Talk:Cycloheximide

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cycloheximide article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Chemicals Low‑importance

	This article 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 article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 09:18, 6 February 2008 DumZiBoT version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Philopp (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFPA 704

According to the article NFPA 704, a 4 in the yellow part of the "diamond" means that the substance is "readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition at normal temperatures and pressures". The article text here does not mention anything about explosivity, and neither the molecular structure nor the S-phrases suggest that cycloheximide is explosive. It seems that the NFPA 704 info was added in a semi-automated edit, so maybe something went wrong there. Could anybody confirm or correct the information? //Essin (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot did not ignore the comments in the ignore tags like it was supposed to. I've since replaced it with data from the Oxford MSDS, which we usually consider to be reliable. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]