Talk:Chromium hydride

Drastic change without justification
The recent change to this article may be in good faith, but it requires a bit more justification than just "Article split" as summary. What was it split into? Why? I have seen no discussion in the talk pages. Unless I see substantial justification pretty soon, I will be reverting it. JonRichfield (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The article was split into Chromium hydride and Chromium(I) hydride. The former desribes a non-stoichiometric binary alloy, the latter describes a shoichiometric binary molecular compound; two very distinct concepts. It was clear from the old version of the article that these two ideas were confused into one, there is also enough coverage of both ideas to credit an article split. Plasmic Physics (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. Do please give a hint at such details in future edit summaries. If you had mentioned the name of the other half of the split in the edit summary, or even on the talk page, I could have seen that all was reasonable. Not a big deal, but I am sure that your time is as valuable as anyone else's. Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll do that next time. Just to note, I disambiguated to the other half at the top of the article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks PP. Didn't mean to bug you, BTW! JonRichfield (talk) 12:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * PS and when you do a split, you must credit the new article with the old article in an edit summary. I think there is a template for the talk page too, but I don't know what that is!  But in this case I added my own edit summary for the purpose anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Noted. I likewise disambiguated within that article. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Now there is a statement saying this is called "chromium–hydrogen alloy". However I see only 2 sources doing so. With 1 possibly reliable. Plasmic Physics seems to be the biggest user of this term! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)