Chemistry Template‑class

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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

Who exactly makes such decisions, and when *could* it happen? - Aethyta (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hmm, looks like we have a chicken-egg problem then :p Sizeofint (talk) 08:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, will do that! Aethyta (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SMILES block is duplicated (after IUPHAR_ligand block and after RTECS), in {{Chembox Identifiers}}. --Jmarchn (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. |SMILES= is used twice: for Jmol-3D and for SMILES. But not repeated in the infobox. For example, see ammonia. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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 google.com 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And we could source that at some point .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I understand. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose for discussion, the following specific change: That we alter the status quo, working to create a new, thorough, infobox-correlated, complete-and-verifiable reference list for the chemboxes that is:

1. organized in order, according to the appearance of the DATA FIELDS in the chembox,
2. thorough, with each field, standard and optional, having one corresponding reference, and
3. scholarly, i.e., with each source being a good, complete, proper secondary sources.

After discussing this, we can wrestle with policy regarding what to do if the source of a datum is other than the one assigned in the new chembox reference list. Development of at least this would mean that if the "new chembox reference" is consulted, and the data not verified there, the reader/reviewer would know there is a problem to address.

Please, join me in discussing this specific proposal—including how it might integrate with earlier metadata discussions. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leprof 7272: in these earlier metadata discussions you were dismissive, non-cooperating, doing personal judgements, non-responsive, and maybe more. I'm not going to spend time on this. Just a simple point: why do you keep bolding your text, when it was explained to you that that is shouting? -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In no professional understanding of typography does bold mean anything other than emphasis. Yours is a singular perspective, but to ensure you do not feel disrespected, let me state plainly. When I use bold, I am not shouting. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: DePiep's perspective is not singular. I share it. Hint: if your posts were more concise, you wouldn't need bolding. Boghog (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog: I afford you all the respect for this opinion, and in general, as demanded by your past behavior and the company you keep (here). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way Wikipedia works is that people do things—proposing that others do things is usually unhelpful. Interspersing comments all over the place is also not ideal procedure. Someone might like to propose that holding the mouse over "boiling point: 100 °C" causes a pop-up message to display a reliable source with page number, but that's not going to happen unless someone comes up with a plausible plan and starts implementation. Why not work in a sandbox and post a short message without a belligerent heading asking for opinions when at least a mock-up is available. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you take umbrage at suggestions made in this way. (In every organization of which I have been a part, many very large and successful, similar means of making suggests are used. Major change only comes if the leaders are listening to all ideas.) But it appears at least some, below, are able to tolerate this, so lets see what they have to say. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a non aggressive idea on how to deal with this in Wikidata context : imagine the datas are retrieved from Wikidata, a Wikidata statement is used to render an infobox facts, and that those how are not sourced on Wikidata are presented in a displeasant way such as with a refnec tag or in red like redlinks or whatever. People would be presented to a link to the statement in Wikidata like "add a source there", and when they did, the information is presented normally, with a "see the source" or whatever to see the original document. TomT0m (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TomT0m. WD is not able to provide values with units now so don't propose that solution because we can't provide a quick and simple solution now. We have a test scheduled in the next 3 weeks but right now we have nothing. Don't propose solutions which are only on the paper. Snipre (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Snipre: What's a few weeks or months in the project scale ? It's relevant to know the options before taking a decision that might take weeks to implement and might be to rethink from the start one month later. Nether to soon to communicate on a possible big change that can be a paradigm shift, people are generally slow to catch such kind of changes and its implications. TomT0m (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TomT0m. We have no idea when we will have a stable version of the numeric datatype with unit before the end of the year. The problem is if now the project Chemistry wants to start to use WD, they can't and no date can be provided to start a data migration. You sell wind. Snipre (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

selling wind

No I don't. The dev team of Wikidata is working on it and it's clearly one of their topmost priority with queries, they are about to have a test version. It's time to prepare the venue, and it's relevant in the context of the current discussion. TomT0m (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heu, you make a commitment here. The monolingual datatype is already developed from a while but we still can't use some languages. The dev team is working on units and will propose something, sure. Can they solve all the implementation problems in a short time, this is a bet I prefer to avoid. Snipre (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In principle Wikidata is great, but I'm not sure how it would work with chemical infoboxes which have dozens of fields. Does anyone have experience with Category:Templates using data from Wikidata? Wikidata seems rather like the old joke of solving a programming problem with a regex—now you have two problems. The issue at the moment is how to ensure data in infoboxes is correct, verifiable and preferably directly referenced, and doesn't rot due to vandalism/mistakes. Would transferring it all to the elaborate scheme at Wikidata solve the problem or merely hide it? Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: It's a matter as how sources or lack of one is presented, as I suggested in my earlier post, that aspect of the problem does not really change. Once that is solved, the problem is "would it be easier to add a source on Wikidata or on Wikipedia" for a contributor ? Then I say that all have their own difficulties, but I would not say that Wikidata is harder than Wikipedia. Adding a source in Wikidata is a matter of clicking on "add a source", and typing a url with the "url" property, you should try it. Finding the right property to add the data is the equivalent to find the right infobox parameter is made easy by suggestions and typing a few letters, "num" for number of something for example will be enough in most cases. People should understand that pretty well. Now they have to understand Wikitext or where to put the url on the right part of the article, it's not that easy. The last part of my answer will be international collaborations : whatever the wikipedia language version they are reading or editing, they can contribute to Wikidata. Which means any Wikipedia can benefit of the sourcing efforts made in any other one, which is one of the most interesting feature of Wikidata. TomT0m (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, while well intended, I think this proposal misses the point. It is already possible to add references to the data in chembox; either using reference fields already built into it, or by simply adding <ref></ref> tags. Some editors do add refs and some do not; with access to the various paywalled services where this data is kept often the deciding factor. The problem has built up over time and will take a huge amount of effort to fix. Chembox is used on ~9700 pages, and if we include Drugbox (which I presume we'd also want to be fully referenced) then we're talking about ~15,000 pages. There are multiple data-fields to enter per page, but even if we limit ourselves to the most basic: mpt, bpt and density then we already need to find 45,000 references. As I said, there are only a dozen or so editors with the resources to do this and some of us are chipping away at it but it's going to take a lot of time. --Project Osprey (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey, all good suggestions, but Wikipedia is not Britannica. Britannica states at the base of its article page who it is that authored the article. Reading the Oxygen article, [2], one sees the name "Robert C. Brasted" at its base, and clicking on this takes you to a page that identifies RCB as "Professor of Chemistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis." That is, its claim to reliability is "authoritarian," in a very literal connotation of the word. Our claim, at WP is in the fact that our information is verifiable—not theoretically verifiable, but practically so. (I know of more than one faculty colleague, who on teaching the use of web resources, says of WP, "If a statement [or datum] has no citation, skip it. If it has a source, check it." And we should revel in this scrutiny, not bristle at it.) Even if all we do is say, for instance at the proposed new (revised) chembox reference list — "Melting points. For melting points, data are drawn from Source X (inorganic compounds), or Source Y (organic compounds)... and if from none of these, the source is indicated via an inline citation in the chembox." — we are doing readers a great service (in limiting the number of places to check before they have to conclude not to view the information as reliable). To leave it that the reader has to trust the value without a source, that is pretending to be authoritarian Britannica when our Pillars say our veracity lies elsewhere. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: Osprey hit the nail on the head. <ref></ref> and {{reflist}} Wiki markup already takes care of points #1 and #2 on your list. If the number of sources for the chembox become very large, it may be necessary to segregate or collapse the sources, but this is trivial to set up. Point #3 is far from trivial and will take a substantial effort to fully implement. Wikidata has the potential to tap into the work of foreign language Wikipedias, but as explained elsewhere on this page, it is not yet ready for that purpose. Boghog (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not the possibility, the question is to know if the project Chemistry wants to go to the direction of sourced data (meaning each value with its specific source data) in the chembox. Again contributors will do what is done and if there is no "pressure" or incitement to add sources, very few persons will do more than others do.

The question of the number of current data is a false problem because the question is to know what you want. Do you want to have sourced data in the chembox ? Yes or no, and after we can start to speak about how to deal with the current data, with the problem of code,...

No body requires to have only data from well known references. You can still use data from the web but each time you add a value, add the source. You add a value from a web page, so use the template Template:Cite web. You add a value from Aldrich, use Template:Sigma-Aldrich, from Gestis, use Template:GESTIS, from a book, use Template:Cite book,...

Nobody is written a value from his memory and there are already enough templates to add the sources of the data if you want. But to see that happening you have to specify that from date XX. 201X the project wants to adopt a new sourcing policy and to provide the list of templates to use. Snipre (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious answer to the first question is yes... But that has always been encouraged as well as being catered for by Chembox in the form of its various X_Ref fields. In terms of using wikidata; it sounds perfectly reasonable however I would hope that any changes made to Chembox's code (or at least the code that normal editors see) in order to make it more machine readable would not be done at the expense of it's human readability. If it becomes complex and confusing editors won't add new data.--Project Osprey (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree that this again misses the point - it is possible to reference every single value in the chembox. And I agree that it should be. But the solution is not to suggest that we implement that - the solution is to implement it. One did a calculation that it is 15.000 chemicals that have the problem .. in the chem/drugbox .. the problem is that we have 221.000 articles lacking sources (and probably most are not even tagged), and every article has statements that need sourcing. This is not a chemistry specific problem. I have, above, agreed that the sourcing of the chemboxes could/should be better, I do however think that with the general references we are not doing even that bad - it is for, probably the large majority of, the data better than nothing at all.

Whether we want to go there .. well, we should. Whether we can .. we once had a drive to have the identifiers verified and to get that data better and better - but that died (and actually, that would be a great source for the rest of the data if those were all correct, and that was the reason we started that (see the prose on User:CheMoBot) - get the identifiers right, and then check/source the rest of the data, much of which could be done/helped by machine). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: Again : Wikidata :) (And I hope Snipre will back me up on this). I hope you're aware of this but Wikidata already have a lot of identifiers on items linked to articles. Bot work like User:CheMoBot is better when possible done in Wikidata. All wikidata's identifier are usable on infoboxes on the corresponding articles, with benefits that the bots of other people on other projects will do a part of the work. TomT0m (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this time I can support you. With WD we can implement constraints with violation reports to help us to identify bad data. This is currently working well with identifiers because one of the main characteristics of identifiers is their uniqueness. In some way this is an improvement compared to CheMoBot because we can clearly identify some errors from an edit. See for example the current violation report for PubChem CID.

But this doesn't say anything about the use of the correct identifier. Here a check against external databases is necessary and we still miss a bot to point some changes on specific statements like identifiers. Snipre (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But, @Snipre: the real problem is you can't say anything about whether an identifier is "correct" unless you have a set of criteria that defines whether the chemical that is referred to in the source database is the same as the chemical that is the subject of the wikidata item or wikipedia article. The InChI would be the "least worst" option for a large proportion of the compounds in Wikpedia/data as it is agnostic of any database and can be reconstituted to a structure (with certain caveats). This was the principle of @Beetstra:s ChemMoBot work, the problem then becomes that you need to get editors to understand the importance of sourcing accurate structures. --The chemistds (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and Interwiki links (I don't know if it is actually the case in chemicals) have mistakes, of course. But as the english article is likely to have been the reference, it's unlikely that there is that many inconsistencies with other wikis. Anyway, as long as the Wikidata item has a set of reliable and consistent set of identifiers to external database, this errors will likely be found and the wrong sitelinks founds :) This is a chicken and egg problem, and we have to start somewhere. It's easy to compare if the Wikidata statement about the id is the same of the Wikiedia article identifier. If it's not the same, then there is something to correct and maybe a conflict to solve ... that's Wikidata routine work. TomT0m (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've had discussions about WikiData - and I could (if I have time) rewrite CheMoBot to do it's actions on WikiData data (we could easily make for every verifiable field include a flag field for CheMoBot to maintain, problem is only for CheMoBot .. how to know that a certain field on WikiData is correct - do we need lists of 'revids' on WikiData to record it - after all, the problem stays the same: what if someone on WikiData changes the boiling point of water to 435 deg. C. a - who would notice, and b - how do we know whether that value was changed from something that someone else checked) .. The problem I foresee is the editing. It is easy to just transclude all data from WikiData, so every page would just contain '{{chembox}}', no identifiers would appear here anymore. It is however an enormous leap of faith to first get new editors to understand that the data is not in our article here, and to get them there to edit (to find out where what is). And monitoring - Here we have a good number of people monitoring together the thousand most important chemicals, there you need to 'watchlist' hundreds of individual identifiers per compound. And do you have any clue how much of the data on WikiData at the moment is actually correct? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra: The Wikidata devteam is working on watchlist integration into Wikipédia, with options such as «show only Wikidata changes on datas used into the Wikipedia page»: There is already an options for monitoring Wikidata item changes in Wikipedia for items corresponding to your Wikipedia pages in your watchlist. It's disfunctional ATM, but in principle this address your concerns. Wikidata is not really another project, it's meant to be integrated into Wikipedia and others deeply — it already is as it handles sitelinks. You could also be surprised that some people could find Wikidata editing easier that Wikitext editing. A tooltip next to an infobox line «edit this data» and people will click naturally, and new editors won't even notice they're not on the same wikis. Old one may be surprised but it won't be hard to explain.

On data quality : you bot owners has the tools to compare and to import Wikipedia datas into Wikidata, so I would say oeverything is on your hands, in part of your bot migration (if you have time of course) :) On Wikidata we use a lot of reports : if a bot finds something weird he writes a report for a human to solve the weird cases. So I'll say at first datas will be no worse than Wikipedia one, then they will increase because of interwiki interlanguage human and robots cooperation through Wikidata, with more eyes to check the datas and watch for vandalisms. Wikidata has also a culture of cooperation with other databases, such as VIAF in authority control, this also might in the future be positive for chemistry datas if external big partners are found. Of course as number with units is not ready yet this leaves a few weeks or months to think about it :). TomT0m (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra. No element is correct right now. The main problem is data was coming from different sources (different WPs) where people thought it was a coming topic. But often they mixed salt forms with acid form of some molecules, they mix stereoisomer with the racemate, active substance with drug... So we have to clean the data first. Snipre (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in this topic. But if anyone, the talkpager assaulting User:Leprof 7272 excluded, if anyone can convince me that even reading about this is useful, I'll act. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mdr. Perhaps my dear DePiep, just read what Osprey, Dirk, TomT0m, Snipre, chemistds… have been convincingly offering. This is a fantastic discussion. You needn't credit me for starting it, but do not disparage this clearly purposeful conversation.

Next, I very much appreciate Dirk saying that "it is possible to reference every single value in the chembox. And I agree that it should be." (emphasis added), and Johnuniq's later echoing of nearly the same—because it means we all seem to agree on the ultimate goal. The only question is how to get there, and I agree with the following themes of the foregoing discussion, that first, no major disruptive change should be made that makes it harder to edit, second, the answer lies in part, but not entirely, in an approach that uses Wikidata to solve connection problems between data fields and sources (which may however be the slowest-to-change component of the eventual solution, because of the work involved), and third, that the strategy of "just everyone, go source one unsourced datum at a time" cannot be the whole solution.

Next, I would point out that we are really not yet discussing the actual proposal that appears, as much as discussing its aim, motives, and ultimate steps (all fine)—but, anyone, why not revamp the general citations list, making it a page unto itself, and ordering it according to the appearance of the infobox fields?

Otherwise, nothing more from me as yet, except to say that, I would be glad to see a second generation proposal emerge for continuing discussion so that we operate with a concrete "motion on the table." Just my preference, to keep it focused. Otherwise, all fantastic give-and-take. Beyond my expectations at posting the first gen. proposal. If you come up with a counter proposal, please incorporate both the original and the discussion as much as possible. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See. Is what I say and why I say it: Leprof 7272 says how great he is. And, in the same bad line, Beetstra is mentioned for having an argument (I hope), but actually Beetstra never ever performed a wiki discussion. Beetstra just keeps hammering. Is why I don't like/support this "discussion". And why I don't spend that much time on wiki any more. -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add: this is what User:Beetstra wrote in this thread: "me and my fellow administrators to block every editor who will ...". So he and his admin friends will force anything anyway anyhow. Is Why I Leave Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what a nice piece of cherry picking, User:DePiep. Pulling things totally out of context (and without 'reference'). I stand behind that policy based point I made there. Can you now please comment on the subject of the thread instead of on one editor. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You said it, Beetstra. There is no "context" excuse. As for 'comment on the subject': I did. Shows you did not follow the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, that statement is ripped out of context, the context being what we are enforcing. And in case you did not get that, it are the policies and guidelines we all agreed upon following that will be enforced there. Now please go back onto the subject of this thread. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Leprof 7272: "why not revamp the general citations list ... ordering it according to the appearance of the infobox fields?" – as already pointed out several times above, {{reflist}} already does this. You have invented a problem that does not exist. Also, why create a "page on to itself"? This separates the data from the sources that support that data which is generally a bad idea. Wikidata may eventually be a solution to the problem, but the mapping between Wikipedia articles and Wikidata items needs to be cleaned up first and regardless of where the sources are stored, someone needs to add them. Who do you propose to do this? Without concrete proposals and more importantly resources to implement these proposals, all this talk is nothing but hot air. Boghog (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by Project Osprey above, I prefer to simply have all non-trivial values referenced using <ref> tags, i.e. like in de.wikipedia. --Leyo 10:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But why are all these distractions here? (not to say that the dewiki Chembox is better; I just don't have time to look at it). -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a quick question. Is there a parameter for odor threshold? I'm not seeing it but I've been known to completely miss parameters in the complex chem-beast. :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only |odor= exists (in subtemplate {{{Chembox Properties}}). -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 03:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... or |odour=, but the language shown is always US-en not UK-en. I'm not sure uit is fit for the treshold data. btw, there is a ~complete list of params, makes easy searching. It is linked under All parameters listed, one of the top links in {{Navbox Chembox}} (=the documentation navbox, at the bottom of every doc page). -DePiep (talk) 06:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I touched on this in the "German drug law" section but I'll present it formally here. Since there are 200+ countries in the world we cannot add the legal status of every country to the drug box. Therefore, we need some kind of consistent criteria for determining which countries to add. I am proposing we add those countries that will be useful for the highest number of en.wikipedia users. I believe the statistics available here may be of help [3]. This shows that users from the US, UK, India, Canada, and Australia use en.wikipedia the most. Since New Zealand is much further down the list I propose we replace it with India. About five countries is probably sufficient for the infobox. This could be applied to both the chemical and drug infoboxes Sizeofint (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like an improvement to me. Readership? It's replacing one crippled set of criteria with another one. Let me introduce the criterium: "where the applicable law is written in English" (at least this addresses the people affected by that law). Or: "Where the law is written in English, and the top 5 number of inhabitants". Or we can reorganise into groups: (four for example:) "Countries where this drug is free/OTC/Rx/illegal". (Read "and/or" for "or"). -DePiep (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not create article "List of drug laws by country", and each blue link having the law (categories) + drugs + other descriptions (like formal category-change process, developments, provisional categories). {{Drugbox}} could have one link to that List of countries' law. At least it is unlimited into completeness for 200 countries. -DePiep (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What criteria are we currently using? I am under the impression it has something to do with the number of native English speakers + presence of drug law article on en.wikipedia. In that case to be consistent per List of countries by English-speaking population South Africa and Ireland should be considered for inclusion because they have higher numbers of people who speak English as a first language than New Zealand. For Ireland we have Misuse of Drugs Act (Ireland) so there doesn't seem to be a reason not to add it. South Africa does not appear to have an article for their drug law. I don't really care what criteria we use as long as we have one that can be applied consistently. I feel that if we went the list route we might as well just link to the "Legal status" section of each article since that section should have the information anyway. The infobox should communicate information quickly and sending readers to another page defeats the point in my view. Sizeofint (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re What criteria are we currently using? - A year ago it was like: US, UK, CA, AU, Other. It appeared to me (looking at the template's usage; I'm editing & following it); it appeared to me that the "Other" section was used quite often for NZ, so I added _NZ to the default input option list.

I may repeat myself, but since that German discussion here I agree that we have a mosaic set now. Or is scattered the word? (and I also think the alternatives so far are not great either). The more I think about it — I am processing — I support my own proposal ;-) for article "List of drug laws by country", which has a link to "Drug laws in US", "Drug laws in IN", "Drug laws in TO" which will describe the law & can mention (list) & wikilink to any drugarticle. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of oops: I only fired on your opening sentence. Now about your complete answer. It is about the same confusion: too much criteria-options for the drugbox-listing. One thing we can not circumvent: there are ~200 countries and so ~200 drug laws. I don't see a sound & stable (i.e. low-disputed or universal) reduction of this number. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 200 countries = 200 drug laws for us to display: Is that what we're actually seeing? Is there a way for us to transclude the contents of | legal_status = (i.e. legal_other) from all drugboxes into a list? Because if 2 or 3 countries are making up 80% of that list then we might want to think about making some extra legal-fields for them. It could solve most of the problem and buy us years until we have to look at it again. --Project Osprey (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Category:Drugs with non-standard legal status (678 P now). Note that writing "legal_status = Rx only" (no country specified) is bad. -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No not that. Upon closer inspection of drugbox (I don't use it often) don't think what I'm talking about actually exists. I had thought that in addition to 'legal_UK' and 'legal_US' etc there was a 'legal_other' field were people could enter data for any other country as a text string.

As of the 1st June 20015 the old EU CHIP labels (better know as R Phrases and S Phrases) were replaced by the new GHS hazard statements. So the R and S phrases are now defunct and wont be appearing on SDS forms anymore - however, we still list a huge number of them in our chemboxes. What do people think we should do about this? Obvious options include leaving them, deleting them, or converting R → H and S → P (each R phrase is suppose to map to an H phrase, so no interpretation is needed, but there are a lot of chemboxes so unless so kind person writes a bot or knows a clever way of doing a mass edit this will take quite a long time). --Project Osprey (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtures that were already placed on the market before 2015/06/01 and not yet classified, labelled and packaged according to GHS are to be repackaged and relabelled by 2017/06/01 only. In addition, many products with R and S phrases will stay in households for quite a while. Therefore, it would be a bad idea to remove them from the chemboxes earlier than in 2017. In de.wikipedia, there is a notice shown for R and S phrases. It roughly translates as GHS labels are compulsory for substances as of 1st December 2012 and for preparations as of 1st June 2015. DSD labels are only present on mixtures that have already been placed on the market before that date.

Converting R and S phrases to P and H phrases is not always possible or does not always yield a meaningful result. I would rather gather the CLP data from the de.wikipedia articles that all cite a reference for them. To give an impression, Template:H-phrases is currently used in 385 articles, whereas de:Vorlage:H-Sätze is transcluded in 7921 articles. --Leyo 22:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have realised that de.wikipedia would be more on top of this. Your point about old products staying in households is a good one, however very few of our chemboxes are about mixtures and pure compounds have already switched over to GHS. I don't think we should delete R and S phrases yet, but we will have to eventually. Part of the problem is that the change-over had been done quietly; I know about it because I'm in industry but I don't think many academics are aware that its happened and most of our chemistry editors on en.wikipedia seem to be academic. That might explain why only ~4% of our chemboxes have H phrases.

Is there any way we could transcribe all those H-Sätze from de.wikipedia to H phrases en.Wikipedia? The nice people from wikidata keep saying that such things should be possible but I've actually seen it done. --Project Osprey (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, products with DSD labels may be sold until end of May 2017.

I guess we would need the help of a highly skilled bot operator to get the GHS (CLP) labels from de.wikipedia. --Leyo 12:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TomT0m: @Project Osprey: @Snipre: @Beetstra: @Leyo: @Boghog: The conversation seems to have ended with Bog's misstatement based on misunderstanding the issue, and then the last of DePiep's interjections (that I for one cannot usually understand). Ignoring the latter, and to bring this to a decision, I hope:

To say again, and contrary to Bog's content, a general citation list for the chem infoboxes (cited by many articles) already exists, here. My suggestion above, in short, is that we use this as a starting point, ordering it according to the order of appearance of chem infobox fields, then make all citations complete and clear, and then expand it as we need to be comprehensive. (Thus, we would set the stage for all remaining unsupported facts in the infobox to have inline citations in the article, with the further required references appearing in-article.) The suggestion that the general reference list appearing in so many boxes be ignored or removed, is (IMHO) too drastic of a change to the status quo. Otherwise, while I acknowledge the validity of the Beetstra comments that what is needed is change in behaviour, I note that changes in technology and tools often make behavioural improvements all the more likely (or unlikely, as at present). Now, please, comment on the very specific proposal to improve the existing chem infobox general reference list, as just described? Boghog, I ping you to be fair and civil; please try to reply in kind (and to fully understand what is being said before you reply). The proposal is clear and concrete, and per pages of discussion, anyone stating it to be an imaginary problem stands alone (or more precisely, with one other here). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• @Leprof 7272: The proposal is clear and concrete – Without specific examples, it is impossible to say what your proposal is. I have cleaned up the reference section that you were referring to so hopefully it is now clearer. Are you proposing to add sources selected from this general reference list as in-line citations to various fields in the chembox? (btw, I don't think this will work very well.) Or are you proposing something else? Please clarify with specific examples. Boghog (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Below is a concrete example (mapping of sections of chembox to specific citations):

Is this what you had in mind or something else? I personally think this is completely unworkable because there are so many compound specific exceptions, many cases where the citations would not be appropriate, databases that only apply to certain classes of compounds (e.g., organic vs. inorganic), etc., etc. Boghog (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over at {{drugbox}} we've added a 'pronounce' parameter. Should we do the same here? Sizeofint (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, Sizeofint. But the problem is that when every time I propose & prepare such a thing, people like Christian75 and Beetstra come here, afterwards only, and then piss me all over. Beetstra is an admin (ok so far), threatening to use that force as an argument. WP:IWILW. -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should go into the introduction, not the infobox. --Leyo 00:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo, have you seen the discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox drug#Move pronunciation to the drugbox? I think the reasoning would apply here as well. This has also been implemented for some time at {{Infobox element}}. I think it could make the lede clearer. Sizeofint (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have found your changes useful DePiep, perhaps we can engage them earlier. I will make a post about this discussion at WikiProject Chemicals. Sizeofint (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you link to this discussion before? ;-) Also, I haven't seen an example of an article where this parameter is set.

IMO the box is too long compared to the length of the text. This imbalance should not get larger. --Leyo 13:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amphetamine and Strontium are examples. We do have to weigh the cost and benefit of the parameter. I think it is worthwhile because I'd like to keep the Chembox and Drugbox as closely in tune with each other as possible. Sizeofint (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't see a need for an admin here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for a template editor? Sizeofint (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Its outdated, read Dangerous Substances Directive (67/548/EEC) and press a "relavant" external link, eg. [4] Christian75 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Palosirkka:, template talk:chembox redirects here Christian75 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you. One can test [5], 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)[reply]

• Y Prepare going live. Remove testsettings. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done. -DePiep (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resulting in 2500 Category:Chemical articles with unknown parameter in Chembox. -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• indexing StdInChI &tc.. 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Articles that have Jmol in {{Chembox}}: [6] (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 to remove the Jmol data and its external link from {{Chembox}}. -DePiep (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Strong keep per Boghog. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it comply with WP:EL? -DePiep (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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').

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: [7] (ca. 800 P). Ping Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH). -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]