Template talk:Chembox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Chemistry (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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 template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Chemicals (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this template or visit the project page for details on the project.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Request for help on cywiki[edit]

I've just copied over this template onto the Welsh (cy) Wikipedia. However, I have an error - the script is looking for a Template (or 'Nodyn') Chembox SystematicName, which I can't find. Any help please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000 Is this still an issue? When I edit cy:Ffosffad and preview, there is no redlinked template listed below. -DePiep (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
You're right; the red link / missing template has gone. Problem solved! Just seen your edits too; many thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: - Hi! There now appears the word value, instead of the actual values eg after '3DMet on cy:Amonia! I can't see any changes having been made to cause this. Any thoughts please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Will look into this. -DePiep (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This happened. The section Identifiers is composed by {{Chembox Identifiers}}, which calls a subtemplate for each data row (for example subtemplate {{Chembox 3DMet}} to show input parameter |3DMet=)
Llywelyn2000 Recently, I changed that calling structure and parameter names.

Before (simplified code):

In [[Template:Chembox Identifiers]]
{{Chembox 3DMet | value={{{3DMet}}} }}
In [[Template:Chembox 3DMet]]
 {{!}} 3DMet {{!}} {{{value}}} <!-- data row in the wikitable -->

After:

In [[Template:Chembox Identifiers]]
{{Chembox 3DMet | 3DMet={{{3DMet}}} }}
In [[Template:Chembox 3DMet]]
{{!}} 3DMet {{!}} {{{3DMet}}} <!-- data row in the wikitable -->
Somehow the cywiki got these versions mixed up (new Identifiers section template, old 3DMet subtemplate). That's why parameter {{{value}}} was unknown and showing as it did.
Solution: update the subtemplates called in {{Chembox Identifiers}} with the new enwiki code version like this. That's a dozen or so Template:Chembox Identifiers#Subtemplates used ... (Going back to old {{Chembox Identifiers}} code would take one edit, but could give unexpected effects).
Note: this only occurs in {{Chembox Identifiers}} not in other sections like {{Chembox Properties}}. I have created cy:Nodyn:Chembox/testcases (Identifiers tests). Ask more if anything is unclear. -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Compliments to Llywelyn2000 for making this work in cywiki! It's a very complicated and error-sensitive template (150+ templates...). -DePiep (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Ooooh! How nice! And a BIG thanks to you for helping a small language wiki! I'm really grateful and will have a good look tomorrow. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Getting there slowly! Most seem to have been done, apart from MeSH, as you can see here. Any ideas, please? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000 do not change the enwiki templates. They are tested etc. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
MeSH data is broken because you edited it. I restored it (on enwiki; see ammonia). -DePiep (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, when you're importing hundreds of templates/ subtemplates, sometimes you save in the wrong language, as was done here. i do appologise. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I hadn't thought of this. -DePiep (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

DSD data but no GHS data[edit]

DSD/DPD data may be removed on 1 June 2017 when re-labelling and re-packaging of products already on the market has to be done. This, however, will lead to a loss of hazard and safety information. There are currently 934 articles with DSD data but without GHS data: hastemplate:Chembox -insource:/\| *HPhrases *= *\{/ insource:/\| *RPhrases *= *\{/
For several of these articles, information may get imported from de.wikipedia, especially from the 1384 articles with harmonised classification and labelling data incl. a link to the C&L inventory. --Leyo 13:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

What is the 'translation' from DSD into GHS? Or is it a different property? I don't get the relation. I mean, if DSD has to be removed on June 1, that is no loss right? -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Do the lead section of CLP Regulation and Template:Chembox Hazards answer your questions? --Leyo 14:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a nice introduction. But you are giving me homework ;-), figuring out which changes (edits) to do. What I'm missing is a description of what to change in the {{Chembox}}, and in the individual articles. Let me try. When DSD is gone, we
  1. Remove |EUClass= from the infobox (like {{Hazchem T}})
  2. Use |GHSPictograms= (like {{GHSp|GHS04}})
  3. Use |HPhrases=, |RPhrases=, |PPhrases=, |SPhrases=
  4. The 1384 articles from de:wiki can be used to copy data from.
Is this it? -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Almost. To be removed:
  • |EUClass=
  • |RPhrases=
  • |SPhrases=
  • |RSPhrases=
To be filled with data:
  • |GHSPictograms=
  • |GHSSignalWord=
  • |HPhrases=
  • |PPhrases=
Harmonised classification and labelling means that a substance is listed in appendix VI, table 3.1 of CLP Regulation. --Leyo 00:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks like we (e.g. I) can make this a phased fade-over. Like, first categorise to-be-edited {{Chemboxes}}, to be made empty. Later more. -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Only less than one month to go … --Leyo 22:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not as easy as suggested above, as the parameters have to have values coded in the right way, and the documentation is a blank. For GHSPictograms= there seems to be templates "GHS" followed by two digits that come up with suitable images. There is a "H-phrases" template that uses a list of three digit codes separated by pipes |. There is a "P-phrases" template that uses a list of three digit codes separated by pipes |. + can also be used between the three digit numbers. (There is also a GHS template that takes a part= parameter, also chapter section and annex parameters. Is this connected?) Can someone check that I did hydrogen peroxide conversion right? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, except that IMHO a reference needs to be added. --Leyo 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
We could start with dedicated maintenance categories ('todo', 'done'). -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 Done created maint categories -DePiep (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
  • To be clear: there is no relation or connection between the old DSD and the new GHS sets. It's just: legally, per 1 June 2017 it must be GHS everywhere. -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The Wikidata route[edit]

  • New approach: how is the data quality for GHS in Wikidata? Could we simply read Wikidata values for this? -DePiep (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
    AFAIK the GHS data quality (and quantity) in Wikidata is week. A lot of manpower was invested in GHS data at de.wikipedia, i.e. the data quality is surely much better there. BTW: There is a table of harmonised entries in Annex VI to CLP that might be used. --Leyo 14:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Then, Leyo 'we' could copy this data from dewiki into Wikidata. Then this enwiki can read it easily. I'd trust the dewiki quality in this. Of course there are bots that can do this copy/paste.
However. Many many editors do not trust a Wikidata value unless is has been sourced again by Wikidata. So they don't trust dewiki research in this. That's a huge opposition. Today {{Chembox}} does blindly import E number and ECHA from Wikidata. These are of minor importance, maybe GHS can do that route. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If Wikidata is the choice, the Excel list linked above may be importer there. --Leyo 16:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thx. Technically obviously good. But as I said: Wikidata people don't trust our own wikis (not dewiki, not enwiki), so that's a hurdle. If and then, once uploaded, we need to convince enwiki people here that we can use that info in {{Chembox}}. Second hurdle. So I'm pessimistic.
I could try to start a village pump talk at Wikipedia, but I am low in battery myself. Maybe later. -DePiep (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
What would suitable reference source be? I commonly use pubchem as the source. However PubChem seems to just accumulate Pictograms, HPhrases and PPhrases, so the more suppliers there are the more values will appear, some completely ridiculous for the general chemical. But individual chemical suppliers also may provide info, but they may be related to a particular formulation or packaging quantity also. I am happy enough for info to go into Wikidata and then inserted by the template back here. But we probably need some reliability and sourcing info to give confidence the Wikidata is good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe German values could be put into Wikidata, with its source. For example: de:Benzol. -DePiep (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Todo list[edit]

Created categories per the above notes. See Category:Chembox DSD GHS changeover (2). -DePiep (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Chembox having DSD data (1,307)
Category:Chembox having GHS data (548)
To edit: Petscan: articles having DSD data an not having GHS data.
Initially: 1337 P (ca. 15 May 2017).
Example input (from ABCN):
| GHSPictograms = {{GHS flame}} {{GHS exclamation mark}}
| GHSSignalWord = Danger
| HPhrases = {{H-phrases|242|315|319|335}}
| PPhrases = {{P-phrases|261|305+351+338}}

| EUClass = {{Hazchem F}} {{Hazchem Xi}}
| RPhrases = {{R11}}, {{R36/37/38}}
| SPhrases = {{S26}}
Templates: Category:GHS templates, {{H-phrase text}}, {{H-phrases}}, {{P-phrase text}}, {{P-phrases}}.
-DePiep (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I added having a sitelink to dewiki to the PetScan query. Hence, in most of these cases GHS data could be taken from dewiki. The difference in the source text there and here, however, does not allow for copy&paste. --Leyo 16:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification in infobox[edit]

We could put a notification text in {{Chembox}} for by-then outdated DSD data, per 1 June 2017. That would be with |EUClass, RPhrases, SPhrases, RSPhrases= then. Example:

ABC N example
Hazards
GHS pictograms The flame pictogram in the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS) The exclamation-mark pictogram in the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS)
GHS signal word Danger
H242, H315, H319, H335
P261, P305+351+338
Highly Flammable F Irritant Xi
R-phrases (outdated) R11, R36/37/38
S-phrases (outdated) S26
Using {{Chembox DSD/warning note 2017 DSD-GHS}}

-DePiep (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

OK. BTW: CLP Regulation#Implementation could be linked. --Leyo 19:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Link changed. And make logic: "When GHS data present, don't show old DSD at all"? -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
DSD data should just be removed from the article as soon as GHS data is present. incategory:Chembox_having_GHS_data incategory:Chembox_having_DSD_data currently finds 178 affected articles. --Leyo 16:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
OK. Note: |RSPhrases= is also outdated data, so same treatment. -DePiep (talk) 08:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done

Add warning to the four DSD data rows. (outdated)
When GHS data is present (any input, 4 parameters), old DSD data is not shown (4 parameters).
Tweaked the warning.
See /testcases10.
Affected, as of today: show warning ~1300 articles, hidden DSD data: ~178 other pages.
-DePiep (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but I wasn't taking about hiding, but about removing the parameters from the source text of the affected articles (non-empty parameters if GHS data is present or empty parameters in any case). --Leyo 15:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Trivial. (And: you did not talk about empty parameters in any case really). -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that is an additional aspect. --Leyo 21:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Instead of just removing the empty DSD parameters, the GHS parameters (|GHSPictograms=, |GHSSignalWord=, |HPhrases=, |PPhrases=) might be added in the same bot run. --Leyo 08:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, read from the spreadsheet. But AFAIK there is no bot preparing.
I see two options: bot-import the spreadsheet in Wikidata (enwiki will read), or in the enwiki infobox. Depends on whether Wikidata people want to accept the dewiki research (wiki people are very reluctant with local wiki research, esp when no source is present). For enwiki, there is [[WP:BOTREQUEST}]. At the moment, I have no time or urge to start those requests. -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Add Curie point, Néel point[edit]

I think that having fields for Curie points and Neel points (both electric and magnetic ones), and also for magnetic permeability (μ) and electric permittivity (ε), would be useful. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like help adding them as I have no idea how to go about doing so.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Technically, can be made but we we need examples and restriction. What is the label (lefthand side, text & wikilinks)? What input can we expect, and what format & checks are needed? Exemplary chemicals?
WP:INFOBOX-level: why, when & how is this relevant information? Can we expect that each of our 15k+ {{Chembox}} (and {{Drugbox}}) pages will have this data added (while both correct and irelevant)? -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: For magnetic curie point/temperature the label would be "Curie point". For magnetic Néel temperature the label would be "Néel point". For the ferroelectric Curie temperature the label would be "Ferroelectric Curie point" to specify that it's not referring to the ferromagnetic curie point. For the antiferroelectric Néel temperature, the label would be "Antiferroelectric Néel point". As for the types of input, I'd expect one or more temperatures that will be in either Kelvin, Fahrenheit, or Celsius. It'd also be useful to have a place to put a bit of text containing short notes about individual Curie or Néel points and maybe a separate place to for references. It might be more practical to combine the magnetic and (anti)ferroelectric Curie(Néel) points and just specify in the notes if it's referring to the (anti)ferroelectric one.
As for the relevance, I'd say Curie/Néel points are primarily relevant to compounds of the transition metals and lanthanides but are more generally applicable to any compound or molecule with unpaired electrons. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I rescind my request for adding magnetic permeability as it is better filled by the existing field for magnetic susceptibility, and I'm dropping my request for adding electric permitivity (and dielectric constant would be a better altenative anyway) for now. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
So far I get this:
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  • magnetic permeability (μ)
  • electric permittivity (ε)
  • Curie point (TC). Magnetic curie point/temperature. Temperature in K (°C, °F)
  • Néel point (TN). Magnetic ordering temperature. Temperature in K (°C, °F)
But these properties I don't get understand:
  •  ? ferroelectric Curie temperature the label would be "Ferroelectric Curie point" to specify that it's not referring to the ferromagnetic curie point.
  •  ? antiferroelectric Néel temperature, the label would be "Antiferroelectric Néel point".
For example Curie_temperature#Materials with magnetic moments that change properties at the Curie temperature dscribes them as: "Material X is Ferroelectric above/below the Curie point" etc. That would be a yes/no property (obviously only the yes-materials are relevant). Could you enlighten us?
Also, I keep saying that we only should add those values when they are relevant for the material (say, could be used in real life or the article could have it described). We don't want added "the value exists, so let's add it". -DePiep (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
A material can have a Curie point/temperature at which it becomes ferromagentic and/or Curie point/temperature at which it becomes ferroelectric, but they are two different types of phase transitions that generally occur at two different temperatures. Ferroelectric Curie points are probably most significant as the maximum temperature a ferroelectic can be used at, and more generally I want it listed in the properties section since it's a fairly fundamental/basic property of ferroelectrics. The antiferroelectric neel point would probably only be applicable to a handful of articles, but I see no reason not to have it in case it it ever turns out to be useful. I'm not sure if I've answered all your questions, if I haven't, feel free to ask me to clarify or to provide for more information.OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
So if I understand this, there only exist values for "Curie point at which it becomes ferromagentic" and/or "Curie point at which it becomes ferroelectric" etc. (These would require two parameter names then). Then what does it mean when a "Curie point = ..." is mentioned without specifier? -DePiep (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The term Curie point/temperature most often refers to the temperature at which the transition between ferromagnetism and paramagnetism occurs, but can also be used (typically with specification) to describe the temperature at which there is a loss of any sort of "ferroic" order. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
We can't have ambiguous parameters. What possible explicit values are to be shown? (Please check & complete):
|Curie point ferromagnetic=, |Curie point ferroelectric=, ...
|Neel point antiferromagnetic=, |Neel point antiferroelectric=, ...
And btw, I see Kelvin is commonly used. Is there any need to calculate & add C and F values (or expect C, F input)? -DePiep (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, calculating the values for other temperature scales (similar to what we have for melting and boiling points) would be helpful. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you meant by "What possible explicit values are to be shown?". OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I still do not understand which physical quantity's you propose to add. For example, "Curie point" has multiple meanings. So why don't you just list all unambiguous, clear quantity values you want to add? Same for Neel points.
We will not "Add a temperature, and in the |Curie point comment= we'll explain what it means". No. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh that's simple, just the following:
  • |Ferromagnetic Curie point=
  • |Ferrimagnetic Curie point=
  • |Ferroelectric Curie point=
  • |Antiferromagnetic Néel point=
  • |Antiferroelectric Néel point=
Plus associated parameters for unit conversions, notes, and references. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all 99%. (1% deducted for your "that's simple" remark ;-) ) -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add "critical temperature" and "critical pressure"[edit]

For compounds that are commonly stored and/or used at elevated pressure, mostly stuff with boiling points below room temperature at one atmosphere, their critical temperatures and pressures are important properties. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

|BoilingPt_notes= would allow you to define the pressure of a boiling point. --Project Osprey (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Project Osprey: I not quite sure why that would be preferable over creating a new set of parameters. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Infobox {{Chembox}} says in its footnote: "... at standard state (at 25 °C [77 °F], 100 kPa)". Sure each data point could claim exception, because the source says 'different state', or -- as OP points to -- a different state is relevant for the specific article/chemical.
I don't have a solution (except of course giving each data point an uncontrolled comment option), but I'd like to hear how others prefer that "not-standard-state is relevant" situation. -DePiep (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
To clarify, in the initial post I was explaining which compounds critical pressure and critical temperature are most relevant to, not talking about the properties of compounds under different conditions (although how to deal with when a "not-standard-state is relevant" is a topic that should be discussed, but in a new section, not this one). A compound's critical temperature is the temperature above which there is no clear distinction between liquid and gas, and likewise, a compound's critical pressure is the pressure above which there is no clear distinction between liquid and gas (see Critical point (thermodynamics) for more information). What I'm trying to do is to ask for the addition of two new parameters to the chembox, |Critical temperature= and |Critical pressure=. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Because it's already there? I'm not trying to be awkward, I just feel there should always be some critical scrutiny of new parameter requests. We can obviously create new fields without limit, however Chembox is currently used on ~10,000 pages and its worth questioning the appropriateness of new parameters if they're only going to be used in a very limited number of those. In this case, if something is routinely used/stored under a special set of conditions (e.g. as a supercritical fluid) then surely that's worth mentioning in the body of the article? Supercritical carbon dioxide has that information in the lead. --Project Osprey (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Oops, it is 'critical' as a defined property (not just 'where something is about to happen'). I get it. That is: 'critical point' for a substance is defined by a simple (P, T) set. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
re Project Osprey: I don't think we should add it as a boiling point comment (or melting point comment). Because that could be done in every {{chembox}}, which still does not solve the question: add it or not? As always, we're looking for a sound reason to include/exclude a data row, both in the template as per article.
Looks like carbon dioxide could use it, since Supercritical carbon dioxide is notable (has RL applications). If all CHEM editors can restrict themselves (only use the parameter when noteworthy), it would be a useful addition.
FYI, there are some 450 parameters now, plus 120 element symbols for the chemical formula. Technically not a problem (though we'd want a Lua base of course). Problem is: restriction. That requires a larger discussion, and currently I don't have the means to initiate that. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
More statistics. The subtemplates and their usage allow more analysis. There are ~112 'data block' subtemplates (eg, boiling point is a data block, which processes half a dozen input parameters). Over 10.200 articles, there are 145.000 transclusions so the average is ca. 14 data block per {{Chembox}} article. -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Add toughness[edit]

Fracture toughness (MPa·m0.5) is an important physical property of a material, measuring how easily the material will chip, crack, or shatter. Measurements of it are increasingly becoming available (and consistent, with improved fracture propagation methods). Should it be added? Should the measurement method be specified? HLHJ (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

First I'd like to see its importance illustrated. Most convincing is several articles (chemicals) that actually have fracture toughness mentioned in their article body text After all, the infobox is supposed only to repeat info already in the article text. These would be chemicals where this value indeed is relevant e.g. in applications & design. -DePiep (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: ungroup templates from this WikiProject[edit]

At the moment, this WikiProject Wikipedia:Chemical infobox aims to collectively maintain templates: {{Chembox}}, Wikipedia:Chemical infobox/Data page, maybe more. I propose to take {{Chembox}} out of this WikiProject, and maintain that one it by itself. It means giving {{Chembox}} its own talkpage Template talk:Chembox (now a Redirect to here).


Also this talkpage's /Archives should be moved there too, since most of their content is about {{Chembox}}.

Background: {{Chembox}} is the main (if not one and only) template being discussed on this page. I'v been maintaining that one for some years now, and don't see any advantage in this WP grouping. (Of course, in the early years it might have been different). On top of this, the temoplate that actually is being maintained in tandem with {{Chembox}} is {{Infobox drug}} because of its chemical data — {{Infobox drug}} is not in this WikiProject. -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Chemical infobox is not a wikiproject. Its an infomation page for the chemical infobox. This template is supported by the Wikiproject Chemistry and wikiproject Chemicals (just added, see top of this page). If I read you correct you want to move the page "Chemical infobox" to chembox. Why? The former name is more descriptive and a real word. Christian75 (talk) 04:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree, it is not a "Wikipedia:WikiProject" (just a "Wikipedia:" page).
Your description of the proposed move(s) is not correct.
What I propose is: change (move) this Talkpage (not its subject page) to Template talk:Chembox (now a Redirect). Intention is to give Template:Chembox its regular, own talkpage.
The page that's left behind (Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox, this page) can be a Redirect for some time (habits?), or can have its own content. /Archives could move too I suggest, because of their Chembox-related content.
I note that this Wikipage says in its introduction: "chemical infoboxes", plural. Anyway, it has not developed into the main goto-page (that is Chembox/documentation). While discussion {{Chembox}} is its main or only function already many years. -DePiep (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I conclude: no objections. -DePiep (talk) 13:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Confusing style-setting[edit]

Category:Chemical infoboxes with style settings contains Methylammonium halide because a {{Chembox}} in that article contains a |style= field. But for Chlorophyll a and Chlorophyll b, the other two articles in that category, I don't see that field. Is there some other way this cat is triggered, or some sub-template that does...something? DMacks (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Chlorophyll a has |show_infobox_ref=no. The maintenance category is low in importance, and was introduced to keep some overview of, well, style settings (and yes I know, ref is not a style thing). -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that all makes sense. I came across it while browsing for a different chemical-articles maintenance category, and it had a few entries that really didn't need |style= (now fixed) and some that did. Those two did need chembox work, but I couldn't figure out the specific trigger. Thanks! DMacks (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved DrStrauss talk 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)



Template:ChemboxTemplate:Infobox chemical – Move over redirect. Naming this an Infobox, which it is, looks more serious. Only other pages to follow: Template talk:Chembox, Template:Chembox/doc, all /doc subpages. (Not to be moved: subtemplates Category:Chembox templates) and true subpages by slash: Template:Chembox/, Template talk:Chembox/. (Not to be moved, and already excluded by the slash-lists: subtemplates by Chembox<space>, e.g. see Category:Chembox templates). Nothing will be broken, no article edits required, Redirects are cheap. DePiep (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC) Specified better list of pages, complete and systematically now. -DePiep (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

personally totally indifferent to this one I don't see it as an issue either way. EvilxFish (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
My point exactly, WP:NOTBROKEN. —Dirk Beetstra T C 15:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Must say, Beetstra, I did not check CheMoBot effects. I only expect (ouch!) no bad effects. Because: new name {{Infobox chemical}} is covered already. Please check. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Chemobot will cope, it understands redirects. But that is not why I oppose, ‘infobox xxx’ is way less intuitive than ‘xxxxbox’, even if that is the convention, it has been a bad decision. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
re WP:NOTBROKEN Beetstra mentions. That guideline states that one should not change a link just to bypass a redirect. So in this case, we should not change, in the articles, {{Chembox| ...}} into {{Infobox chemical| ...}}. Which edits already are, correctly, explicitly excluded in the proposal ("no article edits required"). -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: I see now that that redirect does not go where I expected it to go .. I guess that the essay WP:DONTFIXIT is closer to what I mean - I still don't think that having {{chembox}} at {{chembox}} is fine and doesn't break anything that is worth fixing - I don't see any benefits in having it at {{infobox chemical}} (as with many other boxes) and that that there are only purely bureaucratic motivations to move it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Got it. Well, this is not to "fix" anything at all. It is an improvement. {{Infobox chemical}} is a better, descriptive name, less insiders-code or shortcutting, and is more serious (professional if you like). {{Drugbox}} did this in 2013, {{RailGauge}} in 2014. Meanwhile, old habits will not be invalidated. -DePiep (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't see how it is an improvement per sé, hence still oppose. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The per sé improvement is in the name change: "Chembox" into "Infobox chemical", supported by a Redirect. -DePiep (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Templates using "Infobox..." titles are almost always built on code from {{Infobox}}. Chembox does not use Infobox code, although the documentation notes that it may be a candidate for conversion. Would support if Chembox were converted to use Infobox code. I think it's helpful to have template titles reflect whether or not Infobox code is being used. This came up a few months ago for {{Taxobox}}, which is also does not use Infobox code (although there was no formal RM). Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    No. Already today, {{Chembox}} has code class=infobox, and confirms MOS:INFOBOX. Using Lua is not a requirement in any way. -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    There was a time, likely before your participation here, when no infoboxes used a meta template. T'was a dark time, full of curious and usually frightful experimentation. I occasionally bump into such templates, and indeed, it scares and pains me to convert them. Your argument also begs the question: Why doesn't this template use the core infobox template? :) That said, I agree here with DePiep that the only question of interest is whether it is used as an infobox; such a question can only be answered in the affirmative. --Izno (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    re Izno (OT:): So far, I've not com to code it (or anyone else), it would be a big enterprise. There are 570 parameters (including 118 element symbols), but simple one-on-one encoding would make no good maintainable code I guess. A lot, like |CASNo=, are indexed. We might want to keep some in parallel with {{Infobox drug}}. Best keep an eye on i18n (transportable to other wikis), and use of Wikidata. And in the end, a bot might be involved, or multi-template child-like application is required for the Sections. That's all ;-). There is a good side to it: all these years, {{Chembox}} has been capable of adding and refining parameters after a talk, and a parameter namecheck is active. -DePiep (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Plantdrew and because if the sub-pages are not moved then we will end up with two naming standard in the same template. (Chembox depends on sup-templates a lot - also directly used in the articles). Christian75 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    No. For #1, see my reply to Plantdrew. For #2: there will be no tech issues with the subtemplates and redirects, I already described. As you know, I maintain & edit & improve these 150 subtemplates for some five years. It's about time you start trusting me in this, or otherwise ask an open question. -DePiep (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    I do not agree about. #2 People will start using the new name for the template in the articles, and we end up with two differnent names in the "same" template, like {{infobox chemical|...|Section8={{Chembox Identifiers|...}}}}. 150 sub-templates says everything. Christian75 (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    No. No issues ({{Drugbox}} already works this way for years). There are those subtemplates, that is: not exposed to editors. {{Chembox Identifiers}} unchanged. etc, etc. But hey, again: why do you "oppose", instead of "question"? -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    {{Chembox Identifiers}} is exposed to the editors - thats the whole point. Drugbox may have some "hidden" templates elsewhere but the editor will not see them. Christian75 (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    For those we can create redirect {{Infobox chemical identifiers}}. Is not part of the proposal. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    And lose more customer friendliness towards n00b editors. I still do not see any benefit in the bureaucratic rename to be in line with other infoboxes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
    I don't understand. What would be the extra load to n00bs? These Redirects would be added, and so free to use, while existing names remain. -DePiep (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Because people are starting to use it, and they see it in the edit window. Then the {{infobox chemical}} on a page, containing an old {{chembox identifiers}}, will get data added resulting in addition of a {{infobox chemical hazards}}, or editors, not finding the {{infobox chemical identifiers}} in said {{infobox chemical}} will add the {{infobox chemical identifiers}} next to the {{chembox identifiers}} .. etc. etc. All adding to the confusion. I don't see how it improves (really), I only see how it makes editing more difficult for those who are already not known with infoboxes/templates. The structure of {{chembox}} does not allow this to be implemented, except through a cold turkey moving all the templates without redirect and making a move in mainspace (which will annoy a lot of regulars). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like this is between you two, Beetstra and Christian75. There is no requirement to rename the nine section subtemplates, we can keep them {{Chembox Identifiers}} as documented (and the remaining ~141 are not im frage at all). Now first Christian75 claims they should be renamed/redirected, after which Beetstra claims that would cause problems. Well: then let's not rename/redirect them — solved. Actually, the name is not that problematic for editors, it's the section structure itself, of course. BTW, concluding that the structure does "not allow this" is way too strong, or simply wrong. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But then we would still have the illogical (and in my opinion confusing) systematic naming difference between the box itself and its subboxes. —Dirk Beetstra T C 06:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Now this I call bureaucratic hairsplitting over a non-issue that is not in the proposal. It is also grossly underestimating our editor's capacity to understand and work with a sensible redirect; {{Chembox}} editors are continuously handling more serious hurdles. -DePiep (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this would create a huge mess that may take a decade to resolve. The system just works as it stands. If it is changed many of us will no longer be able to use it. Noobs will see no advantage as they can just use the visual editor and fill the form. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett Please explain what "mess" you foresee (and I do not). I already mentioned {{Drugbox}} and {{RailGauge}} as existing, similar viable move. The advantage Noobs (all editors) see is that the name is more descriptive and has wiki pattern, instead of some insiders jargon shortcut code. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The untidiness will be that there is a mixture of templates being used for the same thing. Better to stick with what we have already. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it's about single name change only, into a sensible name, covered by Redirect. Did you take a look at the examples I mentioned? -DePiep (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • General note: already today {{Infobox chemical}} is a redirect and can be used instead of the name {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
    • And I already considered to Discuss its deletion/turning it into a soft redirect (so that it can’t be transcluded). Since there is no support (yet) for the move, I think that that may be a better solution to avoid any confusion between naming of main infobox and subboxes. —Dirk Beetstra T C 06:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
There is no confusion, except the one you keep introducing. One time you say "Chembox names are good", next time you say that "Chembox subtemplate names are confusing". You are underestimating our editors, and even speaking paternalistically for them. -DePiep (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

European drug licence: improved EMA link[edit]

EMA is the European institute that does the licencing of drugs (as FDA does for US). In section Pharmacology, I've updated the licence link, now leading to the EMApage searched by the drug's INN. It follows {{Infobox drug}} in this: same data handdling, same link target, same tracking Category:Drug has EMA link. Some 20 {{Chembox}} articles can have this link (having licence report(s) in the EMA page).

Licence parameters:

{{Chembox Pharmacology
| Licence_EU=yes<!-- required, to show the data row -->
| INN=<!-- optional, if other than PAGENAME -->
| INN_EMA=<!-- optional, if searchword differs from formal INN -->

| Licence_US=<!-- unchanged -->
| DailyMedID=<!-- unchanged -->
<!-- also accepted parameter spelling: "License" (with -s-) -->
}}

Example: Ataluren. There is no check on existence of actual data in the link (should be checked by the editor). -DePiep (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)