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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
...a generic list of infobox sources, non-annotated as to which specific sources are used for which specific data fields, be acceptable as a means of verifiability here? This seems a further example of "just trust us" writing, and it is not encyclopedic. Is we cannot place the name of the author at the head of the article, so her/his credibility can be questioned, we have to be able to establish content credibility via the verifiability of the sources of the scientific information. Tens of data values, and a generic list of sources… what, we expect a reader to guess, or to look into each source, to try to source/verify the one datum of interest? No, we expect him to trust us about our provision of the data. And to this I say "No. One thousand times, No." 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 03:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Leprof 7272 ( talk) 03:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Names | |
---|---|
IUPAC name
2-(Dimethylamino)ethanol
| |
Other names
| |
Identifiers | |
3D model (
JSmol)
|
|
Abbreviations | DMAE, DMEA |
1209235 | |
ChEBI | |
ChEMBL | |
ChemSpider | |
EC Number |
|
KEGG | |
MeSH | Deanol |
PubChem
CID
|
|
RTECS number |
|
UNII | |
UN number | 2051 |
| |
| |
Properties | |
C4H11NO | |
Molar mass | 89.138 g·mol−1 |
Appearance | Colourless liquid |
Odor | Fishy, ammoniacal |
Density | 890 mg mL−1 |
Melting point | −59.00 °C; −74.20 °F; 214.15 K |
Boiling point | 134.1 °C; 273.3 °F; 407.2 K |
log P | −0.25 |
Vapor pressure | 816 Pa (at 20 °C) |
Acidity (pKa) | 9.23 (at 20 °C) [1] |
Basicity (pKb) | 4.77 (at 20 °C) |
Refractive index (nD)
|
1.4294 |
Hazards | |
GHS labelling: | |
Danger | |
H226, H302, H312, H314, H332 | |
P280, P305+P351+P338, P310 | |
Flash point | 39 °C (102 °F; 312 K) |
Explosive limits | 1.4–12.2% |
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC): | |
LD50 (
median dose)
|
|
Related compounds | |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
@ Leprof 7272:. Basically, you're right, the data should be referenced. Problem there is however threefold. First is to find proper sources who have done the fact-checking for that value (and not fact checking in 'they report a value of 100°C, that sounds right', I mean fact checking in 'we independently made the compound, and determined the boiling point') - you will find that most sources stating physical data are basically primary and, obviously, not SPS. The only 'secondary' data there is (2nd problem) is by conglomeration of data - for quite some chemboxes the compound has been made independently, and most sources have distilled it and determined a boiling point (and reported that) - the fact that all sources say the same (and you will find a lot of them in the ' Infobox references') is evidence that the value reported in our chembox is 'correct'. However, that is original research. The third thing is that 'any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source' - that challenging either requires a leap of faith: 'it says a boiling point of 134.1°C, I say it is not' (i.e., without giving a reason why it is not, or what it would be - a kind of 'who says that it is 134.1°C?'), where we would say, 'we know it is OR, but look, most (primary) sources state a boiling point between 133 and 135, so unless you can show sources that show another value, you're not really challenging this one), or the challenge is indeed giving a reference showing it is wrong because it gives a completely different value (but note that that source likely is also a primary source).
In short, I agree that the fields should be referenced where properly possible (also to aid the reader to more information regarding that datapoint) and reasonable (if there are 50 primary sources showing a boiling point of ~134.1 ..), but enforced referencing or enforced removal when unreferenced is only needed when either properly challenged ('it can't be right because <your sourced reason here>'). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
|MeltingPt_ref=
to add references nicely. This is required because temperature values are calculated by {{convert}} and a ref would spoil the numeric input and/or ref position. |MeltingPt_notes=
is available for a suffix too in the data row, but with a space added.|CASNo_Comment=
for refs. Quite unfortunately, historically |CASNo_Ref=
is used for the validation bot only :-(For {{ Drugbox}}, I am building an automated molar mass calculator, using the molecular formula input (like {{Chembox}} has/does now). Compared to {{Chembox}}, some design changes and improvements are considered. Once stable, the aim is to replace the {{Chembox}} one too to have all features shared. See Drugbox talkpage. - DePiep ( talk) 17:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose to change the molecular mass calculation. The values used may be outdated, as there are no checks (hint: 'Uub' is used while it is named Cn since 2009!). The new form uses the new template {{
Chem molar mass}} as subtemplate. This setup is also used by {{
Drugbox}} (
proposed) so that this wiki uses one single form of calculation. See that templates documentation for sources used (mainly
CIAAW). Calculation only can be performed when the molecular formula is entered by chemical symbol, like |H=2|O=1
, not by hardcoded |Formula={{Chem|H|2|O}}
.
Another change is that an editor can overwrite the calculated value by |MolarMass=
, so the editor is in control (in the old situation the calculation would be shown when available). These articles are listed in
Category:Chemical articles having calculated molecular weight overwritten for a maintenance check: is the overwriting intentional, or can it be removed to have the calculated value showing?
Some related parameters are added to control presentation, also for |Formula=
. The new set is:
| C=|H=|O= &tc. | Formula = | Formula_ref = | Formula_Comment = | MolarMassRound = | MolarMassUnit = | MolarMass = | MolarMass_ref = | MolarMass_Comment =
Demos and tests are at this test page.
Changes are: using more recent and sourced values, more control for the editor, single place of calculation (shared with {{Drugbox}}), feedback for maintenance.
Any comments or questions? - DePiep ( talk) 13:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
H
2O[1] Some free text comment
. Since the formula resp. mass itself is structured data (in either input option: fixed or constructed from symbols), we can not have <ref> code in its input, nor can we add free comment text. It is up to the editor to use this, I don't see the need to forbid (make impossible) such input beforehand.|Formula=
, |MolarMass=
, |MolarMassRound=
and the symbols are existing parameters. No infobox edits are needed to have this mass calculation functioning, it's just supplementary parameters that are added.|Formula=
usually a formula like HThis
edit request to
Template:Chembox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The text on the template page has the words "Except where noted otherwise, data is given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)". Two technical requests: 1.) the correct plural verb "are" with the word "data" ("...data are given for materials...") and 2.) a period at the end of the sentence. Thanks! KDS4444 Talk 13:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Chembox Hazards has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The code in this template that used to read |NFPA_Ref={{{NFPA_Ref|}}}
now reads |NFPA_Ref={{{NFPA_ref|}}}
. The result is the reference entered is not visible and produces reference errors. See the problem at
Iron(II) sulfate.
StarryGrandma ( talk) 05:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
|NFPA_Ref=
, |NFPA_ref=
now both accepted. (The uc is deprecated because it is not like the other _Ref
CheMoBot parameters, lc preferred. However, deprecation process is stalled). -
DePiep (
talk) 06:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
|PLLR=
|EINECS=
, |EC-number=
, |EC number=
into one value|ExternalSDS=
input when available.|Hazards_data_page=
for this SDS to overwrite an eventual link to PAGENAME (data page)
.#Safety data sheet
(sp).A discussion was started at WP:Chemistry#Data_pages about what to do with data pages like Ammonia (data page) for Ammonia (more listed here). - DePiep ( talk) 10:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I am proposing to add |PLLR=
to {{Drugbox}}.
PLLR is the new US FDA drug labeling rule regarding pregnancy and more. Discussed at
Infobox drug talk. -
DePiep (
talk) 22:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
in Template:Chembox Structure there seems to be parameters to describe the crystal structure. But some commonly published info has no parameters, The extra ones I want to use are the number of formulas per unit cell, commonly termed Z, and the unit cell volume V. Also it would be good to have another field in case the temperature was not 25° or standard pressure. Also some materials can have different forms. So far I have repeated the template, but that is not the best solution. For the purposes of data extraction it would be good to have a reference field separate too. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
|CASNo2=
, if deemed important.|UnitCellFormulas=
|UnitCellVolume=
|UnitCellFormulas=
: text="Number of formula". Link =
Formula unit|UnitCellVolume=
: text="Unit volume". Link to
Crystal structure#Close packing. (
Atomic packing factor is not the same, but it uses this V).|Structure_ref=
, |Structure_Comment=
|CrystalStruct=
. Always entered. We can add |CrystalStruct_ref=
, |CrystalStruct_Comment=
to that top data row then. -
DePiep (
talk) 07:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
|CrystalStruct=
is always present in the
~1600 Chembox Structure pages.re Graeme Bartlett some questions:
|UnitCellFormulas=
|UnitCellVolume=
are most connvenient for editors (like you)?|UnitCellZ=
for formulas, and |UnitCellV=
for unit cell volume. Actually while checking up it seems that writers prefer molecules per cell about 1000× more often. This is despite many crystals not actually containing molecules, but rather an arrangements of ions, or atoms. So instead of |UnitCellFormulas=
you could have |UnitCellMolecules=
. For Unit Cell Volume I now have a section at
Lattice constant#Volume. For α β γ the units are always °. For a b c the units are mostly Å, but some authors like nm (nanometers).
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 11:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
|UnitCellMolecules=
: can change. Is that the most known & specific word then? 'Molecules' is used everywhere, so could be less meaningful (less distinctive) here for that same half-familiar editor. -
DePiep (
talk) 11:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)|UnitCellFormulas=
|UnitCellVolume=
for your fellow chemistry editors? (Just thinking, not like |LattConst_Formulas=
|LattConst_Volume=
then.)|LattConst_ref=
and |LattConst_comment=
then to position that info correctly. Where do I put those two? Once for all 6 constants at the end or two options, #1 after a-b-c and #2 after alpha-beta-gamma? -
DePiep (
talk) 09:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
| UnitCellFormulas =
| UnitCellVolume =
| LattConst_ref =
| LattConst_Comment =
Apart from the Volume and Formulas additions (see above), some more questions and suggestions arose.
|CrystStruc=
parameter as subheader (bold, over infobox width).Following this {{Drugbox}} discussion:
CASNo, CASNo1, ... CASNo5
and |CASNoindex_Comment=
.|IUPHAR_ligand_Other=
is added (once) by the same set pattern: allows any text after all indexed input (unlinked, unedited by {Chembox}).|IUPHAR_ligand=
keeps functioning & showing unchanged. It has added option |IUPHAR_ligand_Comment=
just as well.| IUPHAR_ligand= | IUPHAR_ligand_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand1= | IUPHAR_ligand1_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand2= | IUPHAR_ligand2_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand3= | IUPHAR_ligand3_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand4= | IUPHAR_ligand4_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand5= | IUPHAR_ligand5_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand_Other=
Hello everyone,
I am new here as editor, but I often read and use Wikipedia articles for my studies.
I have noticed that the link to EC number in Chemical infobox point to ESIS web site which has been closed for more than 6 months.
For instance for Formaldehyde that gives EC number 200-001-8 which link as: http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lib/einecs_IS_reponse.php?genre=ECNO&entree=200-001-8
Why not to remove such link to any EC number or even better to update as direct link to another chemical information system like chemsub online with link as format http://chemsub.online.fr/ec_number/EC number.html like for formaldehyde: http://chemsub.online.fr/ec_number/200-001-8.html I found only this web site having a direct access to chemical data sheet via EC number.
Thank you.
-- Chemistaddict ( talk) 13:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
chemsub.online.fr
, is only using that EC number, not defining it. If we use that link, this wikipedia would become a 'link farm' instead of providing information & sources. This is why the EC number is not linked.|EC number=
and |EINECS=
in {{Chembox}} as being the same. But we can not link to a database page for a substance.I am ordering the Identifiers alphabetically. From random. - DePiep ( talk) 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's build a table just to get an overview. - DePiep ( talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
name | param | source | id-type | gen/spec | ext | i'box | note | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CAS Registry Number | |CASNo= |
CAS | id | gen | [cas] | c+d | |||||||||||||
PubChem | |PubChem= |
PubChem | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
ChemSpiderID | |ChemSpiderID= |
ChemSpiderID | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
UNII | |UNII= |
UNII | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
EINECS | |EINECS= |
EINECS | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
EC | |EC-number= |
number | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
E number | |E_number= |
id | |||||||||||||||||
UNNumber | |UNNumber= |
UNNumber | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
KEGG | |KEGG= |
KEGG | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
DrugBank | |DrugBank= |
DrugBank | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
MeSHName | |MeSHName= |
MeSHName | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
ChEBI | |ChEBI= |
ChEBI | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
ChEMBL | |ChEMBL= |
ChEMBL | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
RTECS | |RTECS= |
RTECS | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
ATCCode | |ATCCode= |
www.whocc.no | ? | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
ATCvet | |ATCvet= |
www.whocc.no | ? | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
Beilstein | |Beilstein= |
Beilstein | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
Gmelin | |Gmelin= |
Gmelin | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
3DMet | |3DMet= |
3DMet | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
SMILES | |SMILES= |
SMILES | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
StdInChI | |StdInChI= |
StdInChI | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
StdInChIKey | |StdInChIKey= |
StdInChIKey | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
InChI | |InChI= |
InChI | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
InChIKey | |InChIKey= |
InChIKey | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
Abbreviations | |Abbreviations= |
abbr | name | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
synonyms | |synonyms= |
name | g | ? | d | ||||||||||||||
MedlinePlus | |MedlinePlus=a602026 |
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus | ? | med | ? | d | US | ||||||||||||
NIAID ChemDB | |NIAID_ChemDB=007686 |
chemdb.niaid.nih.gov | ? | med | ? | d | US | ||||||||||||
Drugs.com | |Drugs.com= |
drugs.com? | ? | med | ? | d | |||||||||||||
Protein Data Bank | |PDB_ligand= |
? | ? | med | ? | d | |||||||||||||
IUPHAR | |IUPHAR_ligand= |
IUPHAR | id | g/s | ? | d |
This
edit request to
template:Chembox Identifiers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can this ordering ( diff) be reverted until consensus has been reached which order to use. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
14:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
|abbr=
is more of a name. Jmol is an image only not an ID, but at the moment in the SectionN-setup we have it is difficult to reposition that to the top with other images, because it's defined (created in template code) from the SMILES input. There may be other candidates for repositioning, and all repositionings would require a maintenance job (move the parameter from SectionN=Chembox Identifiers to another SectionM=). Can be done, in the longer run. To be discussed per-ID, I suggest.Having reread this whole topic & thread: I conclude that best and undisputed is to put CAS RN in top of the identifiers, nothing objects. It follows Leyo's first comments [4], [5]. This can be done without extra visual effects (I otherwise would require). It is good for our Readers, looks intuitive, and no harm in sight.
Below CAS RN all other ~20 ID's alphabetically, undiscriminated. So the order is: CAS RN, 0, ... 9, A, B, C, ... Z
. Absent any categorizing criteria (I am still looking for), we have no subgrouping. Also, any further grouping requires some visual clue (like a subheader: "Special ID's:"). All this can be added later, once we agree on categorizing/grouping/presentation. None of this prejudices putting CAS RN in top. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Both {{ Chembox Identifiers}} and {{ Chembox Pharmacology}} support ATC codes and DrugBank identifiers. I think it is redundant to include these identifiers in both locations. I propose they be removed from {{ Chembox Pharmacology}}, leaving the identifiers only in {{ Chembox Identifiers}}.
Additionally, the supplemental ATC codes (|ATC_Supplemental
) do not work for either {{
Chembox identifiers}} or {{
Chembox Pharmacology}}. See
Nicotine for an example of how they are presently working in the {{
Drugbox}}. See
Ethanol (data page) for an example of how they are presently not working for the Chembox. The values are present in the infobox for the data page but the supplemental values do not appear.
Sizeofint (
talk) 02:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
|ATC_Supplemental=
now shows (se
Nicotine). -
DePiep (
talk) 17:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
ATC parameters: deprecated in {{Chembox Identifiers}}. Should be in
|SectionN = {{Chembox Pharmacology | ATCCode = ... }}
DrugBank parameters: deprecated in {{Chembox Identifiers}}. Should be in
|SectionN = {{Chembox Pharmacology | DrugBank = ... }}
Offending articles are listed in: Category:Chemical infoboxes with misplaced or deprecated parameters.
Also, all articles with depecated parameters are listed in Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox
Maintenance task: any input should be moved from a SectionN = {{Chembox Identifiers
to SectionM = {{Chembox Pharmacology
. Example:
[6] for
this article. The maximum number of articles is about 450 for |ATC..=
and 450 for |DrugBank..=
; previous numbers in the categories (i.e. before these were added): 475 articles in "misplaced & deprecated", 522 in "unknown parameter". Note that multiple categorisation reasons (say, "A" and "T") result in a single category listing, under an arbitrary letter).
When this cleanup is done, the parameters will be removed from {{Chembox Identifiers}} code (will not show in that section any more). -
DePiep (
talk) 11:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
And as I said, drugbank is an identifier, it is not pharmacological data. Identifiers with identifiers, pharmacological data in the pharmacology section. There are a LOT of chemicals that are identified in the drugbank where the majority of the data and content of the article is purely chemical, and for which the pharmacological data is just a minor part of the article. Please put it back in the identifier section, where it belongs, and I will read up on ATC code. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Chembox Pharmacology and
Template:Chembox Identifiers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As this implementation ( diff, diff, as well as documentation, and some implementations on pages) clearly did not receive consensus, can this please be reverted back to the earlier state, and then properly discussed. Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
14:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
03:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
20:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
20:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:Chembox Pharmacology has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- revert this edit, which was not discussed, and which does not contain any relevant edit summary. Christian75 ( talk) 05:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
So after these shenanigans the original question still stands. We currently have redundant entries for ATC code and the DrugBank identifier in the "Identifier" and "Pharmacology" sections. Should this redundancy be eliminated and if so which sections should these entries be placed in? Sizeofint ( talk) 00:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) calls for the harmonization of data sheets for chemicals, using the name "Safety Data Sheet" (SDS). It's not a law or regulation, but a guideline that countries should adopt. All large, English-speaking countries have adopted the guidelines—the EU (UK & Ireland), US, Canada, Australia, & New Zealand—and the sheets formerly known as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) will now be called SDSs in these jurisdictions (see also Talk:Safety data sheet#Move to Safety Data Sheet). I have moved the Wikipedia article on this subject from material safety data sheet to safety data sheet, given the UN guidelines and use in all large, English-speaking countries.
Template:Chembox, Template:Chembox Hazards, and any other relevant infoboxes need to be adjusted to use the term SDS, replacing MSDS (this appears in the "Hazards" section of the Chembox template). I plan to make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests to change other occurrences in articles (eg. on data pages such as Methanol (data page)), so please note anything that could be included in the request (such as changing all occurrences of "ExternalMSDS" parameter to "ExternalSDS", if that is appropriate). AHeneen ( talk) 08:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Safety data sheet
or Safety Data Sheet
, because it now differs while we use automated linking. This is urgent because of the
BOT request. My only preference is consistency. -
DePiep (
talk) 12:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
"When the {{PAGENAME}} (datapage)
exists, link to [[{{PAGENAME}} (datapage)#Safety Data Sheet|External SDS]]
, and do not show any |ExternalSDS=
input."
Example: for
Ammonia, the datapage exists so the link shown is to
Ammonia_(data_page)#Safety_Data_Sheet, labeled "External SDS". And existing input |ExternalSDS=[http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0414.htm ICSC 0414] (anhydrous)
is not shown or used. The question is: do we want this?
I also note that when the datapage exists, an extra section is added to the infobox: "Supplementary data page", so that page is linked more often from the infobox. There are ~150 such datapages, see Category:Chemical articles having a data page.
Minor notes: 1. The wikilabel "External SDS" does not sound correct, it is a wiki page. 2. The targeted #section name is changed here to SDS, but not in the actual data page. - DePiep ( talk) 15:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
|ExternalMSDS=
is deprecated but not eliminated. It will not be documented. |ExternalSDS=
is the new parameter. There is no requirement to edit that name in the articles.|ExternalSDS=
is not shown. eg
Ammonia. Do we want that? -
DePiep (
talk) 10:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)I am not in favor of the “External(M)SDS” parameter anyway. IMO any non-self-evident value should be referenced using ref tags.
There are cases, where some values are included in an external SDS, while others are found in a different SDS. Hence, it does not make sense to link to one SDS only. --
Leyo 12:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
... (data page)
as infobox section, ... (data page)#Safety data sheet
as internal link - labeled External SDS confusingly, and |ExternalSDS=
parameter (likely having external links; weirdly not showing when (data page) exists.).<ref>…</ref>
behind. --
Leyo 11:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
<ref>…</ref>
after the value. --
Leyo 19:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Current presentation of SDS has two flaws (demo's from
ammonia). I propose to correct them.
1. The internal link to the a data page is wikilabeled (shows text):
This is incorrect text, it is not external. I propose to make that
2. When a data page exists that one is linked to OK, but then any regular input for |ExternalSDS=
/|ExternalMSDS=
is not used & not shown at all. I don't see why that is. I propose to have that input value shown:
See demo at
Testcases. To check datapage-detection: use
ammonia Preview with SectionN={{Chembox Hazards/sandbox
. Other improvements in discussion (see section above, eg by Leyo) can be added later on without prejuduce. Comments? -
DePiep (
talk) 12:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
|Hazards_data_page=
to set (and overwrite) an exsting data page. So: |Hazards_data_page=[[Main page]]
will overwrite
Ammonia (data page). -
DePiep (
talk) 12:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
As of 23:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
|PAGENAME (data page))=
automatically appears in SectionN= {{Chembox Hazards|...}} (see
Ammonia)|PAGENAME (data page))=
automatically appears as "Supplementary data page". (again; see
Ammonia)|ExternalSDS=
.|data page=
overwrites an existing data page name.{Drugbox} has |onset=
and |duration_of_action=
. I think these could be useful in the pharmacology subsection of {Chembox}}. Can these be added?
Sizeofint (
talk) 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
| AdminRoutes = | Bioavail = | ProteinBound = | Metabolism = | Metabolites = | OnsetOfAction = | HalfLife = | DurationOfAction= | Excretion =
Following data additions requested ( pharmacokinetics here and LCLo here), I've prepared some useful/needed presentation changes (layout, order, format, whitespace).
I plan to deploy this shortly. Any remarks? - DePiep ( talk) 09:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello all, I was wondering what people thought of adding LCLo and LDLo values to the chembox. I think it could be a useful addition, especially in situations where there isn't literature with an LC/LD50 and there is just a LD/LCLo. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 01:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hazards | |
---|---|
LCLo ( Lowest lethal dose) | e.g. 50 ppm, 50 mg/kg |
Hazards | |
---|---|
LCLo | e.g. 50 ppm, 50 mg/kg |
Hazards | |
---|---|
LC50 (
Lowest published lethal dose) LCLo ( Lowest lethal dose) |
11,900 mg/kg 50 ppm, 50 mg/kg |
|LD_label=
for free LH label text, and |LD=
for its data?|LDLo=
, |LCLo=
. -
DePiep (
talk) 19:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Hazards | |
---|---|
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC): | |
LD50 (
median dose)
|
11,900 mg/kg |
LDLo (
lowest published)
|
10 mg/kg |
LC50 (
median concentration)
|
1234 ppm |
LCLo (
lowest published)
|
50 ppm, 50 mg/kg |
@ DePiep: We could pipe the links, which would solve the problem of them being so wordy. LCLo should absolutely have an article and I will put it on my to-do-asap list. (perhaps it will even be done by the time you see this message! :D) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 02:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Lethal concentration | |
---|---|
Median LC50 | 1234 ppm |
Lowest LCmin | 50 ppm, 50 mg/kg |
Lowest published LCLo | 2ppm |
Lethal dose | |
Median LD50 | 11,900 mg/kg |
Lowest LDmin | 10 mg/kg |
Hazards | |
---|---|
Lethal dose | |
Median LD50 | 11,900 mg/kg |
Lowest LDmin | 10 mg/kg |
Next hazard | Deadly |
Hazards | |
---|---|
Lethal dose | |
Median LD50 | 11,900 mg/kg |
Lowest LDmin | 10 mg/kg |
Next hazard | Deadly |
Hi, I'm really sorry I lost track of this discussion. DePiep, I think the shortened wording is okay as a quick solution to get this information in sooner rather than later, and subheadings can come later. Thanks so much for all your work on this. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 18:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
[[Median lethal dose#Lethal concentration]]
by sectiontitle or by {{
anchor}}). -
DePiep (
talk) 12:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
In case some of you need a relaxing and life-fulfilling activity: please help emptying this maintenance category: Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox. Atthe moment there are ~100 {{Chembox}} articles that have an unknown parameter (by typo, misunderstanding, wrong Section, ...). I invite you to try & fix a few articles.
Tip & help: if you Edit and then Preview, the offending parameter is shown at the top of the page, in red (plus its section like "Chembox Hazards") . All correct parameters are in this list. - DePiep ( talk) 23:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
1. FYI: As {{ Chembox}} is organised today, we easily track which articles use certain data input. That could help us. These lists are:
2. Note: To me it looks like the data entered can be too much or too detailed, for example DDT and I saw a 12-item list somewhere. I can not judge on scientific importance (well, being DDT ...). But for information presentation I suggest that it be summarized in the infobox, and maybe expanded in the text by relevance. We don't need to reproduce the complete source research! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH)- DePiep ( talk) 21:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I have prepared to step up the deprecation of parameters:
Major changes imply required removal/change in code and in articles. Must actively be checked and edited. In practice, the articles are listed in maintenance category Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox. Using AWB or AWB-script, the deprecations can be edited. Always, unknown parameters (=those deprecated) are listed in red when showing a Preview.
These won't change showing, just changing parameter name to a preferred name. In general, no edit required; do when major edits are performed. May have been removed in earlier edits.
The external links in these subtemplates are broken. The respective search query at http://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals should be linked instead. BTW: Do we really need both templates? -- Leyo 23:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
|EINECS=
and |EC-number=
into the single data row
EC number with the link as given. |EINECS=
then be declared deprecated (input keeps working OK, but not advertised any more. No need to edit articles). With this, the word "EINECS" does not appear in the labels (infobox LH-side column). Sandbox demo will follow. -
DePiep (
talk) 09:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
|EC-number_comment=
for free text. -
DePiep (
talk) 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that the actual EC number is not linked. More tests are shown in testcases. @ Leyo, Beetstra, and Christian75: pinged. - DePiep ( talk) 14:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
EC number
. EC-number
may remain an allowed alternative. --
Leyo 19:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I found two more parameters and data rows that are (possibly) related.
|EINECSCASNO=
(for example, used in
2,4-Dimethoxybenzaldehyde; 2 uses in total).EC Number
as above (with correct link), and delete this data row from {Chembox} completely.
|EUIndex=
in section Hazards, for example
propane. Data label is inlinked "EU Index". The input number differs from the EC Number, and we have no links (not in the label, not in with the data input). Can someone hint as to where this should link or lead? -
DePiep (
talk)
in this document. It is a classification of compounds (hence not an identifier, I am not sure whether this is by definition unique for a compound). I guess we want to reproduce this number somewhere in the infobox (a google search on "603-055-00-4" nicely also includes Wikipedia as a result; though I must confess that I don't know how many people would search by this number - maybe people are interested in 'which compounds are classified by EU Index number starting with "603").Entries in Part 3 are listed according to the atomic number of the element most characteristic of the properties of the substance. Organic substances, because of their variety, have been placed in classes. The Index number for each substance is in the form of a digit sequence of the type ABC-RST-VW-Y. ABC corresponds to the atomic number of the most characteristic element or the most characteristic organic group in the molecule. RST is the consecutive number of the substance in the series ABC. VW denotes the form in which the substance is produced or placed on the market. Y is the check-digit calculated in accordance with the 10‑digit ISBN method. This number is indicated in the column entitled "Index No".
EU index
, nor is there a source that associates numbers with substances. All in all, this is not useful and sourceable data. I propose to remove data |EUIndex=
and its datarow from {{Chembox}} completely. -
DePiep (
talk) 14:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)|EUIndex=
will be deleted. -
DePiep (
talk) 23:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Several of the Infoboxes are wrong because there is written a comment in "Metling_notes" which should now be "MeltingPt_notes". For example on BaCO3 there was Melting point = 811°C, but the note was "polymorphic transition". Or for SrCO3 the note was "decomposes". So often the comment is mandatory to understand the value. It is the same for BoilingPt_notes and Boiling_notes. -- 134.94.163.208 ( talk) 13:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
|Melting_notes=
and |Boiling_notes=
(even having them without value) should be listed in
Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox and should give a red message when shown in Preview. This did not happen for
Barium carbonate. I'll have to research this automated parameter checking. -
DePiep (
talk) 20:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
|Melting_notes=
and |Boiling_notes=
(they will show). Those pages are listed in the category for edit. MAybe later the parameter check can function as expected. -
DePiep (
talk) 22:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Over at this Drugbox talk, Beetstra raises this point: we should only mention one InChI (preferably the Std of course). A secondary issue is how to show that InChI, if at all, and how to handle external searches. Of course this is major to {{Chembox}}. For now, please discuss there not here. - DePiep ( talk) 21:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
SMILES block is duplicated (after IUPHAR_ligand block and after RTECS), in {{ Chembox Identifiers}}. -- Jmarchn ( talk) 16:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
|SMILES=
is used twice: for Jmol-3D and for SMILES. But not repeated in the infobox. For example, see
ammonia. -
DePiep (
talk) 22:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Hi, just a quick question. Is there a parameter for odor threshold? I'm not seeing it but I've been known to completely miss parameters in the complex chem-beast. :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 17:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
|odor=
exists (in subtemplate Chembox Properties). -
DePiep (
talk) 20:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
|odour=
, but the language shown is always US-en not UK-en. I'm not sure uit is fit for the treshold data. btw, there is a ~complete list of params, makes easy searching. It is linked under
All parameters listed, one of the top links in {{
Navbox Chembox}} (=the documentation navbox, at the bottom of every doc page). -
DePiep (
talk) 06:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)I touched on this in the "German drug law" section but I'll present it formally here. Since there are 200+ countries in the world we cannot add the legal status of every country to the drug box. Therefore, we need some kind of consistent criteria for determining which countries to add. I am proposing we add those countries that will be useful for the highest number of en.wikipedia users. I believe the statistics available here may be of help [11]. This shows that users from the US, UK, India, Canada, and Australia use en.wikipedia the most. Since New Zealand is much further down the list I propose we replace it with India. About five countries is probably sufficient for the infobox. This could be applied to both the chemical and drug infoboxes Sizeofint ( talk) 23:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
| legal_status =
(i.e. legal_other) from all drugboxes into a list? Because if 2 or 3 countries are making up 80% of that list then we might want to think about making some extra legal-fields for them. It could solve most of the problem and buy us years until we have to look at it again. --
Project Osprey (
talk) 09:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
As of the 1st June 20015 the old EU CHIP labels (better know as R Phrases and S Phrases) were replaced by the new GHS hazard statements. So the R and S phrases are now defunct and wont be appearing on SDS forms anymore - however, we still list a huge number of them in our chemboxes. What do people think we should do about this? Obvious options include leaving them, deleting them, or converting R → H and S → P (each R phrase is suppose to map to an H phrase, so no interpretation is needed, but there are a lot of chemboxes so unless so kind person writes a bot or knows a clever way of doing a mass edit this will take quite a long time). -- Project Osprey ( talk) 08:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
GHS labels are compulsory for substances as of 1st December 2012 and for preparations as of 1st June 2015. DSD labels are only present on mixtures that have already been placed on the market before that date.
@ TomT0m: @ Project Osprey: @ Snipre: @ Beetstra: @ Leyo: @ Boghog: The conversation seems to have ended with Bog's misstatement based on misunderstanding the issue, and then the last of DePiep's interjections (that I for one cannot usually understand). Ignoring the latter, and to bring this to a decision, I hope:
To say again, and contrary to Bog's content, a general citation list for the chem infoboxes (cited by many articles) already exists, here. My suggestion above, in short, is that we use this as a starting point, ordering it according to the order of appearance of chem infobox fields, then make all citations complete and clear, and then expand it as we need to be comprehensive. (Thus, we would set the stage for all remaining unsupported facts in the infobox to have inline citations in the article, with the further required references appearing in-article.) The suggestion that the general reference list appearing in so many boxes be ignored or removed, is (IMHO) too drastic of a change to the status quo. Otherwise, while I acknowledge the validity of the Beetstra comments that what is needed is change in behaviour, I note that changes in technology and tools often make behavioural improvements all the more likely (or unlikely, as at present). Now, please, comment on the very specific proposal to improve the existing chem infobox general reference list, as just described? Boghog, I ping you to be fair and civil; please try to reply in kind (and to fully understand what is being said before you reply). The proposal is clear and concrete, and per pages of discussion, anyone stating it to be an imaginary problem stands alone (or more precisely, with one other here). Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Extended response
|
---|
|
The proposal is clear and concrete– Without specific examples, it is impossible to say what your proposal is. I have cleaned up the reference section that you were referring to so hopefully it is now clearer. Are you proposing to add sources selected from this general reference list as in-line citations to various fields in the chembox? (btw, I don't think this will work very well.) Or are you proposing something else? Please clarify with specific examples. Boghog ( talk) 05:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Chembox Citation Mockup
|
---|
References
|
Can someone help me out? For Proline, I am looking for the different InChI stings by R/S variant.
Proline has these CAS numbers:
But the article (chembox) does not differentiate the InChI's. I'd like to have the two R, S InChI's identified. (I need it for testing & exampling). - DePiep ( talk) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I propose for discussion, the following specific change: That we alter the status quo, working to create a new, thorough, infobox-correlated, complete-and-verifiable reference list for the chemboxes that is:
After discussing this, we can wrestle with policy regarding what to do if the source of a datum is other than the one assigned in the new chembox reference list. Development of at least this would mean that if the "new chembox reference" is consulted, and the data not verified there, the reader/reviewer would know there is a problem to address.
Please, join me in discussing this specific proposal—including how it might integrate with earlier metadata discussions. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I agree that this again misses the point - it is possible to reference every single value in the chembox. And I agree that it should be. But the solution is not to suggest that we implement that - the solution is to implement it. One did a calculation that it is 15.000 chemicals that have the problem .. in the chem/drugbox .. the problem is that we have 221.000 articles lacking sources (and probably most are not even tagged), and every article has statements that need sourcing. This is not a chemistry specific problem. I have, above, agreed that the sourcing of the chemboxes could/should be better, I do however think that with the general references we are not doing even that bad - it is for, probably the large majority of, the data better than nothing at all.
Whether we want to go there .. well, we should. Whether we can .. we once had a drive to have the identifiers verified and to get that data better and better - but that died (and actually, that would be a great source for the rest of the data if those were all correct, and that was the reason we started that (see the prose on User:CheMoBot) - get the identifiers right, and then check/source the rest of the data, much of which could be done/helped by machine). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interested in this topic. But if anyone, the talkpager assaulting User:Leprof 7272 excluded, if anyone can convince me that even reading about this is useful, I'll act. - DePiep ( talk) 22:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
why not revamp the general citations list ... ordering it according to the appearance of the infobox fields?" – as already pointed out several times above, {{ reflist}} already does this. You have invented a problem that does not exist. Also, why create a "
page on to itself"? This separates the data from the sources that support that data which is generally a bad idea. Wikidata may eventually be a solution to the problem, but the mapping between Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items needs to be cleaned up first and regardless of where the sources are stored, someone needs to add them. Who do you propose to do this? Without concrete proposals and more importantly resources to implement these proposals, all this talk is nothing but hot air. Boghog ( talk) 08:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
As pointed out by Project Osprey above, I prefer to simply have all non-trivial values referenced using <ref> tags, i.e. like in de.wikipedia. -- Leyo 10:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Over at {{ drugbox}} we've added a 'pronounce' parameter. Should we do the same here? Sizeofint ( talk) 02:08, 17 September 2015 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
...a generic list of infobox sources, non-annotated as to which specific sources are used for which specific data fields, be acceptable as a means of verifiability here? This seems a further example of "just trust us" writing, and it is not encyclopedic. Is we cannot place the name of the author at the head of the article, so her/his credibility can be questioned, we have to be able to establish content credibility via the verifiability of the sources of the scientific information. Tens of data values, and a generic list of sources… what, we expect a reader to guess, or to look into each source, to try to source/verify the one datum of interest? No, we expect him to trust us about our provision of the data. And to this I say "No. One thousand times, No." 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 03:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Leprof 7272 ( talk) 03:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Names | |
---|---|
IUPAC name
2-(Dimethylamino)ethanol
| |
Other names
| |
Identifiers | |
3D model (
JSmol)
|
|
Abbreviations | DMAE, DMEA |
1209235 | |
ChEBI | |
ChEMBL | |
ChemSpider | |
EC Number |
|
KEGG | |
MeSH | Deanol |
PubChem
CID
|
|
RTECS number |
|
UNII | |
UN number | 2051 |
| |
| |
Properties | |
C4H11NO | |
Molar mass | 89.138 g·mol−1 |
Appearance | Colourless liquid |
Odor | Fishy, ammoniacal |
Density | 890 mg mL−1 |
Melting point | −59.00 °C; −74.20 °F; 214.15 K |
Boiling point | 134.1 °C; 273.3 °F; 407.2 K |
log P | −0.25 |
Vapor pressure | 816 Pa (at 20 °C) |
Acidity (pKa) | 9.23 (at 20 °C) [1] |
Basicity (pKb) | 4.77 (at 20 °C) |
Refractive index (nD)
|
1.4294 |
Hazards | |
GHS labelling: | |
Danger | |
H226, H302, H312, H314, H332 | |
P280, P305+P351+P338, P310 | |
Flash point | 39 °C (102 °F; 312 K) |
Explosive limits | 1.4–12.2% |
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC): | |
LD50 (
median dose)
|
|
Related compounds | |
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their
standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa).
|
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
@ Leprof 7272:. Basically, you're right, the data should be referenced. Problem there is however threefold. First is to find proper sources who have done the fact-checking for that value (and not fact checking in 'they report a value of 100°C, that sounds right', I mean fact checking in 'we independently made the compound, and determined the boiling point') - you will find that most sources stating physical data are basically primary and, obviously, not SPS. The only 'secondary' data there is (2nd problem) is by conglomeration of data - for quite some chemboxes the compound has been made independently, and most sources have distilled it and determined a boiling point (and reported that) - the fact that all sources say the same (and you will find a lot of them in the ' Infobox references') is evidence that the value reported in our chembox is 'correct'. However, that is original research. The third thing is that 'any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source' - that challenging either requires a leap of faith: 'it says a boiling point of 134.1°C, I say it is not' (i.e., without giving a reason why it is not, or what it would be - a kind of 'who says that it is 134.1°C?'), where we would say, 'we know it is OR, but look, most (primary) sources state a boiling point between 133 and 135, so unless you can show sources that show another value, you're not really challenging this one), or the challenge is indeed giving a reference showing it is wrong because it gives a completely different value (but note that that source likely is also a primary source).
In short, I agree that the fields should be referenced where properly possible (also to aid the reader to more information regarding that datapoint) and reasonable (if there are 50 primary sources showing a boiling point of ~134.1 ..), but enforced referencing or enforced removal when unreferenced is only needed when either properly challenged ('it can't be right because <your sourced reason here>'). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
|MeltingPt_ref=
to add references nicely. This is required because temperature values are calculated by {{convert}} and a ref would spoil the numeric input and/or ref position. |MeltingPt_notes=
is available for a suffix too in the data row, but with a space added.|CASNo_Comment=
for refs. Quite unfortunately, historically |CASNo_Ref=
is used for the validation bot only :-(For {{ Drugbox}}, I am building an automated molar mass calculator, using the molecular formula input (like {{Chembox}} has/does now). Compared to {{Chembox}}, some design changes and improvements are considered. Once stable, the aim is to replace the {{Chembox}} one too to have all features shared. See Drugbox talkpage. - DePiep ( talk) 17:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I propose to change the molecular mass calculation. The values used may be outdated, as there are no checks (hint: 'Uub' is used while it is named Cn since 2009!). The new form uses the new template {{
Chem molar mass}} as subtemplate. This setup is also used by {{
Drugbox}} (
proposed) so that this wiki uses one single form of calculation. See that templates documentation for sources used (mainly
CIAAW). Calculation only can be performed when the molecular formula is entered by chemical symbol, like |H=2|O=1
, not by hardcoded |Formula={{Chem|H|2|O}}
.
Another change is that an editor can overwrite the calculated value by |MolarMass=
, so the editor is in control (in the old situation the calculation would be shown when available). These articles are listed in
Category:Chemical articles having calculated molecular weight overwritten for a maintenance check: is the overwriting intentional, or can it be removed to have the calculated value showing?
Some related parameters are added to control presentation, also for |Formula=
. The new set is:
| C=|H=|O= &tc. | Formula = | Formula_ref = | Formula_Comment = | MolarMassRound = | MolarMassUnit = | MolarMass = | MolarMass_ref = | MolarMass_Comment =
Demos and tests are at this test page.
Changes are: using more recent and sourced values, more control for the editor, single place of calculation (shared with {{Drugbox}}), feedback for maintenance.
Any comments or questions? - DePiep ( talk) 13:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
H
2O[1] Some free text comment
. Since the formula resp. mass itself is structured data (in either input option: fixed or constructed from symbols), we can not have <ref> code in its input, nor can we add free comment text. It is up to the editor to use this, I don't see the need to forbid (make impossible) such input beforehand.|Formula=
, |MolarMass=
, |MolarMassRound=
and the symbols are existing parameters. No infobox edits are needed to have this mass calculation functioning, it's just supplementary parameters that are added.|Formula=
usually a formula like HThis
edit request to
Template:Chembox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The text on the template page has the words "Except where noted otherwise, data is given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)". Two technical requests: 1.) the correct plural verb "are" with the word "data" ("...data are given for materials...") and 2.) a period at the end of the sentence. Thanks! KDS4444 Talk 13:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Chembox Hazards has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The code in this template that used to read |NFPA_Ref={{{NFPA_Ref|}}}
now reads |NFPA_Ref={{{NFPA_ref|}}}
. The result is the reference entered is not visible and produces reference errors. See the problem at
Iron(II) sulfate.
StarryGrandma ( talk) 05:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
|NFPA_Ref=
, |NFPA_ref=
now both accepted. (The uc is deprecated because it is not like the other _Ref
CheMoBot parameters, lc preferred. However, deprecation process is stalled). -
DePiep (
talk) 06:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
|PLLR=
|EINECS=
, |EC-number=
, |EC number=
into one value|ExternalSDS=
input when available.|Hazards_data_page=
for this SDS to overwrite an eventual link to PAGENAME (data page)
.#Safety data sheet
(sp).A discussion was started at WP:Chemistry#Data_pages about what to do with data pages like Ammonia (data page) for Ammonia (more listed here). - DePiep ( talk) 10:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I am proposing to add |PLLR=
to {{Drugbox}}.
PLLR is the new US FDA drug labeling rule regarding pregnancy and more. Discussed at
Infobox drug talk. -
DePiep (
talk) 22:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
in Template:Chembox Structure there seems to be parameters to describe the crystal structure. But some commonly published info has no parameters, The extra ones I want to use are the number of formulas per unit cell, commonly termed Z, and the unit cell volume V. Also it would be good to have another field in case the temperature was not 25° or standard pressure. Also some materials can have different forms. So far I have repeated the template, but that is not the best solution. For the purposes of data extraction it would be good to have a reference field separate too. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
|CASNo2=
, if deemed important.|UnitCellFormulas=
|UnitCellVolume=
|UnitCellFormulas=
: text="Number of formula". Link =
Formula unit|UnitCellVolume=
: text="Unit volume". Link to
Crystal structure#Close packing. (
Atomic packing factor is not the same, but it uses this V).|Structure_ref=
, |Structure_Comment=
|CrystalStruct=
. Always entered. We can add |CrystalStruct_ref=
, |CrystalStruct_Comment=
to that top data row then. -
DePiep (
talk) 07:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
|CrystalStruct=
is always present in the
~1600 Chembox Structure pages.re Graeme Bartlett some questions:
|UnitCellFormulas=
|UnitCellVolume=
are most connvenient for editors (like you)?|UnitCellZ=
for formulas, and |UnitCellV=
for unit cell volume. Actually while checking up it seems that writers prefer molecules per cell about 1000× more often. This is despite many crystals not actually containing molecules, but rather an arrangements of ions, or atoms. So instead of |UnitCellFormulas=
you could have |UnitCellMolecules=
. For Unit Cell Volume I now have a section at
Lattice constant#Volume. For α β γ the units are always °. For a b c the units are mostly Å, but some authors like nm (nanometers).
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 11:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
|UnitCellMolecules=
: can change. Is that the most known & specific word then? 'Molecules' is used everywhere, so could be less meaningful (less distinctive) here for that same half-familiar editor. -
DePiep (
talk) 11:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)|UnitCellFormulas=
|UnitCellVolume=
for your fellow chemistry editors? (Just thinking, not like |LattConst_Formulas=
|LattConst_Volume=
then.)|LattConst_ref=
and |LattConst_comment=
then to position that info correctly. Where do I put those two? Once for all 6 constants at the end or two options, #1 after a-b-c and #2 after alpha-beta-gamma? -
DePiep (
talk) 09:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
| UnitCellFormulas =
| UnitCellVolume =
| LattConst_ref =
| LattConst_Comment =
Apart from the Volume and Formulas additions (see above), some more questions and suggestions arose.
|CrystStruc=
parameter as subheader (bold, over infobox width).Following this {{Drugbox}} discussion:
CASNo, CASNo1, ... CASNo5
and |CASNoindex_Comment=
.|IUPHAR_ligand_Other=
is added (once) by the same set pattern: allows any text after all indexed input (unlinked, unedited by {Chembox}).|IUPHAR_ligand=
keeps functioning & showing unchanged. It has added option |IUPHAR_ligand_Comment=
just as well.| IUPHAR_ligand= | IUPHAR_ligand_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand1= | IUPHAR_ligand1_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand2= | IUPHAR_ligand2_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand3= | IUPHAR_ligand3_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand4= | IUPHAR_ligand4_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand5= | IUPHAR_ligand5_Comment= | IUPHAR_ligand_Other=
Hello everyone,
I am new here as editor, but I often read and use Wikipedia articles for my studies.
I have noticed that the link to EC number in Chemical infobox point to ESIS web site which has been closed for more than 6 months.
For instance for Formaldehyde that gives EC number 200-001-8 which link as: http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lib/einecs_IS_reponse.php?genre=ECNO&entree=200-001-8
Why not to remove such link to any EC number or even better to update as direct link to another chemical information system like chemsub online with link as format http://chemsub.online.fr/ec_number/EC number.html like for formaldehyde: http://chemsub.online.fr/ec_number/200-001-8.html I found only this web site having a direct access to chemical data sheet via EC number.
Thank you.
-- Chemistaddict ( talk) 13:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
chemsub.online.fr
, is only using that EC number, not defining it. If we use that link, this wikipedia would become a 'link farm' instead of providing information & sources. This is why the EC number is not linked.|EC number=
and |EINECS=
in {{Chembox}} as being the same. But we can not link to a database page for a substance.I am ordering the Identifiers alphabetically. From random. - DePiep ( talk) 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's build a table just to get an overview. - DePiep ( talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
name | param | source | id-type | gen/spec | ext | i'box | note | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CAS Registry Number | |CASNo= |
CAS | id | gen | [cas] | c+d | |||||||||||||
PubChem | |PubChem= |
PubChem | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
ChemSpiderID | |ChemSpiderID= |
ChemSpiderID | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
UNII | |UNII= |
UNII | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
EINECS | |EINECS= |
EINECS | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
EC | |EC-number= |
number | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
E number | |E_number= |
id | |||||||||||||||||
UNNumber | |UNNumber= |
UNNumber | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
KEGG | |KEGG= |
KEGG | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
DrugBank | |DrugBank= |
DrugBank | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
MeSHName | |MeSHName= |
MeSHName | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
ChEBI | |ChEBI= |
ChEBI | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
ChEMBL | |ChEMBL= |
ChEMBL | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
RTECS | |RTECS= |
RTECS | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
ATCCode | |ATCCode= |
www.whocc.no | ? | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
ATCvet | |ATCvet= |
www.whocc.no | ? | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
Beilstein | |Beilstein= |
Beilstein | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
Gmelin | |Gmelin= |
Gmelin | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
3DMet | |3DMet= |
3DMet | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
SMILES | |SMILES= |
SMILES | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
StdInChI | |StdInChI= |
StdInChI | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
StdInChIKey | |StdInChIKey= |
StdInChIKey | id | g/s | ? | c+d | |||||||||||||
InChI | |InChI= |
InChI | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
InChIKey | |InChIKey= |
InChIKey | id | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
Abbreviations | |Abbreviations= |
abbr | name | g/s | ? | c | |||||||||||||
synonyms | |synonyms= |
name | g | ? | d | ||||||||||||||
MedlinePlus | |MedlinePlus=a602026 |
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus | ? | med | ? | d | US | ||||||||||||
NIAID ChemDB | |NIAID_ChemDB=007686 |
chemdb.niaid.nih.gov | ? | med | ? | d | US | ||||||||||||
Drugs.com | |Drugs.com= |
drugs.com? | ? | med | ? | d | |||||||||||||
Protein Data Bank | |PDB_ligand= |
? | ? | med | ? | d | |||||||||||||
IUPHAR | |IUPHAR_ligand= |
IUPHAR | id | g/s | ? | d |
This
edit request to
template:Chembox Identifiers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can this ordering ( diff) be reverted until consensus has been reached which order to use. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
14:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
|abbr=
is more of a name. Jmol is an image only not an ID, but at the moment in the SectionN-setup we have it is difficult to reposition that to the top with other images, because it's defined (created in template code) from the SMILES input. There may be other candidates for repositioning, and all repositionings would require a maintenance job (move the parameter from SectionN=Chembox Identifiers to another SectionM=). Can be done, in the longer run. To be discussed per-ID, I suggest.Having reread this whole topic & thread: I conclude that best and undisputed is to put CAS RN in top of the identifiers, nothing objects. It follows Leyo's first comments [4], [5]. This can be done without extra visual effects (I otherwise would require). It is good for our Readers, looks intuitive, and no harm in sight.
Below CAS RN all other ~20 ID's alphabetically, undiscriminated. So the order is: CAS RN, 0, ... 9, A, B, C, ... Z
. Absent any categorizing criteria (I am still looking for), we have no subgrouping. Also, any further grouping requires some visual clue (like a subheader: "Special ID's:"). All this can be added later, once we agree on categorizing/grouping/presentation. None of this prejudices putting CAS RN in top. -
DePiep (
talk) 21:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Both {{ Chembox Identifiers}} and {{ Chembox Pharmacology}} support ATC codes and DrugBank identifiers. I think it is redundant to include these identifiers in both locations. I propose they be removed from {{ Chembox Pharmacology}}, leaving the identifiers only in {{ Chembox Identifiers}}.
Additionally, the supplemental ATC codes (|ATC_Supplemental
) do not work for either {{
Chembox identifiers}} or {{
Chembox Pharmacology}}. See
Nicotine for an example of how they are presently working in the {{
Drugbox}}. See
Ethanol (data page) for an example of how they are presently not working for the Chembox. The values are present in the infobox for the data page but the supplemental values do not appear.
Sizeofint (
talk) 02:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
|ATC_Supplemental=
now shows (se
Nicotine). -
DePiep (
talk) 17:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
ATC parameters: deprecated in {{Chembox Identifiers}}. Should be in
|SectionN = {{Chembox Pharmacology | ATCCode = ... }}
DrugBank parameters: deprecated in {{Chembox Identifiers}}. Should be in
|SectionN = {{Chembox Pharmacology | DrugBank = ... }}
Offending articles are listed in: Category:Chemical infoboxes with misplaced or deprecated parameters.
Also, all articles with depecated parameters are listed in Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox
Maintenance task: any input should be moved from a SectionN = {{Chembox Identifiers
to SectionM = {{Chembox Pharmacology
. Example:
[6] for
this article. The maximum number of articles is about 450 for |ATC..=
and 450 for |DrugBank..=
; previous numbers in the categories (i.e. before these were added): 475 articles in "misplaced & deprecated", 522 in "unknown parameter". Note that multiple categorisation reasons (say, "A" and "T") result in a single category listing, under an arbitrary letter).
When this cleanup is done, the parameters will be removed from {{Chembox Identifiers}} code (will not show in that section any more). -
DePiep (
talk) 11:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
And as I said, drugbank is an identifier, it is not pharmacological data. Identifiers with identifiers, pharmacological data in the pharmacology section. There are a LOT of chemicals that are identified in the drugbank where the majority of the data and content of the article is purely chemical, and for which the pharmacological data is just a minor part of the article. Please put it back in the identifier section, where it belongs, and I will read up on ATC code. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Template:Chembox Pharmacology and
Template:Chembox Identifiers has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As this implementation ( diff, diff, as well as documentation, and some implementations on pages) clearly did not receive consensus, can this please be reverted back to the earlier state, and then properly discussed. Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
14:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
03:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
20:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
20:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)This
edit request to
Template:Chembox Pharmacology has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- revert this edit, which was not discussed, and which does not contain any relevant edit summary. Christian75 ( talk) 05:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
So after these shenanigans the original question still stands. We currently have redundant entries for ATC code and the DrugBank identifier in the "Identifier" and "Pharmacology" sections. Should this redundancy be eliminated and if so which sections should these entries be placed in? Sizeofint ( talk) 00:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
The United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) calls for the harmonization of data sheets for chemicals, using the name "Safety Data Sheet" (SDS). It's not a law or regulation, but a guideline that countries should adopt. All large, English-speaking countries have adopted the guidelines—the EU (UK & Ireland), US, Canada, Australia, & New Zealand—and the sheets formerly known as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) will now be called SDSs in these jurisdictions (see also Talk:Safety data sheet#Move to Safety Data Sheet). I have moved the Wikipedia article on this subject from material safety data sheet to safety data sheet, given the UN guidelines and use in all large, English-speaking countries.
Template:Chembox, Template:Chembox Hazards, and any other relevant infoboxes need to be adjusted to use the term SDS, replacing MSDS (this appears in the "Hazards" section of the Chembox template). I plan to make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests to change other occurrences in articles (eg. on data pages such as Methanol (data page)), so please note anything that could be included in the request (such as changing all occurrences of "ExternalMSDS" parameter to "ExternalSDS", if that is appropriate). AHeneen ( talk) 08:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Safety data sheet
or Safety Data Sheet
, because it now differs while we use automated linking. This is urgent because of the
BOT request. My only preference is consistency. -
DePiep (
talk) 12:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
"When the {{PAGENAME}} (datapage)
exists, link to [[{{PAGENAME}} (datapage)#Safety Data Sheet|External SDS]]
, and do not show any |ExternalSDS=
input."
Example: for
Ammonia, the datapage exists so the link shown is to
Ammonia_(data_page)#Safety_Data_Sheet, labeled "External SDS". And existing input |ExternalSDS=[http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics0414.htm ICSC 0414] (anhydrous)
is not shown or used. The question is: do we want this?
I also note that when the datapage exists, an extra section is added to the infobox: "Supplementary data page", so that page is linked more often from the infobox. There are ~150 such datapages, see Category:Chemical articles having a data page.
Minor notes: 1. The wikilabel "External SDS" does not sound correct, it is a wiki page. 2. The targeted #section name is changed here to SDS, but not in the actual data page. - DePiep ( talk) 15:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
|ExternalMSDS=
is deprecated but not eliminated. It will not be documented. |ExternalSDS=
is the new parameter. There is no requirement to edit that name in the articles.|ExternalSDS=
is not shown. eg
Ammonia. Do we want that? -
DePiep (
talk) 10:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)I am not in favor of the “External(M)SDS” parameter anyway. IMO any non-self-evident value should be referenced using ref tags.
There are cases, where some values are included in an external SDS, while others are found in a different SDS. Hence, it does not make sense to link to one SDS only. --
Leyo 12:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
... (data page)
as infobox section, ... (data page)#Safety data sheet
as internal link - labeled External SDS confusingly, and |ExternalSDS=
parameter (likely having external links; weirdly not showing when (data page) exists.).<ref>…</ref>
behind. --
Leyo 11:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
<ref>…</ref>
after the value. --
Leyo 19:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Current presentation of SDS has two flaws (demo's from
ammonia). I propose to correct them.
1. The internal link to the a data page is wikilabeled (shows text):
This is incorrect text, it is not external. I propose to make that
2. When a data page exists that one is linked to OK, but then any regular input for |ExternalSDS=
/|ExternalMSDS=
is not used & not shown at all. I don't see why that is. I propose to have that input value shown:
See demo at
Testcases. To check datapage-detection: use
ammonia Preview with SectionN={{Chembox Hazards/sandbox
. Other improvements in discussion (see section above, eg by Leyo) can be added later on without prejuduce. Comments? -
DePiep (
talk) 12:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
|Hazards_data_page=
to set (and overwrite) an exsting data page. So: |Hazards_data_page=[[Main page]]
will overwrite
Ammonia (data page). -
DePiep (
talk) 12:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
As of 23:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
|PAGENAME (data page))=
automatically appears in SectionN= {{Chembox Hazards|...}} (see
Ammonia)|PAGENAME (data page))=
automatically appears as "Supplementary data page". (again; see
Ammonia)|ExternalSDS=
.|data page=
overwrites an existing data page name.{Drugbox} has |onset=
and |duration_of_action=
. I think these could be useful in the pharmacology subsection of {Chembox}}. Can these be added?
Sizeofint (
talk) 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
| AdminRoutes = | Bioavail = | ProteinBound = | Metabolism = | Metabolites = | OnsetOfAction = | HalfLife = | DurationOfAction= | Excretion =
Following data additions requested ( pharmacokinetics here and LCLo here), I've prepared some useful/needed presentation changes (layout, order, format, whitespace).
I plan to deploy this shortly. Any remarks? - DePiep ( talk) 09:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello all, I was wondering what people thought of adding LCLo and LDLo values to the chembox. I think it could be a useful addition, especially in situations where there isn't literature with an LC/LD50 and there is just a LD/LCLo. Best, Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 01:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hazards | |
---|---|
LCLo ( Lowest lethal dose) | e.g. 50 ppm, 50 mg/kg |
Hazards | |
---|---|
LCLo | e.g. 50 ppm, 50 mg/kg |
Hazards | |
---|---|
LC50 (
Lowest published lethal dose) LCLo ( Lowest lethal dose) |
11,900 mg/kg 50 ppm, 50 mg/kg |
|LD_label=
for free LH label text, and |LD=
for its data?|LDLo=
, |LCLo=
. -
DePiep (
talk) 19:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Hazards | |
---|---|
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC): | |
LD50 (
median dose)
|
11,900 mg/kg |
LDLo (
lowest published)
|
10 mg/kg |
LC50 (
median concentration)
|
1234 ppm |
LCLo (
lowest published)
|
50 ppm, 50 mg/kg |
@ DePiep: We could pipe the links, which would solve the problem of them being so wordy. LCLo should absolutely have an article and I will put it on my to-do-asap list. (perhaps it will even be done by the time you see this message! :D) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 02:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Lethal concentration | |
---|---|
Median LC50 | 1234 ppm |
Lowest LCmin | 50 ppm, 50 mg/kg |
Lowest published LCLo | 2ppm |
Lethal dose | |
Median LD50 | 11,900 mg/kg |
Lowest LDmin | 10 mg/kg |
Hazards | |
---|---|
Lethal dose | |
Median LD50 | 11,900 mg/kg |
Lowest LDmin | 10 mg/kg |
Next hazard | Deadly |
Hazards | |
---|---|
Lethal dose | |
Median LD50 | 11,900 mg/kg |
Lowest LDmin | 10 mg/kg |
Next hazard | Deadly |
Hi, I'm really sorry I lost track of this discussion. DePiep, I think the shortened wording is okay as a quick solution to get this information in sooner rather than later, and subheadings can come later. Thanks so much for all your work on this. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 18:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
[[Median lethal dose#Lethal concentration]]
by sectiontitle or by {{
anchor}}). -
DePiep (
talk) 12:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
In case some of you need a relaxing and life-fulfilling activity: please help emptying this maintenance category: Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox. Atthe moment there are ~100 {{Chembox}} articles that have an unknown parameter (by typo, misunderstanding, wrong Section, ...). I invite you to try & fix a few articles.
Tip & help: if you Edit and then Preview, the offending parameter is shown at the top of the page, in red (plus its section like "Chembox Hazards") . All correct parameters are in this list. - DePiep ( talk) 23:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
1. FYI: As {{ Chembox}} is organised today, we easily track which articles use certain data input. That could help us. These lists are:
2. Note: To me it looks like the data entered can be too much or too detailed, for example DDT and I saw a 12-item list somewhere. I can not judge on scientific importance (well, being DDT ...). But for information presentation I suggest that it be summarized in the infobox, and maybe expanded in the text by relevance. We don't need to reproduce the complete source research! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH)- DePiep ( talk) 21:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I have prepared to step up the deprecation of parameters:
Major changes imply required removal/change in code and in articles. Must actively be checked and edited. In practice, the articles are listed in maintenance category Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox. Using AWB or AWB-script, the deprecations can be edited. Always, unknown parameters (=those deprecated) are listed in red when showing a Preview.
These won't change showing, just changing parameter name to a preferred name. In general, no edit required; do when major edits are performed. May have been removed in earlier edits.
The external links in these subtemplates are broken. The respective search query at http://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals should be linked instead. BTW: Do we really need both templates? -- Leyo 23:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
|EINECS=
and |EC-number=
into the single data row
EC number with the link as given. |EINECS=
then be declared deprecated (input keeps working OK, but not advertised any more. No need to edit articles). With this, the word "EINECS" does not appear in the labels (infobox LH-side column). Sandbox demo will follow. -
DePiep (
talk) 09:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
|EC-number_comment=
for free text. -
DePiep (
talk) 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that the actual EC number is not linked. More tests are shown in testcases. @ Leyo, Beetstra, and Christian75: pinged. - DePiep ( talk) 14:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
EC number
. EC-number
may remain an allowed alternative. --
Leyo 19:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I found two more parameters and data rows that are (possibly) related.
|EINECSCASNO=
(for example, used in
2,4-Dimethoxybenzaldehyde; 2 uses in total).EC Number
as above (with correct link), and delete this data row from {Chembox} completely.
|EUIndex=
in section Hazards, for example
propane. Data label is inlinked "EU Index". The input number differs from the EC Number, and we have no links (not in the label, not in with the data input). Can someone hint as to where this should link or lead? -
DePiep (
talk)
in this document. It is a classification of compounds (hence not an identifier, I am not sure whether this is by definition unique for a compound). I guess we want to reproduce this number somewhere in the infobox (a google search on "603-055-00-4" nicely also includes Wikipedia as a result; though I must confess that I don't know how many people would search by this number - maybe people are interested in 'which compounds are classified by EU Index number starting with "603").Entries in Part 3 are listed according to the atomic number of the element most characteristic of the properties of the substance. Organic substances, because of their variety, have been placed in classes. The Index number for each substance is in the form of a digit sequence of the type ABC-RST-VW-Y. ABC corresponds to the atomic number of the most characteristic element or the most characteristic organic group in the molecule. RST is the consecutive number of the substance in the series ABC. VW denotes the form in which the substance is produced or placed on the market. Y is the check-digit calculated in accordance with the 10‑digit ISBN method. This number is indicated in the column entitled "Index No".
EU index
, nor is there a source that associates numbers with substances. All in all, this is not useful and sourceable data. I propose to remove data |EUIndex=
and its datarow from {{Chembox}} completely. -
DePiep (
talk) 14:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)|EUIndex=
will be deleted. -
DePiep (
talk) 23:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Several of the Infoboxes are wrong because there is written a comment in "Metling_notes" which should now be "MeltingPt_notes". For example on BaCO3 there was Melting point = 811°C, but the note was "polymorphic transition". Or for SrCO3 the note was "decomposes". So often the comment is mandatory to understand the value. It is the same for BoilingPt_notes and Boiling_notes. -- 134.94.163.208 ( talk) 13:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
|Melting_notes=
and |Boiling_notes=
(even having them without value) should be listed in
Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox and should give a red message when shown in Preview. This did not happen for
Barium carbonate. I'll have to research this automated parameter checking. -
DePiep (
talk) 20:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
|Melting_notes=
and |Boiling_notes=
(they will show). Those pages are listed in the category for edit. MAybe later the parameter check can function as expected. -
DePiep (
talk) 22:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Over at this Drugbox talk, Beetstra raises this point: we should only mention one InChI (preferably the Std of course). A secondary issue is how to show that InChI, if at all, and how to handle external searches. Of course this is major to {{Chembox}}. For now, please discuss there not here. - DePiep ( talk) 21:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
SMILES block is duplicated (after IUPHAR_ligand block and after RTECS), in {{ Chembox Identifiers}}. -- Jmarchn ( talk) 16:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
|SMILES=
is used twice: for Jmol-3D and for SMILES. But not repeated in the infobox. For example, see
ammonia. -
DePiep (
talk) 22:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)Hi, just a quick question. Is there a parameter for odor threshold? I'm not seeing it but I've been known to completely miss parameters in the complex chem-beast. :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) ( talk) 17:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
|odor=
exists (in subtemplate Chembox Properties). -
DePiep (
talk) 20:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
|odour=
, but the language shown is always US-en not UK-en. I'm not sure uit is fit for the treshold data. btw, there is a ~complete list of params, makes easy searching. It is linked under
All parameters listed, one of the top links in {{
Navbox Chembox}} (=the documentation navbox, at the bottom of every doc page). -
DePiep (
talk) 06:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)I touched on this in the "German drug law" section but I'll present it formally here. Since there are 200+ countries in the world we cannot add the legal status of every country to the drug box. Therefore, we need some kind of consistent criteria for determining which countries to add. I am proposing we add those countries that will be useful for the highest number of en.wikipedia users. I believe the statistics available here may be of help [11]. This shows that users from the US, UK, India, Canada, and Australia use en.wikipedia the most. Since New Zealand is much further down the list I propose we replace it with India. About five countries is probably sufficient for the infobox. This could be applied to both the chemical and drug infoboxes Sizeofint ( talk) 23:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
| legal_status =
(i.e. legal_other) from all drugboxes into a list? Because if 2 or 3 countries are making up 80% of that list then we might want to think about making some extra legal-fields for them. It could solve most of the problem and buy us years until we have to look at it again. --
Project Osprey (
talk) 09:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
As of the 1st June 20015 the old EU CHIP labels (better know as R Phrases and S Phrases) were replaced by the new GHS hazard statements. So the R and S phrases are now defunct and wont be appearing on SDS forms anymore - however, we still list a huge number of them in our chemboxes. What do people think we should do about this? Obvious options include leaving them, deleting them, or converting R → H and S → P (each R phrase is suppose to map to an H phrase, so no interpretation is needed, but there are a lot of chemboxes so unless so kind person writes a bot or knows a clever way of doing a mass edit this will take quite a long time). -- Project Osprey ( talk) 08:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
GHS labels are compulsory for substances as of 1st December 2012 and for preparations as of 1st June 2015. DSD labels are only present on mixtures that have already been placed on the market before that date.
@ TomT0m: @ Project Osprey: @ Snipre: @ Beetstra: @ Leyo: @ Boghog: The conversation seems to have ended with Bog's misstatement based on misunderstanding the issue, and then the last of DePiep's interjections (that I for one cannot usually understand). Ignoring the latter, and to bring this to a decision, I hope:
To say again, and contrary to Bog's content, a general citation list for the chem infoboxes (cited by many articles) already exists, here. My suggestion above, in short, is that we use this as a starting point, ordering it according to the order of appearance of chem infobox fields, then make all citations complete and clear, and then expand it as we need to be comprehensive. (Thus, we would set the stage for all remaining unsupported facts in the infobox to have inline citations in the article, with the further required references appearing in-article.) The suggestion that the general reference list appearing in so many boxes be ignored or removed, is (IMHO) too drastic of a change to the status quo. Otherwise, while I acknowledge the validity of the Beetstra comments that what is needed is change in behaviour, I note that changes in technology and tools often make behavioural improvements all the more likely (or unlikely, as at present). Now, please, comment on the very specific proposal to improve the existing chem infobox general reference list, as just described? Boghog, I ping you to be fair and civil; please try to reply in kind (and to fully understand what is being said before you reply). The proposal is clear and concrete, and per pages of discussion, anyone stating it to be an imaginary problem stands alone (or more precisely, with one other here). Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Extended response
|
---|
|
The proposal is clear and concrete– Without specific examples, it is impossible to say what your proposal is. I have cleaned up the reference section that you were referring to so hopefully it is now clearer. Are you proposing to add sources selected from this general reference list as in-line citations to various fields in the chembox? (btw, I don't think this will work very well.) Or are you proposing something else? Please clarify with specific examples. Boghog ( talk) 05:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Chembox Citation Mockup
|
---|
References
|
Can someone help me out? For Proline, I am looking for the different InChI stings by R/S variant.
Proline has these CAS numbers:
But the article (chembox) does not differentiate the InChI's. I'd like to have the two R, S InChI's identified. (I need it for testing & exampling). - DePiep ( talk) 19:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I propose for discussion, the following specific change: That we alter the status quo, working to create a new, thorough, infobox-correlated, complete-and-verifiable reference list for the chemboxes that is:
After discussing this, we can wrestle with policy regarding what to do if the source of a datum is other than the one assigned in the new chembox reference list. Development of at least this would mean that if the "new chembox reference" is consulted, and the data not verified there, the reader/reviewer would know there is a problem to address.
Please, join me in discussing this specific proposal—including how it might integrate with earlier metadata discussions. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I agree that this again misses the point - it is possible to reference every single value in the chembox. And I agree that it should be. But the solution is not to suggest that we implement that - the solution is to implement it. One did a calculation that it is 15.000 chemicals that have the problem .. in the chem/drugbox .. the problem is that we have 221.000 articles lacking sources (and probably most are not even tagged), and every article has statements that need sourcing. This is not a chemistry specific problem. I have, above, agreed that the sourcing of the chemboxes could/should be better, I do however think that with the general references we are not doing even that bad - it is for, probably the large majority of, the data better than nothing at all.
Whether we want to go there .. well, we should. Whether we can .. we once had a drive to have the identifiers verified and to get that data better and better - but that died (and actually, that would be a great source for the rest of the data if those were all correct, and that was the reason we started that (see the prose on User:CheMoBot) - get the identifiers right, and then check/source the rest of the data, much of which could be done/helped by machine). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interested in this topic. But if anyone, the talkpager assaulting User:Leprof 7272 excluded, if anyone can convince me that even reading about this is useful, I'll act. - DePiep ( talk) 22:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
why not revamp the general citations list ... ordering it according to the appearance of the infobox fields?" – as already pointed out several times above, {{ reflist}} already does this. You have invented a problem that does not exist. Also, why create a "
page on to itself"? This separates the data from the sources that support that data which is generally a bad idea. Wikidata may eventually be a solution to the problem, but the mapping between Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items needs to be cleaned up first and regardless of where the sources are stored, someone needs to add them. Who do you propose to do this? Without concrete proposals and more importantly resources to implement these proposals, all this talk is nothing but hot air. Boghog ( talk) 08:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
As pointed out by Project Osprey above, I prefer to simply have all non-trivial values referenced using <ref> tags, i.e. like in de.wikipedia. -- Leyo 10:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Over at {{ drugbox}} we've added a 'pronounce' parameter. Should we do the same here? Sizeofint ( talk) 02:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)