Template talk:Chem infobox

Thanks for the quick action Robert! :) David E. Volk 15:23, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

I want to make this a major improvement over the elem box. --Robert W King 15:24, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Robert, I would like to leave out the chemical structure pictures, or make it a "if exist" type of variable, because the pictures will be too small to see for many chemicals, or the box will need to be very fat. I notice WP uses pictures on many articles, but can't fit them in to many others. So, I was thinking that the structure picture goes on top right (not in the template) and the template would be directly under the picture. That way we can scale the structures to always be readable while giving the template a slim profile. David E. Volk 15:37, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

In that case, if I put the picture on the top box, it might work out ok. Can you make an example on your talk page or this talk page? Or do you not want the picture a part of the data? Do you want the data as wide as the picture? --Robert W King 15:39, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

itraconazole for test site

Robert, I tried to use the full box, in the article itraconazole. The long IUPAC name made it crash. I don't know how to put the picture into the chem infobox. Please look at itraconazole and try to put the picture into it for my if you would. Thanks. David E. Volk 15:54, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

I put it inside. There's a {{{picture}}} variable so you can put the image stuff inside. There's also a {{{align}}} and {{{width}}} so the width can be adjusted as necessary and the box can be placed left, right, or center on the page. I'll have all this stuff documented. --Robert W King 15:57, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Template description

Robert, could you modify the template description, both here and for the elem_infobox, to make a point of distinction between the two and to alert users to the existence of the other one on each page? David E. Volk 16:34, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

uses/hazards

I had originally put the uses and hazards next to each other because I thought the hazards should be known while the product is actually in use; arranging them differently (and thus obviously) I thought might be more informative. --Robert W King 14:12, 21 March 2008 (CDT)

Colors

David, the zebra striped colors are painful to read! --Robert W King 14:37, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

The problem is that some fields are taking 3-5 lines, and then it is not clear which answer belongs to which

variable. I would like to at least have the pagename hi-lighted. Could you make borders that would delineate the answers and variables so it is clearer how they go together for long answers? David E. Volk 14:41, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

See Zalcitabine for example David E. Volk 14:42, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

Ok I'll come up with something but please just make them all white for the time being Template:Codewink --Robert W King 14:43, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

Fixed it. --Robert W King 12:33, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

New Skin

The white background of the Chem infobox looks pretty bad when using the new skin. Is there a way to make it pickup the background color that is used on the page it is used on? Or, if everyone will be forced to use the new skin, can we pick the top color in the fade as our new background color? David E. Volk 16:50, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

Erm, we could pick the grey between fades? Say, #DEDEDE. Does it work? It has a cool fading optical illusion on some pages. --Robert W King 16:51, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

separation of uses, properties and hazards

Robert, the main items which need separating are the uses, properties and hazards, because each of these catagories can be several lines long. I like the new color scheme. David E. Volk 15:50, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

Ok, easy to do. I'll fix it shortly. --Robert W King 15:53, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

IUPAC needs more space

Robert, the IUPAC chemical name really is going to need the full width of the chem_infobox. See Cefazedone for any example of current version. Could you change the template to make it so? By using the nowiki function, the names seem to work just fine, so I think I will start adding them to all of the pages if you can make it wider and more legible. Thanks, David E. Volk 10:45, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Holy cow, is that the real IUPAC chemical name? Shame on them for making it so long Template:Codefrown. If it takes up the whole width then the box will take up the whole width of the page and I'm not so sure that's the best solution. --Robert W King 13:00, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Misunderstanding about width

Robert, I meant only to use the whole width of the chem infobox 200-400px, whatever size it is, not the whole wiki page, with the word IUPAC above the actual IUPAC name, as opposed to the current situation where the word "IUPAC" is on the left, and the answer is on the right. Does that make more sense now? It may still take 2-3 lines to show the name, but that format would make the space available twice as wide for the same chem infobox. David E. Volk 14:48, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

I understand now. Let me ask, would it make more sense than to move the IUPAC data to the bottom given its nature of being wildly erratic and potentially long? --Robert W King 15:03, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

I don't particularly care where it is at. you can look at the WP version at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cefazedone to get an idea of what I was thinking. I would wouldn't mind a whole lot if the IUPAC name moved down some, because only chemists will use it anyway, and even they might be more likely to use the CAS#. David E. Volk 15:24, 29 April 2008 (CDT)