Template talk:Chembox/Archive 1

message: I have put up a short version of an inorganic compound page, called inorganic_stylesheet1 since I note that the current template is rather intimidating.  I am concerned that most people writing new pages are not going to want to spend the time to look up all of the data asked for, and I personally don't like putting up a page where most of the entries have a "?". This could get even worse if we include all of the details that a "full" page should include (see my comments in the next talk section on suggestions for the template).  I have put up a sample page at samarium(III) chloride so you can see what a typical page might look like.  I have put some more extended comments up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#.22Short_form.22_standard_for_less_common_inorganics  
Please give me your comments on inorganic_stylesheet1, either here or at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#.22Short_form.22_standard_for_less_common_inorganics- thanks!
If people like this, I will produce one for organics too.
Walkerma 19:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short form of page for less common inorganics 

message: There are a few pages I've made/heavily edited that link to organic table information that use tables inspired by the inorganic table information template.  In making these, however, I came to realized that the appropriate information for any given compound varies rather heavily from compound to compound, and so the "definitive" organic table never came to pass.  This is better shown by looking at a few of the pages and their tables, such as furfural, citric acid, and butadiene. Shimmin
:I had created organic table information before I found this comment, but no regrets - it ought to exist if it's linked. I have raised it to a superset of the sold, liquid, gas, acid/base and hazardous type info. --Keith Edkins 21:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a template for the infobox.  You can use  to add it to articles.  I merged the inorganic compound and organic compound tables into it; I think it covers everything one might be interested in.  A few fields (such as the IUPAC name) might not be needed for inorganic compounds, but everything else should probably remain the same between the two.  --Eequor 20:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes (discussion moved from Chemistry Wikiproject)

message: There are two types of info boxes which I'll call "orange" and "new" (since I think it's newer--the info box currently shown on the project page.) I actually prefer the orange box style, and plan on making articles with that. Is there a problem with this? Can we even adopt that as the official standard? For one thing, the new box shows up poorly on some browsers (with black backgrounds in some cells), and I think color makes these articles look better. Cool Hand Luke 23:57, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've notice several different schemes on various articles, so I don't know exactly what new box you're talking about. I prefer and use the two-tone color scheme of the present infobox. - Centrx 20:25, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

text: I'm now at home on a mozilla browser and I can now tell the new one is still orange (now two-tone). On certain versions of IE, the current style looks awful: the backgrounds appear black. I'll try to tweak the template the make this problem go away. Otherwise, I do like the new style better. Cool Hand Luke 20:37, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it possible this is because of some articles using colors like #FAD or #FED instead of #FFAADD or #FFEEDD ? - Centrx 20:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: More than possible. I fixed the template. If I happened to edit articles using just three bytes, I'll fix them too, but I'm not going out of my way to do it. Cool Hand Luke 00:48, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about which box to use

message: Hello WikiChemists!  Very basic question: How does one use these info boxes?  I paste the text  into the article, but am unable to edit the entries.  So, I figure I'm doing something wrong.  (See Lithium aluminium hydride as an example of my attempt to add an infobox.) ~K 22:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How To Use Infoboxes 

message: User:Malcolm Farmer notes problems with using the infobox, if you look under the history of the new (and much-needed) Limonene page.  If you look at the older versions of the page, you will see.  Maybe we need to explain how to use these templates, because I confess I haven't worked it out properly myself, and I even wrote one!  Myself, I just keep versions of each template in MS Word, and I edit them as I need to.  How do others do this? 
:Hi Martin, the trick is to open the page where you want the table for editing, type , and then save the page. Upon saving the actual template table is inserted into the page. So opening the page again for editing: Presto, the full table is there! PS. Good progress you, Henry and the others are making. Wim van Dorst 20:57, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC).
::I just inserted the chembox, added some details, and edited the text a bit. It does need quite some work, though. Wim van Dorst 22:22, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC).
FYI, I added a new :Category:Terpenes and terpenoids, I didn't like them all going into organic compounds, and User:V8rik has been very busy creating Ionone, Citral, etc. Walkerma 16:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Limonene]] template problem 

message: I have a few thoughts on editing the template, but I don't want to upset people by editing first and asking questions later.  Also see my comments in the previous section on a short form.
1.  A lot of thermodynamic properties are included, yet many other things are not.  Is this by choice, or is it just an accident of evolution?  I would definitely like to include coordination geometry for metal compounds, and possibly include a section on hydrates too.  I think there should also be a link to related compounds, as they do with chemical elements- thus the page on NaCl would link to NaF, NaBr, NaI, LiCl and KCl.  There are quite a few other pieces of data omitted from the template, such as dielectric constant, molar conductivity, dipole moment, viscosity, vapour pressure at STP or SATP, refractive index, lambda-max and extinction coefficient, major IR bands, 1H-NMR and 13C-NMR chemical shifts (for organics), mass spectrum information, magnetic susceptibility, magnetic moment (where appropriate), symmetry point group, basic chemical properties (besides the acidity currently included)- and these are just a few things that spring to mind! The NMR, IR and possibly MS could be links to scans of the spectra.  Many of these are properties I would consider to be more important than those currently in the template- but if we put EVERYTHING in, it may be quite overwhelming- so do we need to limit what is included?  If so, what goes in and what stays out?
2.  Isn't specific gravity rather redundant when density is included?
3.  Don't the Safety and Precautions sections really belong in an MSDS rather than here?  We include a link to an MSDS in the template box, so anyone wanting serious safety information will look there (or at an external link if provided).  It seems silly to clutter up much of this box with a repetition of the MSDS information.  The purpose of a page on a chemical compound is to provide a summary of properties, uses, etc. of that compound, it should not try to be a watered-down MSDS.  I would suggest a simple summary term like "Hazards"- and then put in simple words such as Irritant, Carcinogen, Toxic, along the lines of the Aldrich catalogue.  If someone wants the full MSDS sheet they click on the link.
4.  Should things like density and phase be given for STP, or should we use SATP?  I think of benzene as a liquid, not a solid!  I think many density values are given at temperatures other than 0 °C.  Also, shouldn't the default for temperature be °C rather than K?  Other than NIST, I don't know of any chemists who routinely use anything other than °C to report the majority of their information on chemical compounds- but then I am an organic chemist rather than a physical chemist!
Walkerma 20:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for the template 

message: In my opinion the parameter "odor" should be removed, as the previous "psychological" classification of smell sensations has been shown to be obsolete and inaccurate. Also the number of primary odors is not at all clear. It can vary from at least 100 to perhaps more than 1,000. Discrete odor blindnesses have been proved to exist for many of these. For more info, see Guyton:Textbook of medical physiology, . --Eleassar777 11:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a fair point.  I will be doing a major revamp of this template soon, I will take out that section.  There's also the safety issue- we discourage people from sniffing things too much unless we know they're safe.  I think the odour issue is best handled in the introductory paragraph in cases (like limonene) where it's appropriate, but for many things it's irrelevant anyway. Walkerma 14:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Odor

message: Hi, all. I have applied the new colour scheme ClockWorkSoul, which is generally chosen for the page-wide banner templates,  to all four of the chemical infoboxes. Actually, I'm a sucker for standards, but this time I see that the dividing horizontal lines on my Unix-box come out very poorly. What do you think? Wim van Dorst 22:40, 2005 May 2 (UTC). I used the lithium aluminium hydride and dimethylsulfone as examples. Wim van Dorst 22:49, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
:I think that scheme is fine for the inorganic pages, the colour change is fairly small.  (Is it usual to take out the dividing line between the two columns? If that's the norm, I'm OK with it.)  However I think it's good to distinguish organics from inorganics, so I really like Cacycle's grey-blue version, which has become a "standard" for most organics.  I'll go with the group's overall opinion, though. Walkerma 00:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right, it is not good to completely loose the dividing lines. They are not in the colour scheme per se, but a result of using styles (as per the scheme). I have added to the styles to see several important dividing lines again. Example is up at hydrochloric acid. Comments? Wim van Dorst 22:03, 2005 May 3 (UTC).
I'm pleased that you like my ClockworkSoul's Coffee Roll color scheme. Let me know if there's anything I can do to adjust or improve upon it for you. – ClockworkSoul 17:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wikipedia colour scheme: ClockWorkSoul