Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:41, 24 May 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chembox template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chembox template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Chemistry Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Template This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This page is for discussion about format, layout, content (parameters), and application howto of the Chemical infoboxes. Discussions older than several months, and now outdated, are archived. Planning and progress of implementation of these infoboxes to the numerous articles is discussed and (where possible) organized in the Chemicals WikiProject, part of the Chemistry WikiProject.

Ordering Identifiers

I am ordering the Identifiers alphabetically. From random. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the current order is according to importance, too. --Leyo 19:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As you say: maybe. That is not enough. I am looking at it for a year now, and still have not discovered any structure (of course, if importance is in play then that should show). From alphabetic, we could split into a 2nd header "Specific identifiers" like medicine and countries (EU). The generic id's can remain in top. -DePiep (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO CAS number and EC number should be first and second. --Leyo 20:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

And the others? How does one search? Not everybody knows the order of improtance. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Most readers will be interested in the CAS number, but currently the very specific 3DMet and Beilstein Reference are first. What about waiting for other opinions? --Leyo 20:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Better options can be made. As it was, it was chaos. Now, when CAS and 3 × EU are in top --somehow--, by what guide will the reader search for another one? Having to look twice up and down and still be insecure? Print it and use a pen? Plus: someone searching for CAS, why would that person not look for the letter "C"? As said, I'd like to learn how the other id's are presented. When I am looking for an id, I do not know how important it is in the list. -DePiep (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• These are some options to order the Identifiers (There are 23 optional datarows today):

1. Keep by ABC as it is today (but we could apply list-changes eg 3, 4, 5 below).

2. CAS in top always, with the CAS datarow having a double border line, the rest follows by ABC.

3. Add a new section, the header saying "Special identifiers" or so. This section then has the medical and country-specific id's (ATC, RTECS, EU-defined, DrugBank). This splits up the longer list nicely & systematically. Both sections are by ABC, with/out idea #2 applied.

4. Some rows have images not identifiers (eg Jmol 3D). These links (data rows) belong in the top "Images" section (show as a text row there). However, this can not be done before moving to Lua module (because, today one would have to copy-paste the SMILES id's to the top chembox-section, looking as if they are entered double in Chembox).

5. Abbreviations go to the "Names" section (when in Lua module).

More ideas? -DePiep (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd vote for option 2. I am interested in seeing opinions of other editors, too. --Leyo 20:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "pick one out of five" list. Listen. I prepared and asked three questions, and then I spend time on five suggestions to think of. But all you keep replying is: "CAS must be in top". That is not a development. Now, what are your thoughts on the remarks made in this thread? -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Another thought: Certain identifiers are of interest to readers for reasons other than just being the ID in a database/part of an URL (e.g. CAS RN, EC no., ATC, SMILES). Opposite type identifiers include e.g. ChemSpider ID, KEGG, Beilstein, 3DMET. I would say that the former are more important to readers that the latter. --Leyo 23:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so this is what I felt but could not point to. Shouldn't these be in a footnote set of links altogether? Or in a reference? I don't think these external links should be in the infobox at all. And we also removed the icon from showing. . -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's build a table just to get an overview. -DePiep (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Table of id's

Table is under construction. Improvements may be added

Template:Chembox/doc/table of identifiers

Revert

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 03:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Question: Where is the discussion on the order, what makes it controversial, and isn't that a little WP:BIKESHEDish? (I'll watch this page for a response, which is why I marked it as answered.) — {{U|Technical 13}} 14:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13 The discussion is above, but to put it in edits: suggestion by DePiep, first concern posted ('Maybe the order is on importance too' by Leyo), 2 minutes after suggestion, and implementation, 8 minutes after a concern was raised, first reply by DePiep 'As you say: maybe. That is not enough. . I am looking at it for a year now, and still have not discovered any structure (of course, if importance is in play then that should show).' Maybe there indeed was not a lot of structure, and that improvements would be needed, but DePiep just bolbly (well, not really, he first started a discussion but did not wait for answers even after trying to figure it out for a year himself) implemented the change without waiting for answers or suggestions on other possibilities. I suggest that we revert to the status quo, and see whether other options should be explored, especially since concerns were raised only 2 minutes after suggesting, and the effect of the quick implementation on any further discussion. --Dirk Beetstra 03:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Short: alphabetical order is better than random order. You all are invited, time ago, to propose improvements on that alphabetical order. No reason to revert. -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Short: Following a strict and unreflected alphabetical order of all parameters mentioned in the table above would not make any sense. Key parameters need to be on top. --Leyo 00:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This is about the revert only. I think Beetastra intended to continue the discussion below. -DePiep (talk) 07:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Short: That the implementation of the alphabetical order does not make sense is the whole reason for the revert.

{{subst:Afd top}} DePiep : "You all are invited, time ago, to propose improvements on that alphabetical order." - Can you point me that 'time ago' diff? As far as I can see you suggested to implement alphabetical order and implemented it, without the consideration that maybe the old order did make sense (and, as a matter of fact, at least some of the identifiers were specifically chosen to be in a certain place, even if you did not know that). Can you please Revert your Bold implementation of the alphabetical sorting of the fields, and allow for Discussion on what the order should be (which, I concur, may in the end be even alphabetical). --Dirk Beetstra 07:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I wont go further in this (second) 'your talked wrong' approach. Technical13 saw it. -DePiep (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I knew that was going to be your response. --Dirk Beetstra 11:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of identifiers and information

• Per User:Leyo's points, I don't know if alphabetical order is the way forward and, per above, I do not think that that should be implemented without discussion. For the Identifiers, certainly the CAS number is the most important, and for some of the other databases the amount of useful data they provide gives them some importance (actually over CAS number which does not really convey information further). On the other hand, identifiers like InChI's and SMILES are generated from the 'structures' of the compounds, and although true identifiers, not likely something that we would link out with. IMHO, they should be grouped at the bottom, together with the external calculated structure generator. For other parameters in other subboxes a similar reasoning should/could be made. --Dirk Beetstra 04:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You can propose & discuss any further order improvements, as I started. Alphabetical order is better than random/chaotic order. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The fact that today the order is alphabetically does not prohibit any change. The fact that I did open a discussion, and clearly spend time on it, can not be contructed into a negative argument.

As I tried to explain before, any sort criteria should be visible to the uninitiated reader. For example, of course we can just put CAS RN in top. However, then there is no visible structure for the list. The level of information may be a good grouping criteria, but that should be visualised. The reader can not see that from the data label (=LH column text). In other words, we can not make a hidden structure. We can think using extra lines or subheaders. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The order was, to a certain extend, a chosen order (certain fields were in a certain place in the list because of a reason), it was not completely random, it was not completely chaotic. It is only you who says that alphabetical order is better than random/chaotic order. You indeed did open a discussion, but failed to wait implementation, even while someone commented before you implemented. Per Leyo above, I oppose the implementation of the alphabetical order. --Dirk Beetstra 07:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What order do you propose? Can you add that to the table (eg adding a column with numbers or group description)? Then, how could we make that grouping visual? (subheaders, heavier row-bopttom lines, ...)? -DePiep (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Partially, as it was - CASNo first, the more informative after that, InChI / SMILES last, they do not need to be grouped, the rest maybe in alphabetical order etc. etc. --Dirk Beetstra 11:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the ordering structure, it must be clear (say, visible) what that structure is. At least and for now, by alphabet has that advantage. If we apply a different ordering structure, we must convey that to the Reader somehow (otherwise, it would be a 'bag of data', as it is called in information. It appears chaotic/random for the Reader). A good example IMO is the current classification (grouping) of names in {Chembox}.

A first rough setup could be to move specified id's to the top, in groups. CAS being "Generic", SMILES being "generated from the 'structures' of the compounds", etc., and any remaining "Others" must be at the bottom (to keep the word 'Others' meaningful).

While we are at it, I think some entries are misplaced and do not belong in the Identifiers section. I guess |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.

Another note: I think we should involve all {Drugbox} identifiers in this too (i.e., those not in {Chembox} today). Over there the same issue might play, and of course in the future a request might come along to add such an ID to {Chembox}.

Other subboxes (SectionsN) best be discussed separately I suggest, to prevent unnecessary complication. -DePiep (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

One could argue that for InChI and SMILES (well, we already collapsed them at the bottom until this disturbance which makes the display of them more chaotic), but the others should not be grouped. The identifiers that were in the top of the list were the more commonly used / more informative - most people simply look for the CAS first. They do not have a special status and therefore no further grouping. --Dirk Beetstra 03:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

There are about 23. They do need an order, otherwise they appear chaotic. To you they may not do so, because you are that familiar with them, but the Reader needs support.

And I don't find " more commonly used / more informative" convincing. Earlier you wrote "to a certain extend", "it was not completely random". So that only applies to some (which?) of the list. At least you could propose an order in the table for all of them. For a classification it must cover all, there is no "I don't mind" class.

About the collapsing: in mobile view, there is no collapsing option and a show/hide table is shown always. So we must design the infobox as if there is no collapsing. After that, collapsing is just a desktop extra. For this, there is no reason to put the foldables at the bottom, that does not clean up the mobile view. (The mobile view for a page can be tested by clicking on a link on the very last row of any article). -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess that nobody has any valid argument (i) for a strict alphabetical order and (ii) against CAS RN being the first identifier. --Leyo 20:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: - Misplaced Pages does not always follow mathematics, rules, etc. - we have free editorial choice. The order has been like this, seemingly random, for years, and NO-ONE has ever even asked a question why. You barge in, and without waiting for remarks or answers you suggest ánd implement an ordering that had no consensus. Now that is fine, but when opposition exists, then that edit should be reverted and the order should be discussed. And if no consensus exists for a new order, then the status quo stays and a change is not implemented. I've asked before, I'll ask again, can you please revert and get consensus for a new order. --Dirk Beetstra 03:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, looking more at it, the original order follows quite well an importance-ish order. CASNo (best known), pubchem (large, very well known), ChemSpiderID (large, of another big publishing house), drugbank (large, well known for drug information) are the 'bigger identifiers', 3DMet (now at the top) and Beilstein are more specialised information, and as I explained SMILES and InChI are at the bottom. For the drugbox I expect that CASNo and drugbank are high up in the list of identifiers, pubchem probably, and then ChemSpiderID. So your random order, DePiep, was actually not that random (actually, if the list was ordered by 'size of database', or 'age of organisation behind the database' (not counting SMILES and InChI, which are of a different type and therefore chosen to be at the bottom), you would likely get a seemingly very random list, still it is an order - and that order will not be far from what it was). --Dirk Beetstra 03:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, ABC is just an order, it is not necessarily organised. I still argue that the previous order was more organised than the current alphabetical order, and I disagree with the alphabetical order being organised. --Dirk Beetstra 05:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

re Leyo: that might be correct, but it is not an answer to the main quest here: by what system should we classify/order all the identifiers?. Please reread earlier notes I wrote on this, for example this and look at the Names-section as example. If things are unclear, please ask. About your reply here: your post leaves open all other questions but that CAS one. If you really want to say "I don't mind all the others", does that imply you leave it to others (like me) to choose anything sensible? -DePiep (talk) 09:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

re Beetstra 1/2: You are still trying to construct my edits and even discussion openings as bad faith edits. Stop it. There will be no revert. As wiki works, you are invited to propose and discuss improvements. -DePiep (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not construct them as bad faith, I construct them as Bold edits, but without consensus - Bold edits without consensus should be Reverted until consensus to perform them is formed (or, if no consensus to perform them is formed, the old status quo stands). The current situation is not an improvement, IMHO the old situation was way better. I have hence proposed and discussed the improvements over the current version: reversion to the old situation. --Dirk Beetstra 11:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. I planned reply 2/2 for content responses, but it puts some work on me to separate useful contributions from useless sidetracking in this thread. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not to charge the discussion, but to buy me extra time: I am puzzled by Beetstra's intention to revert to the old sequence with possibly some structure, argued that structure is not that needed (my words). -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: - my statement is just that - that structure is not that needed anyway, but actually, there was more structure in it than you saw in the original version, and certain things were certainly placed in certain places for a reason. I am puzzled that you, when you did not see any structure, decided that alphabetical structure was the one to go for, and implemented that without considering that maybe there was a structure that you did not notice (nor did you bother to ask, nor did you bother to consult the community). I keep insisting, the old version can be improved on, but is way better than the current one. --Dirk Beetstra 06:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad news: absence of (visible) structure is not good for ~23 items. That's just not how we should present info in this encyclopedia.

Good news: structuring criteria you did mention are great. Of course CAS NR can be in top, by being category "seneral" or "universal". In development, we could have a single second category "Others" with the other 22.

later more. -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Beetstra, a working proposal. I can put a table below here, with those ~23 Identifiers and their properties (like groups, ..), old & ABC order, etc. Then shall we both improve that into a better ordering, here? -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

"absence of (visible) structure is not good for ~23 items." .. first of all, who says that there is no (visible) structure, and second, who says that absence of (visible) structure is not good (per the argument I made above: "The order has been like this, seemingly random, for years, and NO-ONE has ever even asked a question why. You barge in, and without waiting for remarks or answers you suggest ánd implement an ordering that had no consensus."). To me, the structure/order was quite clear, and seen the lack of questions and/or remarks about this, it bothered no-one. Here you implement the alphabetical order, and immediately you have two people arguing that that is not optimal. See the difference? Again, there was structure, the order was not random, and even if it was, there is no Misplaced Pages rule to state that that is a problem, and in any case, it did not bother anyone. And the order now is way more random than what it was.

I have a quite optimal order: the one that was in there before you alphabetized it. The more used above, InChI/SMILES-like ones at the bottom, and the rest in the middle. You can put that table with the old order here, and we may chose to swap one of them, but that is about it - they were reasonably ordered 'by importance', seemingly random but actually not. --Dirk Beetstra 03:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Changing Molecular formula to Chemical formula

I suggest changing Molecular formula to Chemical formula in template:Chembox Formula, it is used for salts too - like Sodium chloride. Its a piped redirect to chemical formula e.g. Christian75 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Used in sub {{Chembox Properties}}. What change do you propose, and where? For the formula itself, I'd like to use {{Chem}} for all molecule formulas (when entered by |C=...|H=...|S=... etc.). Note, as it is used today, this formula setup also calculates the molar mass in {Chembox} (good to do through Lua then). Will take a look later on. -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I suggest not to call it molecular because its used for salts too. E.g. changing ] to ] in {{Chembox Formula}} Christian75 (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

So, it is only internal to {Chembox}, or am I missing something? (My opinion: if it is background/internal {Chembox} only, we better put it on the back burner). -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to make it clear: In template:Chembox Formula I suggest to change ] to ] Christian75 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Aha. The label text. Can & will do this next week. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to template:Chembox Formula has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To template editor: This is a centralised talk page for template:Chembox* - thats the reason the edit request is requested here.
template:Chembox Formula should be changed as discussed. E.g. ] to ]
Christian75 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Set to "answered=yes" (to 'pause') because requestor is stubbornly interfering with sandboxing proces. -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested again, DePiep, please let another answer this one. Its a wikilink change, even a piped one Christian75 (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to template:Chembox Formula has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To template editor: This is a centralised talk page for template:Chembox* - thats the reason the edit request is requested here.
template:Chembox Formula should be changed as discussed. E.g. ] to ]
Christian75 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Objection. Not discussed, not this way. Note to any visiting editor: At this very moment I am working with the sandboxes, and so this request is disruptive. I note that Christian75 already interfered with this process: , so Chris75 knows what is going on. (actually, I find this behaviour by this experienced editor beyond the pale. Anyway, this behaviour will not help anything forward). -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I really feel you have some kind of ownership over the infoboxes. I suggest changing it, because as you may know, a molecule isnt the same as a salt, and the entry is used for both. Christian75 (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Christian75. We two do have 'battles' about edits, but this 'ownership' thing is more serious. (I'll stay away from the "prove it!" route. Please reconsider your feeling about this).

First of all, I do not claim ownership (but that's my idea ;-) ). In this case, I am actually live editing the {{Chembox}} /sandboxes. I do not claim ownership, but I do claim exclusivity while I'm doing these edits. No serious software editor can edit and test when outside edits are made too (by you or by an admin editor). Full stop.

If you disagree, and you keep the template request up, I'll have to keep this request status controversial.

If you agree and refrain from interfering edits, we can conclude on proposals quity easily here, and then I can build & test all changes. I am very loyal to good talkpage discussion outcomes. -DePiep (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Okey fine if your doesnt have ownership. But why cant it be changed, and where is the sandbox? Christian75 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for edits. You're supposed to take he editrequest template down by setting |answered=yes. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I dont know. Earlier in this thread you wrote: "Aha. The label text. Can & will do this next week", but when I tagged it with an edit request then you are takling about no censensus. But it could be nice with some arguments agains it. NaCl isnt a molecule, and therefore it doesnt have a "molecular formula" but a chemical formula. We are using this template for borg salts and molecules (and ions after ionbox was redirected to chembox). Christian75 (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I repeat: No serious software editor can edit and test when outside edits are made too. So if you want edits done, don't mess with it yourself. That is what I call interfering. -DePiep (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I am setting the template to |answered=yes procedurally as it is clear to me that there is not consensus for the change at this time. This is per the template documentation. I have no opinion on the question at hand. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• @DePiep: Would you be OK with performing this change now? If not, please explain why. Alakzi (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Still waiting for Christian75 to confirm the cooperation needed. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not know what I should answer to "but I do claim exclusivity while I'm doing these edits. No serious software editor can edit and test when outside edits are made too (by you or by an admin editor). Full stop." You have not edited theese templates for days. Should I say yes to, that I do not edit templates. Christian75 (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You both seem to agree that the link text should be changed. What is the issue? Alakzi (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes Chris. What I'm trying to say is that it's useless to sandbox and test/check edits when others edit at the same time. That's not "owning", that's good editing process. -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Alakzi No edits has been done to any chembox sandboxes in a week (but one other editor has edited Template:Chembox PEL). Can the change be made now? Christian75 (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, Chris. That is because I am still waiting for you to answer my question: will you refrain from interfering? As long as you keep that possibility open, even by not responding to it, development is in risk of being disrupted. -DePiep (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I will not stop edit Misplaced Pages. Christian75 (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Is not what this is about. -DePiep (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. We're here to build an encyclopaedia; you two's feud has no bearing on this change, and since you both seem to agree on the substance of it, I have now performed it. Alakzi (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Pregnancy category typo

When hovering over US in the pregnancy category section, the text reads Unitred States rather than United States. See ethanol for example. Sizeofint (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a typo in {{Chembox PregCat}}. Mindmatrix 02:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Legal status and Pregnancy category: follow Drugbox

{{Chembox}} now follows 1:1 {{Drugbox}} in legal status and pregnancy category (especially re preformatted input options). See doc legal status and doc preg cat.

Maintenance cats: Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status and Category:Drugs with non-standard pregnancy category. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Addiction liability

Can this be added like {{Drugbox}} has? Sizeofint (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Together with |Dependency_liability=, |Addiction_liabiliy= I guess? Unless strong objections appear, I'll set it up like {{Drugbox}}} has. Some months ago there was a nice discussion about the subtleties; cannot find it any more (will search more if you ask). -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added |Addiction_liabiliy= (below existing |Dependency_liability=). In |SectionN = {{Chembox Pharmacology ... then. Ping @Sizeofint:. -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Sizeofint (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Broken supplemental ATC codes, redundant entries

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)

Yes, yes. Later more. -DePiep (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Question: is ATC code an identifier? Shouldn't it be in Pharmacology, as just a (medical) property? -DePiep (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Same for DrugBank: why not under "Pharma"?

 Fixed |ATC_Supplemental= now shows (se Nicotine). -DePiep (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! ATC code suggests that it is a classification rather than an identifier as I had assumed. You are probably right about keeping it under Pharmacology. Sizeofint (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, classification is the right word for ATC. Now DrugBank is an identifier, but at least in {{Chembox}} I'd expect it with medicine/pharma still. That's a more specific place. -DePiep (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of that. I'm more interested in eliminating the redundancy than which template it ends up in. Sizeofint (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. See section below. -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

ATC and DrugBank deprecations

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: 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)

I partially disagree with this - drugbank number uniquely identifies a certain compound (generally a compound/mixture with a pharmacological activity), and should hence be in the identifiers section. I am not too familiar with the ATC-codes, but I do indeed not think that a certain ATC-code is uniquely identifying a compound, it is more of a classification.

Please do not move the drugbank parameter to the pharmacology section, the pharmacology section should be for things like activities, LD50s (though that could also be a hazard-parameter) etc. --Dirk Beetstra 07:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

For now, it is only 'deprecated' in documentation/intention: it still shows when editcode-entered in section Identifiers (said shortly).

For argument: I disagree with Beetstra. Yes DrugBank is an identifier (dozens are), but it is very specific to pharmacology. Chemical--human interaction. So we should put it there. More specific = better. -DePiep (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Im with Beetstra - identifiers in the top (and collapsed but not CAS). And IMHO I think ATC should not be in the infobox at all. I do not thin its helpful to the reader of chemicals. We have for some years ago removed a lot of entrys because the infobox was pretty big, but would like to have NMR data back again. Christian75 (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Those commentors only showing up afterwards, and never ever putting forward an improvement. Never, ever. -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No its 3-4 four days since your made the suggestion. You should wait at least a week for big changes. Many people doesnt read Misplaced Pages daily. Christian75 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said: no improvement ever. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It is because of you and your attiTude, Christian75, that I choose not to spend extra time on big templates like {{Drugbox}} and Template:TlF. Because: whatever I do, editors like you always come back afterwards to throw shit. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No, when I (we) come afterwards its wrong, when we come when you are "programming" we should wait because we are interfering with your work?. And if its before, the answer is later. I only "complains" about the big things. But I really think that this infobox is crazy. You never know when to use camel case or _ (or both), and all the _ref could be done a lot more smoothly, and some times the words are spelled out, sometimes not. E.g. melting (which it has been for years) was changed to MeltingPt - the reference is called MeltingPt_ref (no big R in ref, and a _ to separate the two words, despite melting point are two words too, and point is normally written pt (with small p)... Just some comments to show that I have a lot of opinions about the changes to the box, but normally doesn't write anything about it - just watching. Christian75 (talk) 10:59, 20 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 04:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Beetstra, with reasons already mentioned above and more (eg, data-independency). But alas since Beetstra seems to be Director of Knowledge on Misplaced Pages, I can not win any argument. -DePiep (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, as with the 'lethal dose' vs. 'median lethal dose' situation, your argument is that you should have full freedom to implement the changes in whichever way you want them, and we should not even counter your arguments, nay, we should not even interfere with that - we should just be grateful that you inform us beforehand. I actually even wonder why you are here asking these things, after all you know that implementing 'lethal dose' was the right choice, as that you here simply have decided that drugbank, even though it is an identifier, should be in the pharmacology section as that is where people who want to know about drugs would want to find that identifier. --Dirk Beetstra 07:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Why talk with Beetstra when he edits their way anyway? The point is, Mr Beetstra know-it-all&do-it-all, that you edited without discussion, and now you come back here to join an early discussion to discuss your edit afterwards. That is not wiki. That is leapfrogging. Or let me spell it out: editing without joining the discussion is editwarring. -DePiep (talk)

I don't know, you suggested this on 18, I was here on 19 objecting to a part of the change, I have not touched this part, just commented on a part that you discussed before implementing. This section is about a.o. the drugbank identifier, and you obviously do not have consensus to move that into the pharmacology section. The rest of the reply will be in the appropriate section, I suggest that you keep your comments there as well. --Dirk Beetstra 03:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Dirk @Beetstra:, and note that M. DePiep has a long history of resistance to consensus when it disagrees with his opinions, and a parallel history of personal disrespect in such discussions. If this gets elevated to a noticeboard for discussion, ping me, please. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Leprof 7272, this is concerting in bad faith. You could withdraw this. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

ATC and DrugBank deprecations reversion

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 11:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Please update the documentation yourself as is appropriate. — {{U|Technical 13}} 14:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Denied. Can someone stop talk-deaf Beetstra, please? -DePiep (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Done again. DePiep, you seem to be edit warring on a TE protected template against consensus. Please discuss before rereverting again. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} 03:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

No, AFAIK my account is not compromised. Btw, are you sane yourself? Beetstra --a friend of you then-- is behaving weird. Beetsra is in an "revert-dont-talk" mode. That's bad! Can you talk to him, help him? -DePiep (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Technical 13: You say that edit warring is strange for DePiep, see another discussion above (the point what DePiep is alluding to in his above reply), and history of Template:Chembox LD50 and history of Template:Chembox LC50, as well as the way of implementing the ordering of identifiers (see Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox#Ordering_Identifiers). --Dirk Beetstra 03:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Who put that {{edit template-protected}}} here? -DePiep (talk) 04:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I did, you could have seen that from the history. I hope you understand why I took that approach. --Dirk Beetstra 04:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• @DePiep and Beetstra: I am sane enough, never suggested either of you were not. You should know by now, as an introvert, I have no friends; so no, Dirk isn't my friend. Based on my previous interactions with DePiep, this kind of edit warring is fairly unusual. The template is fully protected for now, and I'm going to bed. Since I don't really care what arguments are or aren't in this template, I'll happily work with everyone that has commented on this and try to help determine the consensus and request an admin make ay changes that consensus supports. In the meantime, I'd suggest you both take a break from this topic and WP:CALM yourselves down remembering this is only Misplaced Pages and not a matter of life or death. Good night! — {{U|Technical 13}}

Tech13 and Beetstra will go free -- admins. -DePiep (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Technical 13: - If you go through the threads, I think you will notice more editors (Christian75, Leyo, Leprof 7272) are involved in this situation. Anyways, I am looking forward to arguments from DePiep supporting the changes they suggested. --Dirk Beetstra 04:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• I did notice there were multiple editors in this discussion, and DePiep was going right at wheel warring to push their preferred version through. I decided after the third revision to request full protection (so neither him nor I can change the template directly at this point) to prevent this from getting to a point where DePiep was liable to loose his  Template editor privileges and be blocked for 3RR (although he may still loose TE). Anyways, I'm going to kind of sit back a little and watch while discussion unfolds (too busy with finals this week to really interject much). — {{U|Technical 13}} 20:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

lol: Prof 7272 is a troll, of course. That's your friend, Beetstra. -DePiep (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• I'd consider that a PA DePiep unless you can back up that claim with evidence, I need to ask you to retract that comment. Let's please keep this civil and discuss what changes need to be made here and why and figure out how to get it done. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} 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)

@Christian75: - that was a self-revert by DePiep to the version implemented by Technical 13 above after my edit request. --Dirk Beetstra 05:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops my mistake. Christian75 (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is edit warring, really. -DePiep (talk) 05:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

ATC and DrugBank deprecations new discussion

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)

• As per above comments, 'drugbank' is an identifier, and should be in the identifiers-section, and if I understand correctly, ATC-codes are more classifications, it tells you something about a drug. If that is so, it indeed is not an identifier, and this one should be in another section - I guess the Pharmacology section is more appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra 03:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

LD50 doesnt link to LD50

copy/pasted here to maintain central talking for {{Chembox}} about {{Chembox Hazards}}, by Christian75.

This entry doesnt link to LD50 (median lethal dose), but to lethal dose which is related, but not the same. Its confusing for the reader, and I suggest it should be changed back to the link it had (here). Christian75 (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are mistaking. The data row does wikilink to Median lethal dose. See for example ammonia. And the LD50 link you added here is a redirect to that same page too. -DePiep (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You are right. My concern is, that its surprising to hit median lethal dose when you follow a link which says lethal dose, and its misleading to call LD50 for lethal dose, when it is the median lethal dose. Christian75 (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

(appreciated) Will go into this later on. As we both know, it's about the text (including formats & links) of the lefthand-text in the LD50 data row. Not just that link. Later. -DePiep (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe later, but now not, the text should read 'median lethal dose'/'median lethal concentration'. Leaving out the 'median' is, besides confusion, incorrect. --Dirk Beetstra 04:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Why Talk at all? Beetstra knows the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You can repeat this over and over, but I still have not seen any arguments from you, except for wikilawyering, why 'Lethal dose' would be correct. On the other hand, there are two people who tell you that it is incorrect and both with reason.

Now regarding BRD, you boldly implemented the term 'Lethal dose' on {{Chembox_LD50}} on February 12, 2015, and afterwards implemented the same on 27 March 2015 on {{Chembox_LC50}} in creating the article (obviously from a copy, you did not update 'lethal dose' there to 'lethal concentration'). In a normal editing process you get then to this version by Christian75, where it says "Median lethal concentration" (You earlier added 'Median', Christian75 changed 'dose' to 'concentration'). You then change that to 'Lethal concentration' (thát is the Bold edit!), get reverted with an explanation (thát is the Revert edit!). And thát is where the Discussion (the last one of BRD) should start. Instead, you undo that edit again, insisting that you do not need to define it. For LD50 the story is similar, you boldly implement a change, there someone else updates that with the explanation that "median lethal dose and lethal dose are not the same", but you revert only because "GF interfering with actual development". As I said above, you have yet to give arguments why 'lethal dose' is correct, why that 'clarifies' what LD50 is. Because the only reason why we should leave you do whatever you want is that otherwise we would be interfering with your programming - an argument that you have used in these edits, an argument that you have repeatedly mentioned here on this page, and elsewhere around on editing these templates, and that starts to show a certain pattern.

So can you now please come forward with arguments regarding this change? --Dirk Beetstra 04:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Why should I bother?:

18 April, 15:56: This talk opened .

20 April, 04:21: Template reverted without talk or es

20 April, 08:46: Reverted again, claiming "BRD"

Template:Chembox LC50 was never published in the version you enforced.

So, you reverted twice without talking, even incorrectly claiming BRD while a talk is open. Apart from being incorrect process, it is pedantic to ask for arguments while evading talk yourself. Now I have no reason to trust that you will engage in arguments anyway. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The version I 'enforced' (your words) is this version by Christian75 (diff between that version and now), so yes, that version was published. You Boldly removed, and got Reverted .. that is where the discussion should take place, NOT at your Boldly implemented version, but at the Reverted version. And that while two editors keep telling you that 'Lethal dose' and 'Median lethal dose' are not the same.

But it is now clear you do not have any arguments in favour of this change. Just Wikilawyering, and even incorrect - if you would have given arguments in your reverts, and in this discussion, we would have gone somewhere, but besides the lack of arguments you just imply bad discussion behaviour on your opponents to avoid to have to discuss the arguments. --Dirk Beetstra 03:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

No. -02:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ay, for those who really count the tildes, it's: -DePiep (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

To abandon some image maint categories in Chembox

In Category:Chembox maintenance categories are:

1. Category:Chemical pages with an eponymous image available (9 P)
2. Category:Chemical pages containing a local image (13 P)
3. Category:Chemical infoboxes with image size set (378 P)

I propose to abandon these three categories (remove from code, so they won't be filled any more; then delete the cat page).

Time ago they could have helped in a sweep task to check and improve, but today that is not at hand. I can give more detailed considerations, if someone asks. -DePiep (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. I can't imagine anyone using these categories any anymore. Sizeofint (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• The first and the third can go - the second one is still reasonable, images that are uploaded local (often by a new editor) should be moved to Commons (though I agree that there are other categories that might take care of that) so other wikis can take advantage of them (often chemboxes get copied from other wikis; the image is nice if it then stays the same). I can not really see any reason why there would be non-free material displayed in our chemboxes. --Dirk Beetstra 05:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Dirk @Beetstra:, bolded your opening to make your vote clear, undo of you do not appreciate. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

All true, but nothing specific for Chembox. We want all images on commons, not local (when they are free). That should be guided by bots and the upload wizard. On a minor note, I see that there is not an eaasy way/template to detect localness, which suggests that indeed in-template detection is not the general route. And if I remember well the Upload wizard has changed since 2010 (start of this cat) to have 1. commons-suggestion and 2. checking for free-ness + to-commons suggestion. -DePiep (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It may not be complete or perfect, still it is best that some of our image-makers withing the chemistry/chemicals-projects go through these (check for correctness and conformity with other images) than a random editor or even a bot. I think, again, that the category is not unreasonable, and if the image maintainers on the chemistry/chemical project use it, it should stay. We should not remove çategories because we don't like them, we should remove them because they are useless. -Dirk Beetstra 04:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

No need to talk with Beetstra, he knows the outcome beforehand . -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• First looks like a reasonable way to catch cases where there is an image available that could be inserted in the box? But that's only useful if there isn't one there already, so for that purpose it's just a subset of the more useful Category:Chembox articles without image. Second is a good list of move-to-commons candidates. @Beetstra: valid reason is if the image is fair-use (Actinium(III) oxide and Promethium(III) oxide). Third looks like a nice cat to keep. There are some reasons to do it (keeping multiple images comparably sized for comparison), but lots look just silly (Chlorofluoromethane) or are possibly used to avoid scaling artifacts (valid heuristic that the image itself is low quality). DMacks (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Does this imply, @DMacks:, that your vote is to agree with suggestion to eliminate 1, but to keep 2 and 3? Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely eliminate 1, keep 2 and on-the-fence leaning-keep 3. DMacks (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have used the second categorie too. Its "easy" to move structural formulas (because of lack of all kind of weird copyrights (e.g. every country in the world has its own copyright for freedom of panorama), and its easy for chemist and to find the correct categorie on commons. Bots do not move images, just suggest they can be moved. Christian75 (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Does this imply, @Christian75:, that your vote is to agree with suggestion to eliminate 1 and 3, but to keep 2? (What is your vote?) Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: - I have no opinions about 1 and 3 - either remove or keep. But I do think that number should stay (keep). Christian75 (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I missed a two - "number two should stay" as I have argumented for previously. Christian75 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Arguments only. There is nothing to vote. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Vote or not - its a way to build up consensus. Please read this again. Christian75 (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. With fellow editors like Beetstra and Christian75, I don't feel invited to improve {{Chembox}} at all. Who would? -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You continue to denigrate/insult these regular and esteemed contributors to the Project. Are you inviting us. M. DePiep, to take you forward for discussion of your behaviour? Excerpting this Talk page alone would likely be enough to get you a cooling off period. Be careful mate. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm impressed, mostly because you claim to even have read whole threads. But anyway, don't call me "mate", dude. That is a negative to a regular and esteemed contributor. Check your behaviour. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep for , Category:Chemical pages containing a local image. It's useful and does not do any harm. BTW: Fair use images are often photos that I'd prefer to have outside of chembox anyway. --Leyo 23:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Does your vote mean, @Leyo:, that you otherwise concur, that nos. 1 and 3 can go (or what is your opinion there)? Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am indifferent concerning #1 and #3. --Leyo 12:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• No. 1 can go, no. 2 to remain. I concur with Levo, Beestra, et al. and so there appears to be a consensus on these two of this editor's proposals. Bravo all. For the third, lets see how people respond to @DMacks:. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I note that you just added a vote and conclude as if this is a vote list. It is not. -DePiep (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, but how can

…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)

What do you mean? I'm pretty sure it's possible to put references in the infobox directly next to the parameter. I've done it in ethanol. Sizeofint (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the ideal I seek. But have a look at the info box at right.

Chembox

Names
IUPAC name 2-(Dimethylamino)ethanol
Other names Deanol Dimethylamino ethanol
Identifiers
CAS Number	108-01-0
3D model (JSmol)	Interactive image
Abbreviations	DMAE, DMEA
Beilstein Reference	1209235
ChEBI	CHEBI:271436
ChEMBL	ChEMBL1135
ChemSpider	13854944
EC Number	203-542-8
KEGG	D07777
MeSH	Deanol
PubChem CID	7902
RTECS number	KK6125000
UNII	2N6K9DRA24
UN number	2051
InChI InChI=1S/C4H11NO/c1-5(2)3-4-6/h6H,3-4H2,1-2H3Key: UEEJHVSXFDXPFK-UHFFFAOYSA-N
SMILES CN(C)CCO
Properties
Chemical formula	C4H11NO
Molar mass	89.138 g·mol
Appearance	Colourless liquid
Odor	Fishy, ammoniacal
Density	890 mg mL
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)
Basicity (pKb)	4.77 (at 20 °C)
Refractive index (nD)	1.4294
Hazards
GHS labelling:
Pictograms
Signal word	Danger
Hazard statements	H226, H302, H312, H314, H332
Precautionary statements	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)	1.214 g kg (dermal, rabbit) 2 g kg (oral, rat)
Related compounds
Except where otherwise noted, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C , 100 kPa). N verify (what is  ?) Infobox references

• SizeSet

Only the pKa datum has a source. (Brava/o to that editor.) Clicking on the link at the bottom, for sources. takes one to the generic list of sources. Is this an example of sloppiness on the part of the original editor (to not include sources in the box)? What is the expectation we impose when we review? My tendency would be to blank out unsourced data, as it is the responsibility of the originating editor to source their work. You can imagine my popularity...

1. Littel, RJ, Bos, M, Knoop, GJ (1990). "Dissociation constants of some alkanolamines at 293, 303, 318, and 333 K". J. Chem. Eng. Data. 35: 276–277. doi:10.1021/je00061a014.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Please study WP:VERIFY and all its related guidelines first. Then explain again (as in: prove) why you would blank those fields. Also, you might include why the bottom reference link would not do as a reference. Until you have convinced others, better do not not blank those fields. Not because you might become unpopular (how encyclopedic is that btw?), but because it might be considered vandalism very easily. -DePiep (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Part of the reason for this that a lot of our editors don't have good access to literature; so when they make a Chembox a lot of the simple data (mpt, bpt etc) is often scraped from the Sigma Aldrich website (or similar). I agree that this use of un-referenced data is not ideal and should be discouraged now that we have things like RSC-Gold etc, but I also don't see a simple fix regarding the historic backlog. There are around 9700 pages with a chembox (including drugbox I think we're up to ~13K) referencing all the values contained in those boxes is the work of years (although I suppose you could start with the top 100). There's also the question of what to do when various different values exist within the literature, do we use multiple citations? At what point does an encyclopedia become a chemical database, and should it? --Project Osprey (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@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 05:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't include refences in tempalte fields meant for data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Why? --Project Osprey (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That breaks (machine) readability of the specific field. Some of them however have a dedicated 'reference' field with them (IIRC, MeltingPt has MeltingPt_Note), where the actual field is used for the data, and the note-field for .. notes / references. --Dirk Beetstra 10:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Most fields aren't machine readable anyway. I know that's being worked on but, but there's already so much information that will be difficult to parse - and will likely need special work-arounds to be coded - I wouldn't have though that adding an extra line to deal with <ref></ref> tags would have been a big deal. --Project Osprey (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

re primary topic: as others have described, there is no reason to blanket delete unsourced data. This is the way wiki works, and it is not WP:BLP critical.

re the secondary topic "<ref> in data field".

As Beetstra hinted, the temperatures (melt, boil, flash, autoignite) have dedicated fields like |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.

For the indexed identifiers there is |CASNo_Comment= for refs. Quite unfortunately, historically |CASNo_Ref= is used for the validation bot only :-(

Most other data entries are free text, and are mostly used to enter data like prefix, number, SI unit, <ref>, notes, 2nd value (R, S), etc as is needed.

Together, I think this shows that adding sources can be done correctly (sometimes complicated, I agree).

Further, on the idea of separating the references for all ~100 data rows (into a dedicated parameter). This is template-technically conceivable but would expand documentation even more, and still does not solve all the need for free text input e.g. for R, S variants and notes. Also, in the same area of big-change there is to be considered: going Lua, merge options with {{Drugbox}}, use indexes more systematically, use wikidata, use standard {{Infobox}}. With this, adding an already existing option :-) should not have priority. Even more, I think the argument "machine-readibility" is not weighing because of wikidata and because that is not the primary target of a wikipage. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The current 'CasNo_Ref' should be renamed to 'CasNo_Check' - it was indeed a wrong choice made at the startup of that. Unfortunately, a request to have that all changed over was met with resistance. For the identifiers, it is not a problem (they actually don't need a reference, they are primary referenced by themselves) but it is going to be a problem later that needs to be solved sooner rather than later.

Machine readability is not a primary target, indeed, but there is no problem with being prepared for that, or providing that service. If ever (I hope not) the wikidata is to be pulled into infoboxes, the same problem will occur: WikiData will store '100°C', not '100°C<ref>....</ref>', and that update would hence then wipe out from visibility all our references. Moreover, some of the data is immutable (the boiling point of water will always be 100°C), whereas the references that state that may change (and that is a CheMoBot machine-readability-issue).

Documentation does not have to grow massively - the list of all fields will, but the documentation become shorter because 'for every field there is a 'field_Ref' which can be used for references'. --Dirk Beetstra 03:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

My reply was to the secondary topic (1. "should a ref be added?", 2. "can a ref be added?"), saying that it can. If y'all don't mind, I skip the tertiary topic of possible parameter name changes here. And about Unfortunately, a request to have that all changed over was met with resistance: At that moment 35 interrelated {Chembox} templates were in sandbox changes & tests. It would be very unwise to add another big edit process. Strange that you don't remember that there was a reason, simply calling it "resistance" instead of like "not viable". -DePiep (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It is just another case like the above case of changing something while you are busy with it. Lets just agree that we disagree there, DePiep. --Dirk Beetstra 05:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

In this point, I don't think we disagree :-). I was about the wording here only, since we both understood back then to better not-interfere the edits. -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I was saying that we disagree there, I did not agree to not 'interfere' with the your edits - I still disagree that that would impose problems on your editing. --Dirk Beetstra 11:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh. -DePiep (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Molar mass revisited

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)

Template:Chembox EC-number and Template:Chembox EINECS

Sandbox demo available at Template:Chembox/testcases2#EC_Number. -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

Note: spelling should be consistent wikiwide, most likely "EC Number" table 2.2 (capital N, though ECHA uses lc in places). (see subsection below)

If I see this right, those registry systems (databases) and their institutions have merged & moved in recent years. Since today they lead to the same database (internet source), there is redundancy as Leyo notes. I propose to put both input options |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)

I indeed think that they are not both necessary and can be merged as DePiep suggests.

Regarding the link - I did not find any way to get a proper working URL with the EC-number as one of the parameters, it is handled by JAVA it appears. I am afraid that they are going to loose a lot of incoming links. --Dirk Beetstra 10:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we want the link to open some data page (data sheet) for the substance. If we can not create that link, I think the ECHA site should be linked as a source: EC Number | 200-815-3

-DePiep (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that would mean that every page needs the ref to be attached (you can not template references, unless that changed recently). Anyway, the primary reference is already accessible through EC Number. --Dirk Beetstra 11:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The link I added would be added by the template, because it is the same for all. And a bit meaningless as a source. This is the URL when I searched for (ethylene) 200-815-3: (URL fails). If I can compose that URL from the EC Number input, it's a source (but still not a data sheet). -DePiep (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

That is what I mean, AFAIK, if you make a template containing the text "<ref>blah</ref>", and transclude that template on a page, then the reference does not come through on the page (it does not appear in the list of refs), and likely will be parsed as a 'ref #1' by default (it is the first and only ref on the template). It would only come through if you put it as a plain link in the template. --Dirk Beetstra 12:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Our preferences, by prio: 1. Automated link to a data sheet. 2. Automated reference link to the source. 3. free input by editor. To facilitate option 3 I'll add |EC-number_comment= for free text. -DePiep (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, though I think that 2 is not possible in ref-form - only in 'plain link' form (vide supra). For free input the comment field is good, and that can then take alternative references (though .. which). I think between 2 and 3 we should just rely on the 'general disclaimer' for the infoboxes. We do not need to reference data that is not expected to be challenged (WP:V), and if a specific case is challenged for some reason, then that is where the free-comment-field is for (the challenge in itself needs a reliable source to be verified, otherwise it is just a 'and I say it is 42'-type of challenge). --Dirk Beetstra 12:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. IMO when the external link (el) leads to a data sheet, we link the text. (e.g. ATC for aspirin: A01AD05). But when it is only a source defining the number, it should be in a reference superscript number:. Both can be created by the template (we hope), no extra userinput should be required. -DePiep (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not the preference, the problem is (was?) technical - A couple of years back when I tried it, I could not include a reference from a transcluded template .. of course, a <sup>http://example.org could solve the problem as well. --Dirk Beetstra 03:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Not any more. I've added links, see sandbox demo, just to test this (not proposed for live this way). Problem left is that we have nothing to link to (because we can not compose an URL using the input EC number). That would mean no external link at all. -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

My point is in the top-left example - you link in the left column to EC number (should be EC index, but that is another part of the discussion below), telling you what it is and where you can find it and what it means for a compound, and in the right column of that box you have a reference to the search engine .. which in a way is just a tad better than 'go find it on google to see whether it is correct, here is a link to google'. I am still not sure whether that 'reference' there is needed.

Good to see that references can now be transcluded from templates, that has changed in the mediawiki setup. --Dirk Beetstra 13:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

re 1: don't worry, that was just a wiki-technical proof to show: we can add ref links nowadays. I removed this goofy link already.

re 2: Yes. Since we can not link usefully, I propose to add no external link to the right-hand side for EC number. Because we do not have a useful one.

re 3: You say 'EC Index' not 'EC number'? Are you sure? These are different numbers (200-815-3 vs. 603-055-00-4 is vs !) I say this should be 'EC number'. More about 'EC Index' below, of course. Mistake? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC) re#3 added -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I am getting confused. EC number is what we are talking about here. --Dirk Beetstra 03:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

All right. Current sandbox demo = proposal by now. I will ask formally tomorrow etc.. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Concluding, I think this is a point of consensus and so I propose to change the data row into (the example is ethylene):

EC number | 200-815-3

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)

spelling

About spelling, all mention of EC number (in the link) spell it EC number but tabel 2.2. Its a little bit strange to have the abbreviation EC Number, when the full title is European Community number (with small n). Christian75 (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

ECHA and it's predecessors are not very consistent (also not in writing CAS NR). Best is to find the defining document. So far, the hyphen is out. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The capital on the N seems a bit silly, even Misplaced Pages itself is inconsistent there. IMHO, 'number' is not a given name, so no capital .. I think 'EC' is a good compromise for 'European Community' here, as that is what they use themselves as an abbreviation and it does not wrongly suggest something else (though .. Enzyme Commission number?). The hyphen can be out in the display, though maybe the different variety-possibilites of the parameter in the chembox should include the one with hyphen. --Dirk Beetstra 12:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Spelling should be copied from the definition by the source (i.e. an E.C. document), but we have not found that. Second option is to copy the EC (-institites') habit, which is mixed uc/lc in this case. I get the impression lowercase "n" more often. So I'll set it to "EC number". -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure the Enzyme Commission number "EC number" is creating ambiguity, esp. since it touches chemistry too. The actual number pattern differs, which helps a bit against confusion (for the initiated). WP:Accessibility and WP:DAB do not help me out in this. We could spell EC out here, in the label: European Community number, but for who is this clarifying? I think labeling it EC number is acceptable. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

EC number we'll write. Weird that the EC is not stable themselves. -DePiep (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

subsection for references

1. http://echa.europa.eu/information-on-chemicals

Parameters EINECSCASNO and EU index

I found two more parameters and data rows that are (possibly) related.

• |EINECSCASNO= (for example, used in 2,4-Dimethoxybenzaldehyde; 2 uses in total).

Same issue: broken link, same EC Number identifier. Does not look useful to me. Propose: merge into EC Number as above (with correct link), and delete this data row from {Chembox} completely.

Early conclusion: After edits and Special:Diff/663063605 not used any more in articles. Following discussion below, this parameter+data row will be deprecated and removed. -DePiep (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• |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)

  It was the EC number of 2,4-Dimethoxybenzaldehyde.

  See CLP Regulation, Annex VI for definition of index numbers. Since it is not even given in the Registered Substances database, I don't think we need to have it in Misplaced Pages (but maybe at Wikidata). --Leyo 10:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

EINECSCASNO is indeed related, you can link into the EC-database using the CASNo .. Don't think it is necessary to keep using it, depracate, rename and delete.

EUIndex might be the third number in e.g. this document for propylene oxide ("EC Number 200-879-2; CAS-No 75-56-9; Index Number: 603-055-00-4). They describe here "INDEX number: The INDEX number (format XXX-XXX-XX-X) is a European number attributed to substances listed on Part 3 of Annex VI to CLP Regulation (List of harmonised classifications and labelling)." I also see the designation "Annex VI Index number". Ah, that gives:

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".

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 Misplaced Pages 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").

This brings up a possibility - do we want a sub-template 'classifications' for the chembox, containing this type of information (ATC-code, EU Index, ..)? --Dirk Beetstra 10:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the index number is not even given in the C&L inventory (for your example above), I don't really think it's worth having it in Misplaced Pages. --Leyo 16:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

When used, there should be an article EU Index (or a section in EC Number) for this. wrt a proposed new section "Classifications", I prefer not to separate classes but to keep them close to their specific topic (so ATC Code with medicine/drugs/pharmacology), as that is where a reader will search & expect it. This way, the extra information "ATC is drug related" is added with no extra cost. -DePiep (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it should link to EU Index, which either is an own article, or a redirect to a section in EC Number (the latter case preparing for when s.o. converts the redirect to an article, though that is not a big issue since now the links are just one template, and the template is easily changed when article contents changes. --Dirk Beetstra 03:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Simple: we know that 'EC Index' exists in real life. If enwiki article/redirect EU Index / EC index does not lead to an article or section with substance, it is not worth mentioning in {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

It is that simple, but I think that EC Index should be mentioned on Misplaced Pages, looking around, the numbers are used by other organisations as well, so it seems that the chemical community finds it useful. --Dirk Beetstra 03:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sort of waiting for you to create that link+text content, the lefthand label EC index (I myself am not familiar with that chemistry content). Then I'll make it link in the {Chembox} datarow. Choose capital for Index/index as you think best. -DePiep (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get to that. I think it is funny that you state here 'I myself am not familiar with that chemistry content'. It is perfectly in line with your lack of understanding that the old order of identifiers was actually more ordered than you think, and puts into perspective your insistence that the order should be visible. --Dirk Beetstra 03:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

• Template-Class Chemistry pages
• NA-importance Chemistry pages
• WikiProject Chemistry articles