User talk:Walkerma/Archive4

For other talk page archives see User talk:Walkerma/Archives. Other close archives include:

Archive1 — Archive2 — Archive3 — Archive5 — Archive6 — Archive7 — Archive8 — Archive9 — Archive10

Summer 2005 discussions.

Project Drugs

Well yeah, I'm a member of the Wikiproject Drugs and do a fair bit of pharmacological work. I've been drawing inept structural formulas of drugs since the good Mykhal deserted us, and filling out Template:Drugbox on as many drug-related pages as possible.

I would very much applaud a conjoint effort on drug pages. My basic chemistry is too rusty. Only last weekend I learnt that molecules diffuse into cells more easily if they are Zwitterions, something I should have known but didn't.

The box on paracetamol is rather large and not in keeping with the boxes on other pharmaceutical pages (e.g. cyclophosphamide, furosemide). We'll need to work something out. I would also support a box that can be changed instantly by modifying the template, instead of manually having to update the pages in question.

Shall we continue the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Drugs? That seems to me the most reasonable place to meet. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1066 Terpenes and all that ...

Thanks for the note about Category:Terpenes. I (no, sorry, Person unknown) created the category by mistake during the recent trawl through Category:Chemistry: I quickly moved the article into the pre-existing category, but I forgot to mark for delete. My vote is now on WP:CFD.

You asked about templates with arguments during the discussion on WikiProject drugs pages. These are possible, of course, but they seem overly complicated for long boxes like the chemboxes. See the citation templates at Wikipedia:Cite your sources for examples (and then try to use them, you'll see what I mean :)

Bravo on your article creation work! I shall have to get down to some myself, in between the annual stresses of the baccalaureat ... Cheers for now, Physchim62 20:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sodium sulfate is not on my priority list for the time being, so by all means take a stab at it. Ethanol now points to the right place as well (it used to redirect to ethyl alcohol). Calcium sulfate is now a stub in its own right instead of a redirect to gypsum, and I have eight more to do before we have places for all your photos! Physchim62 06:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Menthols

Hi, thanks for quite nice image of menthol isomers. However, the H₃C- groups are rendered as ₃HC- groups. Could you please fix it ? And also, I think that formulas without explicit hydrogen stereo bond would be more transparent. Mykhal 21:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mykhal- I didn't draw this, I simply "stole" this image from the German page, because the one for menthol before seemed so poor. I only noticed the ₃HC- after I had uploaded it- but I figured it was still more informative. I will be working on this page (content too) over the next 2-3 weeks, so I plan to re-do the drawing myself without the error. By the way, with the hydrogen, are you referring to the explicitly shown H at the top of each? Another thing, when I redraw this I will try to make the bond angles look more tetrahedral. Walkerma 02:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would you like me to try to fix this image? H Padleckas 02:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Henry, that would be great! Such things are beyond me, I'm afraid. Walkerma 02:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haved uploaded an improved Menthols image onto Wikipedia. The new image is clearer, uses up about 9-10% less memory storage than the previous *.png version, it replaces ₃HC- with H₃C- in the structures, removes the hydrogens at the top chiral center in the rings and the methyl group bonds in all the structures now point straight up. Also, the capital letter I in NeoIsomenthol was replace with a small i to give Neoisomenthol. It usually takes a couple of days to replace the old image, so check this image out in a couple of days to see if you thinks it's ok. If not ok, then please tell me how it can be improved. H Padleckas 15:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Henry, it looks so much better now! Perhaps you could upload it to the Commons? Cheers, Walkerma 15:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome, but I am surprised you can see the new image already. Usually, it takes a few days for a revised image to be become visible. I tried to look for the revised image I previously uploaded to Wikipedia (on June 24), but I still didn't see the new pic.

I don't see my revised "Ethylbenzene_to_Styrene.png" image yet either, which is used by the Ethylbenzene and Styrene articles. I wonder if you can see that. The newer image was made less wide and the reversible reaction arrows were changed from double-barb arrows to single-barb arrows. That image is in WikiCommons.
H Padleckas 16:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do see the new pic. I guess it must be a caching problem. Have you tried reloading/refreshing the page? That sometimes works. Walkerma 00:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've tried looking at these Wikipedia images using other people's computers. Sometimes, I can see some of these recently uploaded ones on other people's computers which I cannot on my computer. I don't know why. On my computer, I still see the old "Ethylbenzene to Styrene", "Sodium chloride crystal", and "Menthol" images. H Padleckas 03:40, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday, I checked these three images again to see if they were updated on my computer. In the Menthol article and on the image page (Image:Menthols.png), the images were are updated to the latest one I had uploaded. In the articles Sodium chloride and Ionic crystal, the NaCl crytal pic was updated to my latest version, but the image page (Image:Sodium_chloride_crystal.png) still showed the previous version on my computer. In neither the Ethylbenzene nor the Styrene article nor the image page (in WikiCommons), were the latest versions of the image seen on my computer. I don't know why this happens. I have observed a delay of several days before in updating pics to the latest version on my computer. H Padleckas 28 June 2005 22:51 (UTC)

All of the images mentioned in the previous paragraph, Image:Menthols.png (for the Menthol article), Image:Sodium_chloride_crystal.png (for the Sodium chloride and Ionic crystal articles), and "Ethylbenzene to Styrene" (in the Ethylbenzene and Styrene articles), have all been updated. Apparently, it takes a few days for revised images to be updated so the latest versions will show up on all computers. H Padleckas 4 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)

If you think the revised Image:Menthols.png image is fine now, you can archive this section on Menthols on your talk page because the issues in here have been resolved. If not, let me know how the Image:Menthols.png image can be improved and I will try to do it. H Padleckas 4 July 2005 13:45 (UTC)

If I was being picky, I would say that the bonds to the CH3 and the OH look rather long- normally if you use the atom label icon in ChemDraw it should make the attached bonds a little shorter. However the image still looks nice and is "presentable", much better than the old image. Thanks, Walkerma 4 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

I've modified the newer Image:Menthols.png pic to make the bonds to the methyls at the top of each molecule shorter by 4 pixels. I also shortened the bonds to the hydroxyl groups by abount the same amount, but I have not modified the isopropyl groups at the bottom of each molecule. These resulting changes are not very obvious to the casual observer. I have not yet uploaded any of my modified versions into WikiCommons yet; just the one from the German is there right now. Previously, I tried to upload my modified Menthols pic into WikiCommons by following certain instructions listed there, but my pics did not upload at that time. Do you want the isopropyl groups or anything else modified in any way before I try to upload the latest image into WikiCommons? H Padleckas 6 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, and the isopropyls are fine. Once you upload the new version I can try uploading it to Commons if you have a problem, as I was the one who uploaded it in the first place. Cheers, Walkerma 6 July 2005 21:20 (UTC)

Tetraterbium heptaoxide

You can do your own bloody article on this one, I don't even have a CAS number for it ;-) Thanks for the hint about arsenic trioxide, I'll take a look tomorrow; that being said, the problem here is almost too much info—getting the balance right is delicate. I have more info on antimony trioxide to include as well, and yes, I'll try and get a stub's worth on Bi2O3 (although it's less on my field). There is also an Yb2O3 stub ready and waiting for your picture. Cheers for now, Physchim62 23:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for chemical photos

Please see request at end of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Pictures of chemical compounds. If some of that is too much trouble, then don't bother, and no particular hurry either. I understand you have responsibilities. Thank you. H Padleckas 07:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

ISIS Draw help

Hi Walkerma. I talked to User:~K about drawing chemical formulae/reactions and he told me about the free ISIS draw. He also told me that you had created some graphics with it. I have got isis draw and its good but theres one thing I need it to do and I can't work out how to. It won't display carbons as C. How can you get it to display the carbon atoms like it displays every other one? Thanks.

Borb 22:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In Isis Draw, click on the atom that you wish to label, then scroll down to More.... This will open a dialogue box where you can select C(show) instead of the default C(hide).

Martin, if you are using Isis Draw, can you let us have the preferences settings for the style guidelines? Cheers, Physchim62 07:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm in Washington DC for the Green Chemistry Conference (and trying to get a couple of chemist pics for Wikipedia, too!)- but PC has answered the question just fine. I do this in fact by selecting the atom by clicking with the select tool on, then it asks something like "Edit atom". Scroll through the atom types and you can choose C(hide) or C(show), and you can also play with hydrogen (Off, Auto, left, right etc.). I recommend in the settings putting the Hs to "On hetero" so it doesn't turn ethanol into CH3-CH2-O. Walkerma 21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) I will answer PC's question properly later. Walkerma 21:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Physchim62 and Walkerma! I wish there was a quicker way to do it though, like with the keyboard or something. Never mind. thanks.

Borb 22:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have also improved your "Sodium chloride crystal" image for clarity and uploaded in into WikiCommons as a *.png file. However the existing "Sodium chloride crystal" *.png file in Wikipedia takes precedence over the image in WikiCommons and therefore does not show up in the Sodium chloride and ionic crystal articles. I started working on this a long time ago and only finished rather recently. The new *.png image was made to take up significantly fewer kB of memory storage than the existing *.png image file in Wikipedia, but it does take up slightly more memory than the corresponding *.jpg image in Wikipedia, although it looks sharper and has other improvemenmts over the older *.jpg image. When you have some time, can you please compare these images in Wikipedia and WikiCommons. Is it worth doing this for the Cadmium chloride crystal image? I think it will be easier the second time around to make such a modification. H Padleckas 16:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you upload your file into the English Wikipedia image space as well, so we can get the benefit of it here? As for CdCl2, yes, please do that if it's not too hard to do. It did take me about 3 hours to do these two pictures (you have to fuss over the angles, sizes & distances to get the atoms visible with a good perspective), so I appreciate your work on this. Once I get the ability to create image files directly, I will work on some others as time allows, such as CaF2, TiO2 etc. For any inorganic crystalline compound you should be able to click on a link to see the crystal structure, in my opinion. Thanks, Walkerma 15:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another thing about ISIS draw...

I read in your talk archive that you did not know how to export images directly from isis draw. It isn't very easy due to the lack of good image formats but this is how I do it. I choose export from the file menu and choose other. Then I choose Windows Meta File. This is like a vector format and is no good on its own. Hardly anything will open a windows meta file including even photoshop. But Paint shop pro does and I then use that to convert the WMF into a PNG. If you don't have somethign that can convert WMF to PNG then I would be happy to convert one for you. You can email it to me at borbus at gmail dot com. If you do choose to do this you might want to drop a message in my talk page to as I dont check my email as often as i should.

Borb 22:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's good to know! I called MDL-Elsevier, and they told me I would have to buy MDL-Draw if I wanted to be able to create PNG or GIF files directly. I'll try your technique when I'm home, and we can make this a part of the style guide if it works on most computers. I have been using IsisDraw for around ten years now and I'm more familiar with it than ChemDraw (though I teach a session on the latter)- but the college is getting me the latest ChemDraw with NMR predictions, etc. So hopefully soon I can create my own GIFs and PNGs without imposing on you and Henry. Thanks, Walkerma 15:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the memory on your computer lets you, it's probably better to export the images from Isis Draw as .TIF files (those of us who use ACD/ChemSketch can even choose the resolution, which should be as high as possible), and then convert these into .PNG files with whatever image software you have available. The reason is that this allows better quality resizing and printing of the images. There is a little bit on this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines. Mind you, it's hardly our most pressing problem with structure images... Physchim62 5 July 2005 09:09 (UTC)

My version of ISIS (2.4.) only allows export to a TGF format, whatever that is (IrfanView can't read it). There is no "other" choice. However I will be getting the latest ChemDraw with bells & whistles, so I expect to be using that by the end of the summer. I'm reluctant to change the ISIS version I'm using, all the settings are how I like them, it's great for my teaching and OK for writing papers. This problem on Wikipedia is my only snag, though I agree with PC's last comment. Walkerma 5 July 2005 15:00 (UTC)

You have to select other from the export list where there is a long list of different types. However, for some reason hardly any of them actually work. You can export as a MOL file (for use with molecular modellers) if you first select the molecule in ISIS using the select tool. Borb 20:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This IsisDraw may well be a nice program, but I can't run it apparently on my Unix laptop. Any recommendation or other suggestions? Wim van Dorst July 5, 2005 15:36 (UTC).

Chemical/Physical data

Hi walkerma. Do you know of any good online source of data for chemicals? At the moment all I have is a very limited Nuffield Advanced book of data which is dated 1984 (do you think the data is possibly out of date now?). I have looked everywhere for physical data on all the amino acids. My data book has a couple of them. I have found all of there pI's and pK's though, even though they were on WP anyway, but they are different to the ones already on WP. How do I know which ones to believe? Borb 20:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The main one that people use tends to be Chemfinder. You can get thermodynamic data from NIST, reaction information from Webreactions or Organic syntheses, and spectral data from SDPS. I mainly use a combination of the CRC Handbook of Chem & Physics, the Aldrich catalogue (also Alfa, Lancaster & Strem), the Merck Index, and sometimes ref books in our college library. I also use books a lot- Greenwood & Earnshaw for inorganics, Encyclopedia of Reagents for Organic Synthesis or Fieser & Fieser volumes for reagent info, Jerry March for much organic stuff, and more specialised books where appropriate. If you can afford it, the Merck Index might be a good investment for you, and you may be able to get a copy of the Aldrich catalogue by either writing to Aldrich or by begging for an old one (i.e. 2003 or so) at a chem dept of a local university. See what your local library has or can get- they may be able to supply a book on amino acids, for example.

I just opened up a copy of the organic chemistry textbook I use (Wade), and right there in the amino acids chapter is a table of all of them with their pI's. These are Gly, Ala, Val, Leu, Ile all 6.0, Phe 5.5, Pro 6.3, Ser 5.7, Thr 5.6, Tyr 5.7, Cys 5.0, Met 5.7, Asn 5.4, Gln 5.7, Trp 5.9, Asp 2.8, Glu 3.2, Lys 9.7, Arg 10.8, His 7.6. I would have thought 1984 is not too old for most things- though you never know. Also it's possible that the meaning of the data is different. For example I used a 1967 book for data on phosphorus chemical shifts, but I found what was then + is now - and vice versa, so I had to be very careful and cross-check others against a new book I have. If you have any real puzzles, ask me here or via email. Cheers, Walkerma 03:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, webelements is a good place for information on inorganics- go to the element then click on compounds. Walkerma 06:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigma-Aldrich Co. is a handy data source. As for the amino-acid data, this is a real problem. I used Sigma-Aldrich and German Wikipedia when I expanded the tables. I now have a complete set of data from the CRC handbook which I will upload when I get a chance, but there are some quite striking differences and some data which I simply do not believe. I think we should post a note on Talk:Amino acid and at WP:Chem to get some wider input into the decision making. Physchim62 11:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Martin, be very careful with old ³¹P-NMR data, as some of it is referenced to P(OMe)₃ (δ_P = +1.4 ppm) rather than to 85% phosphoric acid. There is also the problem of the sign convention as you point out. See if you can get hold of a copy of Kemp (I will do the same, when I can): this gives reliable data for a few compounds from which mistakes in the sign convention can be more easily spotted. I guess we need an article on phosphorus NMR at some point... Physchim62 11:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The P-NMR data so far have been explicitly referenced to H3PO4, so don't worry! I don't have Kemp, but I have a fairly recent book on the topic (I paid much less than the Amazon price for it!)- I use that to check things against, it covers F, N, O, S as well. Thanks, Walkerma 16:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Methyl isobutyl ketone

You took the paragraph about the criminal actions of the State and Federal governments out of Methyl isobutyl ketone!  :-o

(I relocated it to the talk page, by the way!)

On a more serious note, I was thinking of changing the wording "very low solubility in water" to "rather low solubility in water" or "quite low solubility in water" to distinguish its solubility from that of non-polar solvents such as gasoline, etc. which have been found to have trace solubility in water anyway. There was a similar controversy about the water-solublility of the gasoline additive MTBE (Methyl tert-butyl ether) a few years ago. It was worried that its rather low water solubility might allow it to be transported by water movement and contaminate the environment. By comparison, without this additive the solubility of gasoline is very low and is not considered as much of an environmental threat. In any event, nice start on the rewrite of the article.
H Padleckas 23:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Henry, you are right, I think. I had in mind a comparison with acetone and MEK, but the CRC Handbook lists solubility as δ, meaning slightly soluble. Clearly it is a whole lot more soluble than gasoline and the like, and I don't want to be accused of collaborating with the US govt to lie and cover up this outrage. :-o Please reword as you see fit. Cheers, Walkerma 23:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Changed to "quite low solubility in water" and added the SMILES to the table while I was at it. H Padleckas 05:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for hints

Thank you for the hints on the drawing settings for chemical structures. I will save the next ones with the larger scale.

I will also try to pass some of the drawings and pictures across languages or pass them directly to commons if I can. Unfortunately some of the IP's I have to use seem te have been abused before for spamming or something of this kind and are blocked for the access of german and english wiki proyects. Fortunately there are still some sites left for me that can access them.

Sorry if my answers take a bit longer. As spanish telefonica did not succeed in 30 month to give me a regular phoneline I am still without internet at home and can only use some spare time at work for colaboration.

cmx (sugestions) --147.156.124.162 23:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help. If I can help- by uploading things for you, for example, please let me know. Walkerma 04:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Minor boo-boo and image comment

Hey Walkerma, I really like your addition to the indole page. Thanks. Minor boo-boo though: Your missing a methylene on 3-allyl-indole image.

I also noticed that you're now drawing structures with ChemDraw. I consider the PNG capabilities of ChemDraw to be not that great. May I suggest that save your ChemDraw images as TIFFs and convert them to PNGs using The GIMP. For some reason, the images become much larger, the filesizes are smaller, and they end up looking much better. ~K 02:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I always seem to do something like that, don't I! I will try doing what you say, but I'd like to try it in IrfanView rather than GIMP, as I'm very familiar with the former and have never used the latter. Thanks for keeping me straight. I will be trying to add some more reactions to the indole page this weekend- I hope between us we can get it up to A-class. Meanwhile, keep on adding those preparations! Are you going to put in any of the new Pd based methods? Cheers, Walkerma 02:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be adding as many methods to make indole as I can find, including the Pd-based reactions. First, I'm going to add the name reactions, because they are easy to do on their own page. I'm not familiar with IrfanView, but if it works, go for it. I look forward to the new indole additions. ~K 03:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for misc indole syntheses

Hello Walkerma, In my searches for methods of making indoles, I've come across MANY different methods (most of which utilize Pd). These methods are specialized, so I don't feel they belong on the indole page. Additionally, they are not name reactions, so writing their own page is difficult. How do you suggest that we include them in the Wikipedia? I was thinking of starting a page entitled "Syntheses of indole", in which we could include a list of the major reactions and all the million little reactions that are so infrequently used. Please tell me what you think, and I look forward to your suggestions if you have any. ~K 00:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I undertand your quandry completely! I think your suggestion of creating a separate syntheses page is a good one, because you could feel free to list all of these more obscure methods.

The problem you are facing with indole as I see it is:

• There is a "law of diminishing returns" - you have already covered all of the "must have" syntheses on the indole page, and each successive addition is less important than the last. There is a point where you will have to say, "Hey, I'm going to work on isoquinolines instead!" (Incidentally, I'm doing a little on coumarins, to avoid duplicating the excellent work you & Cacycle are doing on indole).
• At the same time, some of these modern methods are very interesting IMHO, and may well supplant the more traditional methods over the next couple of decades. Also, if you have the information in front of you, you can crank out Wikipedia pages much faster.
• I wonder whether we should have parallel "family" pages to go along with the "parent" pages. I thought of this initially with phosphine, where descriptions of PH3 are a long way from use of Ph3P as a ligand, so I was thinking of writing a page phosphines that would cover the latter, to deal with phosphines as a family. Similarly we could have indoles and indole, coumarin and coumarins, borane and boranes, etc. Such pages would be a natural place where you could list lots of indole syntheses, discussing things like "this synthesis is particularly suitable for 3-alkylindoles, because...". Also you avoid filling up a page on the specific substance indole. What do you think?

Whether you think a separate synthesis page, or a family page, or whether you think you'll just move on to something else, I'm sure all will be a useful contribution and they will evolve into the right thing- that's the beauty of Wikipedia. As for me, imitation is the highest form of flattery, and I am copying your style in writing a new page on the Pechmann coumarin synthesis, I hope to put this up tonight! Walkerma 01:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. You're a good sounding board, and are very useful in clarifying my thoughts. Regarding the "family" pages, my first impression is to avoid writing two pages where the title only differs by a "s" (the plural form). Something more descriptive would be best.

We do need to clarify the difference between:

1. Compound as reagent or catalyst
2. Compound as reaction target
3. Compound as reaction starting material
4. Compound as synthesis target (synthesis meaning a sequence of more than one reaction)
5. Compound as synthesis starting material

My first thought is to look to the literature and emulate how they solved this problem. When you look in a volume of "The Chemistry of (Name Random Heterocycle)", there are always sections named:

• Properties of (Random Heterocycle)
• Synthesis of (Random Heterocycle)
• Reactions of (Random Heterocycle)

So maybe we should have three pages entitled: (let's use indole as an example)

• Indole (#1 above)
• Synthesis of indoles (#2 and #4)
• Reactions of indoles (#3 and #5)

We could extend this for each functional group and heterocycle. Tell me what you think.

One additional question: Should this be part of WikiProject Chemistry, WikiProject Chemicals, or (gasp!) a new WikiProject Chemical Reactions? Ever since I've joined WP Chemistry and WP Chemicals, I've thought of WP Chemical Reactions. The problem is that I just don't have the energy or experience to start such an endeavor. I'm interested in your thoughts. ~K 05:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think we need to distinguish between indole in particular, and indoles in general. For example, the simple Fischer indole synthesis fails for indole itself (though you can make indole-3-acetic acid easily and then decarboxylate it. If you don't get to that, I was going to mention that on the indole page once I find it on paper). Imagine you have a reaction that COMPLETELY fails for indole itself, but is useful for indoles in general. Should it be on the page for indole itself? Most modern chemistry books are not encyclopediae - they don't have a separate chapter or section on the parent compound itself. We can do that - and I think that's a great advantage we have over a book - but we should also be able to talk about families. The problem is simply an accident of names. With alcohols, for example, the alcohol page is understood to be about the family based on the original alcohol, ethanol, which has a separate page. The problem we have with most heterocycles is that the family is named after the simplest family member. I can accept you comment about name similarities- do you have a suggestion for an alternative?

Once we have a family page for indoles in general, we can have synthesis of indoles and reactions of indoles be a part of that, just like in the textbook. On the other hand, it may be that there are enough syntheses and reactions to justify separate pages. I think we probably need such a page for benzene before we tackle indole! I'd be willing to go along with either, based on what people think.

As for your suggestion for WikiProject Chemical Reactions, I think it's an inevitable development. If both of us were willing to sign up, and preferably if we can recruit V8rik and possibly Cacycle (though they prefer to do their own thing mainly), I think it could work. I'd be willing to set it up, after sounding out the folks at WP Chemistry. I can't claim to be experienced myself, but I did spend many lonely months as the only active member of WP Chemicals, during which time I learned a bit. I think it could be simpler than with WP Chemicals, in that I don't think you need infoboxes, just suggestions for formatting and the like. We could set targets like with WP Chemicals, and pick out which reactions need upgrading and which are some prominent blank spaces (e.g. hydroboration, which I was considering writing in the next month or so). Walkerma 06:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the way you think. The point you bring up regarding indole in particular and indoles in general is something I hadn't considered to be important. But your example made me realize I that perhaps I was wrong. (Don't tell my wife that I said that.) Also, your comment about the difference between the Wikipedia and chemical reference books is quite valid. Unfortunately, I don't have a suggestion for an alternative name. I accept your point that this problem is just an accident of names. However, I still feel there has to be a better solution. Since, we are not pressed for time, we have the luxury of thinking about this and finding the correct solution. Maybe indoles (reactions) or something along those lines.(Bad idea) I will continue to think about this.

Regarding WP Chemical Reactions, thank you for your vote of confidence. Let's hold off on that. I think we have enough to worry about with WP Chemicals right now. Maybe when WP Chemicals starts slowing down then we should bring up the idea of WP Chemical Reactions.

~K 15:19, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I reread what you wrote earlier and had a !aaaha! moment. Let's call the indole family page: indole (pharmacophore) or indole (derivatives). ~K 19:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

For my two eurocents worth on all this ;) I think the idea of Synthesis of indoles and Reactivity of indoles is a good one. If it works, it can be generalised; if it doesn't we can think of something else, but it would be better to try it first got get an idea of the problems. As for family pages, they will definitely become a necessity, even if we have avoided thinking about them too much for the moment. Again, I would recommend going for a case-by-case for now, to get a better idea of the pros and cons of different approaches.

I'm current mulling over some ideas for a minor revamp of WikiProject Chemistry. One which will almost certainly see the light of day quite soon is a "requested articles" page, partly to take some of the overspill from WikiProject Chemicals (articles such as Inorganic non-aqueous solvent, an overspill from Ammonia). Such a page could act as a holding ground for chemical reactions pages until WP Reactions gets set up (which it surely will one day).

One final thought for particularly brave people: the category structure in Organic Chemistry could do with a clean-up... whoever is brave enough to do this would have a very good idea as to what is most needed in the way of functional group articles! Physchim62 20:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

My reply to K: Sorry, but I think indole (pharmacophore) is too specific- it implies it will be only medicinal chemistry (or are you saying it will be?). People may have all sorts of reasons for making heterocycles- the former inorganic prof. here was making pyridines for nonlinear optics, for example. As for indole (derivatives), I was thinking that too, but there's a problem- it implies that you are excluding the parent, indole itself! We want something that says "indole and its derivatives" but in just one or two words. Let me know if you solve it- if not, we may just have to settle for indoles or indole (derivatives).

PC, I know what you mean- when you look at some of the functional group stuff, it makes me shudder! I did a big rewrite of alcohol a while back, that was quite unpleasant, but I know the functional groups area generally needs a lot of work. If I'm being brave, I would say we need a synthesis of aldehydes page before we need a synthesis of indoles page, but then again I'm not sure I want to open Pandora's box....! Walkerma 20:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If you want an article on Indole and its derivatives then go ahead and write one, I'll back you up on it. I feel that if you do, however, you will find that you have to split it up before it is finished. Physchim62 21:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think such family pages will need to (of necessity) take a broader view. On the one hand the page won't be cluttered up with infoboxes of data, but there will need to be a deeper level of discussion on syntheses and reactions, for example, "This synthesis is only applicable to indoles substituted at the 3-position" etc. Do you think it should be called Indole and its derivatives, or can you suggest something more compact? I think the page could end up quite long, but I wouldn't expect it to get overly long, particularly as K has already written separate pages on the Fischer indole synthesis etc. which can cover each specific reaction in more detail. I think I'll ask Cacycle to comment, he's quite an indole afficionado and our most experienced Wikipedian. Walkerma 22:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit that I really like the title indole and its derivatives. It's descriptive and conveys exactly what the page is about. As I understand it, this page will contain information, reactions of, and syntheses of indole and substituted indoles. If the page gets too long (a good possibility), then we can split it up into seperate articles.

I go on vacation later this week, and hope to reduce my current level of Wikiaddiction to a more sane level. When I return, I plan on attacking indole and its derivatives. (Or whatever the title ends up being.)

Thank you all for your advice and help. If all works out well, the indole pages could become a good template for other functional group / heterocycle pages. That would be the best. ~K 02:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to you, it's important to have these discussions. I appreciate the products of your wikiaddiction- but a few days away with family sound like a good change. Enjoy your vacation! Walkerma 02:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly, vacations are great, make the most of them! Before you head off, I should draw your attention to the existence of 1-Methylindole, 2-Methylindole, Skatole, 5-Methylindole and 7-Methylindole... none of them more than stubs (and none of them mine)! Physchim62 21:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Cobalt(III) chloride

Have you got a copy of Greenwood & Earnshaw handy to check on CoCl3? (I don't here in Caistor) My information is: red or yellow crystals, soluble in water, CAS [10241-04-0]. Sources: WebElements and Rubber Bible (there is nothing mentioned in Cotton & Wilkinson). Physchim62 10:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I'd forgotten that CRC has it listed- but G&E are quite explicit, so I took their word as final. You should always look at a reliable source first! I tend to believe G&E over the rubber handbook any day, since the latter includes claims, G&E look at the data more critically and are more likely to update it in the light of new information. Even if they're wrong here, I suspect we'll never write a page on it if it's so nebulous. Of course we may well write a page on the ammine complexes, maybe they should be in the box? Walkerma 15:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I've done a rewrite on sulfurous acid, so I've nothing against articles on non-existant compounds! ;) I'll go with {{Greenwood&Earnshaw}} as well, they are pretty careful about that kind of thing. We will of course need an article on Ammine complexes of cobalt(III) at some point: they are important historically in the development of Werner's theory of coordination compounds, and they are the classic kinetically inert complexes (low spin d⁶, and even more inert than Rh(III)). Only so many hours in the day though! Physchim62 19:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Message

Your message appears to be lost in the wastelands of North Lincolnshire... I only have the header "Table"... Physchim62 20:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

New pictures available

Now available at the Commons: NbCl₅, Na₂SO₄, CeO₂, NH₄Cl), (CH₃COO)₂Pd, CaCO₃, MgSO₄.7H2O, MgSO₄, HfO₂, Yb₂O₃, Tb₄O₇, CuI, PbSO₄, PbO₂, Pb₃O₄, PbO, Alum, ferric ammonium sulfate, chrome alum and Police overtime. The first two are already in articles. Feel free to use these! Walkerma 20:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• There has been a request made on Talk:Rubidium hydroxide for a photo? I don't suppose you have any lying around... (after all, its only 10$ a gram!) Cheers for the others, I guess I'm going to have to get writing! Physchim62 20:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Sorry, our stockroom is sadly lacking in Rb compounds, though we may have some RbCl in a research lab somewhere. That price is more than I paid for the Tb4O7! Regarding earlier requests for pix of Cr noble metal compounds, we don't have a huge collection, and what we have is pretty sensitive. I'll get out the CrO3 and the Pd(PPh3)4 in the winter when it's very dry here. I tried a quick snap of Rh2(OAc)4 but it was out of focus, we'll have to wait on that. Walkerma 16:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now added most of these to articles, where those articles existed. We still need articles to go along with (CH₃COO)₂Pd, HfO₂, Tb₄O₇, CuI, PbO, Pb₃O₄, ferric ammonium sulfate, chrome alum. Walkerma 04:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll see what I can do this weekend, although there are "technical" problems to be solved with a couple of these. Could you try and do something for PbAc2 (mostly organic uses) and Tb4O7 (???, see above), I do my best for the rest. Physchim62 15:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think most of these compounds now have pages, in fact Tb4O7 has quite a reasonable-sized article now with refs. I called it terbium(III,IV) oxide, by the way, because this is how it is ALWAYS called in the literature and in catalogues when they don't call it "terbium peroxide." (shudder) A Google and SciFinder search for the more "proper" name tetraterbium heptaoxide showed up almost nothing other than what I had posted myself! Also, it's formula is dubious, some say it's just one part of a continuum between Tb2O3 and TbO_1.83. I'm thinking of starting a Wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lanthanides_I_have_known_and_loved to help me with these, but I'm having trouble getting participants at the moment. I do have a new 250 g sample of Pr6O11 (only $44!) to play with, though, so I'm happy!

There are some "almost A-class" articles that could use your help on safety/hazards sections, particularly sulfuric acid and indole. Any time for those? I'd like to see us get some of the B-class articles promoted to A-class. Walkerma 16:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yep, I have already promised help on indole, and I'll take a look at sulfuric acid. Chloroform is one of my bêtes noires, benzene as well. Unfortuately my employers seem to want some work out of me as well...! I agree with the A-class drive, but don't forget that there are plenty of stubs that could be made starts or B-Class; each to their own priorities! At least we now have almost 100% coverage of our target chemicals. As for lanthanides, count me out! It took me 20 min to realise that it was Category:Erbium compounds that was missing from Category:Chemical compounds by element! Physchim62 16:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)