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.

German drug law[edit]

I'm not sure if there's a "english speaking countries only" policy for the chembox template, but I thought asking won't hurt:

What about making "legal_GER = Anlage I" (and Anlage II and III) link to Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz? Aethyta (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not a policy, but I'll draw the line for English speaking countries indeed. An improvement on this line could be welcome. But not all 200 countries this way. Maybe there is an alternative, say using iw or wd? -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Its English-speaking Point Of View. I propose to remove small countrys like New Zealand. Germany should definitely be included with its population of 80 million. (@Aethyta:, do you still think it should be included?) Christian75 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Generally yes, although I randomly derped and meant to post this on the drugbox template as I prefer that one. Aethyta (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Christian, it is not WP:EPOV (your link). As that section describes, EPOV denotes a preference for England and its culture as a POV. Maybe even your proposal to exclude NZ is an illustration. But the question is about which countries to include for their law and jurisdiction. This still being an English language WP, choosing English speaking countries is a quite systematic non-POV choice. But as said, there may be a better rule for inclusion/exclusion. Your suggestion to use country size would need working out to be made appicable. RE Aethyta, sure {{Drugbox}} reaches many more drugs articles, but the two templates use the same input-options and data-setup ;-). -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
quote first line from WP:EPOV: "Also be careful to avoid an English-speaking Point of View. Although country-specific and similar POVs are often easy to spot, this can be harder to spot." - choosing English-speaking-countries as a criteria is country-specific and POV. The text are using more time describing culture-specific because, as it says, its harder to spot. Christian75 (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Read more that the first line. It is only about the English-spoken history view etc. OTOH, an English-language wikipedia is not country-specific. Anyway, choosing all English-speaking countries is not country specific. The English language in itself is not a POV. (Leaving out NZ is country specific). It is wiki-specific though. Now, what is your better criteria? -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Would this not be an issue for de.wikipedia? I feel I should point out that they don't use Drugbox in any event. --Project Osprey (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The enwiki page provided by Aethyta has no iw at all... Maybe we are supposed to serve the German-speaking countries too ;-). But seriously. There can be an argument to describe German law by drug (or, say, the law on cocaine in Afghanistan and Colombia). It's just: there are 200 countries. I am interested to learn by what criteria we could select countries for that list. -DePiep (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, what about countries that have a list of their banned substances on Wikipedia? That would be extremely few. Aethyta (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) re Project Osprey: Found more. {{Infobox drug}} does iw to de:Wikipedia:Formatvorlage Arzneistoff. Looks like a drugbox to me ("Arzneistoffe", nice). Is this an answer? -18:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Good suggestion by Aethyta. -DePiep (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Who exactly makes such decisions, and when *could* it happen? - Aethyta (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia should have a world-wide perspective. However, right now the infobox covers a few of the 67 sovereign states where English is an official language, and I do not suggest to add all countries in the world. Maybe by size or something less random than what its now. Christian75 (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia has a funny problem here: it is used by many countries where English is not the primary language, just because the size of en.wikipedia (not necessarily true for de.wikipedia (they will cover most by themselves), but a small-language wikipedia might miss the article on obscure-drug X, whereas the English Wikipedia has. If that person is looking for info, they might turn to the English Wikipedia, and see what it says. Now, should en.wikipedia have the legal data for a drug in that country (it is certainly encyclopedic what country Y does with drug X)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is generally a "Legal status" section within "Society and culture" that can contain this information for any number of countries. If this becomes excessive a sub-article is made. It is encyclopedic information but it doesn't all need to be in the infobox. We could determine the countries with the highest absolute populations of English speakers and use the top half-dozen or so. I don't know where to find such information. Conveniently we have this: List of countries by English-speaking population. Sizeofint (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
If we'd want to keep Australia under this criteria we'd have to allow the first fifteen or so. Sizeofint (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That sums it up, it was what I meant to be the 'funny problem' here. Table-creep to the max if you include all 200+, 15 is already a lot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
If you sort by "As first language" you get a list remarkably similar to the one we now have. We'd only need South Africa and the Republic of Ireland to round it out. Alternatively, we could look at the number of visitors to the English Wikipedia by country. There are some statistics at [1]. The top five are the United States, United Kingdom, India, Canada, and Australia. This is also remarkably similar to our current list. I would not be opposed to adding India and removing New Zealand. This latter approach allows us to target the countries with the highest usage of en.wikipedia and make it the most usable. Sizeofint (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I still think that it makes more sense to only add new countries that have their drug laws listed on Wikipedia, for easy verification. Germany is #6 by traffic by the way, so not really a obscure little country by any means. Aethyta (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You can use "|legal_status =" parameter to fill in German law. If enough articles list Germany it can be formally incorporated. Sizeofint (talk) 06:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
And then having to change them all again? That's not very efficient at all. If it was "formally incorporated" I'd add everything listed in BtMG. Aethyta (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like we have a chicken-egg problem then :p Sizeofint (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I already add the German legal status for all new pages I create (in text, not the infobox). A few days ago I updated over 100 articles with their legal status in China. Seriously, if German was available in the infobox I would quickly update everything within a day! Aethyta (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
You could copy this into the infobox: | legal_status = <small>{{Abbreviation|GER|Germany}}:</small> [[Drugs controlled by the German Betäubungsmittelgesetz|Anlage I]]. If we ever implement legal_GER a bot would likely update the infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, will do that! Aethyta (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Aethyta There are some 200 countries. We can add China and Germany. But why not Russia then? India? That is the point of this talk topic. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I only proposed to add countries that have their drug laws listed here on Wikipedia. That does not include Russia, China or India. Aethyta (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There is Drug prohibition law#List by jurisdiction of principal drug prohibition laws which has a list of countries for which we have drug law articles. It has around twenty countries and roughly half of those actually list the statuses of different substances. Sizeofint (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if a country having a list of substances by legal status is a good limiting principal however. For now it seems like we're just letting it grow organically based on common non-standard legal statuses. It isn't anything we have to deal with at the moment but in the future we may have to rethink this as more countries are added. Sizeofint (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Poor current citation precedent: I will state again, strongly...[edit]

what I did in an earlier, now archived discussion:

The linking of the infobox as a whole to a list of citations is poor scholarly writing, and entirely un-encyclopedic. The fact that this list is poorly formatted, and a largely URL-only list—the Infobox references—further emphasizes this conclusion, but the key issue is with the lack of clear correspondence between facts and sources.

There will be—as long this manner of citation remains in place—no way for a reader or editor to easily verify content, or to follow up WP reading with deeper research into the sources of WP content.

The current manner in citing most infobox source material needs to fundamentally change, to a system where each and every infobox entry (field, datum, fact) is directly tied to its single source (in the case of a number), or small set of sources (in the case of more general facts). Alternatively, each infobox field could be listed at the page the reader is taken to by the Infobox references link, and alongside each field listed could be the single source form which the field is filled. If more than one sources are used to fill the field, the statement, "No single source; see article citations." would appear, and a citation at the article would then fully establish the fact's source.

If a reader cannot go straight from a datum/field to a source, we revert to "just trust us" writing, which—however much a current consensus may be raised against this truth—is contrary to WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. (If we send interested experts off, repeatedly, on mare's nest / rabbit trail searches that, for practical reasons cannot, in any reasonable length of an editor's time, yield the verified information, then the cited fact is reasonably termed unverifiable, must be seen as the original knowledge/work of an editor, and therefore is a policy violation.)

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, stop shouting and lecturing. Second, be more specific. There are a large number of available links in this infobox, many of which are self documenting. Adding sources to support each and every link is redundant and not practical. Wikipedia policy is to use common sense. Boghog (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I now realize what you may be referring to is Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox#References. I repeat, you need to be such more specific and concise in your statements. The post at the start of this thread is as clear as mud. I also note that the reference section in question is in project and not article namespace and hence the policies that you quote do not necessarily apply. But I agree that the sources should be brought in-line. Boghog (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for having the patience to come to understanding, and for stating your agreement that the "the sources should be brought in-line". Otherwise, I deny defenders of the status quo the "bye" that WP policies do not apply in project namespace—WP:V and WP:OR apply to article content, whether the violation occurs via a simple edit or through use of a project-generated template to install unverifiable text—but, but, will (absolutely) not argue this point further with you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Based on the link that you failed to provide but Dirk provided below it is now clear that you are not talking about the Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox#References, but about physical constants of chemicals listed in chemboxes. Insisting that each and every value is sourced is not realistic. This data is normally obtained from tertiary sources as ChemSpider that are also linked in the infobox. I would strongly oppose mass deletion or tagging of such data. If this really bothers you, add the citations yourself. Boghog (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
No, you have arrived now at a wrong conclusion, and are boxing shadows. I am talking both about the status of the Wikipedia:Chemical_infobox#References, and about the inability 100% of time, to be able to say, "Where did the value in the infobox come from?" Both questions are in play, see my response to DePiep, below. Vis-a-vis shadows, no one has proposed mass deletion or mass tagging. (You know I am not shy about this, and I have not tagged a one.) For a summary of what has been proposed —since you are not one to read carefully before replying—look for my short response to DePiep, below. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: A reiteration of last time, differently worded: WP:VERIFY requires that data that is likely to be challenged to have references - we do not need to have a reference on everything. Most of the data in infoboxes is of a level that it can be found in tertiary sources - 'grass is green', 'the sky is blue', 'the melting point of water is 0°C' is information that is unlikely to be challenged, it does not need to be sourced, or it can be 'blanket sourced' (and the latter is what the infobox does). Not every number in the infobox needs that specific a source. That is not in violation of WP:VERIFY, and it has nothing to do with WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH (which may be a problem with data on compounds for which there is only one primary source - the people who made the compound and measured a property). Moreover, we require that information is verifiable, not that you, on the spot, are capable to see the original source (which may be behind paywalls, which may be in an obscure book in a Tibetan library, or where ever - that does not make a fact untrue). Only if you can reasonably challenge the data (which would require that you come with a proper source showing that you are right in that the data is wrong) and it is not available from the blanket sources that we have, then you make a case for that the data is wrong (but since you have a proper source then, you have all reason to change the number and provide the source - that there was another number shows that the number may be challenged).
Hence, there is for a lot of that information no need to have that fundamentally changed. Some data are not that general, and for those it would be good to have them properly sourced, especially if for a specific data you can show that that data is not available from the blanket sources.
I can agree that the data in the chemical infoboxes that are not reasonably found in the CRC handbook, online chemical databases (many are linked through the identifiers) , the common catalogues, or other tertiary source should have an inline reference, which can be easily added (some field have a specialised 'ref' field, or anyway a possibility to include the <ref>-marks at the end of the data).
LeProf 7272 - this is a wiki, if you think that certain data needs a specific source over the 'blanket sources', you can add it yourself. There is no-one here who discourages that addition, nor has anyone ever discouraged that addition, nor has anyone ever removed said references for data that was there. If that happens/happened, without proper reason, I will revert those edits and possibly block that editor (I have done that, especially if the editor is no). I will also revert editors who, without proper reason, change data. I will also revert editors who, without proper reason, remove data that is unsourced. And if someone finds a reference stating that certain unreferenced data that we have in a field is wrong, I expect them to change the data and supply the proper source. And I expect that if someone adds data that cannot be easily found in our blanket sources to add a reference where they found that number. I strongly encourage you to do the same, and I will also not stop you, or anyone, if you add that information on other numbers that you verified (even if there is no requirement on having the reference if it is not likely to be challenged, there is also nothing wrong with having it on there either) - this is a collaborative project. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(due to (edit conflict)) - I deny your claim that the data is unverifiable if it does not have a reference - data with a reference is verifiable, data without reference is not necessarily unverifiable, and that is a misinterpretation of WP:V. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, but what on earth is this logic? The reason we provide citations is to allow verifiability. What do you propose, that readers come to wikipedia, then take a fact or datum and go to to guess where that fact or datum came from? You propose they search "oxygen 0.039" or some such to verify the natural abundance of O-17 (then ignore all the WP and mirror sites that rise to the top)? NO. The writer must state the secondary source of their fact or datum. That is the standard for science writing here (poorly followed though it is). By WP standards, data without reference is [INDEED] not verifiable. There is no sane alternative policy or understanding. That a source might exist, somewhere, to support an unsourced point does not make it verifiable, by the WP understanding. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@LeProf 7272: No, one only needs to do that for data where one thinks that it is expected to be untrue. And yes, verifiability is about that, that the data can be verified, and I agree that it is the best that that data is directly verifiable with an attached reference, but it does not mean that data without reference is unverifiable, or that material with a non-linked reference or a 'generic'-type reference is unverifiable. Something that is available from many tertiary sources online with a simple google search is more verifiable without an attached reference than something that is in a paper copy of a 2-of-a-kind printed book where one copy is in a remote Mongolian monestry, and the third one in the private possession of the Supreme leader of North Korea .. Again, it is best that there is a linked and properly descibed reference, but it is by all means untrue that everything needs a reference, nor that data without reference is by definition unverifiable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Up until this point in the talk flow, this is a reopening of a similar post by Leprof 7272 as was linked to. Being an editor who edits {{Chembox}}, I follow this closely. Given the earlier (linked) discussion, right now and here, IMO no new points were added. Even better, the responses here are more than adequate, wrt WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS. I will not add. Below, I open an "arbitrary" new subsection to allow for an interesting follow-up discussion. -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I know that these infoboxes are your baby, sir, and that you feel defensive at any suggestion that they need change. But from a professional, formal, chemical perspective, they are a mess of (frequently) disattached individual data, for which the current (atrocious) list of sources is entirely unhelpful. I gave a clear option for change: A detailed reference list for the chemboxes that is (i) thorough, (ii) scholarly—i.e., good, complete, proper secondary sources, (iii) organization of the citations according to the FIELDS in the chembox, and (iv) a policy that if the source is other than the one assigned, an inline citation needs to appear in the box. Please, discuss this proposal. Otherwise, you are entitled to view the matter however you wish, just as others are entitled to ignore your attempt to cut-off discussion. Le Ptof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@LeProf7272: - there is hardly anything to discuss - you can reference every single datapoint as you wish. Either through the 'detached' ref-fields, or through simple addition of <ref>erences as you would in prose. This is not a template-coding problem, this is a behavioral problem (and again, not chembox/drugbox specific, it is throughout chemistry, it is throughout Wikipedia. (By the way, what would be possible is to have for every field that needs a reference an attached _ref field, and when that is not containing data, the item automagically shows a {{fact}}-tag ..). That would stop the need for mass tagging 'our' 14.000 or so articles - that would be a policy-backed approach). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Abitrary break #1[edit]

You should have a look at Wikidata. Wikidata has sources for each statements, which should allow to generate proper linking to the source of informations if taken on Wikidata for the Infobox fields. TomT0m (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And we could source that at some point .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep, this should be the way to do now ... everything is in place to be able to render references as Wikidata items with arbitrary items. For those who contribute on severals linguistic versions, note that you'll have to source only once in Wikidata and that the source will automitically added in all the projects, when the infoboxes will all be adapted. TomT0m (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikidata does not have a reference for every statement (but a possibility do add it - like the chembox's). And a of the "references" (on Wikidata) are like "imported from: English wikipiedia". Christian75 (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
@Christian75: This is the current situation ... but it's best to focus on a project than splitting the efforts. Wikidata is best suitable for automated work when possible (data import from other databases for example, this become sourced by the database) so this can change very quickly, and it's a place for interlanguage cooperation, as it's language agnostic and that the information can be used by any Wikipedia. In short, when adding a new reference now you this will show up in this Wikipedia, and in others. When someone of another language will add a reference, this will show up as well. The imported from <Wikipedia> statements are used to trace to the original wikipedia reference if there is one to copy it directly in Wikidata. So everybody wins by focusing on Wikidata. TomT0m (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to provide you with some kind of outside view: In de.wikipedia, the parameters that need an inline reference are defined (tick mark or ref in the last column). All articles transcluding the chembox do actually have inline references for all defined parameters. There was quite some work to have this completed some time ago. --Leyo 20:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Please, everyone, take note of @Leyo:'s comment, which means both that there is a way forward to accomplish this, and that a sister wiki site has already done so. Thank you to a German colleague for attending to our page and sharing this. Please, those of you arguing the lack of necessity of this, or the absurdity, take note. A significant sister site in Europe, the birthplace of modern chemistry, has already taken this step. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Beetstra. Just a comment about the fact that everyone can add proper reference to each data of the infobox. We had similar discussion in the past in WP:fr and from that experience don't expect that contributor will do more than what is done usually. People work by mimicry and if the trend is to refer to a general list of references people will do the same.
The main question is to know which is the choice of the project: do you want to increase the data quality by offering for each value the source or do you want to stay with the current system ? What is the objective for the future data ?
From personal point of view your system isn't the best one because you separate value and source and this is contradictory behaviour for a reference work using quite a lot of different sources. Snipre (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre:, You have hit the very nail on the head, stating that to separate value and source... is contradictory behaviour for a reference work using quite a lot of different sources. I could not have said this better myself, but have often argued that the biggest determinant of the evolution of the quality of an article is its "entry point quality" when significant, active group of editors descend upon it. If they find it full of URL only sources, they follow that pattern. If they find it carefully and rigourously sourced, they understand that, rather, as the standard. Yes, yes, yes. We have never met, but I will offer you my first-borne son or daughter for betrothal (for clarity, and, here at en.WP, originality, of thought). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Snipre: - I don't expect them to (realistically). I know that even with tagging there is no follow-up on it (and that goes in general). I agree that an academic standard requires that one actually states upon writing a statement where that statement is from, but that is not how Wikipedia works (actually, that is more about attribution than verifiability). Most editors however will not include a reference when adding a 'fact' (even when they copy it from another source!). I know that a set of general references for the 'facts' in the chemboxes/drugboxes is not the best, but it is better than what most editors supply (no references at all, and that is not because the chembox has general references, they don't do it in prose either). And as I said, verifiability is about the possibility to verify facts that are likely to be challenged, and about the ability to check a fact, not that one has to be able to read a fact and go to the source and double check it on the spot immediately etc.
I do think that good editing is 'hmm, I don't know whether <fact> is true, it does not have a reference, let me see what I can find' (in line with WP:AGF), and not 'hmm, I don't know whether <fact> is true, it does not have a reference, so I better delete this' (this is not a BLP, and even there the latter action is controversial - it took a lot of debate to get to that and still the former action should be preferred). The latter amounts to vandalism when it is applied consistently while the facts are generally true, and (albeit with (maybe significant) effort) verifiable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Dirk, I will say again: to allow as the Wikipedia SOP that Most editors however will not include a reference when adding a 'fact' (even when they copy it from another source!).—to accept this as permissible, and to accept as the working WP standard, facts [that] are generally true, and (albeit with (maybe significant) effort) verifiable—to carry on discussions as if we have to abide by this lowest common denominator—is a statement that, while true to the reality of many editors is a choice to both
* (i) frustrate and drive away the best of editors, those that do add sources as they edit, and
* (ii) defy the principle and spirit of WP:VERIFY.
The consequence will be to relegate WP science article an eventual entirely poor state, because they will not improve over time with a "just trust us" policy of science fact presentation. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: I agree, and the facts should be referenced. But what you suggest is resulting in the point where you think that you can find consensus for me and my fellow editors to warn every editor who adds a 'fact' to the chembox without reference to not do that again without providing the reference, and for me and my fellow administrators to block every editor who will not abide (though it is a valid block reason ..).
Again, I agree that all should be referenced, and that we should improve on that. But it needs a behavioral change, not a change in policy or guideline - you have all the 'weapons'/'tools' you need in WP:V/WP:NOT/WP:RS etc., Wikipedia 'must' abide by those 'laws' (and not just our chemboxes). Wikipedia is an ongoing work, and the ratio to 'referencing' to 'adding material' is an increasing number (we have a lot of data already, there is 'less' to be added, people go more towards gnoming). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Dirk @Beetstra: they are thoughtful, and apt. We simply disagree on a fundamental point — whether all factual information must be verifiable (Le Prof), versus whether facts that are disputable must be verifiable (attr. Beetstra). This is a fundamental difference in perspective, and for reasons of practicality, of doing honest scholarly work, and of perceived route to reliability of WP content, I stand by my demand for all. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The conflict there is the difference in what we codify in our verifiability policy and a deeper lying problem, people taking values from the internet and not telling where they got it. Some of the data is historical, predating the more firm parts of policies that would preclude how to include it.

Let me be clear, it would be better if everything is properly sourced. But doing so takes a huge community effort, and not this discussion. The community has to do that by itself, setting up task forces for it is rather futile generally. Discussing that it needs to be done is similarly futile - we know it needs to be done and that is policy based, but actually doing it is a second thing. You could address the editors who are adding these numbers but who do not add proper attribution, but that is often resulting in bitey situations (editors rather walk away than doing the extra effort of adding the references ..).

Wikipedia contains a lot of information that needs proper attribution, not only the data in the chemboxes. I mentioned somewhere a number for how many articles contain unreferenced statements (which includes chembox data) which is huge. The real number of unreferenced statements is even larger (many articles contain multiple statements; many statements are untagged), and that needs a lot of research. The community is working on that, but that process is going to take several years, if it ever is going to be completed.

It is not that we are not trying to change what is written in our Wikipedia:General disclaimer - but it will still be true for a long time to come. Until then, it is better that we have (albeit with effort) verifiable information that is not attributed (and if you take the effort to actually verify, please include that reference for the future - I will try to do that as well), than no data at all. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Off topic meta cherry picking subject[edit]

User:Beetstra: "me and my fellow administrators to block every editor who will ...". See. Why discuss at all? Someone & their admin friends will force it their way anyhow. Is Why I Left Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Yet again cherry picking out of the same quote .. leaving out the part on the dots, the part that is policy based, trying to put me in bad light. and anywya, '... force it their way anyhow' is wrong, it is not 'their way', it is 'your way', as we all agree on the policies and guidelines that I am trying to keep up (and if we do not agree with the policy, we discuss that there). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Dirk: you wrote it. You put the cherry in. You use admin's power threats to make your point. Is why I leave. -DePiep (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

ChemBox / Drugbox on Mobile view[edit]

Dear all, I've not been involved much with the 'back end' of wikipedia. I also posted this over at Infobox_drug

The problem I've found (as others may have too), is that on mobile view there is sometimes up to 6 screen full to scroll through (chembox / drugbox) before getting to the intro of the page. I would have thought that the intro should be first?

Otherwise, if intro is not first for some reason, I wondered if there is a way to have the Chembox / drugbox collapse on mobile view? I searched the archives and found it's not collapsible but found no reason explaining why?

I'm not even sure this is the right place to post this? Thanks, Spannell (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes you posted on the right place. But it takes a lot of discussion at wiki to improve it. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

New GHS warning signs[edit]

The template currently lists old EU signs under the title "EU classification". I recommend e.g. adding the word old to it. (No need to remove it because the old chemical containers with the old signs stay with us for decades to come, so both are needed.) Thank you. Palosirkka (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What about changing [[Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC)|EU classification]] to [[Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC)|EU classification (DSD)]]? --Leyo 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a need for an admin here. --NeilN talk to me 19:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Are you looking for a template editor? Sizeofint (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Palosirkka, can you specify which template ({{Drugbox}} or {{Chembox}}), and which subsection or parameter this is about? There are several EU-related data rows. Or maybe you have article examples? -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey DePiep et al. I'm looking for somebody with the powers to edit a template. Sorry I though I was on the talk page of {{Chembox}}, how did I ever end up here? Anyways if you look at e.g. article Sulphuric acid, you see the danger related pictograms, the old ones are currently titled "EU classification". Thank you. Palosirkka (talk) 04:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
So. Current Sulfuric acid has lefthand text linking to Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC), and saying "EU classification". Together: EU classification. What do you propose/request/want changed? I am not aware of the EU classification bein "old" as in outdated. Link? -DePiep (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Its outdated, read Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC) and press a "relavant" external link, eg. [2] Christian75 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Palosirkka:, template talk:chembox redirects here Christian75 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done I've applied Leyo's suggestion, it now says "EU classification (DSD)"; not other changes. If someone can elaborate a setup for the new CLP regulation, we can add that. -DePiep (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Found: an overview of changes was described earlier by Leyo and Project Osprey: [[3]]. It includes considerations for transcribing old number - new number. -DePiep (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Chembox edits (30 October 2015)[edit]

I have prepared multiple edits in the {{Chembox}} template set, in /sandbox pages. They are 'minor', as in: "won't change the reader's page negatively".

  • In Preview, every unknown parameter used will be mentioned exensively. But when saved, that message is not shown.
  • Parameter |NIOSH_id= produced ugly results. Not any more. (eg: DDT has |NIOSH_id=0174). Using new {{Chembox NIOSH (set)/formatPocketGuideLink}}
  • In the footer, set some words central.

Check me, and the testcase like Template:Chembox/testcases (#1--#11; m=mobile). -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeming any issues in the demos shown (viewing in Firefox). Someone might want to try viewing by mobile as that's know to cause issues. --Project Osprey (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. One can test [4], and check the Preview. In today's test situation, the header background color is 'gold'. This test color will not be in mainspace (articles). -DePiep (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • YesY Prepare going live. Remove testsettings. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Resulting in 2500 Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox. -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Reduced to 119 by now. These are mostly params that should be added, not removed (eg StdInChI1-indexing). Working on this, see below. -DePiep (talk) 06:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes in Chembox (16 November 2015)[edit]

Proposals. Will be prepared in sandboxes, testcases

  • indexing StdInChI &tc. (Won't do. see below, 'Change of plan') . Chembox now has |StdInChI=, |StdInChIKey=. I plan to add indexed parameters for these, for situations where one {{Chembox}} has multiple substances. So there will be |StdInChI2=, |StdInChIKey2= etc, similar to |CASNo2= indexing. (also, the |StdInChI_Comment=-option will be added for all. For example, to allow R, S specifiers)
Examples: Asarone, N-Acetylglutamic acid. Interestingly, in these pages the indexes are used already (but do not show -- yet). -DePiep (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Preparing. See testcases. So, there exists (for index 1):
|StdInChI1=, |StdInChI1_Comment=, |StdInChI1_Ref=, |StdInChIKey1=, |StdInChIKey1_Comment=, |StdInChIKey1_Ref=,
|InChI1=, |InChI1_Comment=, |InChI1_Ref=, |InChIKey1=, |InChIKey1_Comment=, |InChIKey1_Ref=
There are the indexes (blank),1,2,3,4,5.
(Note: the capitalised _Ref parameter is the bot-maintened and relates to the  YesY N markers).
Development: |InChIKey1_Comment= will not be added, because too cumbersome to use. Instead, |InChI1_Comment= will be used to specify the InChI and its key. Like:
|InChI1_Comment=''R'' |InChI2_Comment=''S''
R: InChI=A1-Q-3-Z Key: ABC
S: InChI=P3-Y-3-Z Key: KLM
Background: this is most common usage of the _Comment parameter, and so is valid for both InChI and Key. See testpage for demo.
Note that the _Comment will be a prefix, not a suffix. Later more. -DePiep (talk) 10:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Change of plan: no need to add indexes to standard InChI |StdInChI2=. Standard InChI's can be entered in regular InChI parameter (like |InChI2=). No need to use different parameter for that (having the Std-prefix). This simplifies the {{Chembox}} parameter set for the editor. Whether an InChI/Key is standard or not we can detect from the string, and at the moment we do not use that info. Existing parameters |StdInChI=, |StdInChIKey= are kept, unchanged. -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • reference in a subheader: sometimes an editor wants to add a ref to the subheader, like "Hazards[1]". I'll add this option for each of the 9 optional subsections |Sectionn=. -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
YesY Prepared: added references for Chembox headers Chembox_ref, Name_ref in {the main {{Chembox}}, and by section names
Identifiers_ref, Properties_ref, Structure_ref, Thermochemistry_ref, Explosive_ref, Pharmachemistry_ref, Hazards_ref, Related_ref
See Template:Chembox/testcases3. <ref> tags must be added: |Hazard_ref=<ref>{</ref>. -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The CAS Registry Number label. Today the label (=the left-hand text) says "CAS Registry Number". That is the correct and formal name. However, we do not need to write the definition in there. I plan to change it to "CAS Number". That is not confusing at all, it is commonly known (recognized at 1st reading), it and has the advantage that it usually takes just one line of text, not two. -DePiep (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
YesY Prepared. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
YesY Prepared. DePiep (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Improve layout for collapsible lists InChI and SMILES. Now width is used better (resulting in, on average, about 1 in 5 lines shorter).
YesY Prepared. See testcases. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "What is YesYN?" in footer: improve logic (show more often, and only show 'verify' (version check) when version id is available. -DePiep (talk) 10:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • YesY Preparing to go live. Testcases invalid now. -DePiep (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done. Emptying the maintenance category (started with ~500 articles). DePiep (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

InChI: let's use InChI_Comment as prefix, not suffix (specifier)[edit]

this is not a simple style change, but a parameter handling change. So I ask opinions

Parameter InChI has option |InChI_Comment=, that is added as suffix unedited (a space and the comment is written unedited right after the InChI string).

I propose to move this _Comment to the prefix place, before any InChI data. This because usually the _Comment is a specifier for variants within the article's substance (think R and S). Usually these variants are entered using indexes (like |InChI1=, |InChI2= for R and S). This is a change of habit in InChI input, because you can not enter anytext freely anymore: it will be in a format (e.g., better not add brackets any more).


Current version
/sandbox demo

Side notes:

  • The same change will be applied to |SMILES_Comment=: prefix not suffix.
  • The typographic indenting thing is apart: that is just a an improvement, not the topic here.
  • In the future, we can have those variants entered only once (not for every identifier).
  • In InChI and SMILES, I don't think free comment text (other than specifying the sub-substance) is useful or needed.
  • More demos in this tespage.
  • Some 8000 {{chembox}} articles have an InChI, but I expect only some hundred s to be affected.

-DePiep (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • YesY Preparing to go live. Testcases invalid now. -DePiep (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes check.svg Done -DePiep (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: remove Jmol from Chembox[edit]

Articles that have Jmol in {{Chembox}}: [5] (8948; Jmol uses SMILES input always). Technically, Jmol reads a |SMILES= input and can draw the structure from it (of course, because that is what a SMILES is).

Now {{Chembox}} has data row Jmol that like this, eg for Kojic acid:

input: |SMILES=O=C1/C=C(\O/C=C1/O)CO
shows: Jmol-3D images =

My point is that this external link does not add info. If we want to show an image, we should add it by commons.

A minor point: Jmol is in section "Identifiers", but of course belongs in the top, "Images". However, today's {{Chembox}} section-structure does not allow SMILES input to be used in another section. (To show the Jmol link in the top images section, we'd have to repeat the SMILES input there). Once {{Chembox}} is in Lua, we could do that, but again why should we?

I propose keep concluded, see below to remove the Jmol data and its external link from {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Because structures can be rotated by the user (see mouse manual), Jmol depictions are far more useful than the static 3D structures that currently displayed in the Chembox and far less annoying than spinning gifs. Please note that the gifs only rotate about one axis where as Jmol allows full user control of rotation about three axis. Boghog (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Boghog. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Does it comply with WP:EL? -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Very easily complies with WP:EL. Per WP:ELPOINTS, the link is in an infobox, not the body of the article. Ideally JMol should be integrated within Wikipedia, but unfortunately it is not (see this discussion and WP:Using Jmol to display molecular models). And finally, JFW said it best, Jmol rocks! Boghog (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm with {{Chembox}} nearly three years now, but this is the first time I learned that I can use the mouse to rotate. Says something about our presentation (someone should have proposed to add that mouse-instruction to {{Chembox}}). Wiki is not for the initiated.
I do think that the infobox is article-body. Maybe later more. In any case, WP:EL says that external links should be in the ==EL== section. I get your enthousiasm, but it breaks wiki-page consistency.
In general, of course we need a separate template in the ==EL== section for the dozens of external databases links. (think: near {{Authority control}}). -DePiep (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Infoboxes aren't article body; WP:EL says "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." Otherwise it wouldnt say place external links in the infobox. Chembox has a lot of external links in the infobox; CAS, Chemspider, Pubchem, etc. Do you want them (re)moved too? Christian75 (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
#1: Your quote says: "EL should be in section ==EL==". How do you read that being "in infobox is OK"?. #2: Yes. As I said: other el's could be elsewhere in the page (what's your question?). Anyway, this is otherstuff. -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Reiterating what Christian75 wrote above, ... include appropriate external links ... in the appropriate location within an infobox ...WP:ELPOINTS. Hence this guideline specifically allows external links in infoboxes. The other external links in this and other infoboxes is not "other stuff". "Other stuff" is cherry picking (i.e., using unrepresentative/unusual examples as precedence). The widespread practice of including external links in infoboxes demonstrates it has community consensus. Boghog (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "otherstuff" is cherry picking. So we better not use that at all. That is: the presence of the CAS link is not an argument for or against the presence of Jmol. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, as supplies a unique and useful resource that cannot be included in Wikipedia directly (unless we get Extension:Jmol) and that is in keeping with the EL guidelines that such extlinks are appropriate in infoboxes. If the problem is that users don't know how to use what they find when they go to an external link, then the external site could include some notes on the target page and/or we could include notes in the infobox entry. For example, we call it "Jmol-3D images", so our Jmol page could include a detail early that the rendering is manipulateable in 3D, not just static. DMacks (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, keep. Now that advantage of interactivity is told (new to me, after I started this post), its presence is more relevant. External links can be in the infobox. Remains the point of being appropriate in there. And the difference with links like the CAS is that Jmol is not defining for the substance, it is illustrating. Hence it has lower relevance. We'll leave Jmol in there, maybe improve the text to note the interactive feature. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I added a note to the first sentence of Jmol stating that structures can be manipulated vs just displayed (shocking to me that this wasn't emphasized at all!). Feel free to adjust further. DMacks (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Jmol application in WP?[edit]

Interesting side topic
  • What happened to the idea to integrate Jmol? Was it just never fully implemented or did it face opposition? Sizeofint (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia would have to support the running of Java applets. As far as I know, this has never been implemented (see for example this discussion). Boghog (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
JSmol is pure JavaScript. I don't know how that technical/language distinction matters for security purposes (but it does increase portability for end-users). Or, given it would no longer require an applet, perhaps it could be implemented as a centralized or userland .js on wiki rather than having to be a formal WM extension? DMacks (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not done anything with Jmol for a long time, but the last thing I did was to help modify a stack of web pages to use Jsmol rather than Jmol. Jsmol uses Javascript rather than Java. At the time this was being strongly recommended as being much safer on web servers than Jmol. As anyone suggested using Jsmol rather than Jmol here on wikipedia? --Bduke (Discussion) 16:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

According to WP:JS, Wikipedia user scripts are written in JavaScript. Your account's common.js file is here. Hence it appears that individuals could install JSmol capability immediately if there is an appropriate script. The disadvantage of this approach is that to use it, you must have a Wikipedia account and you must install the script. But it would be a great way to test it. If it works well, we would be in a strong position to lobby to deploy it more widely. Boghog (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

LD50: too much detail[edit]

Recently we have added data row options like LD50 in the Hazards section. Example right (Note: it shows the sub-block 'lethal amounts' in 'Hazards').

demo (DDT)
Lethal dose or concentration (LD, LC):
250 mg/kg (rabbit, oral)
87 mg/kg (rat, oral)
250 mg/kg (rat, oral)
135 mg/kg (mouse, oral)
150 mg/kg (guinea pig, oral)[1]
(some data here)
  1. ^ "DDT". Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 

I note that the LD50 data is way too big. It does not tell us anything. Of course the facts will be OK and sourced. But it is not encyclopedic. I'd expect a meaningful number (the useful outcome of these tests). I suggest we find a good comprising statement from these rat & rabbit details. I expect these details to be condensed into a single encylopedic statement.

Tech stuff:: {{Chembox}} pages that have this data: [6] (ca. 800 P). Ping Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH). -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think that it's not encyclopedic? It's just a bit long for being inside of the box. --Leyo 21:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Non-encyclopedic because it is meaningless. Five doses, so what? Why did not the research-community condense this into a useful number? (I'd say: human relevance). Our info should be generic, Wikipedia is not the science journal "Rats riscs". -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's useful to have somewhere, I'm happy having it in the infobox, but it could also be in a table somewhere if that's the consensus. I'm not picky, particularly. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
OK for LD50 relevance, but why five lines? What is the condensed wiki meaning of it? -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Isnt this a rare example? Christian75 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it's typical. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
How would you condense this information? Merge the four species to ra-ra-mo-gu?? ;-)
Toxicology isn't generic, but species-specific. --Leyo 01:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
That's for the scientists. They do know the meaning of these results, don't they? -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Its a nice idea; but in reality its impossible to condense the various values into single generalised LD50. Biochemistry is very complicated and different organisms will respond differently to the same chemical. For example, the theobromine in chocolate far more dangerous to dogs than it is to people. For obvious reasons we very often don't have an LD50 for humans, but I think we should continue to show data for other animals because whenever we say a chemical is dangerous people ask "how dangerous?" and this is the only data there is. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Of course, the condensing should not be done by us as OR. If the science does not have a outcome, I'd say we better leave out all of it (or maybe keep one). Current data is meaningless and too detailed. -DePiep (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not meaningless. Humans it not all that matters anyway. --Leyo 23:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not meaningless. - it is for Wikipedia, an encyclopedia. What would be to use for adding the goldfish (anal) number? Another 2M species, times all input options? -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I fear it's your (lack of?) knowledge in toxicology that makes it appear to be useless. That's the only explanation I have, sorry. --Leyo 00:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
No. As I stated & maintained the data may be sourced & correct, but that does not make it relevant here. You have not made a start on explaining why all these belong here. And you could consider that, if a reader would require "knowledge in toxology" to get it, that's a disqualifier for that information (not for the reader). Or, by stabbing form: your lack of understanding encyclopedic relevance may be in play. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:PHARMMOS explicitly asks for LD50 information. I think this indicates the current consensus is LD50 information is encyclopedic. We should probably just limit this discussion to whether or not this information is appropriate for the infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In toxicological data there is no truth no absolute data. That's the reason of the existence of so many indicative values (median lethal dose, minimal lethal dose, NOAEL, LOAEL, IC50, EC50...). Then metabolism are different between animals so as already explained above some substances can be really toxic at small concentrations for some species and not for others. The only way to compare toxicity of substances is then to use a panel of species. Morever toxicological data assess danger for heelth but for the environment too so that is the reason of tox data for aquatic species. And don't expect to be able to get one value: if you have the opportunity once to read a MSDS, have a look at the toxicological section and try to understand that if for an official document nobody was able to summarize this information in one line this is no chance to do it in a chembox. Snipre (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
So the question is to know if we can limit the toxicological data in the chembox in a way to avoid an endless chembox and to still have enoough information. Perhaps by limiting the data to 4-6 species with specific administration route chosen according to the most available data. Snipre (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, about this, but better make it 1–2. The non-simplistic nature of toxity should be available under the lefthand link. -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the point that you get a bunch of data points from animals and then interpolate a probable LD50 for humans? I don't think one or two data points is sufficient to provide meaningful information. At the same time having four or more data points makes the infobox excessively long. I think it would be better to leave this information out of the infobox and instead place a table with this information in the hazards/toxicity section. Sizeofint (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
In many cases, there is just data for one species available. Then, it's surely best to have it in the box. --Leyo 23:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose in that case it would be appropriate. Sizeofint (talk) 03:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
re "and then interpolate ..." - that would be OR, isn't it? I understand the non-mergeable character of this data (diff meaning for diff species) says that there is no single data point. There is not some averaging calculation algorithm. And it has been described here that even scientists (our RS) do not search or present such a condensed number. For now this is a full stop to me. That said, still the list may be too long for our purpose here. This is about relevance. If only data for one (or two) species is available, this problem of length does not exist in that article ;-). I had hoped we could conclude here on a "never more than three" rule for the infobox.-DePiep (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it would be original research. I am not saying we should perform any calculations. The idea is to just provide the data points. Sizeofint (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
This an is interesting development: see {{GNF Protein box}} (22000 transc's), eg in Phenylalanine hydroxylase; subsection Orthologs in the infobox. They have two columns for two species, though in a different topic not LD50. This infobox is also interesting because it is about to roll out full-wikidata support! (some bot puts all external data in Wikidata, then the template reads all facts from wd by article name). -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Very cool. Is it possible to use columns for LD50 information here? Sizeofint (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't see why not possible, it would complicate the view though. If we agree on it first, it is worth trying. Now that would limit the number to 2 (maybe 3), right? Note that the {{GNF Protein box}} does have the numbers for human (insulin).
(I add): the example here, DDT, has two entries for rat, oral! That is, outside of this discussion, a bad thing to show. More on Talk:DDT. -DePiep (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In these cases, it would be appropriate to report a range of values supported reliable secondary sources. Displaying the data in columns is not practical (breaks down for more than two species). An alternative is to collapse it, like the Gene ontology section in Phenylalanine hydroxylase protein infobox. LD50 data is clearly encyclopedic, but including data for several species is too detailed for inclusion in an infobox. Another option is to display just the rat data (the most common species used for tox testing). Granted, there are often large between-species variations in the data, but standardizing one species would at least allow one to compare the LD50s for different chemicals and give a rough order of magnitude impression of how toxic a compound might be. Boghog (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The idea of collapsing content in the infobox came up at {{Drugbox}} a few months back (see Template talk:Infobox drug/Archive 13#Making the template more useful for people). Depiep argued then that the mobile view does not properly collapse. Has this been fixed yet? Sizeofint (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I submitted request in August 2015 to add infobox collapse support to the MediaWiki mobile front end, but unfortunately the request has been acted upon or apparently even noticed. Boghog (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Collapsing in infoboxes is not available in mobile view (the infobox shows uncollapsed always, mobile). There is a reason for this. And I am not convinced that collapsing sections is the solution to this question. The question is: why should we report such numerous details at all? We are not "Rats Health Monthly". -DePiep (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
And what is the reason infobox sections cannot be collapsed in mobile view? Please explain. Sections of articles are collapsed in mobile view. Why not also sections of infoboxes? We measure toxicity in rodents because it is not ethical to do so in humans and this information is widely used by regulators to judge relative risk of the exposure of various chemicals to humans and to other animals. Your complete lack of understanding of toxicology is astounding. Boghog (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW: If anyone is interested in how other Wikipedias deal with this issue, please see e.g. lowest part of the chembox in de:Ethanol. DePiep, note that this is one of the rare cases of a chemical with actual (lowest) lethal dose data for human. --Leyo 00:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
So dewiki has a list too, even when the human dose is known. I note that the german infobox has 22 data rows (lefthand-labels; LD50 counts as one), while our ethanol has 38. Thirty-eight is huge, and we can't seem to agree on a size-limiting aim.
re Boghog, why does mobile view not do collapsing? I did not follow your trials in introducing this in mw (wiki code), I hope you got useful replies with the denial. As I understand it, it does not follow the webpage-expectations (as designed and maintained by wiki designers). It would introduce arbitrary collapsing areas on a webpage, disturbing the general page view. The collapsing sections mobile view has are embedded in the content structure (they form the TOC). Now I think for {{Chembox}} articles we could create a page section "data sheet", which could have much of the data now in the infobox (and data page). That section, as a content block, would be collapsible by design. However, as for this topic, even then I'd ask: why the indiscriminate, unlimited list of LD50 facts? -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The explanation that you have given makes no sense. Collapsing of infobox sections is not arbitrary, it is also by design. And exactly how would this be disturbing [to] the general page view? It is not disturbing on the desktop. So why would it be disturbing in the mobile view? My request to Phabricator was a very reasonable one that would not only benefit chemical articles with large chemboxes but any article displaying a large infoboxes. This proposal is rational and there is no technical, functional, nor aesthetic reason why this request could not or should not be implemented. LD50 data is no more arbitrary than many of the other data listed in the chembox. As I have already stated above, a long list of LD50 data is not appropriate for the chembox, unless it is collapsed. A alternative would be to just list the rat oral acute toxicity value (or range of values) in the infobox and put more detailed data in a toxicity section of the article. Boghog (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
"makes no sense" is not exact enough, but I have extra patience with you. Now, "disturbing to the general page view" is about how the reader sees / expects to be / recognizes / mentally maps a webpage. That is: any webpage, not just wikipedia. For example: a reader expects a title, intro, and body text, possibly with illustrations. Most of this is unconscious, by the way. (If you think this is trivial and obvious for a page, that is where you meet your own unconscious expectation ;-) ). A webpage that breaks this expected pattern, is 'disturbing' the mental expectation. Good webpage design (as the mw masters want to do) supports that readers' expectation. This is how I get it. -DePiep (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
But this is exactly how the mobile view is currently configured. All sections of the article are collapsed by default. Why should sections of infoboxes behave any different? Boghog (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Another aspect is relevance to a wide audience. The majority of content in the chembox (density, refractive index, etc.) is of little interest to the general reader. On the other hand, how dangerous is this chemical to me (as estimated as an LD50 in another species), is more relevant. Boghog (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it is. As you say: danger to me = danger to the reader. But that interest is not answered by listing six or eight species that explicitly do not relate to humans. -DePiep (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It is answered, at least approximately. The toxicity for several species puts things in better perspective. Most readers will immediately get the point. There are between species differences in toxicity and therefore extrapolations to humans is approximate. Finally, I was suggesting as an alternative that we list a single data point (rat oral acute toxicity) in the chembox and include more details in the toxicity section. Boghog (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No CAS RN assigned[edit]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#CAS_RN_of_1P-LSD. -DePiep (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Drugbank and ATC positioning[edit]

ATC code A11Red XN DA01 Red XN
DrugBank DB00152
ATC code A11DA01
DrugBank DB00152 Red XN

Today, Drugbank and ATC code can be entered in two sections: Identifiers and Pharmacology. I propose to allow for one place only, mainly for consistency (regular showing). That would be Drugbank in Identifiers (419 P), and ATC code in Pharmacology (435 P). btw, ATC is not an identifier but a class. -DePiep (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

YesY Deprecated in section. Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox‎. No changes for the Reader so far. Some 600 P at first counting. -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
In the process, I order all sections in a single order (as numbered in template documentation). Eg, {{Chembox Thermochemistry}} is in |Section5= by standard. This makes {{Chembox}} presentation more stable over pages. Actually, this is what almost all infoboxes do. -DePiep (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's add "E number"[edit]

Propose to add data row E number. See anoxomer. -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)