Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Contents

Line wrap problem for long chemical formulas[edit]

A problem with a chemical formula in the currect version [1] of Solanine (if you see a "[show]" link in the "InChI" field then click it) was reported at Wikipedia:Help desk#Problems displaying this Wikipedia page in Firefox. In my Firefox (and Opera but not IE or Google Chrome), a long string without certain characters (spaces, slashes, maybe others) doesn't cause line wrap but instead lengthens a line or widens an infobox. The problem here was the parameter (apparently an International Chemical Identifier):

StdInChI = 1S/C45H73NO15/c1-19-6-9-27-20(2)31-28(46(27)16-19)15-26-24-8-7-22-14-23(10-12-44(22,4)25(24)11-13-45(26,31)5)57-43-40(61-41-37(54)35(52)32(49)21(3)56-41)39(34(51)30(18-48)59-43)60-42-38(55)36(53)33(50)29(17-47)58-42/h7,19-21,23-43,47-55H,6,8-18H2,1-5H3/t19-,20+,21-,23?,24+,25-,26-,27+,28-,29+,30+,31-,32-,33+,34-,35+,36-,37+,38+,39-,40+,41+,42-,43+,44-,45-/m0/s1

Above it's written with a leading space so no line wrapping is supposed to occur. Here is the same source line without a leading space:

StdInChI = 1S/C45H73NO15/c1-19-6-9-27-20(2)31-28(46(27)16-19)15-26-24-8-7-22-14-23(10-12-44(22,4)25(24)11-13-45(26,31)5)57-43-40(61-41-37(54)35(52)32(49)21(3)56-41)39(34(51)30(18-48)59-43)60-42-38(55)36(53)33(50)29(17-47)58-42/h7,19-21,23-43,47-55H,6,8-18H2,1-5H3/t19-,20+,21-,23?,24+,25-,26-,27+,28-,29+,30+,31-,32-,33+,34-,35+,36-,37+,38+,39-,40+,41+,42-,43+,44-,45-/m0/s1

In my Firefox and Opera, it only wraps at slashes and this part is displayed on one line going off the right edge of my screen:

c1-19-6-9-27-20(2)31-28(46(27)16-19)15-26-24-8-7-22-14-23(10-12-44(22,4)25(24)11-13-45(26,31)5)57-43-40(61-41-37(54)35(52)32(49)21(3)56-41)39(34(51)30(18-48)59-43)60-42-38(55)36(53)33(50)29(17-47)58-42

Is there a chemical rule requiring such strings to be written without spaces or something else that will allow line wrapping? Even if there is such a rule, I think it's better to break it than to break a page display for readers with common browsers, at least when the result is as bad as the infobox in Solanine. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit perennial (and goes for the InChI's, SMILES and for some IUPACNames) - It is exactly why there is a show/hide button (standard set to 'hide') - 'breaking' these identifiers gives as a problem that searches (internal and external, both incoming and outgoing) would be 'broken'. It is a common problem, but a simple 'F5' or a click on the 'hide' solves the problem in both cases. The only really sensible solution would be to 'force' the width of the cell to a maximum (hints welcome - I've tried some things but nothing seems to really help), and that the contents then is either 'force-wrapped', or that it gets a horizontal scroll bar below. Except for restricting cell width giving force-wrapping, most are ugly solutions .. It should be noted, that for most people, seeing this value is not of prime importance, but it is important that the values get rendered into the final result of the page, as that is what gets indexed by Google - and also, especially the StdInChI is the identifier to find these compounds by (in different modes), all others are less specific and more error prone than the StdInChI - breaking the full string or similar will make these compounds 'unfindable' - a problem which is less important (though might still be annoying) for SMILES and the full IUPACName. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. With JavaScript disabled in Firefox you get http://i.imgur.com/HdPV5.png at Solanine with no hide option. I don't know a good portable solution. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I think we've looked at adding horizontal scrollbar to those long strings. Can't remember if there was a technical impossibility, a rendering mess, we just forgot to deal with it, or actually we never thought of it until now. DMacks (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I read the Help desk thread after this one. Sigh. This will affect only a very small number (the relative few people who have Java turned off, and who visit one of the few chemicals/drugs which have an impossibly long and unbreakable InChI/IUPACName/SMILES) of people (I agree, it should not happen at all ..), so I guess that for now we could leave it, but it adds to the (already existing - 'We' are already waiting for a long time to be able to force the (maximum) width of a box to, say, 25% of the pagewidth, something that, AFAIK, can not be done with the code at the moment.) urge of finding a permanent solution. Aargh .. now that we put so much effort in making sure that these chemicals can reliably be found, it is that same key that is breaking things .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate warning[edit]

Is it necessary to issue the same warning twice? Once before the main text body and once more inside it. I think only one of these should be used, preferably the one inside the text body. Nutster (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ticks and crosses for validation[edit]

Just looking at Aspartame and I noticed that there is an unverified change. What particularly drew my attention is that the ticks are (correctly) not linked, but the red cross next to the KEGG entry is linked.

I'd submit an {{editprotected}} request, except I can't work out where the cross actually is in the code. Could someone more familiar with the template locate the cross images (both the one next to the field in question and the one in the footer) and add |link= to the end of the [[Image:]] or [[File:]] call?

Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 20:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference is in {{Tick}} vs {{Cross}}: exactly as you say, Tick has link= but Cross does not. There does not seem to be any standard for this among the Template:Check mark templates options and I'm not sure what centralized place would even discuss them. DMacks (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't quickly locate a place to discuss the general issue and per a nearly-year-old non-responded-to query on Template talk:Cross there doesn't seem to be anyone actively working on them, so I added link= and will watch if anyone complains there. May take a while for that change to propagate up through the levels of templates that create the infobox and eventually regenerate the page with that new behavior. DMacks (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Need critical point temperature/pressure[edit]

That really seriously needs to be an optional parameter.Rememberway (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging drugbox into chembox[edit]

There was an unanimous support from the wp:WikiProject Pharmacology to merge Template:Drugbox into chembox (see Template talk:Drugbox#Advantages of a drugbox/chembox merger). Therefore, I'd like to ask here at the chembox side, is this a good idea? Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Making chemboxes in separate templates[edit]

With the WP:STRATEGY of making it easier for newcomers in mind, I propose making chemboxes as separate templates, so that, when pressing an article's edit button (such as that of methanol), a {{Template:(chemname)-chembox}} is shown at the top of an article, followed by a hopefully humanely presented intro text, rather than the daunting wiki-syntax that currently overwhelms the poor editor. (This has been supported for the drugbox at talk:Drugbox#Make separate templates of drugboxes.) Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cross namespace link to the WikiProject[edit]

Policy or guidelines don't allow for links from article to WikiProjects yet this template has one. Can we have it changed? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Has been discussed before .. hardly anything is not allowed (for almost everything WP:IAR applies), leaving it out is not an option (no-one would understand), and unless someone comes up with a proper solution, I do not think that it is replaceable. I'll dig up the earlier discussion now. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Can't find the discussion, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation#Infobox additions violate self-reference guidelines I think? DMacks (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

JMol structure problem: multicomponent compounds[edit]

It appears the external system that does the JMol 3D images (based on infobox SMILES= parameter) does not work correctly for multicomponent compounds that have specific geometric relationships for the components. For example, ferrocene and chromocene are rendered with the two Cp rings and the metal atom all coplanar rather than the actual positions and orientations of the sandwich compound. That makes sense, because SMILES is only connective data for individual components, not geometric relationships among separate components. So we need a field that can provide additional/alternative data to feed to the JMol engine (or if that cannot be done easily, a field to cause the infobox to suppress the JMol field). DMacks (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Too long! Too long! Too long![edit]

The chembox for the caffeine article is absurdly, ridiculously long. I would like to move a lot of the information, such as the Identifiers, Properties, Hazards, and multiple pictures, onto a separate data page, but as far as I can see the template provides no support for doing so. Is there any reasonable way of handling this sort of problem? Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Notice: The user just removed lots of important information from the chembox without waiting for an answer. I restored it. There is certainly no need to hurry here. --Leyo 07:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Was not removed just split and placed lower in the article.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging drugbox into chembox: take 2[edit]

The section immediately above and the discussions here and here illustrates a general problem that we are facing in articles where the subject is both notable as a drug and as a chemical. One potential solution is to (1) merge the {{drugbox}} into the {{chembox}}, (2) make various sections of the merged infobox optionally collapsible, and (3) provide some flexibility in the order that sections are displayed (e.g., current order for chemicals that are not drugs but clinical section near the top for chemicals that are drugs). There is consensus from WP:PHARMA for this merger. Finally while we are at it, it would be good if the chembox could be updated to use the more modern {{infobox}} system which offers a cleaner, less clutter syntax and a built in mechanism for special purpose templates (where each chemical would have a separate page for its chemical template that is transcluded back into the chemical article as proposed here). I realize that implementing this proposal will require a substantial effort, but I think the long term benefits justify the effort. Is there support from WP:Chem for such an undertaking? Boghog (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We could also merge the chembox into the drugbox for drugs that are both chemicals and drugs. Usually most people are more interested in the drug properties than the chemical properties. Collapsibility is definitely needed. Else it screws up the formating of the rest of the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Point (3), the order of sections, is already configurable in the chembox. We'd only need to add the recommended order for drugs to the documentation.
Collapsibility is a good idea. The chembox has also got the possibility to move information to a data sheet (a subpage of the article), though I've never really understood how to do this. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that most chemists would be agreeable to a merger. The boxes can be quite long, but they are fairly unobtrusive and if various sections were made collapsable, so much the better. One reason to merge these boxes is to reinforce the unity of molecular sciences, all drugs are organic compounds and all organic compounds have biological effects.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the suggestion to merge them completely for all pages or just for article that have both chemical and pharmaceutical uses.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Many chemicals with pharmaceutical uses already use the new chembox. As do chemicals which can be used as explosives, e.g. nitroglycerin. I think the issue is for drugbox to be merged with chembox, something which we have supported when polled, but have never implemented. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The idea is to add all of the drugbox's fields to the chembox as far as they are missing (like the monoclonal antibody fields) and then delete/redirect the drugbox. This would give a unified appearance, and it would put an end to differently named fields (eg. ATCCode_prefix in chembox vs. ATC_prefix in drugbox). Of course, not all chemicals would show all drugbox fields, as empty fields are hidden anyway. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Can someone create what this would look like for say the medication lisinopril so that they can be compared? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Template talk:Drugbox/Archive 7#Single chemical drugs provides an example for policosanol with a chembox. However, if the chembox would be redesigned to use {{infobox}} as Boghog proposed above, it would probably look more loke the present drugbox. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This example is missing the "clinical data" section... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
That's because the chembox doesn't have such a section yet. And that's why I wrote "The idea is to add all of the drugbox's fields to the chembox as far as they are missing" above. The Clinical data section will look just like all other sections except that it will have "Clinical data" written on top. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
What is the status of this proposal to merge Chem and Drug boxes, it's over a month since there was any discussion about taking this further (apologies if the discussion has continued elsewhere and I haven't seen it. --The chemistds (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Prototype merged chem/drug box[edit]

A prototype merged chem/drug box based on the {{infobox}} system has been written ({{Chembox Drug/sandbox}}) and one example can be seen here (left right-side testcase). In common with the current chembox, the order to the sections can been changed. What is new is that each of the sections has an optional "State" parameter that can be set to "collapsed" or "expanded". In addition, an "path" parameter may be added that supports special purpose transcluded templates (see the "v · d · e" links at the bottom of the example). At the moment the IUPAC Name and a short Chemical Properties sections are hard wired to appear at the beginning of the infobox in an expanded state. Please note that this is very much a prototype template and there is a great deal of more work needed to handle special cases, debugging, and most importantly making sure that a majority of both the Chemical and Pharmacology Project members are happy with the template. Boghog (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we move the clinical data after the IUPAC name? Otherwise looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
The clinical data is after the IUPAC name. Were you actually suggesting the opposite? I think it is very reasonable to place the IUPAC name right after the chemical structure these are closely linked. At the same time, there may be cases where including an IUPAC name may not be appropriate (e.g., biologics). I have therefore converted the hard wired "IUPAC name" and "Chemical data" sections to sections that are now optional and can be moved up or down if desired. Boghog (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
It looks to me like it is after the chemical data rather than the IUPAC name... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see you meant moving the clinical data directly after the IUPAC name. In the latest implementation of the template, all the sections are optional and can be moved up or down as desired (see for example Template:Chembox_Drug/testcases, top right vs. bottom right). In addition, there is now a "IUPAC name" (see top right testcase) and "chemical summary" (see bottom right testcase) sections. Both contain the IUPAC name. The intention is that one or other can be used, but normally not both in the same infobox. Again, the idea behind "chemical summary" section is to summarize the most basic information that is contained in the "chemical data" section if the later section is collapsed. If the "chemical data" section is not collapsed, then there would be no reason to include the "chemical summary" section. Boghog (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I suppose you mean the right-hand side? Yes, that looks good to me. When other people are happy with it, I suggest we collect a list of differences between drugbox and chembox that will have to be considered before the actual merger is done. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right. I meant right-hand side. Also good suggestion concerning compiling a list of differences. These differences could be divided into aesthetics (e.g., borders in chembox vs no borders in drugbox), parameter names, displayed names, external links, etc. In addition, there is some duplication of parameters between the sections, some of which in unavoidable since not all sections will be included in all infoboxes. Boghog (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to merge the Chemical data and Properties sections? At the moment, formula and mass occur twice. The caption "Chemical data" would be better in my opinion because it is more specific, and because (for drugs) it nicely matches "Clinical data" and "Pharmacokinetic data". --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I was not planning on merging these two sections. I created the Chemical Data section in response to Rifleman's concern above that if the properties section were collapased, then a certain amount of basic chemical data (i.e., "vital stats") should be displayed. Perhaps conditional code could be added to the template so that if the chemical properties section were included, the display of the formula and mass in the properties section would be suppressed. Boghog (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
So is the proposal than to use the second one for substances that are primarily medications/recreational drugs and use the 4th one for substances that are primarily chemical substances?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is basically what I had in mind. In order to be acceptable to both projects, I think some flexibility in the template will be required. Boghog (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

LD50[edit]

Should the LD50 be included in the chembox? Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 22:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's already included in the {{Chembox_Hazards}} module. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 03:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Viscocity?[edit]

Would it make sense to add a field to the properties section for listing the dynamic viscosity of the chemical at a specific temperature? Regards, RJH (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

'Viscosity' is there .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

{{chembox}} doesn't reflect topmost name in {{DISPLAYTITLE:}}[edit]

Is there a way to make the {{chembox}} template check for the {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} template's name in the body of the article for the article title? That is, before the chembox template automatically uses the article name itself? Many chemicals have italicized lettering for cis/trans etc., which would be more proper of the heading box in chembox, using as it does the chemical name for the molecule in question. Nagelfar (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How much info to display?[edit]

What's the general philosophy on how much information to display in the chembox? I ask because for the article psilocybin, another user recently expanded the chembox to now include physical data that I cannot easily verify, and which isn't mentioned in the article text itself (like boiling point, log P, acidity, basicity and others). I don't know whether to trim some of this info, or leave it in under the assumption that it might be useful to someone sometime. If there is info in the chembox not in the text, should this also be cited inline? Sasata (talk) 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

1. I think you should DEFINITELY cite it if not cited in text (ideally, would cite both places, given the template issue)

2. Yes, there definitely should be stuff in the infobox that is not discussed in the text. It is just a data table. Let's say we had a table at the END of an article. It would have some listed data that was not discussed in prose. Putting in a table is a very efficient way to handle some factoids like that. Same thing applies with articles on cities (they will have some details like lat longs or the like that is not in article).

TCO (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Use en dash instead of hyphen for temperature ranges[edit]

Resolved

It has been more than a year since a similar error was reported in the section "Use minuses instead of hyphens for negative values", and nothing has been done to fix the Chembox properties template. A similar error is that a hyphen is used instead of an en dash to indicate a range of temperatures when values are provided for MeltingPtFL and MeltingPtFH or BoilingPtFL and BoilingPtFH, or if the temperatures are given in K or °C. I could give it a shot, but if you think that would probably work out well, you really shouldn't be using nitrous oxide and working in Wikipedia at the same time. Chris the speller yack 02:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Temperature still displays hyphen instead of minus for negative values and hyphen instead of en dash for ranges, after more than another year. Also, if one or both of the range limits are negative, the word "to" should appear instead of en dash, e.g. −12 to −5 °C, or −5 to 5 °C. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this needs to fixed, please. Tony (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Done. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Temperatures_in_Chembox -DePiep (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Use of Crystallography Open Database (COD) numbers in Chemboxes?[edit]

Would the Wikpedia community be interested add reference to the Crystallography open database (COD,http://www.crystallography.net)? Data in COD come from peer-reviewed scientific press, the database is free (as in freedom), and we offer persistent URIs to link to HTML pages or CIF format files (like http://www.crystallography.net/7050897.html for Aspirin or http://www.crystallography.net/2001546.html for Ibuprofen). The COD number (uniquely assigned persistent identifier) could be quoted in Chembox, linking to the appropriate crystal structure HTML page or file. Saulius Gražulis, grazulis at ibt dot lt, 158.129.151.7 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

global Template:Chembox[edit]

As I used the chemical infobox as an example what could be possible for my idea of meta:GlobalTemplates I just wanted to let you know of it. Matthias M. (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Organic table information" & "Inorganic table information" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Organic table information & Inorganic table information. Since you had some involvement with the Organic table information Inorganic table information redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Category:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID nominated for renaming[edit]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 22#Category:Chemical pages which do not have a ChemSpiderID. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

PDB info[edit]

The Chembox info is excellent, could PDB info be added to it? ie a link to macromolecular structures which contain a particular molecule. Just a link to the Compound browser would be needed, eg Choline or biotin to be continuously up to date with the PDB archive. I have a mapping between Inchi and the PDB three letter ligand code which would aid doing it automatically. A2-33 (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

More information[edit]

Can we add more information such as heat of fusion, heat of vaporization,...?--Kc kennylau (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DrugBank link broken[edit]

The Chembox DrugBank link currently points to for example (see Levothyroxine):

which is broken. The following link works:

I would appreciate if someone would fix this. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Leyo 09:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Great! I would have fixed it myself, but I was having difficulty locating the appropriate sub-template. Boghog (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

LD50 feels alone...[edit]

Hi,

Why is there en entry for LD50 and not an entry for LC50? It could be of importance too...

--XonqNopp Tk 06:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There really should be one for LD50, LC50 and LCt50. Just use whichever is the most appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.221.149 (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Line wrap problem revisited[edit]

The painful line wrap problem is still there, and in some cases the chembox extends so wide that its left side extends outside the viewport and/or under the left-side menu. This is a problem in older browsers (that use Gecko 1.8.1 like SeaMonkey 1.1 and Firefox 2) that support CSS well, and newer browsers when JavaScript is turned off either manually or with NoScript. The template appears to lack effective line wrap code to deal with it.

http://toolserver.org/~cbm/20090127b.png shows a horizontal scrollbar (in Firefox 2.0, possibly from using overflow in CSS), which should be the solution for very long names. An earlier discussion here mulls the use of a zero-width space (​), but there was no definitive decision taken. For example, in Oxytocin I added zero-width spaces (not knowing where exactly to position them) to the IUPAC name, but left the InChI name as is. -Mardus (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Having just stumbled upon this conversation I just want to raise the point that the zero-with space solves one issue only to create another one. While a zero-width space is invisible to a human, except by the virtue that it exerts the properties of a space (in this case facilitating the breaking of the name) it has significant implications wherever the name is processed by a computer. The space is visible to search engines, and any other data processing software and is preserved by cut-and-paste operations. I understand that the wrap problem is a significant issue for the users that experience it, and that for many there are reasons why they do not upgrade their browser. But this seems to be a case where the solution to a styling problem affecting a small group of users is actually to change the underlying data that everyone uses. I'd really like to avoid changing the data (which is what Wikipedia seeks to preserve), wherever possible. --The chemistds (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Chemical infobox
Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)
Infobox references

Maintenance categories
+cat:No image, no structure drawing (image checks)
+cat:Unverified chembox (verification)

    • The only real solution to this is an enforcement of the maximum width of an infobox (to say 20-40% of the pagewidth) - if a string is too long to fit in there, it should just break at an arbitrary position, see the problem in the next line:
      • aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
    • Wikipedia does NOT break that string, putting a horizontal scroll bar at the bottom of your page, but when you look at the same string in the edit window, it is just broken at the position where it should break due to edit-box size. If you click show in the top chembox here, you see it is randomly wrapped (as one would like) at a position resulting in a screen-wide chembox (which we don't like) - not in 2 equal parts, or with some enforced width.
    • Note that it gets stranger with when inserting one dash:
      • aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Chemical infobox
Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)
Infobox references

Maintenance categories
+cat:No image, no structure drawing (image checks)
+cat:Unverified chembox (verification)

    • which both in the edit window and in the wikipedia rendered page are wrapped at the 'dash'. But in the bottom chembox, the same string is now again broken at a random position, getting (in my case) to a 50% width chembox - and not wrapped at the dash, but randomly somewhere to make the first half fit in a 50%-pagewidth chembox, and the rest on the next line. There must be a system in this .. but it escapes me. I have been playing with enforcing the width of the chembox, but have until now failed - if we manage I suggest we drop the show/hide button for IUPAC name (leave it for InChI and SMILES, specialist data).
    • Although I can live with a broken IUPAC name (which is annoying when using the string), breaking the InChI and/or SMILES like that will break other functionality - rendering of images based on the broken strings does not work, searching for the strings on internet may break the possibility to find the Wikipedia page (people do search in Google for SMILES and InChI-codes), or linking into other databases may result in failures depending on the external string-cleaning capabilities. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've solved this on chinese wikipedia. Just need to add "max-width:22em;" before "word-wrap: break-word;" in {{Chembox IUPACName}}. The same goes for InChI and SMILES.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I've amended Template:Chembox IUPACName per this edit request. Looking at the above before and after, it seems to have worked. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Chemical InfoBox Queries[edit]

I have noticed that for the most part, properties in the Chemical Infoboxes do not have references. The Infobox Reference link at the bottom gives a link to a list of generic references. Are these the only sources for the properties in the Infobox? If so, some of them are a bit out of date (7th edition of the Merck Index for example - I'm working from the 10th and feeling out of the mainstream).

Also, I have noted several places, notably Phosphorus tribromide where there is a picture of a bottle containing a liquid. The documentation for the photo indicates that it is PBr3 - but it could just as easily be water. Is there any real need for something like this on a generic liquid like this? I can see including a photograph if the compound had some interesting feature, but otherwise, I'm not sure that it adds much value. JSR (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Naming updates[edit]

Has anyone noticed that an editor is systematically removing names from Chemical Infoboxes? He puts a citation needed reference on the name and then 1.5-2 months later, he removes them or demotes them to other names if they were originally listed as an IUPAC name. JSR (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

R-phrase template[edit]

I have concerns about the use and accessibility of {{R-phrase}}. Please join the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Template Problem[edit]

Hi... I was editing niobium(V) ethoxide and ran into a problem here - notice the invalid ref. I figured out that the problem was that the solubility parameter in the chembox was in the section for chembox thermochemistry rather than in the chembox properties section. Looking at the chembox template documentation, it shows parameters solubility, solubleother, and solvent under chembox thermochemistry in the full form version but under chembox properties for the medium form version. I presume this is easy enough to fix, and I presume that the latter is correct. However, if you look at Template:Chembox Properties you'll find that has not solubleother parameter, but it does have solubilityother. So, I suspect that the properties template has had parameters changed but the overall chembox documentation does not match. Would someone who is good with untangling templates please sort out the documentation?

Secondly, it seems to me there is a problem that a bot could fix in sorting this out in article space, moving any solubility and solvent parameters within chemboxes from the chembox thermochemistry section to the chembox properties section. Any occurences of the solubleother parameter need to be changed to solubilityother and likewise moved to the chembox properties section. Does that sound right?

Thirdly, is this the only time when a problem like this has been created by renaming parameters and/or moving them between chemboxes, because if it isn't then it would be good to fix those too. My knowledge and understanding of templates is poor, hence my request for others to sort it out rather than trying myself. Many Thanks, EdChem (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear EdChem, thanks for catching this. This change occurred somewhate randomly in 2010 already luckily there are only 20 or so wrong usages I will try to fix them in the next days. It seems like the Parameter was called solubleOther all the time and was never correct in the example in Template Properties. I try to find out how much confusion that caused.--Saehrimnir (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Saehrimnir. I'm glad to hear that there are only about 20 articles needing fixing. I can understand the confusion issues like this can cause as some editors (like me) are not too great with templates. EdChem (talk) 10:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC) PS: Please remember to update the template documentation once you have sorted out the problems. Thanks.  :) EdChem (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is currently a BRFA open for this task. Any input is welcome (particular if you know a reason why this bot should not go ahead) --Chris 14:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. EdChem (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up thought: I've noticed a number of pages have both the EINECS parameter and the Ec-number parameter completed, which simply leads to a double entry of identical information in the infobox (see this version of the tantalum(V) ethoxide article, for example). The EINECS article confirms these parameters refer to the same identifying property. Would it be appropriate to (a) note in the documentation that only one of these parameters be completed (b) have a bot remove all the duplicates and remove the blank parameter when the other is completed? Perhaps even have a bot consolidate all the entries under a single parameter and we remove the other from the template? It just seems to me that duplication in who knows how many templates is pointless, and keeping both parameters just means that more duplicates will be introduced in the future. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

here it states that the difference is the hyphenation and that only one should be used. The more bothering thing is that none of the links does work right now because ESIS does not allow deeplinks anymore. I will try to find ou which one is used more often to see to which we should consolidate.--Saehrimnir (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

HELP! InChI information breaks whole infobox[edit]

Seen in article BINAP. Tried to remove the InChI and StdInChI lines, and the article displayed as it should. I can't do anything from my side here, unfortunately. Maybe they will even have to include a fix in their template themselves. -andy 77.191.33.193 (talk) 12:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The chembox at BINAP looks perfectly normal to me. Can you explain a little more about what you see? -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The infobox just gets quite wide when clicking on [show]. --Leyo 16:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It's only wide because the image of the structure is wide in the Infobox. If the image was smaller, the InChI wouldn't show up that wide. Thricecube 01:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A proposal[edit]

is anyone in favor of adding electroconductivity to the chembox? I could see this as useful information that one may want to have immediately present when visiting a page. I've been spurred to action because I myself have been scouring the internet for hours looking up various compounds and whether or not they were electroconductive. I couldn't help but think how much easier it would have been to have a simple yes/no box or even something a bit more detailed (if any of you are feeling ambitious)

Nxtfari (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Gibbs free energy of formation[edit]

Why isn't Gibbs free energy of formation included, when enthalpy of formation is? It's an important number for checking feasibility of reactions and estimating the temperature at which the Gibbs free energy of a reaction changes sign (using ΔH/ΔS which equals 298.15K×ΔH/(ΔH−ΔG), see Ellingham diagram). Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional fields[edit]

We need additional fields for sublimation points and triple points. Currently, carbon dioxide and acetylene are making do in mutually exclusive ways. DS (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Hill system[edit]

The rule

When the formula contains no carbon, all the elements, including hydrogen, are listed alphabetically.

is not considered in the chembox (see e.g. Chlorosilane). --Leyo 08:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

From my recollection, there is consensus to use the Hill system for organic compounds, but not necessarily for inorganics. Applying that rule in the chembox is therefore unnecessary. The "Formula = " parameter can be used to force display in whichever order is preferred, rather than using the current automatic display derived from the parameters "| H = 3 | Cl = 1 | Si = 1". -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Design suggestion[edit]

Could we change some details in design of this infobox? For example:

  1. remove tr borders
  2. add some border-spacing
  3. and maybe move title outside the box

I think it will be better to watch and shouldn't destroy the content, like here - Glade Interface Designer. --Rezonansowy (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons stated here, IMHO titles should stay inside the box. Boghog (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, but what about the rest of things placed above? Do You agree with my proposition? --Rezonansowy (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, change these things:

  1. delete bordered property from the table class
  2. delete border-collapse: collapse; property from the table style

--Rezonansowy (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Question: Are you talking about {{Chembox}}, or maybe a different template? Also, could you add your proposed code to the relevant template sandbox so that it can be tested? There is some guidance available at WP:TESTCASES if you need it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've disabled the {{edit protected}} template for now. Please reactivate it when you have some code in the relevant sandbox, or if you need any help with the coding feel free to ask me about it on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2013[edit]

The Parameter is still in this template but belongs into {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Chembox_Structure structur subtemplate] where it already is listed and inplemented so it just has to be deleted here.

Saehrimnir (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding text originally posted on Template talk:Chembox Properties (diff)

Not done: The template doesn't appear to be broken, and there is a significant chance that trying to fix this would actually break things instead. If you can show that you have tested your change per WP:TESTCASES, however, then the risk would be smaller and I would be more willing to make the edit for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I understand I will propose sum changes to the box anyways and if an consensus is reached I will make an test case and will get back to you.--Saehrimnir (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Parameter discussion[edit]

Hi I started this discussion.--Saehrimnir (talk) 05:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Finding parameter errors[edit]

Lua enables finding articles with template parameter name errors. I implemented this into the de-WP version of the chembox and other templates. The affected articles are categorized. The display of error messages may be restricted to autoconfirmed users (MediaWiki:Group-autoconfirmed.css would need to be created), since we do not want readers to see them. The TemplateTiger query does a similar job, but is usually outdated. Thoughts? --Leyo 16:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Add European food additive E number[edit]

I think it would be useful to also include the E number for food additives in this template. It's a very common identifier used on food labels in Europe. -- intgr [talk] 16:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Also, prior to determining consensus, please put your proposed modification into the template's sandbox and demonstrate at the template's testcases. More information at WP:TESTCASES. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

En dash for ranges[edit]

Resolved: Using {{convert}} now in teh four temperatures. -DePiep (talk) 08:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi! In chemboxes, ranges (of temperature, for instance) are separated by a hyphen (-). They should use the en dash (–), as explained on en (typography). Thank you! Nirmos (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The entry in User:AnomieBOT/PERTable, which is what brought me here, suggests that the page to be modified is Wikipedia:Chemical infobox, but I'm sure that's not the case; observe that it shows "Not protected" in the third column (the pink background reflects the protection state). It's showing like that because you've not filled in the first positional parameter of your {{edit protected}} - the part that presently says <!-- Page to be edited --> - so it's not clear which page you wish to be modified. I cannot assume that it's Template:Chemical infobox either, because there is no template of that name. If you look at the previous section of this page in edit mode, you'll see that it begins {{edit protected|Template:Chembox Identifiers|answered=yes}}, so I was able to determine that a modification to Template:Chembox Identifiers was desired, but I cannot be certain that this request concerns the same template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Redrose64, and thanks for answering! My apologies for not using the template correctly, but in this case I'm afraid it wouldn't help, because I'm not sure which template that needs to be edited. It could be Template:Chembox Properties. I'd love to be more specific about what the problem is, though. If we take a look at dimethylglycine, for instance, we can see that it says 178-182 under melting point in the chembox. That hyphen should be replaced by an en dash. The reason I described it so generally in my last post is because it probably needs to be changed for other similar things that can be expressed in ranges, such as boiling point, and possibly other things. I did try to find exactly which template that decides this, but it was too complicated for me. Thank you for your patience. Nirmos (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Ah, from that I can see that the hyphen used for the melting point range is in Template:Chembox MeltingPt, which seems to use a hyphen for ranges in no less than nine places. As you suspect, boiling points are handled elsewhere (Template:Chembox BoilingPt, which also uses the hyphen nine times for ranges). I notice that the former template (but not the latter) is in Category:Chembox templates, and the omission of Template:Chembox BoilingPt from that category suggests that there is an even larger group, all of which should probably be kept in harmony. I would not wish to change just those two in isolation, so Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I think that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry should be informed and have their chance to comment. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Done by using {{convert}} for temperatures. To be added to flashpoint and autoignition temperatures. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Spectra on Supplementary data page[edit]

The GMD has GC-MS spectra identifying 67 spectra in the list of biomolecules. I would like to link to these GC-MS spectra. I thought the best for this would be in the data page of a molecule, which leaves me with some questions: Do I replace the MS link on the data page? Or add a GC-MS link and keep the MS link? Just as an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alanine_(data_page)

Secondly, how do these data pages work. Is there a template for new new pages? Does the information on this page get processed and shown in the "Supplementary Data Page" section of the {{chembox}}? Billiauk (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Maybe it would be useful to put the MS Spectrum link into the {{chembox}} ? Billiauk (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and added the Ms Spectra to the 'External links' section on the biomolecules pages. If existing, I also added it to the data page. Billiauk (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert last edit (edit request)[edit]

Resolved: Though not by reverting: Fahrenheit value added. -DePiep (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Last edit was not discussed, and there is no reason to use {{Convert}} to a value which is the same on all pages. And the text should not be "standard state (at 25 °C or 77 °F, 100 kPa)". It is not a "or", its the same value, so it should be like "standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)". Christian75 (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The last edit was this, which hardly seems likely to have affected the presentation of physical properties or their conversions. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Redrose64#Edit-request for wrong page: Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

In this decline at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox, you were looking at the direct namespace match Wikipedia:Chemical infobox. That talkpage is also used for the whole Template:Chembox suite of spaghetti. The request was probably talking about this last edit. DMacks (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@DMacks: In {{edit protected}} and similar templates, the first positional parameter should be used to specify the name of the page that is to be edited, when that is different from the {{SUBJECTPAGENAME}}. I had already explained that at Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox#En dash for ranges. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
You and I know that, yes. This is a different request from an editor who appears to have not been involved in that other request. DMacks (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
To avoid guesswork, I would like Christian75 to confirm that is the edit to revert. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, if it is that edit, I would like DePiep to show where that edit was requested. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
That edit appears to be in keeping with the plans discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Temperatures in Chembox (talkpage of project that handles this template suite). It's certainly discussable whether this piece of it is going too far, or consistency for consistency sake, or somehow else makes things look poor/confusing in some way. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I did the edits. Which questions am I supposed to answer here? -DePiep (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Original poster disputing the change to the infobox footer. I agree with him...use of "or" for the alternative units in the standard-state note of the footer is some combination of wordy, ambiguous, and/or out of sync with the rest of the infobox. DMacks (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
My mistake - I didnt notice that Template talk:Chembox redirected to this talk page. I was talking about this edit. I cant see any reason to use {{convert}} when the input is the same for all chemical boxes, and I think Fahrenheit should be in (). Christian75 (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The original post is contradicting itself. Reverting the edit does not write "(77 °F)".
I'll change "or" into brackets first next edit. So it will read: "standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)". It's just that I tried to prevent nested brackets.
- Side notes: Noted here. Of the possible options, I went to WP:CHEMICALS to talk preparation, and I put a note at WP:CHEMS [2]. Then there also appears to be WP:CHEMBOX, while actually working with template:Chembox. These appear to be four different projects, and I don't feel any responsibility for confusing them, nor can I blame anyone else for confusing them. I'll make the change shortly, together with other changes due in the {{Chembox}} family so that cache reloads are reduced. I used the convert template to get standard wp formatting. I understand this solves it. Please continue related talks at WT chemicals. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Done, no waiting. These other edits that could be done simultaneously (in temperatures) should not have this time pressure to develop & discuss. -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Padding-left is 0[edit]

Resolved: Probably userside mishap

Please compare the chembox in Niobium(V) ethoxide and Tantalum(V) ethoxide (todays versions). In the first one, the text in the value are tight to the vertical border (to their left); in the second chembox there is one pix of space. The second one looks good. Probably somewhere in a subtemplate a "padding" or "cellpadding" is set to 0. -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I see 1px padding in both, using Firefox 26. Which browser are you using? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
OK for me today too. Probably some bad cache/table management on my side. Consider end of topic. -DePiep (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Temperatures in chembox: more improvements[edit]

As of 17 February 2014, this proposal is being rewritten. When finished, the question will be opened again. -DePiep (talk) 10:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Proposal renewed, see #Improved temperature options in Chembox below

-DePiep (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

In {{chembox}}, we can show temperatures for melting point, boiling point, flash point and autoignition temperature. Their value can be in plain text (any text), or calculated into °C, °F, and K from a single value (in C, F or K). Calculating & formatting was changed in December 2013 ([3]), now using {{convert}}. Below is a next set of related changes I propose, a follow-up. I have added demo's and a preliminary documentation below. -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Current issues
  1. Notes are always bracketed; reference can not always be added correctly. Effects:
50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K ([1])
50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K (Some note[1])
50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K[1] (Some note)[2] -- correct referencing, not possible (twice)
  1. A prefix (like "<") disallows calculating temperatures
  2. Flashpoint and Autoignition point are limited in options (e.g., no temp range)
  3. In certain situations, we could add brackets as in 50 °C (122 °F; 323 K) (see below)
Proposed changes
  1. Add parameters |MeltingPtPrefix= and |Melting_ref= to allow correct input
  2. No automated brackets "( )" around the notes
  3. Give FlashPt and Autoignition the same set of options
  4. Using brackets is possible when calculated from °C (to choose for us now)
  5. Chembox had one category misspelled ("depracated" for "deprecated"). No material consequences btw.
|MeltingPtC=50 → 50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K -- Current format
|MeltingPtC=50 → 50 °C (122 °F; 323 K) -- Example, input in °C. Using brackets is an option (once for all temps, all chemboxes)
|MeltingPtC=50 |MeltingPtCH=50 → 50 to 75 °C (122 to 167 °F; 323 to 348 K) -- Range calculated from °C will have brackets too
|MeltingPtF=122 → 50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K -- Example, input in °F (brackets not an option; same for K input)
When saying yes to these brackets, understand that: a. there will be differences between chemboxes (page 1 had input in "C" so brackets, page B in "F" so no brackets). Also, within one chembox: Melting point can have, from °C, "C (F K)". While its boiling point, from °F, must have "C; F; K" format.
5. Technically, the parameters "_L (Low of a range)" like |MeltingPtCL= are deprecated (kept, but removed from documentation). |MeltingPtC= does the same job already. Reduces documentation and complexity.
6. Just a question: is "autoignition temperature" the right wording, not "autoignition point"? (we could switch over silently now). -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Todo after these changes
  1. Plain {{convert}} input errors are listed with the {{convert}} maintenance tag plus categorization.
  2. The notes and references can be checked for correct display. The template will list those pages in a tracking category. Expect few 1000.
  3. Another tracking category lists pages that could be misrepresenting data (e.g., hiding plaintext input). These can be checked too (expect 100's).
I have planned to check them all systematically. Note that this is mostly about correcting text format, not actual data change.

Any comments, questions? Preference in the bracket question? -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Ping: @Beetstra, DMacks, EdChem, Redrose64, Christian75: (with sign this time) -DePiep (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm on semi-vacation next few days, will read/comment when I get back to my online self. DMacks (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Note
As of February 17, 2014 I am rewriting the proposal. When that is finished, I'll reopen the discussion here. -DePiep (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Documentation and background[edit]

This code is being edited, and not in a final state. -DePiep (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Below is a preliminary documentation (and background) for the parameters & their effects.

Chemical infobox
Properties
Melting point < 75 to 80 °C (167 to 176 °F; 348 to 353 K)
+cat:Convert range input (R, temperatures)
[1] Approximated
+cat:Convert (M, has temp notes)
Boiling point Unknown[2]
Hazards
Flash point < 10 °C; 50 °F; 283 K (desintegrates)
+cat:Convert (F, has temp notes)
Autoignition temperature ± 38 to 43 °C; 100 to 110 °F; 311 to 316 K
+cat:Convert range input (R, temperatures)
[3] Disputed[4]
+cat:Convert (A, has temp notes)
Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)
Infobox references

Maintenance categories
+cat:No image, no structure drawing (image checks)
+cat:Unverified chembox (verification)

Output
Temperature(s) in a chembox
A Unknown using plain text, no calculations
B Unknown[1] (desintegrates) using plain text, a ref, and a note
C 50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K using number input, calculate temperatures
D ± 50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K[1] (desintegrates) using number input, additional texts
E 50 to 75 °C; 122 to 167 °F; 323 to 348 K[1] (not confirmed)[2] temperature ranges from input
Composition of the data
Chembox temperature data
d1 <_50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K[1]_some note[2] Complete output, one temperature
d2 ±_50 to 75 °C; 122 to 167 °F; 323 to 348 K[1]_some note[2] Temperature range
d3 prefix_calc temp's from numeric input[reference 1]_notes[reference 2] Descriptive input
d4 Using plaintext only Plain text. No numbers, no chembox calculations
d5 Using plaintext only[reference 1]_notes[reference 2] Using plaintext (no numerics), and additional parameters
Input, parameter options
Input options for temperatures in {{Chembox}}
Plain text
i1 |MeltingPt=
Any plain text and {{convert|30|C|K}}
Any plain text and 30 °C (303 K)
Temperatures, calculated
i2 |MeltingPtC=100 50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K Temp's calculated from single number input in °C
i3 |MeltingPtF=100 38 °C; 100 °F; 311 K Temp's calculated from single number input in °F
i4 |MeltingPtK=100 −173 °C; −280 °F; 100 K Temp's calculated from single number input in K
Any C, F or K number input overwrites plaintext input |MeltingPt=Any text
i6 |MeltingPtC=50
|MeltingPtPrefix=<
<_50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K PtPrefix: used for any number input; a space is added
i7 |MeltingPtC=50
|MeltingPtF=100
|MeltingPtKH=350
Red XN Only one temperature unit can be used. But "MeltingPtC" and "BoilingPtF" may be used together
Temperature ranges, calculated
i8 |MeltingPtF=50 |MeltingPtFH=60 10 to 16 °C; 50 to 60 °F; 283 to 289 K Adding _FH will show a range. _F is the low end, _FH is the high end
Additional input
i9 |Melting_ref=<ref>{{cite web|url=...}}</ref> 50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K[1] Reference, added right after "...K"
i10 |Melting_notes=''(some note)'' 50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K_(some note) Any text notes; a space is added, but no brackets
i11 |Melting_notes=
''(some note)''<ref>{{cite web|url=...}}</ref>
50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K_(some note)[2] A final ref can be added in this parameter
i12 |MeltingPtF=50 |MeltingPtFH=60... ±_10 to 16 °C; 50 to 60 °F; 283 to 289 K[1]_some note[2] Ranges, with all options
i13 |MeltingPtC=50
|MeltingPtPrefix=<
|Melting_ref=<ref>Re source</ref>
|Melting_notes=some note
<_50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K[1]_some note Complete output, one temperature
i14 |MeltingPtC=50
|MeltingPtPrefix=<
|Melting_ref=<ref>Re source</ref>
|Melting_notes=
some note<ref>footnote #two at end</ref>
50 °C; 122 °F; 323 K[1]_some note[2] A final ref can be added to the _notes
Parameter list
References (from demo)
  1. ^ "Chemspider". 
  2. ^ "Chemspider". 
  3. ^ "Chemspider". 
  4. ^ Author X, publication Y, year: Z

{{See newer section #Improved temperature options in Chembox below. -DePiep (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 5 February 2014[edit]

Please add Gibbs free energy of formation. It's an important number for checking feasibility of reactions and estimating the temperature at which the Gibbs free energy of a reaction changes sign (using ΔH/ΔS which equals 298.15K×ΔH/(ΔH−ΔG), see Ellingham diagram). The name DeltaGf has been suggested for this. There are three other properties that have been suggested, namely SolutionEthalpy, VaporizationEnthalpy, and MeltingEnthalpy. (See [4].) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Done – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 00:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Diffs, just for me to follow this: {{Chembox Thermochemistry}} changed [5] and its /doc. -DePiep (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Making it work[edit]

Eric Kvaalen@. To me, it looks like this |DeltaGf= does not work. Could you use it? Some demo values from carbon monoxide plus a DeltaGf added:

|DeltaHc=−283.4 kJ/mol
|DeltaGf=some_delta_gf_value

In the chembox (sandbox trial now):

Chemical infobox
Thermochemistry
Specific
heat capacity
C
29.1 J/K mol
Std molar
entropy
So298
197.7 J·mol−1·K−1
Std enthalpy of
formation
ΔfHo298
−110.5 kJ·mol−1
Gibbs free energy ΔG some_delta_gf_value
Std enthalpy of
combustion
ΔcHo298
−283.4 kJ/mol
Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C (77 °F), 100 kPa)
Infobox references

Maintenance categories
+cat:No image, no structure drawing (image checks)
+cat:Unverified chembox (verification)

So this is wrong. I hope there are no pages with this error. I can do the template, if you help me with the chemistry. Can you tell me what the text in the lefthand cell should be, for this DeltaGf? "Gibbs free energy ΔG" maybe? -DePiep (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

  • @Eric Kvaalen. Sandbox demo now. See chembox. Questions to answer:
  1. Is the lefthand text ok?
  2. Is the sequence in the Thermochem section OK?
  3. The unit is added  kJ·mol−1 by default. This can be overwritten by the editor: |DeltaGf_unit=&nbsp;kW → 100 kW (example). Is this OK? No unit added by the template.
  4. Anything about the other three proposed parameters, below?
-DePiep (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, with other changes in {{Chembox Thermochemistry}}~, see documentation there. (Sequence, sp, fmt). -DePiep (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand from your message on my talk page that you had left questions here for me.
The text should actually say "Standard Gibbs free energy of formation".
I would put it after the standard enthalpy of formation, but it's not important.
For the other parameters, see below.
Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, to be repositioned below enthalpy of formation. And I can understand that "Standard Gibbs free energy change of formation" or Standard Gibbs free energy of formation" (change added) is the perfect description, but why is the descriptive article named different (and the long name redirects, to the list only)? Also, it is a long wording, if a shorter text is acceptable then please suggest one. -DePiep (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done changed the sequence into Hf - Gf - HC as requested. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

And the enthalpy values[edit]

X mark.svg Not done Proposal needs fleshing out. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Eric Kvaalen@. While we are at it, are Solution Ethalpy, Vaporization Enthalpy, and Melting Enthalpy you mentioned to be added (or are they disputed)? Please suggest parameter name, wikilink page, lefthand-text, and relevant notes. My first guesses (edit them here it you like):

-DePiep (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Update: Found Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_26#Chembox. Changed proposed parameter names (write "Enthalpy" in full). Write dimension in HTML not with <math>. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Proposals
Parameter Lefthand text Value (example) Default unit Note
|DeltaGf= Gibbs free energy ΔG  kJ·mol−1 Discuss above
|SolutionEnthalpy= Enthalpy change of solution ΔHo  ?
|VaporEnthalpy= Enthalpy of vaporization ΔHvap  ?
|MeltingEnthalpy= Enthalpy of melting or Enthalpy of fusion  ?
The default unit (added by the template, no need to type it) has a prefixed space (nbsp).
Proposals. In development -DePiep (talk)

Note done: not clear enough. -DePiep (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

As I have just written above, it should say "Standard Gibbs free energy of formation", with a link to Standard Gibbs free energy change of formation. The names of the other wikilinks are fine as the left-hand text. Could use "Enthalpy of solution" instead of "Enthalpy change of solution" to make it shorter, but with the link to the latter. "Enthalpy of melting" simply redirects to Enthalpy of fusion – I would use the latter.
Thanks!
Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Gibbs free energy added[edit]

Notification: |DeltaGf= for Gibbs free energy is added to {{Chembox Thermochemistry}}, working. -DePiep (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Improved temperature options in Chembox[edit]

This is an updated proposal. An earlier proposal was not implemented

In {{chembox}}, we can show temperatures for melting point, boiling point, flash point and autoignition temperature. Their value can be in plain text (any text), or calculated into °C, °F, and K from a single value (in C, F or K). Calculating & formatting was changed in December 2013 ([6]), using the renewed (Lua) {{convert}}. Below is a next set of changes I propose for these four temperature values. I have added demo's and a preliminary documentation below. -DePiep (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Put on hold, waiting for a {{convert}} code change. -DePiep (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Implemented, except for the "single input" option (waiting for {{convert}}). -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Another new feature for many temperature types[edit]

{{Convert}} now automatically handles ranges, so we can scrap some of the fooH= fields. Compare:

legacy separate second parameter if range

|MeltingPtC = 10
|MeltingPtCH = 15

Properties
Melting point 10 to 15 °C (50 to 59 °F; 283 to 288 K)
+cat:Convert range input (R, temperatures)
range passed as single parameter

|MeltingPtC = 10-15

Properties
Melting point 10–15 °C (50–59 °F; 283–288 K)

Note that this is already available in {{Chembox Properties}} and anywhere else that relies on the low-level {{Chembox CalcTemperatures}} template for conversion and formatting. However, we should standardize the display syntax. If "to" is the preferred range signifier (and I do agree with that rather than the default "whatever the value uses", which would be some form of hyphen/dash as I assume one would most likely use in the value), I'm not sure {{convert}} supports that yet...

{{convert|10|to|15|C|C F K}} 10 to 15 °C (10 to 15 °C; 50 to 59 °F; 283 to 288 K)
{{convert|10-15|C|C F K}} 10–15 °C (10–15 °C; 50–59 °F; 283–288 K)
{{convert|10 to 15|C|C F K}} 10 to 15 °C (10 to 15 °C; 50 to 59 °F; 283 to 288 K)
{{convert|10-15|to|C|C F K}} [convert: invalid number]
{{convert|10-15|to| |C|C F K}} [convert: needs another number]

Passing the range-token without a second value (or with a null second value) doesn't work. Is there a named parameter we can use? DMacks (talk) 04:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting! Didn't even think of this. I agree, and don't see a complete solution.
Just noting. AFAIK, {{convert}} now is {{chembox}} used in the four temperature points only: Melting, Boiling, Flash, Autoignition (2 Properties and 2 Hazards). Didn't see other temperatures, didn't look for other candidate units.
I agree with aiming for the standard-format (and that being "to"). OTOH, we should not prevent an editor to use that dash-feature with its outcome. So an editor can start using the dash-input legally & correctly, since last December. This edit-friendly feature should prevail (we can always categorize them for a check btw). We could document it (publish it)?
How to proceed? I asked at Convert talk. With or without solution, we could proceed with the other changes if accepted. They are independend (so far), and the cleanup is worth moving fwd. I do not believe in advising for this in the documentation, i.e. advising to use one input format. -DePiep (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I remember why we should not allow dashes in the range output: makes negatives illegible.
|MeltingF=-50--30 → −46 – −34 °C; −50 – −30 °F; 228–239 K. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Working on this. Talking with {{convert}} people. Found out why DMacks knew about this ;-) .-DePiep (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Update. Looks like this nice improvement will work, but the core {{convert}} template has a bug with this. (Entering {{convert|-20 to -15|C|F}} today returns an error: −20 to −15 °C (−4 to 5 °F)). Expect this to be solved in a few weeks. Then we can use it in {chembox}. Very editor friendly! -DePiep (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

More on NFPA 704[edit]

I've been working on the NFPA diamond in chembox. The diamond now is centered, has codes wikilinked (clickable), and some whitespace below (white line) is removed.

Pages with unknown codes are listed in Category:Articles with unknown NFPA 704 code. Initially, this category had 34 entries. After removing wrong codes (like |NFPA-R=0), remaining entries could not be corrected directly (I found some codes NFPA-O=E, removed as non-existant. Should "E" be added to the list though? Electicity?). Needed is:

  1. Explicit option to create a blank (not default 0) for F, H and R. This will be implemented by option |NFPA-F=? (question mark). NFPA-O defaults to blank already.
  2. Another requirement is to add a reference option. For this, |NFPA_Ref= will be added. The reference link (like [7]) will show next to the diamond (not in the diamond).
  3. I kept the behaviour that the three numbers default to 0 (zero) (show the "0" when no value is entered for |NFPA-F=, three times). I am not sure that this is according to NFPA guidelines. We could set it to default to blank. Anyone knowing more?

These I will add the two options shortly. In the future, the basic diamond ideally will be merged with the {{NFPA 704}} out-of-chembox diamond, to reach similar appearance everywhere.

The works continue. -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Single {{NFPA 704 diamond}} available and used. Will be introduced in Chembox shortly. See Template_talk:NFPA_704_diamond#Overhaul and behaviour change for the changes.
Notice: behavior change. Codes default to "blank". Not code "0" any more. -DePiep (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

ATC code[edit]

The ATC code parameter doesn't appear to be displaying correctly anymore. I don't know if it broken in every instance of its use, but I've seen it in several articles (thiamine, for example). Perhaps, the edits by @DePiep: to {{Chembox Identifiers}} on March 15 are involved. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. It was from March 15 indeed. Edgar181@ thanks, good report. -DePiep (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix! -- Ed (Edgar181) 10:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Chembox code update 27 March 2014[edit]

Changes in the {{Chembox}} templates.

{{Chembox Thermochemistry}}
(m). sequence changed for new Gibbs free energy: [7]. Talkpage request. Potassium permanganate. -DePiep (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
{{Chembox Supplement}}
(m) -- added |data page pagename= to set overrule the default "pagename (data page)".
{Chembox} images
{{Chembox}} itself. And {{Chembox image}}, {{Chembox image cell}}, {{Chembox image sbs}}, {{Chembox image sbs cell}} (new).
Parameter cleanup: simple name, removed unuseed params (e.g., default width is set was already set to 200px etc.). Code reshuffle. In {Chembox} internally, re ordered al params for easier reading. Renamed some params "par_file" not "par_value" (internal change only).
Column widths
sbs (side-by-side) images now get true 50% width. Before, it was tugged into uneven widths (ugly for the eye). Because each column width was also set by text content below in the infobox. That is now separated. Images do listen to width (Size) settings, withpout disrupting the texts.
Another column width is set separately for the text columns. Default is |style-left-column-width=40%. This can be set in main Chembox.
Total box width is set by |width=. Default is 22em. With these two sizes settings plus individual image size setting, you can play with the layout.
{{NFPA 704 diamond}} added
The new general {NFPA 704 diamond} (see doc there) is used. Allows references. Via {{Chembox NFPA}}. Behaviour change: default value is "blank", not "0" any more. Does code checks.
Temperatures
Melt, Boil, Flash, Autoignite. Now all have params for prefix, temperature range, reference. That's ten params per value ;-). Reduction for easier input is to follow. But full support is there.
{{Chembox Footer}}
New subtemplate. It handles most footer jobs for the infobox: below texts, verification, ccategorisation (maintenance), column width style. This way less code in main {chembox}.
{{Chembox verification}}. Categorisation job moved to the footer (with other such jobs). All categorisation uses {{main other}}: no other pages more in the categories. Instead of categorising, these other spaces (like Draft:) now get a message: +cat:Eponymous image exists (image checks) (instead of the category).
Tracking categories
See Category:Chembox maintenance categories and WP:Chembox/Maintenance categories. More parameters are systematically tracked, useful to cleanup articles. -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
First results: no problems found with the changes. Though maintenance categorisation went a bit off: there were bad Unicode characters in the names, and the huge numbers made some listings useless. Bit this does not affect infobox presentation at all.
NFPA 704 shows nice(r) and has no individual issues any more (maintenance cat is empty). I like the improvement, also available for other templates.
Temperatures for melting, boiling, flash, autoignition points mostly are by {{convert}}, which also brings in uniform formatting. (The 'any text' option is available, and used in ~300 pages). This is the major improvement DMacks asked for last December. Flash and autoignition now take all fancy input too as melting had earlier: range, prefix, reference, notes (See documentation). Now remaining (or: introduced) there is the issue of ten parameters for a temperature value (sort of lol). That is to be addressed next. Target: single input option for our convert temperatures, that would be nice! At least we have quality controlled input now, correct & complete output, in mostly similar formats.
Image sizes and handling. Nicely, the paired images are given equal width by default now (Before, they were tugged and squeezed by the text content in the same columns below). We are in control. Default size is 200px for the lone ones, and 100px for a paired one. That means that only the exceptions need a size set |ImageSizeL1=80px, usually for stranger image proportions.
Infobox width & text column width is controlled by |width= and |style-left-column=. Best is to avoid individual settings. (note: this sizing required an empty row below the whole box, slightly visible. I find that acceptable given to other improvements is brings).
Documentation is being adjusted accordingly. New is {{Navbox Chembox}}.
Maintenance categories can be filled changingly, helping development.
Me happy. Since I know a lot of you take sharp looks at this box, and no complaints emerged, I am convinced we have improvements. Making these multiple changes without breaking the infobox makes me Smiley.svg. -DePiep (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It appears that some 400 article edits made today by me in AWB are suspect for changing image width into a wrong size. I am preparing a reversion. The bad effect is visual only: a pair of images showing uneven in positioning or proportion, so there is no fire brigade invited. -DePiep (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Format suggestions on images[edit]

Two suggestions:

  • Make table cell's vertical alignment "centered" for images cells. Or make an option for this. In this version of Ethanol, I think the upper right image and lower left image would look better vertically centered.
  • Reduce the horizontal "white space" (or "padding") between sides of images and edge of cells. In the previous link, the 4 images have about 2 pixels between their top edge and the top edge of their cell border, but have about 10 pixels between their sides and the sides of their cell border. Pixels isn't exactly the right word, and measurements like 2 and 10 change if you change rendering sizes, but I think in most browsers you will see around 5 times more white space on the sides of the image than at the top.
  • Maybe related to the last suggestion: reduce the horizontal "white space" (about ten pixels) between the right side of the [hide]/[show] after "Systematic name", "IUPAC name", or "Other names" so it is horizontally aligned with [hide]/[show] after "SMILES" and "InChI". For an example, again see the link to Ethanol.

––Agyle (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The chembox is set to 32em wide, and has class=infobox settings. The paired images are 100px size (wide) by default. A single image has size=200px by default. See section above for the changes (columns separation). It is possible to change the defaults (chembox width of image defaults, or both). Setting image width in the article page should only be done to deviate from a default with reason.
An unexplored issue is the image caption (text below). That can push an image wider. We'd rather have that controlled (to image width maximum). I'd rather have this solved before changing the chembox layout. DePiep (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The "new" layout has a box in the bottom[edit]

There is a white box in the bottom of the infobox. Why? (mistake?) Christian75 (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A necessity, which I found acceptable given the profits it brings. It is where the column widths are set for the two textual columns.
  • Before last week, Chembox simply had two columns. In there were both the paired images L+R, and the texts. Their width was determined by the algorithm that used text widths and those image widths. It ended up as a compromise, squeezing some texts and displacing the image middle line. The images ended up being given uneven space. This was a pain to the eye at best, and ugly for sure. This was sort of outside of control.
  • The new chembox puts the paired images in a separate subbox (a subtable, which is technically put in a column=2 row in the infobox). Within that subbox they can arrange their own space, true 50/50 widths by default.
Meanwhile in the infobox, the two columns widths are left for the texts. Their column width is an outcome of these texts only. At first, left free in testing, it appeaared that the lefthand column was reduced to a small width, and the data values given more width. I then decided to set the LH column to width=40% as default. For the RH column is left 60% then. (before, it looked like LH ~45% I guess). The values now have a little more space (whitespace), I preferred because of better legibility (not too cramped, with these numbers).
  • To set and control the column width, there must be a 2-column row present. But where? All sections values are optional, so there was no guarantee in there. I added an empty row to the bottom. That is what you see. It is where the column-width is set.
This way we do control most of these width settings.
  • That column width can be set per article by |style-left-column-width=50%, a chembox parameter (top level, not a section thing).
You can experiment with the parameter as you like (sandbox, draft). Its big brother friend is |width=, for the infobox (default=32em).
Image widths are detailed in the sections above.
  • The default setting can be set changed of course, for all 10k chemboxes that is. That is a matter of personal preference too and so should be discussed here.
-DePiep (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Consideration: for many pages, there are two rows (one for verification status, one for 'disclaimer') - use those two rows and convert them to the 40/60 columns (use the left box for 'verification status' (red cross if CheMoBot has not added a verified revid, green tick if it did) and the right box for the disclaimer (always there))? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Verification row is not always there. Changin the 'disclaimer' (standard state notice, I understand) was always there but now can be opted out by the editor (|show_ss_notice=no. Editor in control, to not add when nonsensical). I could not make the prose sentence into two boxes. And last time I changed the brackets in this row, there was a riot for no-consensus so I'm staying away from that.
Better: change the template to Lua infobox.
Higher priority: how to handle larger captions with the images (now: widens the chembox (bad), hardcoded settings for textual input are done (bad)). -DePiep (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Image size[edit]

In {{Chembox image sbs cell}} the default size is |sizedefault=200px, why not remove this line? If we do so the defaultsize is the thumbnail size which a logged in user can change in their preferences. Otherwise I will suggest we change it to 220 px which is the normal thumbnail size. Christian75 (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It says |sizedefault=100px twice (sbs=side-by-side images).
{{Chembox image cell}} has |sizedefault=200px. These were the long time default sizes (not changed recently).
Primarily they should be kept the same in total (single image = twice sbs image). When going full chembox width (see below), the 2+2px midpadding in the sbs row could matter. Enlarging the width also affects the heights by the same proportion. This is substantial when there are two or three rows of pictures.
I don't think we need to use "thumbnail" default size. More important for the result is the infobox (chembox) width. Any size should flow nice in the 32px size set. Keeping or changing the 32em width is part of the topic too. That said, at 32em there seems whitespace to enlarge to about 220px (110px) - in my screen.
But first we must solve this. At the moment, a caption (text below image) can widen the image by itself. That way any width setting is useless, and the chembox ends up being unevenly wide (widening caption of course mostly occurs with sbs images). -DePiep (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Christian75 Agyle. I am not reluctant to go into the image setting issues you opened up. It is just that I want to see the new situation stabilized first, with documentation and maintenance categories and all. After that, I expect I'll be happy to produce new demos and sandboxes by the dozen :-) . Meanwhile, pages like {{Chembox/testcases}} and Draft:Chembox demo are available for experiments with the already available parameters. -DePiep (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, I appreciate all your work on Chembox. :-) Regarding the cell width, can't you just set the width of a table cell for the caption? For example in this sandbox page, I put the captions in width:100px cells, to match the 100px ImageSize set in the Chembox, so text can't affect the width of the cells. Or is that too browser-specific? ––Agyle (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, somehow that's the way to go. I was thinking about setting (restricting) the width for that caption text only, internally. Not the whole image. -DePiep (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hardness[edit]

Couldn't Mohs scale of mineral hardness be included in this template? - Technophant (talk) 03:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion about relevance of this one. But if & when added, should it look like this?:
In section: Properties. Input |MohsHardness= (expect 0–>10 dimensionless; with decimals)
Mohs hardness 9.5
Row position in {{Chembox Properties}}: below all others?
-DePiep (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Add: row position. -DePiep (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Upgrading external jmol[edit]

Do we have an official contact for the Jmol applet server at chemapps.stolaf.edu used by the "Image 1", etc. extlinks that are generated by {{Chembox SMILES}}? It is currently serving a java applet, but Jmol now also has a javascript applet. Switching to javascript would improve portability of the chembox (allow 3D model display) onto platforms that don't support (or have disabled for various reasons) java. DMacks (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with changing it .. I think this is a good idea. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
My current roadblock is figuring out if that server already has a js equivalent available, or else who to talk to about it. Do you know how we got hooked up with them and who there was involved? I can't find it in the wikichem-IRC or WT:CHEM archives. DMacks (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know anymore either. Not even sure if we had a contact there. User:Walkerma, do you know? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the person to talk to will be Bob Hanson ([[8]]) the principal developer of Jmol (and JSmol) who as you may notice also works at the same institution that the current server hosting the Jmol app is based. I'm just making an educated guess here but he would seem to be the best bet. --The chemistds (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is indeed Bob Hanson. If you need me to contact him, I can. Walkerma (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks like it's been upgraded on their server, no need for us to change anything. Looks great on ipad now. Yay! DMacks (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Chembox to work more useful for eponymous files[edit]

Template:Chembox preforms a check on whether an eponymous file exists. That is, for example, whether for article Ammonia a file Ammonia.gif, .png, .svg or .jpg exists (ammonia.gif does). If so, that article is added to Category:Chemical pages with an eponymous image available. Currently, the ere are 5674 eponymous files found, for 9840 chembox transclusion (~57%).

Following a discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diadinoxanthin.png, we can optimise this file check. It better only be done when no file image is used at all (so there is an automated hint to use the eponymous file, through the category). The template will work like this:

When no image is entered at all in an article chembox, template:chembox will look for eponymous images with extensions gif, svg, png and jpg. If there exists one, the page will be added to Category:Chemical pages with an eponymous image available.

Technically, the test is performed in template:Chembox Footer. And: the category will contain only a few pages, not 5000+. Also the original problem in the commons link will be reduced: the image appears "in use" while only being checked for existance - that will be gone too -- except for those listed. -DePiep (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done [9] -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
ping @DMacks, Leyo: -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for tracking down and fixing it! The other one I was watching, commons:File:Isosorbide.png in en:Isosorbide, is now also cleared. DMacks (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
+1. BTW: Category:Chemical pages with an eponymous image available is almost empty. --Leyo 00:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Good, also remember #ifexist is a expensive parser function, see mediawikiwiki:Ifexist#ifexist_limits Christian75 (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
re Leyo: yes, 27 now. These are actually pages that could use a image, but we do not know if the eponymous image is a molecule structure. Someone might do a sweep.
re Chrtistian75: expensive indeed, but for me that is not a reason to remove it. (500 expensives are allowed on a page, and below that number I do not restrict anything by myself). -DePiep (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Of the 21 articles that remain, several are supposed not to have an image or even not a chembox at all (Silylene, Phosphite). --Leyo 20:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been adding images when they show a structure. See my user contributions. Remove & edit these chemboxes as you think good. -DePiep (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, there is no need to edit after a removal. Or before. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
re: DePiep; Maybe not a reason not to use #ifexist, but its a reason not to use it careless - it is slow. Christian75 (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Element-ordering in chemical formula[edit]

When using the "automatic" formula method ({{Chembox Properties|C=2|H=5}}, the results appear to display according to Hill order (C...H...everything-else-alphabetically). It's actually generated by an inner template: {{Chembox Elements|C=2|H=5|Cl=1}} gives:

Molecular formula C2H5Cl
Molar mass 64.514 g mol−1

When there are no carbons, Hill says H goes in its place strictly alphabetically. But {{Chembox Elements|B=1|H=3}} gives:

Molecular formula H3B
Molar mass 13.835 g mol−1

still "C/H first". DMacks (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And now I see this was already discussed last April here (#Hill system). But that answer sounds like the implementation has changed, or else I'm misunderstanding...something. There, the problem was that Hill was not being applied because NOCONSENSUS for inorganics (presumably "contains carbon" for this context?). But now it looks like it is being applied, but is being misapplied for inorganics that happen to contain hydrogen. But {{Chembox Elements}} has not been changed in any relevant way since that discussion. @Edgar181: could you explain or clarify what you were remembering (or what you can now re-determine)? Regardless, we should figure out what's happening now and document it (possibly after changing what's happening now if we don't like it). DMacks (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't follow yet. DM writes: "Hill was not being applied because NOCONSENSUS for inorganics". But in #Hill system, Edgar181 writes "there is consensus to use the Hill system for organic compounds, but not necessarily for inorganics". So Edgar writes that there is consensus to "not necessarily" us Hill in inorganics. If we take Edgar's wording as the rules to be applied here at enwiki, it is not illegal to have "H" opening an inorganic formule. And currently, the Chembox implies the rules correctly in that it uses the freedom of "not necessarily" to the effect of '... but by my choice I do'. So in inorganics, Chembox puts H as a prefix. ({{Chembox Elements}} does not check for organic/inorganic, not now and not in 2010).
Topic limitation: for organics, Hill's rule is applied and there is no issue. Also, when an editor enters a |Formule= it is by the editor that the sequence is set. OTOH, shouldn't this issue also include "C when no H is present" (as an inorganic formule)?
Moving forward now. I understand that DMacks proposes to apply Hill's rules for inorganics in Chembox. There is no explicit discussion into non-/consensus found. I don't think we should to rely on memories. IOW, we can discuss DMacks proposal. -DePiep (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
My point is that I do not know what standard calls for H first in inorganic cases. That is, are we actually following a common method from chemical literature? I agree that we are not currently using hill for inorganics, and I accept that there might be no consensus to do so, but I'm trying to understand the basis for what we are doing. DMacks (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Clear, and in fewer words. Let's forget what we do/did. Let's base our guideline on what Hill system says. But the linked article is bad (incorrect & incomplete even). I cannot get the 1900 Hill text. Anyway still, we best aim at "use Hill". -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Triple or critical point of molecules?[edit]

Molecules have triple points, and they also have critical points. Those points represent when there is enough pressure for all 3 states of matter to exist, and when there is enough pressure that the gas and liquid states blend together, respectively. So can somebody add those parameters? DSCrowned (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You mean: triple point, by two parameters: pressure and temperature. And Critical point (thermodynamics) can be multiple for a substance ? (added question mark; DP). Which which ones should we include, and which parameters go with that? Also, is there a need to add it? -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Inter wiki[edit]

I've just copied all relevant templates to cy, I should think a good 80 of them. It looks good and thanks to all for really hard work. Just a suggestion: can you please keep in mind the other languages when creating the next draft! There must be a way of creating a file of all relevant templates that could be 'dumped' into another language wiki. If only life was that simple - I suppose I want it on a plate! Thanks again. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify. Did you copy the whole {{chembox}} set? (that is more like 146 subtemplates, see Category:Chembox templates)? Did you translate the (English) parameters like "| |IUPACName=", and why would that be a problem? In general, I do not understand what changes you would like to the English {{Chembox}} (next draft). If it helps inter wiki translation, we sure can do that. -DePiep (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
cy is Welsh. cy:wikipedia has Latin script. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes in {infobox element}[edit]

We have some 125 element infoboxes (see Category:Periodic table infobox templates). I have prepared changes to change the box into a wiki-standard {{Infobox}}. See Change_Infobox_element_to_use_{Infobox} for an overview and comments. Some questions are open.

You can check your favorite element for changes (e.g., fluorine). An all-parameter demo is here. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have finalised the new version, it is about ready to go live by now. Check some value-formatting or element showing if you like. If you have any questions, ask me.
To compare: (page Template:Infobox <element>/testcases):
. -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)