Renaming sections[edit]

Any comments about renaming "section numbers" in articles which are using the chembox. One example where section6 is renamed to section4 [1] . I think its a bad idea because when adding new sections they would probably be out of order (i.e. the order specified in the documentation). (@M97uzivatel:) - Christian75 (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's important to keep the sections in the same order in the display result. Given sections with no content are not displayed (I hope!), there is no problem with a number being skipped and no value to an edit that merely changes the numbers to keep them strictly sequential. DMacks (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The |section# v# sets the order of calling, and telling what is in that section gives the order of display. In this case it does not change anything, but if someone wants to add a fourth section this one may need to be moved down. It is a bit useless to change the numbers, often certain sections are always placed as last (hazards, explosive data, e.g.) so leaving them in a high number makes it easier and avoids duplicate use and confusion. I think we even have a standard order for sections, though with options to re-order for some compounds (we have explosive data normally quite far to the bottom, but for TNT it makes sense to have it higher up).
Cleaning up empty parameters/sections should also be done with common sense, you wouldn’t want to remove the ones for data that is possibly/likely going to be added (it’s fine for obscure parameters) as it gives quite some work for n00bs like me to find the correct parameter name and place. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well since I left a note on M97uzivatel's talk page, M97uzivatel is no longer removing empty stuff or renumbering sections. Several accidents happened while doing this, eg duplicate section numbers and excessive deletion. Personally I may remove parameters that would never be used. And when I start a Chembox now, I only put in parameters that I have values for. For those that use copies or templates templates, they may end up with unused stuff. But it is just busy work to remove this if there is nothing else to change. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move identifier section to the bottom[edit]

The identifiers section ahead of the properties section is not ergonomic for readers because more readers will want to find out about the chemical properties than of the identifiers. Because this is the least descriptive part of the infobox, I suggest moving it to the bottom. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what you think. The CAS RN for example is likely of high interest to readers. --Leyo 21:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify what you meant by that? A high schooler or a person not really into chemistry might disagree with that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relaunch "found in taxon"[edit]

After some time passed, I am trying again to advocate for the addition of a "found in taxon" line based on Wikidata as already mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Chembox/Archive_13#Add_%22Found_in_taxon%22-list_(proposal)

My lua skills for implementation did not improve since then but woth asking again if of any interest? AdrianoRutz (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up Template:Chembox Identifiers[edit]

On the page of ((Chembox Identifiers)), prior to the template documentation there is a broken string: "! colspan=2 style="background: #f8eaba; text-align: center;" |Identifiers

|- "

Might want to remove that as it appears like broken infobox text. Thanks, -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 06:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories