Template talk:Chembox

Weird ref format

See Sodium bromite: data "3Dmet 3D JSmol model" has ref links in its left? "[3][4][5]: Interactive image"-DePiep (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Template needs |SIMLES_ref= to differentiate from current |SIMLES_Comment=, used differently in SMILES and JSmol. Temporally ~solved in the article. -DePiep (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Add MetaCyc identifier in the list of Identifiers for Compounds

We would like to add MetaCyc identifier in the list of Identifiers for Compounds. MetaCyc is highly curated database. The links to MetaCyc already exist from the EC numbers for example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyridoxal_oxidase. How can I add these links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anko04 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What would be the addition, information-wise spoken? MetaCyc does not have much secondary sources, so ity might be up for deletion (like we had for 3DMet recently). Also, who is "we"? -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, "we" are the group that created MetaCyc and continues its curation on an ongoing basis - the Bioinformatics Research Group at SRI International. We believe that adding these links to MetaCyc compound pages will be very beneficial to Wikipedia users. Unlike many other compound databases (e.g. ChEBI), MetaCyc compound pages, in addition to the usual details, also contain all of the biochemical reactions that the compounds are known to participate in. For example, if you go to the L-tryptophan page (https://biocyc.org/compound?orgid=META&id=TRP#tab=showAll) and scroll down, you will see many dozens of reactions in which L-tryptophan participates. Those reactions are hyper link, so it only takes one more click to see a full diagram of the balanced reaction, including atom mapping between the reactants and products. To the right of each reaction, if applicable, is a hyperlink to a pathway in which the reaction participates. If you scroll even further down, you will find a list of all the enzymes of which L-tryptophan is known to be an effector (e.g. an inhibitor), followed by the relevant references. In short, we really think that linking to compounds in MetaCyc will provide a lot of additional information that is not easily obtained otherwise. Rcaspi (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I find the question still appropriate, but first a bit unfriendly necessary notice. I must note possible COI's wrt the MetaCyc topic. Rcaspi, Pkarp11, Anko04 are notified on their talkpage. This may sound unwelcoming, but as WP:DISCLOSE describes this is for encyclopedial integrity, not distrust. I note that you are open about this relationship with MetaCyc. -DePiep (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Some considerations. We have Category:Biological databases (452), Category:Chemical databases (49) articles in WP. Also, outside ar hundreds (thousands?) more. We can and should not add all these as external links, let alone in the infobox (in top) that {{Chembox}} is. We are not a linkfarm, not a directory, not an indiscriminate list of info. I am not claiming here that MetaCyc is one of those, but we must check inclusion of MetaCyc data it against these standards (as with other external links). Also, it is/would be an external link, not information or a source for article body text information. That requires more additional value to be included.

Similarities 3DMet: recently, we have removed the article 3DMet for lack of notability (discussion here), but somehow not its external link in {{Chembox}} (discussion here). I am still not convinced that link should be kept, and similar reasoning could apply here.

It is up to the WP:CHEMISTRY, WP:WikiProject Biology-related WikiProjects, ... community here to flesh out this criteria.

About Wikidata: meanwhile, one could consider adding the property to Wikidata (MetaCyc (Q692423)) as MetaCyc ID (3DMet ID example added in the box here). This is an independent route (independent of {{Chembox}} including), and might be more appropriate for automated mass editing, maintenance and publishing (for example, in the future a Wikidata-generated external link list could be included in compound articles).

Tech questions: which identifier does a compound have, and is there a URL-formatting line to get to a compond's item page (API)? -DePiep (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Found the API introduction. Relates to BioCyc and EcoCyc. -DePiep (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

LOL Asking for directions: Q: How to get the object ID to link to?" A: "The easiest way to get the object ID is to just go to the the web page that you want to link to and copy the URL from there". -DePiep (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

More on tech: link (below) is dead, maybe [1]. I also would like to learn what is the relationship between BioCyc, EcoCyc and MetaCyc. Especially why we should add a MetaCyc ID link, but not the others. (I'd expect to use the most general database). BTW, the link is dead but maybe biocyc homepage is an entrance. It looks like there are two identifiers: for example L-tryptophan has "META" and "TRP". -DePiep (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Let me try and address the concerns that you have raised. First, concerning COI: as you pointed out, we do not try to hide who we are. We believe that adding these links will be useful for Wikipedia users, and to the best of our understanding there isn't an ethical problem that should prevent us from initiating this process.

Regarding why add links to MetaCyc and not to the hundereds of other chemical databases: note that MetaCyc is somewhat unique in being not just a chemical compound database, but also a reaction and metabolic pathway database. Thus it provides a lot of additional yet relevant information for chemical compounds compared with a plain chemical compound database, even if the latter is an excellent resource such as ChEBI. The only similar resource available to my knowledge is KEGG, which by the way is included in Chembox. Yet, KEGG does not have the visual clarity that exists in MetaCyc (color-coded fully balanced reactions with the full structures of the compounds, including atom mapping), and KEGG contains less reactions that MetaCyc. So I repeat my initial motivation - links to MetaCyc will indeed enrich the data content available to Wikipedia users, in ways none of the other hundreds (or thousands) of chemical databases can provide.

I would also point out that MetaCyc has been around for a very long time (started in 1998) and has become a very well known and heavily used resource. In the discussion about 3DMet I find "The journal article introducing 3DMet has only 10 citations on Google Scholar and 4 on Web of Science, compared to 1,015 GS citations and 683 by the publisher's database for the journal article introducing PubChem." The articles describing MetaCyc have been cited over 2500 times, far more than PubChem (I can provide the list if required). Besides, important databases such as ChEBI, ExplorEnz (the Enzyme Commission database) and Uniprot already link to MetaCyc.

Regarding your tech question: To ensure the link is live, I will an example: the URL for compound with id "TRP" is [2]. As for how to get the IDs - I can see why you are laughing at the comment from the web page, but keep in mind that this was meant for people who want to link to just a few items, and do not want to spend time figuring out how to do it systematically. There are several ways to get the MetaCyc compound IDs. One way is to download a SmartTable of all compounds from MetaCyc, which would include the compound name, its MetaCyc ID and any other fields you may specify, such as IDs in other databases. There is also a metabolite translation service at https://metacyc.org/metabolite-translation-service.shtml where one can submit a list of compounds using names, IDs in other databases etc and get the MetaCyc ID back. When it comes to that, we should be able to help with the mapping. Rcaspi (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

More tech remarks above. -DePiep (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

More answers: I know all these Cyc's can be confusing, so here is an explanation. MetaCyc is a general database of metabolism from all organisms. It has by far the most compounds/reactions/metabolic pathways, as those are assembled from published information gathered from bacteria, archaea, fungi, plants, and animals. MetaCyc is used by the Pathway Tools software to infer the metabolic network of organisms with a sequenced genome, generating a specific Pathway/Genome Database (PGDB) for each one. The collection of the (currently more than 14,000) PGDBs is named BioCyc. So each BioCyc PGDB has only a subset of the compounds, reactions, and pathways that are found in MetaCyc, which is relevant for the specific organism (but in addition has the genomic information of that organism, something MetaCyc does not have). Thus, it makes sense to link chemical compounds only to MetaCyc, because it has the richest collection of this data. EcoCyc is just one of the 14,000 PGDBs in BioCyc, for E. coli K12. It stands out because it is arguably the best-curated database for any organism, having been manually curated for many years by many curators. Rcaspi (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I ask all WikiProject participants to judge this request: does adding the external link to MetaCyc (or BioCyc, EcoCyc) add relevant information? -DePiep (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Content arguments are in paragraph "Regarding why add links to MetaCyc ...". -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Converting template to use Template:Infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Initiator has apparently decided they are not interested in having this discussion, as they removed it[3] with the comment "nevermind". DMacks (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Should {{Chembox}} be converted to use {{Infobox}} as a base?

I wanted to initiate a discussion about converting this template over to use the standard layout provided by {{Infobox}}. There are a number of reasons for this change:

• {{Infobox}} is one of the most widely used and well documented templates on here.
• This change would make the infobox much easier to maintain and improve on over time
• {{Infobox}} conforms much better to MOS:ACCESS including issues with displaying on mobile devices.
• {{Infobox}} provides a standard and consistent look and feel across all infoboxes on the wiki. {{Chembox}} is one of the last remaining Infobox style templates that is not using {{Infobox}} as a base.

A couple of points that I want to emphasize right off the bat.

NO information would be lost.

As far as I'm concerned any implementation/conversion that would result in ANY data being lost is a non-starter. This discussion is 100% about restructuring and redesigning the layout so that it is more user friendly. If anyone (myself included) feels that there is some information that should be added to or removed from the infobox, that is fine but that should be a separate conversation and not part of this discussion. This includes things like auto-conversion and auto-categorization. The ONLY change I am talking about is to the layout. Other than that, there should be no functional changes as part of this RFC.

It is too much work is not a valid objection.

In a number of these discussions I have seen people object to a proposal simply because it will require too much work. I feel very strongly that this is not a valid objection. If you feel it is too much work, then you do not need to participate. However, if you are worried that because of the amount of work involved, something might be broken, that IS something to bring up, but please be specific about your concerns.

It could break is also not a valid reason to object.

Similarly the concern that it could go wrong is not a reason to object to the entire process. IF this process were to move forward, there would be a large number of people involved and we would all work together to make sure that nothing breaks. So please don't object to the proposal just because you are worried something might go wrong. If you have concerns, ABSOLUTELY raise those concerns! Part of the reason I am doing this as an RFC instead of just building the template is that I want to and need to hear from other people. There is no way I can envission all the issues myself. So, for example, please don't say "I object to the proposal because I'm worried it will break pages with <some characteristic>". Instead, if you support the change but are concerned that it will break stuff, it would be very helpful to say "I support this change as long as we consider the case of <some special case here>".

I am very interested in hearing opinions on both side of this, that is both people in favor of changing the format and those opposed to doing so. My one request is whatever side you are on, please be specific in your feedback. For example, don't say "Kill it! Time to eliminate this cruddy layout". Instead say "{{Infobox}} is much more userfriendly and would add value to this template." Likewise if you object, don't just say "If it ain't broke don't fix it", say "I'm concerned that if we try to convert such a complex template ______ may happen."

If you have any questions, comments or concerns for me directly, please don't hesitate to either {{ping}} me below or post on my talk page! Looking forward to a good discussion. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The proposal - {{Chembox}} should be converted to use {{Infobox}} as a base and moved to {{Infobox chemical}}

Please post your comments below!

Comments

• @Zackmann08: What is your brief and neutral statement? Please observe how it appears in the RfC listings. Remember that Legobot copies everything from the {{rfc}} template down to the next timestamp. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
• I don't get how this is an RfC. Nobody would disagree. (BTW, this suggestion has been discussed before, e.g., one month ago, initiated by... Zackmann08). Actually, this is a "how to" question, which better be left to engaged & involved editors (not armchair RfC commenters). Worse is this: the wording "should be" is commanding sense, and for this I would not step into a multi-month multi-issue multi-editors task because of the risk of being commanded to do certain things. In short: this conversion should be initiated by involved, hands-on editors only, without outside 'you should do' interference. The better track I envision is a strong cooperation, heavily using a talkpage, not an RfC. -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: I am more than happy to withdraw the RFC... I wasn't trying to cause problems. Was actually trying to do things the right way... I've been getting all sorts of flak for my work on {{Geobox}} because I'm not asking for enough input from others. If you'd like me withdraw the rfc I'm happy to do that. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Invalid RfC, no clear question asked. Aow chembox makes use of subtemplates in a specific way, if that structure cannot be maintained I am against conversion. Don't fix things if it isnotbroken. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: first of all there was a clear question asked... The question was Should {{Chembox}} be converted to use {{Infobox}} as a base?. Second, you clearly didn't read the RFC because you just did exactly what the RFC said NOT to do which was to use a completely erroneous argument. No one is suggesting creating a template that cannot be maintained. You literally quoted the exact phrase that said not to use "if it ain't broke don't fix it". That misses the point completely and doesn't address the question. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Convert to Infobox (for realz this time)

Howdy all! So after some consideration, I'm seriously considering working on converting this over to use {{Infobox}}. I want to see who might be interest in helping out with this process? There are 2 main things we will need:

1. People willing to help write test cases to compare {{Chembox}} to the new converted solution
2. People willing actually dig in and write code for the new solution

Couple of things I want to make clear to all those concerned:

1. No changes will be rolled out until consensus is reached! I don't want anyone concerned that they are going to login one day and find a radically changed template. No way that will happen.
2. This will definitely be a long process. Anyone who has looked at this template knows it is a complicated one. This will not happen overnight!
3. Everyone will have a chance to weigh in. Right now I'm basically looking to build a task force. Hopefully I can get 10-20 people together who are willing to commit some time to this. That being said, once a working proof of concept has been made, I plan to SLOWLY roll it out giving anyone and everyone a chance to weigh in a raise concerns.
4. You don't have to join the task force to raise concerns. Finally, I want to be clear, if you don't join the task force, that doesn't mean you don't get to weigh in! ANYONE can raise concerns. The taskforce is just going to be people who are willing to devote time to addressing the concerns raised and implementing them.

So to summarize, right now just looking to get some names of people who are willing to join the not-yet-named Chembox taskforce. If you have concerns about the entire process, please make some notes, but right now, if possible can we just discuss who wants to be part of the process?? Thanks all!! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll help. I'm not the best with templates, but I'm decent. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 19:03, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@AfroThundr3007730: Thanks!!! So I've got a working proof of concept at {{Infobox chemical}}. Really need some feedback on it. I've got the technical side of the template covered so if you aren't comfortable with editing it, please don't worry. That isn't really where I need help. The help that I need is in finding the holes. What is missing. What is still broken? What needs more work? Etc. If anything jumps out at you as not looking right, please let me know. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Count me in. Sounds like fun. (And yes, that is semi-ironic, but I seem to have a penchant for painful, rewarding endeavours). ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: awesome! Welcome to the party! See the message I left AfroThundr above. Same thing from you would be great. Take a look and give me any thoughts you have? Once we get a few more people to chime in I'll post a message to everyone. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Conversion Update

So just an update for anyone interested. We have a working replacement for {{Chembox}} at {{Infobox chemical}}. Eagerly looking for feedback on what needs additional work before we roll it out. I've posted in a number of places but have only gotten a few people to chime in.

Improvements

• Reduces WP:OVERLINK & MOS:DUPLINK. Nearly every label in {{Chembox}} is linked including things like Eye Hazard.
• In line with WP:ACCESSIBILITY. There are certainly places that things are showing up much bigger than before, but this follows the requirements of WP:ACCESSIBILITY.
• Fewer templates to maintain. {{Chembox}} has separate templates for nearly every single row in the table, adding up to well over 200 separate templates. WAY more than is necessary.
• Builds on the style, look and feel of {{Infobox drug}}. The Infobox drug template, formally known as {{Drugbox}} was also converted to use {{Infobox}}. This one uses many of the same styles and subtemplates as that.
• Implements much better Check for unknown params. The use of Module:TemplatePar is fine, but it has a much more narrow scope and is not nearly as well documented or maintained as Module:Check for unknown parameters.
• From the editors point of view, works the same. These templates will work exactly the same as the {{Chembox}} series of templates. NO parameters have changed. So apart from having to call {{Infobox chemical}} instead of {{Chembox}}, there is no change to how editors will use the templates. No new parameters & no new syntax. As per the other points made here, there are certainly some stylistic changes to how the template renders, but I want to be clear that for the editor, nothing new except for calling a different template.

Once again, really eager for any and all feedback. Please be sure to look at the testcases as well! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"before we roll it out". Therefore I have un-marked the existing one as deprecated. If you persist in rolling out a major change that multiple editors have voiced concerns about, you will find yourself blocked for disruption and bad-faith claims of consensus. DMacks (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

WOW DMacks. Talk about WP:AGF... Trying my best here. How about you join the discussion instead of just accusing me and threatening me with blocks? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Disruption is disruption. A major change after others voice concerns (I did and others did as well, even though you explicitly said you were not even interested in receiving such input), and with a major rollout rather than first small-sale testing or even notice that it's happening to the stakeholders is on its face disruptive. WP:CONSENSUS and all that. DMacks (talk) 03:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: I second DMacks in that: Your behaviour here is disruptive. You are insistent in stuffing this down throats: You start a discussion where many concerns are brought forward, to which you never responded. Then start an RfC with an attempt to shut down any response you don't like. And when that RfC does not go your way, you delete it, and start to convert it yourself. Then you comment, but again do not address cncerns, you go on and mark it as deprecated, and subsequently for deletion withour informing major contributors and the wikiprojects, let alone properly testing it. That behaviour is disruptive. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra:[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and the list goes on. I reached out to you both individually asking for your concerns. Instead, you accused me of stuffing something down your throats. I have reverted the deprecation notice. I admit that was preemptive. Now, I have asked for concerns. Instead of just accusing me of being disruptive, can you provide some feedback on the template? Have you even looked at it? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: no, I did not have time with you leaving notices over black Friday/Thanksgiving weekend and pushing for deprecation and even deletion. Can you see how we feel you are stuffing this down our throat: First you do not respond to first concerns, then you put up an RfC where you pre-emptively disqualify any answer you don't like (and then delete it), and now you leave notices over the weekend, expecting editors to respond within 24 hours and already put it up for deletion. And you conveniently leave out the initial discussion and RfC from above list. I am sorry, a spade ISa spade: What you have done here is disruptive (even if possibly well-intended) (and especially since it seems that your TfD is in response to the removal of the deprecation, which appears very pointy). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Beetstra and DMacks: ok look. Clearly I made a few missteps in this process. Let me apologize for being hasty. Let me also apologize for ANY appearance or implication that I was not open to feedback. There is absolutely no intention to stuff this down anyone's throat. From my point of view, I tried my best to notify people and only removed an RfC when multiple people said the RfC was simply disruptive. I was not trying to hide the comments, I just got frustrated being called an armchair commentator, etc. I don't think it is helpful to go back over past actions. If you want to then by all means you can bring up the mistakes I've made and we can fight over whether I did this properly or not. Etc. Etc. OR, we can work together? I think that the new template I have created will meet the needs of all those interested. That being said, I'm sure there are minor things that I have not thought of. That is why I have asked for feedback from you and other experts in the Chemistry project. There are about 50 or so chemical pages that I manually switched over to use the new template. This were part of the testing process. I scrutinized the before and after and could not find any differences that weren't necessary per WP:ACCESS. However, I'm happy to personally revert each of those changes if you feel it is necessary.

Regarding the TFD, I think it might be helpful to keep the TFD to initiate the DISCUSSION and attract more attention to the process. However, if you feel it is premature, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Again, I am sorry if my tactics in the past sent the wrong message. I would like to start fresh and work WITH you. I'm going to take a step back. There is no timetable here and that is something I keep forgetting. I'm a "full steam ahead! This works great LETS DO IT!" Kind of guy. I need to stop and slow down. I hope that both of you, and others, will work with us to finish up this template so that it will work for everyone. I'm going to walk away from the keyboard for the night because I'm frustrated and don't want to type anything else when I'm in a bad mood. But I sincerely hope we can bury the past and work together. I truly value any input you have. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: withdraw your TfD, give concerned editors and wikiprojects a 1-3 month time to test and consider, and let someone else pull final triggers. You have upset quite some editors this weekend. Step away from implementation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the TFD. Sorry for the issues that I caused. If anyone has any questions for me, please feel free to ping me. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

21 days ago the last post was posted here, and since the new template has been used on 20++ articles before DePiep reverted it a few hours ago. It was used on complicated pages like ammonia and diethyl ether, and as infobox for hazards for some elements. It had nearly the same output as the old template, and most important, nobody has been complaining about the template the last 20 days. DePiep reverted without any explanation except "Infobox version not fit nor supported for mainspace". I propose that we switch to the new template which is much less complicated then the old one. It does not have 100+ subtemplates. E.g. diethyl ether with {{infobox chemical}} uses 162 templates, but same page with {{[[Template:|]]}} uses 220 templates. Which means its much easier to maintain, and it has the same layout as other infoboxes on Wikipedia. Christian75 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I agree with the reversal of the templates, at least the ones by User:Zackmann08 - most of them were converted while in testing mode, where the templates were still under active discussion and (IMHO disruptively) marked as deprecated and subsequently TfD'd (last conversion in mainspace is after withdrawing the TfD, and I believe that we mentioned that we would not want 10.000+ edits to articles, let template-redirects handle it. IF we want it in the first place.

My suggestion, open an RfC, let it run for 30 days (great, after this whole disruptive push over Thanksgiving weekend, we now get an RfC over X-mas break ... ). Let's see what people think. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd like to have an overview of actual changes, not just global mentionings as this thread does. Especially those that affect the result (eg visually, content, behaviour). Assumptions and judgements ("x is improved") better be written out to be scrutinised. All this should be on or through this talkpage. There should be testcases. Also, I am missing the grand design setup: the future of {{Chembox}}. (Simple example, why should we edit the articles to apply name change? Why was Redirect not considered?). - DePiep (talk) 11:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: using the redirect was suggested at the TfD here .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

:-). This is just a detail of a general change design, now missing. For the current version as it is, dearly absent is the discussion of actual changes. I could go search & list them myself, but that only strengthens the notion that we must pull off such talks, instead of being offered them by the T:-editor(s). IOW, not convinced that such talks would be effective or taken serious. This constellation is why I feel not invited to spend extra time on this. -DePiep (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Zackmann08. -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Critical point

Why don't we put the critical temperature and pressure in? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. I'll prepare |CriticalTP= in old {{Chembox}}. See /testcases9.

Positioning: propose in section Propserties, following melting point and boilong point.

|CriticalTP= has free input (any input text will show, unedited). That is, the editor is expected to write the desired outcome: values, units, conversions, text separator T-P, reference. Later on we could apply standard formatting/simplified input).

-DePiep (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Eric Kvaalen See /testcases9 (ammonia demo). Could be in section Thermodynamics instead?

I hope you like the single-input here. Allows you to spell out the values (even use {{Convert}} as desired), without having to bother about parameter names & details (as m.p. and b.p. have). Comments? - DePiep (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Looks fine to me. Thanks. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 14 December 2018

• Please copy/paste all sandbox code into the live template: {{Chembox Properties/sandbox}} → {{Chembox Properties}}. (Note that this is not about main template {{Chembox}}).

Change: adding parameter option |CriticalTP= (critical point temperature and pressure). Test/demo in /testcases9 (first section).

Per request, proposal & consensus: #Critical_point. -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC) DePiep (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The deviation

@DePiep: I'll leave it to you to update the documentation. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zackmann08. Updating the documentation was not part of my request, so there is no need to "ask" me to do so. And after all, I have been maintaining the whole {{Chembox/doc}} extensively for six years (check, [17]) consistently. I'm fine, and I also want to note that I do not like your jab with the ":-)" at all. (Usually I would thank an editor in this point for taking care. But alas). -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: oh for god's sake. Are you incapable of assuming good faith?! The smile was meant as a friendly message!!! Why do you choose to assume I'm taking a jab!? All I meant was "hey I updated the template, but I'll let you take care of the documentation"? Jesus man. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Stop hiding behind "AGF" for each and every dirty dish you serve. Quite simple: there was no need in any way or sense you had to write that after-post [18]. Or was there? - DePiep (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Believe it or not, my only attempt was to be friendly. I'm sorry you chose to take it another way. Please do not contact me again in any way. I will not reply to any of your posts anymore and will refrain from fulfilling edit requests. It is clear my help or attempts at moving forward are neither appreciated or welcomed. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

You just met an (edit conflict). You deleted my edit [19]. Please reinstall my edit. -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to ping, you=Zackmann08. -DePiep (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I've restored your deletion myself [20]. Thank you for "taking care", I say cynically. Zackmann08. -DePiep (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

DePiep I don't really understand how to update the documentation. There seem to be two things, Chembox and Infobox chemical. Can you take care of it? By the way, I don't see why you got mad at the other guy. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It's OK, I will take a look later on. -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if I can help you, Eric Kvaalen. -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

DePiep Thanks. But I have figured out how to fix the fact that there was no comment to the right explaining. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Outdated ombox message

At the top of Template:Chembox/doc is:

"This template may be suitable for conversion to use {Infobox} as a base." Really?? Such a conversion is actually underway - shouldn't that be mentioned? I wouldn't want someone to start another "conversion" effort, given that one is nearing completion (live, but still "not accepted").

So I added another ombox below it:

"A version that uses {Infobox} has been prepared at {Infobox chemical}." Mostly FYI, but it seems to be seen as "promotion" of the new version. I didn't think a few more invoking pages (new or edits) could hurt. Idunno. One thanked the edit, but another removed it twice. Maybe it's okay as-is.

(This should become moot soon, if or when {Chembox} etal. become redirects to {Infobox chem} etal.) -A876 (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

That message is irrelevant to the documentation. As long as the developing version has no consensus and so is not implemented, there is no need to bother editors (those who actually use the documentation) with this. Development itself should be discussed at Template talk:Chembox. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

And on top of this: even were the sandbox version implemented, that --by current design-- does not change editor's documentation at all. Parameters etcetera are kept the same. Another reason to not put such a note in the documentation top. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Where is that RfC?

Recently there was an RfC about using Wikidata in infoboxes. WP:CHEMICALS editors were involved. Can someone give the link to that one? -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Found it: Wikipedia:Wikidata/2018 Infobox RfC, listed in Category:Wikipedia important community decisions (18) for good reasons. -DePiep (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox version: no consensus, not fit for mainspace

The infobox version is not supported by consensus. I reverted this in lead. - DePiep (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I just reverterd some 78 mainspace articles to use {{Chembox}} again, not {{Infobox chemical}}. The infobox version has not been approved here, nor tested nor scrutinised nor discussed even. I find it astonishing that a TE-certified editor can make this play. -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Why? I suggest its time to use the new version of the infobox. Its most more clean without 100s of subtemplates. Plese revert yourself so we can see if there was any problem. Christian75 (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Christian75: NO. There is no consensus yet to use it, there is no significant testing. The infobox version should not be used .. yet. I agree with User:DePiep here, the original template is so intricate, and we have often run into small problems on pages that require further tweaking, that rolling this out to 10.000+ pages is too soon. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: It was ruled out on approx. 20 pages. No problems was discovered or reported, so why revert it? Its the only way we can figure out if there is any problem with the template. 20 days you and other used that argument, but nobody has mentioned any problems with the "live" template, except the that there could be problems if we use it. Therefore, we should not use it. Christian75 (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Why the hurry? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Christian75, re "ruled(rolled?) out to approx 20 pages". As I wrote: I have reverted this on some 78 articles. "Its the only way we can figure out"? Why not explicitly listing changes to invite eyeballs checking? Why not testing? "more clean without 100s of subtemplates" - Using subtemplates is *not* a problem. Actually, it is one of the great features of software, allowing us to keep code organised. (There are, however, problematic subtemplates: the section templates. And exactly those were kept). -DePiep (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I am starting to get really upset by now. The same editor, User:Zackmann08 first rushes to create this template, then starts without discussion to replace the main template code with the new code. When that does not get consensus he TfDs the original template, and now it turns out that he has replaced a significant number of the original template with his preferred version. I have considered earlier to bring Zackman08 to AN(/I) for that behaviour (not to mention his continuous pushing), and I am getting closer to that. This is unacceptable behaviour. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The switch at Lead#Biological effects is a great example of why this needs a shake-down time before going live. The replacement is wider and the title has the same background as the section header—these are two unmentioned visual changes. The latter of these seems against the |title= default for {{infobox}}. Also, the chemobot verification check/cross footer is displayed even though none of the sections that are included have this feature implemented—this is a bug. DMacks (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• The template is not tested. There are several actual changes (content and behavioural) that have not ben listed, proposed or discussed. It is unclear why the change should be through article edits (template name change) not Redirect. -DePiep (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Heat of vaporization, liquification and sublimation needed

In section Chembox Thermochemistry. Need entries for heat of vaporization, liquification and sublimation.
Enthalpy of vaporization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization
Enthalpy of fusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_fusion
Enthalpy of sublimation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_sublimation
2A02:A03F:5C6C:C600:549F:9D4B:4B9D:AF67 (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. Please keep helping, to get this right. We have section Chembox_Thermochemistry (with examples). I'm not a chemist, so please describe: which rows should we add? Are you sure your links are not in there already? -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Chembox 2018

2018 did not work out well for {{Chembox}}. We had multiple threads being hosile, unfriendly, unhelpful. I was involved in these. Also threads being technically concussing. Many of those talks are not closed yet. Still, I must say and can say: {{Chembox}} is a geat enwiki feature. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Chembox 2019

More and better (later on). Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)