Talk:Aluminium acetate

removed Importance notice: the whole point of Wiki chemistry is collecting chemical monographs, this invitation extends to all chemicals. Already an article in German Wiki and this article referenced from acetic acid and Burow's solution V8rik 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If Aluminium acetate can be three different substances, perhaps the infobox should treat all of the substances or be removed? Aary 1 00:04, 4 January 2008 (GMT)

Remove Infobox?

If this article covers three chemicals, it seems we shouldn't have an infobox. Unless someone objects (or knows how to make the infobox cover three chemicals and still look OK), I'll remove it in a few days. --JaGa (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It is proposed that aluminium triacetate and aluminium diacetate be merged into this article. Both materials are similar in composition and of poorly defined structure. Since we dont know what this stuff is, we might as well let the readers see the content coordinated and collected somehow. The main app that has been mentioned is as a component of Burow's solution.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I have been updating the aluminium triacetate article, it needed a lot of development, and agree that a merge may be appropriate, though I would prefer to complete expansion first (its mordant properties I still need to get to). However, I do note that Al(OAc)₃, Al(OH)(OAc)₂, and Al(OH)2₂OAc have distinct CAS numbers. The latter two are separately purchasable from Aldrich. I suspect we have three (distinct) solids with known average compositions which interconvert in aqueous acetic acid solution, maybe also in water, and where the formula are at best a rough guide to structure. In that case, separate articles may be appropriate, if written carefully, and the dibasic (with no article at present) may not be justified as a stand-alone (don't know, haven't looked). Thoughts, Smokefoot, both on this and the triacetate re-writing I have been doing? EdChem (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I just dont know much about this topic and dont have strong leanings anymore about the merger anymore. My original recommendation for merging was motivated by the sense that both articles describe related species, but you seem to have found that maybe the topics are more separate than I thought.

I will say that the registry numbers (RNs), which we almost need to provide, might not be very useful. For example, I dont think that materials with the formula Al(OAc)₃ or Al(OAc)₂OH have been purified, much less crystallized. Then there is the whole question about the speciation of solutions. The CAS staff seem at times to be bean counters determined to assign RNs to anything they see (maybe I am being too negative. I would not be specific about the structures. Good luck. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Support Smokefoot's suggestion; a merged article would promote a greater holistic understanding of the subject. LavaBaron (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been demonstrated that in the solid form these are three separate substances, so it is warranted to have separate articles. However, since they interconvert in solution, and the solutions of all three have the same or similar applications, I'd be careful about the location to text about these applications; it might be better situated in the top-level Aluminum acetate article to reduce redundancy. In any case, there doesn't seem to be a consensus to merge the articles. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose merge as they are separate substances in solid phase. Anthony-22's point about the location of applications information is interesting, though this page is really just a glorified dab page. Smokefoot's comments are reflected in how I have written the aluminium triacetate page in my view, though others may have suggestions / comments / criticisms / etc. EdChem (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Set index - remove most of the content

@Shormeli and Project Osprey: The article has been tagged as a set index article since 09:18, 7 July 2015 by‎ Project Osprey. I was not aware of the status and its implication until recently. To my understanding, the correct course of action for this article would be to relocate/merge most of the content to relevant articles. Images and infoboxes are not shown in any of set index articles I sampled from the the category, Category:Chemistry_set_index_pages. --Taweetham (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Just delete the chemboxes, they're already present of the main articles. --Project Osprey (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Shormeli and Project Osprey: Deleted. What about the text and references? --Taweetham (talk) 07:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I think set indexes are allowed refs. Either way I wouldn't worry too much, what's there seems fine to me. --Project Osprey (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)