Template talk:Reactionbox

Roll out problems

• The higher level pages don't exist (e.g. Functional group oxidation) - suggest to make reasonable redirects first! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I turned it into categorisation, see Category:Functional group oxidation for now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

To be implemented

• Examples in box (e.g. the box on the higher level reaction pages like on Functional group oxidation should point back with the examples to e.g. Swern oxidation, and Swern oxidation could point back to 'notable examples' that we cover here on Wikipedia (can't think of one here, but e.g. Olefin metathesis could point back to the synthesis of poly-norbornene?) -> new module.
• Other reaction databases in identifiers (ChemSpider?)?
• Links to March in identifiers?
• Links to Organic chemistry (e.g. https://www.organic-chemistry.org/namedreactions/swern-oxidation.shtm ) in identifiers.
• Similar reactions -> new module.

--Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I added examples and similar reactions to Template:Reactionbox Related. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Merit of box

Is see we need a discussion about the use of this box. V8rik removed it with some comments:

• RSC ontology does not add anything.
  • I would argue, that it does, and when we are linking to more of said databases (I recently had contact with chem.de who are working on something similar; we could include the 'ID' in March (suggested above). The RSC link gives on quite some pages a direct link to a plethora of articles in which the reaction is used. IMHO, it is a very valuable external link, even more valuable than linking to e.g. commonchemistry.org for every compound. I am not sure if the RSC is so obscure, it is part of their prospect project, have a look at articles under that, and follow a link under a reaction, one gets to the same information.
• Box duplicates
  • Well, the some of the info in the article, as is in the 'see also' section can be handled in the box and removed from the See also section (which I should have removed, then). It also gives a clear overview of the reaction (typical starting materials, typical products, in a generic way), and might be useful later for setting up classes of reactions, which is not only useful for chemists, but even for students in high school who get to do chemistry (what reactions yield an alcohol? Try to answer that now using Wikipedia .. I believe it can be done in the future). And as a WP:WAX-type of answer, the {{chembox}} on Benzene duplicates information which is also in the article (name, molecular formula, flammability, carcinogen, ...), as far as I know that is not a reason to remove the box altogether, not even to remove that information out of the box.

Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proceeding on the duplication: the see also section now contains Parikh-Doering oxidation, Dess–Martin periodinane, Corey–Kim oxidation and Pfitzner–Moffatt oxidation. Three are 'similar reactions' which could be nicely grouped in the reactionbox, one is a used reagent. In the see also that is unclear, the reactionbox would make that clearer.

I have included now possibilities to link to other identifiers as well, that functionality might need some testing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I was involved when we first discussed the idea of the reaction box, and I was fully supportive. We don't have good ways right now to organize our reaction content, other than the traditional method of categories. However, I think V8rik raises some good points; unlike the ChemBox, this box as written doesn't add too much to the article. That doesn't mean, IMHO, that we should immediately forget the idea altogether, but rather we need to see if there is a way to organize our reactions that adds to the useful content of the articles. If, for example, there are reaction identifiers that can serve as gateways into major reaction databases, as seen here, that is certainly adding value. I know of two reaction identifiers that are under development at the moment, which could take off like SMILES and InChI have. But we need to as - Is a data box the best way to handle this? Maybe it is - for example, related reactions might be better there than in a "see also". If we DO choose to use a box, how should it be designed? Or should we just have a small section or reaction parameters at the end? I really don't know the answers, but I think we need to "think outside the box" a bit (sorry!). Walkerma (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Some further issues:
  • When I checked yesterday the RCS content on Swern oxidation the page was empty. This is also the problem with hyperlinks to CAS content: all too often it leads to an empty page. We should not burden visitors to wikipedia with links that lead to pages without any content.
  • the current content is a collection of links to articles that deal with Swern oxidation. Mind you, no free access to these pages is provided and each article costs 30 pound to access. RCS should not be allowed to commercially exploit wikipedia. Wikipedia editors should analyse literature for any content on the Swern oxidation and then write a great article on Swern oxidation
  • the RCS classification completely disregards the existing classification that already exists and with long-term consensus in wikipedia, thus Swern oxidation belongs in the existing category organic redox reaction and not in the as yet to be created Category:Functional group oxidation reactions
  • I also object to the verified bot in the infobox. Each time I make an edit to the article the bot comes along and announces that I as an editor did not violate the article.
  • In any reaction there is rarely a simple set of reaction conditions, inclusion into a table will be troublesome. In many reactions even the naming of the reaction is troublesome. Best left to prose. Wikipedia is not a database V8rik (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm ..
  • When I checked, there was a short description of the reaction, and a list of articles.
  • Sure, all into pay-per-view articles, but linking to these databases IMHO is a step to a lot of information; not all databases are so closed (I was recently contacted by someone who is involved in another database of this type).
  • I am not trying to 'push' a new classification, that could easily be set to 'organic redox reaction', and that makes sense to use, actually (I've changed it while answering, by the way).
  • Nah, not each time that you make an edit. Only if and when you would change something in the infobox which is marked by the bot. You may have a large number of articles on your watchlist, there will be also many who are not, and where important, 'immutable' data is easily vandalised without anyone noticing. The link to CAS is indeed largely useless (even for the compounds that do have a corresponding page), but at least, when verified, we know that we are talking about the right compound. <cynical>People will learn fast enough that the page on commonchemistry.org does not give much info, and use the PubChem/ChemSpiderID or other identifiers to get to info</cynical> (which we are trying to verify all as well).
  • That is a matter of 'being generic'. 'polymerisation reaction: monomer -> polymer'. And we don't know if we hit limits until we try, and then there will be the possibility to step back, and see if either we can solve it, just omit the reaction-subbox, or if our approach fails. Most infoboxes have their limits.
  • That is also true for chemicals, again. We use conventions or a commonly used name. Lets add a 'Synonyms'-type field to the box, and we can list all alternatives in a clear way.

Wikipedia is indeed not a database, still we hold an awful lot of material in infoboxes, all database-like. And those infoboxes do allow us to systematically group information and articles, link into major databases

I still see also large advantages, it can be used for the categorisation, certain parts out of the text can be put into a clearer overview (the example of the see-also section above), and we could consider to group by 'reactions that yield an alcohol' (information which now can not be retrieved from Wikipedia in an easy way; Special:Whatlinkshere/alcohol gives as first hit Autism .. Wikipedia is useless for that, but this may be a way to do it .. I would say 'let's try'). I also was considering to include a subbox for 'typical examples', linking to notable compounds on Wikipedia for which the commonly used synthesis includes the type of reaction, or notable 'multi step synthesis' which include the synthesis. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Calls to non-existent templates

Template:Reactionbox RSC ontology id calls a template called {{rsccite}}, which does not exist.

Template:Reactionbox OrganicChemistry calls a template called {{organicchemistrycite}}, which does not exist.

Both of these templates are showing up high on the list of Special:WantedTemplates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

fixed. Frietjes (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)