Talk:Chromium(III) acetate

Basic chromium acetate?

Hey @Smokefoot:, I wanted to quickly talk about one of the changes you made to the article. So, as you might know, I first created the article two days ago with the intent of polishing it up into a decently-written supplement for the Chromium article, which I am preparing for FA. and I was wondering why you believe the article title should be "Basic chromium acetate" instead of "chromium(III) acetate" as it is stylized in all of the Chromium compound articles and Acetate articles (minus "Basic beryllium acetate, which I found out you named as well"). I personally believe the article should remain at Chromium(III) acetate for consistency with all other chromium compound articles, as my original intent was to focus on chromium(III) acetate alone, but I wanted to get your take on it before I moved it back and continued to work. For now, I will halt the progress I will make. You said it was illogical in your edit summary, so why this article and none others? UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

To add onto this, searching for "basic chromium acetate", even if it gives results for Chromium(III) acetate, provide the same information that was replaced. See [[1]]. (I hope the link works). UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The article was moved due to the discovery of false information about basic chromium acetate. Even if the article was about basic chromium acetate, the chembox should not be outlining the family it is in, but rather the compound itself. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's get some outside views on this dispute. @Graeme Bartlett:@DMacks:@Dirac66:@Beetstra: This is an area of chemistry where I am pretty familiar. Inorganic chemists tend to call this stuff basic chromium acetate.

Regarding "I personally believe the article should remain at Chromium(III) acetate for consistency with all other chromium compound articles.." I am not too worried about the name, but about the substance of the article. The compound is not a typical Werner-style Cr(III) complex in the sense that it is trimetallic. You can see that I showed the crystal structure, which you removed. There are many related structures in the Cambridge Database.

Acetates are structurally distinctive compounds, and a surprise for less experienced inorganic chemists. See the structures of Basic zinc acetate, palladium acetate, basic ferric acetate, manganese(III) acetate, basic beryllium acetate. Many acetates are really basic acetates, with the formula M_xO(OAc)_y. If you read the cited J Chem Ed article, you can see that the Cr(III) acetates follow this rule.

Anyway, why remove the crystal structure that I found?--Smokefoot (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Smokefoot: My error, removing the crystal structure was something that I did not intend to happen. I was bringing in changes that were made earlier, and I didn't consider the implications at the time. Also, I am not doubting your claim about Chromium(III) acetate being called Basic Chromium Acetate, but with the existence of both a Chromium(II) acetate and a Chromium(III) acetate article in existence, I think it is important to clarify to those who aren't familiar with basic acetates about the charge of the cation attached to the acetate, which is why I feel quite strongly about keeping the name. The wikilinks you provided do not keep the word "basic" in the title (except for basic beryllium acetate, which you named), and instead mention it in the lead; if not, elsewhere. Instead, they are redirects to the respective article. It is important to keep the information about basic chromium acetate in the article, true; I just do not believe it is appropriate to name the article "basic chromium acetate". UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Smokefoot and UtopianPoyzin: I was not aware that this article was here. I quite strongly disagree with the current status (and strongly tempted to revert), as it is not representative of the compound (and I may even disagree with where the article is, this should likely be at 'basic chromium acetate'). This is not about Cr(OAc)3 .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Beetstra: At the moment, yes. I didn't think it would be right to delete the information written by Smokefoot about the family of basic chromium acetate, because it is very much relevant to the article. My goal was to focus on the molecule of chromium(III) acetate by itself, but would probably not be the best idea to in the middle of a discussion about the article's path. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzn: No, I am suggesting to revert to Smokefoot's version, what is there now does not reflect reality. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

To tell what the name should be, we should go by what the common name as used in reliable sources is. The other issue is what is actually the topic here. Other alternative names are chromic acetate, Chromium acetate hydroxide (which has a different article written about the same substance and should be merged) Chrome acetate basic chrome acetate. In this topic it seems that there is a very common misconception that the common compound as used in tanning is Chromium(III) acetate, when it is not actually that. Tertiary database sources seems to have propagated the error in the formula. So there are not many really reliable sources. Checking the use of the name with ghits we get Chromium(III) acetate with 96 which is extremely low, however chromic acetate gets 14,800 hits. A more correct name: µ3-Oxo-esakis-(µ2-acetato-O,O')-triaqua-trichromium (III) acetate is impractically long and seldom used. basic chromium acetate get 56 ghits, basic chromium (III) acetate gets 46 hits, basic chromium(III) acetate gets 42 hits, basic chromic acetate has 25, Chromium triacetate has 81 hits. By a factor of over 100, the most used name is chromic acetate. So the name of this article should not be Chromium(III) acetate, as it is both wrong and seldom used. Some relevant references [2]. Perhaps the compound contains chlorine: [3] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for taking time to look at that; however, where are you finding information? I used Google Trends and found completely different information to what you were talking about for Google Hits... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I am just searching google with the phrase in quotes. I suspect the results order is customised for me though. Google scholar has more of the term with basic in it, and less of chromic acetate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay, because when I searched for "Chromic acetate" in normal google (with quotes), I found 15400 results, but only 14800 results for "Chromium(III) acetate". Then again, the IUPAC has recently been trying to steer people away from using the "-ic" and "-ous" endings for compounds and instead use the charges themselves for easier understandability. So in any event, chromium(III) would be the way to go instead of chromic, even if both are technically right. Yes, basic appears more in Google Scholar than normal Chromium(III). When you are studying at such a high field of chemistry as those who are writing the Google Scholar essays, knowing the common charges of the chemical elements should come at second nature. Because chromium(III) is the most common and referred to as basic, there isn't a reason to NOT call chromium(III) acetate "basic chromium acetate". Yet, when somebody doesn't know their common charges or oxidation states, then "basic" chromium acetate isn't the most helpful. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

We have "redirects" that take care of the naming problem. If people search chromium(III) acetate, they will be directed to basic chromium acetate.

My only shtick is that I really would like to see the article stick around at chromium(III) acetate. I am not doubting you that basic chromium acetate is the widely used term for chromium(III) acetate in the scientific community, and I wholeheartedly trust you. My issue is that for 90% of the ionic chemical compound articles, the titles are all formatted in which it is the cation, the charge of the cation, and the anion. I only wish to maintain this format. Even the other basic acetates show the name of the charge instead of the word basic. If you are able to get consensus to change all of the basic acetates to say "basic" in the title and not the redirect, then I hold no objections to naming this article "basic chromium acetate". UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@UtopianPoyzin: The English is deceptive. The term "basic" refers to the presence of the oxide. Here are some quotes from Greenwood and Earnshaw, which is sort of a "bible" (WP:TERTIARY for Wikipedia articles on inorganic chemistry:

"... a common method [to Mn complexes] is by way of the red-brown acetate. This is similar to the "basic" acetate of chromium(III) and so involves the [Mn3O(MeCOO)6]+ unit (see Fig. 23.9, p. 1030)" "...Trinuclear basic acetates [Ru3O(MeCOO)6]+ have also been prepared apparently with the same constitution as the analogous FeIII and CrIII compounds (p. 1030)." "...a crystalline basic acetate, [Zn4O(OCOMe)6]....isomorphous with the basic acetate of beryllium (p. 122)"

I do not doubt you. I do understand why the term "basic" is used. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

The other thing that I propose is to redirect Chromium acetate hydroxide to basic chromium acetate.

I will abstain from providing an opinion on this topic. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

You can trust experienced editors here. We are experienced, established scientists in this area, not students trying to learn an area for the first time.--Smokefoot (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks? I don't know how to interpret this, and if it was an insult or not... UtopianPoyzin (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I am trying to explain that (i) we editors here are benevolent, (ii) we know a lot of chemistry, partly because some of us are old scholar (you can detect this by our sourcing), and (iii) we like to help new editors learn (Wikipedia is a great tool for learning chemistry). In any case, happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Some comments on the above discussion: 1. Article name: I prefer to include the word "basic" because it is more accurate. Chromium(III) acetate suggests Cr(O₂C-CH₃)₃ or Cr_n(O₂C-CH₃)_3n without an oxo ligand.

[Inserted paragraph by Utopian Poyzin]

So, you state that there is a difference between basic chromium acetate and chromium(III) acetate. From what I heard from Smokefoot, basic chromium acetate is the better name for chromium(III) acetate. How is this possible that they are both different and the same? My intent was to create an article about chromic acetate, and I had involuntarily been dragged into a debate about basic acetates and oxo ligand presence that I never intended to occur. Apparently there was evidence for a simple chromium(III) acetate, which is what I intended to write about.

[Return to comment by Dirac66] 2. Basicity: I think we should explain why this compound is basic. Presumably due to the oxo ligand, but this is not made explicit. I would like to the see the acid-base reaction involved: is it just addition of H⁺, or something more complicated? And what is the value of the basicity constant K_b?

3. Grouping with similar articles: The discussion above mentions other basic acetates of Be, Mn, Fe, Ru and Zn. But all of them are rather obscure, so I suggest we combine them in a single article called Basic metal acetates. The article could start with the common features of this family of compounds: composition, structure, basicity; and then add a list or a number of subsections for the examples. Dirac66 (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

So all articles about acetates that happen to be basic will be deleted then and merged into one article about basic acetates? What about non-basic acetates, do they retain their original article names? UtopianPoyzin (talk) 04:58, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

No, user:UtopianPoyzin, NaOAc, albeit a (Brønsted) basic compound is 'sodium acetate', even in it's hydrated form. This is a different compound, not a simple metal with n acetates around it. This is not really a hydrated form of Cr(OAc)3, rather an internally deprotonated form of it.

I agree that we should explain more about the formation of these compounds, and that could use a different article. The way I see it is that the protons on the 'first' coordinated water are more acidic than acetic acid, and hence the acetates will 'internally deprotonate' the first water molecule (twice), resulting in a oxo ligand and two leaving molecules of acetic acid.

I disagree with the grouping, albeit obscure, they are the simplest compounds of orgacic acids (excluding formates, which due to the redox propertiesof the formate ion) tend to be completely different beasts). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

We probably should rename the articles on Cr₃O(OAc)₆(OH₂)₃, Mn₃O(OAc)₆(OH₂)₃, Fe₃O(OAc)₆(OH2)₃, and Ru₃O(OAc)₆(OH2)₃ as basic chromium acetate, basic manganese acetate, basic iron acetate, and basic ruthenium acetates (not yet written see doi 10.1002/9780470651568.ch8). Al, Pb, V (doi 10.1021/ic00139a013) form basic acetates as well. The current article zinc acetate covers all acetates of Zn(II), basic and otherwise.

The term "basic" is probably old. Maybe some way of accounting for stoichiometry and acid neutralization equivalents.

An article on Basic metal acetates might be helpful, which maybe it will be more of a list. I need to find some reviews. The topic now intertwines with MOFs.

Most metal acetates are not basic. The motif seems common for M(III) oxidation states.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Basic metal acetate is very old. The oldest known example seems to be basic lead acetate (Lead subacetate?), which was known to the ancients and hence predates the English language. I've found reference to it going back as far as 1870 and those references aren't describing as something new. Trying to find out the origin of the name could be a challenge; there are often gaps in literature that far back. Subacetates would be a good redirect/article title.--Project Osprey (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree a basic metal acetate article about this class of cations, and handle there all the common aspects of the oxo-metal cluster would be a good start. It's apparently a notable topic or at least a centralizeable subtopic of multiple other articles. Our article here is inconsistent about whether it is even about the cationic cluster or some (or several) neutral salt of it. DMacks (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Basic acetate is a confusing term

After reading all the above comments, I realize that an article title Basic metal acetate would be confusing, because simple acetates such as sodium acetate are also basic as some have pointed out. Also phrases such as basic chromium (III) acetate, basic beryllium acetate are rather obscure; as a physical chemist who has taught inorganic chemistry courses I had never seen these names before and did not know they referred to oxo complexes. So perhaps I will suggest instead that the structure and basicity of basic metal acetates be explained as a new section of the existing Acetate article, placed after the section Acetate#Salts. Then my 3 comments above are replaced by:

1. Call this article Chromium (III) acetate, but explain that the structure is more complex than the name suggests and has an oxo group. (And similarly for the articles on other basic metal acetates).

2. Explain (with sources of course) that it is sometimes (or often?) called basic chromium acetate, and that it is more basic than the simple acetate ion because of the reaction ....

3. Refer to the general discussion which will be added to the Acetate article. Dirac66 (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you have invested because the conversations/arguments above are complicated. I am fine with keeping the titles metal(III) acetate, assuming that we make clear (i) that metal(III) acetates are usually not triacetates but oxo hexaacetates and (ii) that such species are often called "basic metal acetates". So let's see if we have consensus on this point before dealing with another complication.--Smokefoot (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I too thank you for your input, and I now completely agree with your three step process. Originally, Smokefoot was heavily against the name "metal(charge) acetate", while I was heavily for the name "metal(charge) acetate". Perhaps our disconnection was that I found information for chromic acetate which was different from the basic chromium acetate that was described by Smokefoot. Because this article closely aligns with his field of study over mine, I am not going to question the information provided by him. The only argument after the article reversion that I clung to was to keep the name as "Chromium(III) acetate", because I, like many others, was initially confused at first by the describer term of "basic" (WP:LEAST). If it requires that we make clear that we are referring to a oxo hexaacetate rather than a triacetate in the article, then that could possibly bridge the gap of understanding from what is initially believed and what is fact. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Another possible solutions is the possibility of creating two articles. One about the triacetate, and one about the oxo hexaacetate. My information was about the triacetate, originating from [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], as well as various other sources. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a pattern that happens with more ions though (I wonder whether the mixed oxo-chloride compounds of e.g. Vanadium are not due to the same principle of formation, though full chlorides do exist there). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear UtopianPoyzin: The "sources" you cite are just aggregators and databases, they are not "reliable sources", see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Wikipedia relies on scholarly sources like textbooks, high quality journals, and respected monographs. Look at other chemistry articles to get a feel for what is going on here. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can agree that these sources were not of the most quality. I was just using them as a backbone to show the compound that I intended to write about. As of now, I have yet to do a second search on Google Scholar since the article's origin. I also have yet to look through various journal databases. But yes, those probably weren't the best sources to prove my point, I apologize. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)