Talk:Chromium(II) acetate

Untitled
Is chromium (II) acetate soluble in water at STP? -- VGF11 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The solubility of chromium(II) acetate in water at STP
This is an answer to -- VGF11:

In an open-to-air environment, chromium(II) will be oxidized to chromium(III). Therefore, you have to dissolve chromous(II) acetate under anaerobic conditions in oxygen-free water. Under the latter conditions, I know that chromous(II) acetate anhydrous gives a brown solution. Still, even under oxygen-free conditions, decomposition of the quadruple bond is observed to some extent. In time, the color of the solution is turning bright blue, the color of the hexaaqua monomer of Cr(II)... --Shambra77 16:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Structure
Hi all,

I generated a fake structure for this molecule by getting the X-ray diffraction data for a similar compound from

,

with the relevant data at ACS Supporting Information, hacking together a molfile, and editing it in pymol. It's not strictly accurate: it looks to me as if the bond lengths from the Cr to the H2O are wrong, and for some reason the angles from the Chromium atoms to the acetates aren't 90° like in the X-ray diffraction drawing. I put my molfile in the image page, so if you can do better given the data, go for it!--Slashme 22:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice job, but the previously displayed picture is superior, I thought. If you are looking for structures to draw, ZrCl4 is wanting, and the same pic could be used for many related cmpds.--Smokefoot 02:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I just went to figure out what that would look like, and I see it's just been done! --Slashme 20:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Previously displayed picture? What previously displayed picture?  There wasn't one when I got here. --Slashme 09:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This one, a couple of edits ago:




 * Oh, OK, I never noticed that. Why was it removed? --Slashme 18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC) I see, new chembox, baby with bathwater.  I've put back the picture. --Slashme 20:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

???
I'm missing the term 'chinese lantern'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.159.147 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

ASAP
Hi,

The below mentioned query is mainly for Smokefoot. I've recently added Beneš et al.'s reference for the preparation of the anhydrous derivative from chromocene. These scientists were the first to obtain the anhydrous derivative in a straightforward manner (not via sublimation etc.). I don't understand why my addition was stroke out by Smokefoot, as I merely added a reference to a currently existing text. Now my addition doesn't contain any subjective interpretations of their work ("advantageous" etc.). Would you care to explain? Thanks.--Shambra77 16:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because


 * (i) you cited an ASAP, which is discouraged per WP:RECENTISM.
 * (ii) Wikipedia encourages secondary references, which means reviews and textbooks (at least to people who really publish technical articles). This is an encyclopedia, not a technical review journal.  So WIkipedia prefers articles that have been subjected to more than just 2 referee reports.  WP:SECONDARY.  Especially for a journal like Inorganica Chimica Acta- right?
 * (iii) The only other contribution that you made were to the same authors, so there is reason to expect a conflict of interest. See WP:COI.
 * Comments? --Smokefoot (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree with the majority of your corrections. Since the synthesis of the anhydrous derivative from chromocene had previously been mentioned when I'd started editing this article, I just added a reference to the already-existing text. In my opinion, there are two options: Either Beneš et al. are given credit on their work (as Cotton, Peligot and van Niekerk received theirs) or the description of obtaining the anhydrous derivative from chromocene is struck out from Wikipedia (because of lack of reference). Thanks for lighting up my way in editing Wikipedia articles. I hope to do better (and check more thoroughly) next time. I certainly learned something new today! Another thing - I've just noticed an earlier message from you, bearing the title "Congratulations". I hope it was not treating my editing sarcastically - I truly try to make Wikipedia better and broaden people's knowledge through this medium. It's nice to have learned from you. In my opinion, if you were the chief editor of this article, you did a very fine job. Way to go, and have a nice day! --Shambra77 (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was being completely sarcastic in my congratulations. Wikipedia is not the place to get "credit" (your term) or promote oneself.   Your two major contributions to Wikipedia have been to  one research group, one citing an article in a weak journal. Disappointedly, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, I'm new at editing here; there's no need to respond so nastily, especially when I'm trying to learn, contribute, cooperate and treat you and the Editorial with respect. Let's act like adults and advance this article together. Do you agree with adding Beneš et al.'s reference? --Shambra77 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.90.71 (talk)
 * When the opening edits are to one's group and citing minor papers, then I get nasty.   Because such self-serving edits are the main contributions from infrequent editors.  They are all the same.  Me-Me-Me-Me all in the guise of (your words) "truly try to make Wikipedia better and broaden people's knowledge" Which is a complete joke.  I am sick of this rotten behavior that does the opposite of what people claim - you clutter up a general article with microscopic, ego-focused details.


 * I hope that you are sincere, in which case I offer you devoted help and sincere advice. Good luck.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide me with general guidelines as how to expand this article? Do you desire specific details to appear in this text or do you think it is suffieciently informative? --Shambra77 (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article on chromous acetate is fine as it is (at least to me). This compound is unimportant except to a few professors and their students.  The article covers the main things - its discovery,  structure, basic properties, how to make it, some representative reactions.  The goal in Wikipedia is not long articles, but ones that are clear to intelligent beginners, which can be tricky.  Here is my advice if you are looking for ways to contribute:


 * Articles on most simple inorganic and organic compounds now exist, but many could be improved by (i) checking for a general textbook citation (we are mainly interested information in books) and all articles should have at least one general reference, (ii) citations to crystal structures - especially for inorganics, and (iii) many compounds lack general references (books, not journals) on real industrial uses (many people write about possible uses, which are less interesting, usually).
 * Articles in Wikipedia that need help are about "everyday chemistry" - polymers, medicines, food ingredients, leather, paper, gasoline, perfumes, detergents, fats, pesticides - that kind of "boring" stuff. These articles attract general readers who are simply curious (or worried about something they just ate!). The hit rate on these articles is high. You do not need to be an expert to help, but you do need access to good reference books.
 * The way I work sometimes is to check (or create) articles on compounds that I use in my work, especially simple compounds, like quat salts, ligands, precursor reagents, solvents. When I edit, I try to remember that most readers do not care about details from my world.
 * A good resource is our manual of style Manual of Style/Chemistry.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Number of hydrogen atoms in the product 4 chromocene
Was wrong (6); changed to right (5). --Shambra77 14:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

SMILES
I tried to create a better SMILES for this page. What I have so far does not work. Please help if you can. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Chimie
Cr2+ 196.121.15.25 (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

assessment of article [undergraduate assignment]
The article features a great ball-and-stick model as well as a perspective drawing. Its iconic quadruple bond also gets an explanation which I find easy to follow - perhaps a drawing of the MO interaction would elevate it.

The talk page has proved to be very informative. It lists inexcusable behaviour, as well as a Wikipedian's reaction to the situation. They provided advice specific to editing Chemistry articles on Wiki which I find to be a good reference Aromatic Thiol (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)