImageFile, OtherNames, Formula, PubChem, MolarMass, CASNo, Density, MeltingPt, BoilingPt), while User:Beetstra is recommending using the 47 fields listed at Template:Chembox_new#Small_form. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, so I'd like to hear what people think. (To avoid confusion -- we're not talking about which fields should be displayed -- I think we're in agreement that the template will only display fields which are populated. Rather, we're talking about which fields should be cut-and-pasted at the top of the page in new uses of the template.) -- Arcadian 01:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
(undent)No worries. The 'chembox subst' templates are just a trick to get an empty chembox new, without having to find the original first. Call it a shortcut. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 20:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
There are some compounds for which the systematic name is not the recommended IUPAC name. Chloroacetic acid for example. Although its IUPAC name is chloroacetic acid - using the systematic method would give this compound the name Chloroethanoic acid. This presents a problem with this template - in that the field IUPACName in the code, results in a box titled Systematic name. Should this be changed or is this template not appropriate for use with such compounds. The specifc problem I am having is with Dichloroacetic acid. -- Conrad.Irwin 22:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Howdy folks! At Arcadian's request, there's now a {{ chembox new}} template filler over at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/?type=pubchemid. It fills in a few chembox fields given a PubChem ID. Comments welcome. -- David Iberri ( talk) 16:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but it would be very helpful to have the European hazard signs in the infobox as well. I know that this would useful and as a British chemistry student it would mean a lot more than the American system (which no one uses over here). I know that some of the other language versions of Wikipedia use it and I know that Americans need to have their system present too so I suggest having both. Is that not logical or have I missed something? 87.194.118.241 20:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion taking place on the placement and use of infoboxes: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Image_V_InfoBox SilkTork 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In my humble idea, the chemboxes are well designed, balanced and contribute significantly to the article. There's no problem with chembox as I see it. Wim van Dorst ( Talk) 17:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC).
I thought we weren't supposed to have any disclaimers other than those in the official disclaimer link at the bottom of each page. ← BenB4 07:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Should the bonding type for each chemical be included in the infobox? I noticed that this is missing from most pages and believe it is relevant to the chemical pages. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 03:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Just wondering why there's no field for "Decomposition Point" in whatever Chembox we're loving this week. In most articles where a decomposition point is specified, it's at best tacked onto the Boiling Point line, i.e. Boiling Point: 64 °C (decomposes at 90 °C). At worst, it's mentioned somewhere in the article. I feel that the decomposition point is just as important to know as the melting/boiling points. I base this on the fact that of the three points, decomposition is usually the most likely point where unexpected, potentially dangerous or fatal reactions can occur. Dedicating one extra table row to provide such important safety information is well worth the space. Even better, listing the products and/or effects of decomposition after the decomp. point would also be a very helpful and educational reference. But at minimum, the decomp. point needs to be there. It certainly is way more useful to the average reader the more technical fields, like Spectral Data / Thermodynamic Data. Comments? Flames? 97.82.247.200 22:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
A couple of requests from someone working on the Dead End Pages project.
I recently ran across one of these pages, and not having seen it before, assumed it was an error until another editor clued me in. I'm sure this has happened before and will happen again. It would be majorly helpful if there was a comment at the top of the data page explaining that this is a valid page. If the comment were part of the template, people would even remember to use it. :)
Another issue we're running up against is that all the internal links (at least in this page) are in the form of templates. Unfortunately, that makes the page show up in each regeneration of the DEP list. Any easy way to get just a plain old internal link in the infobox so we don't have to manually deal with each instance of a data page? It would help us out loads.
Thanks!-- Fabrictramp 14:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Should LD50 be added to the template? It is a piece of information that is available for thousands compounds (for example in the Merck Index) and that could be of interest. It is certainly more informative than the vague "is toxic" comments that abound in chemicals pages. -- Itub 09:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There's something wrong with the template "Chembox new"; it doesn't give an infobox in the articles but just plain text with pictures and headlines! 82.128.235.222 11:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The bottom of the infobox states, that the information given in the infobox is at 25oC and 100 kPa, but isn't standard pressure supposed to be 101.325 kPa ? I was just wondering, if this is a mistake, or if the standard information is really stated for 100 kPa? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.185.210 ( talk) 21:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
As EINECS article indicates this was only used 1 January 1971 to 18 September 1981, superceeded by ELINCS and then EC-Number, so at very least, link should be to EC-No ? David Ruben Talk 02:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the contents of chembox so that it now can be used as a template to create an empty {{ chembox new}} in a document. Just type {{subst:chembox}} in the beginning of a document, and save the document. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I took a look at a couple of pages that use it, like Ammonium chloride, and they all just say "Template:Chembox new" (linking here) instead of showing the box. Looks like somebody broke something again. -- Hi Ev 12:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Someone replaced the old chembox on steviol glycoside with "chembox new" and this causes the chemical in the chembox to be named after the article title, not what's actually in the chembox. I am reverting back to the old version until this new chembox can be fixed to specify a different title. - Amatulic 18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)