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
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this template or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals
This page is the within the scope of WikiProject Edit requests, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's edit request process and reduce the number of edit requests in the edit request queue.Edit requestsWikipedia:WikiProject Edit requestsTemplate:WikiProject Edit requestsEdit requests
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
For the template image we could use a Markush type structure, (an example is shown left), i.e. a structure with unspecified groups such as X Y and R1 and R2 etc? This sort of image implies generally a structure is requested, and/or can imply that the structure currently used is uncertain. The current image "A + B → C" implies a reaction mechanism is required. -- Quantockgoblin16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ehm, true. Difficult. I wanted this template to either replace 'wrong' images, or to use it as a request-automation for e.g. inline reaction drawings or other images (don't know if it is a good plan). I now see people comment on images on talkpages, and I then go to the image request to ask for it, this should make that easier. So it has to be something generic for both (I see you already have given it more thought than I did). I guess this is a good one to start with. --Dirk BeetstraTC17:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, forgot to answer. I do like the first better than the second, the second one looks a bit cheap. I'll include the first one for now, awaiting more input. --Dirk BeetstraTC10:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I hate to be a dissenter here, but I am not very fond of the first one or the second one. The second one does look cheap, but it is simple and right to the point with a simple benzene structure which is universally associated with chemistry. On the otherhand the first one looks good, but way too busy, in my humble opinion. --PedroDaGr802:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
or if you want a more warning-type background, how about this: 
--Slashme 14:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
