Talk:Copper(II) hydroxide

message: removed all the scrolling stuff! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 06:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

message: I think that this article should be organized in a different way. Anything regarding the making of copper hydroxide should be under a new section called "manufacture", and anything regarding its uses should be under "uses". It should be added that it's also a pesticide (more general term than fungicide). And a more adequate table like the one on the copper sulfate article should be used rather than the one used right now in this article. Slartibartfast1992 22:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Organization Proposal 

message: I had put "decomposes to CuO" as the melting point because copper (II) hydroxide decomposes before it melts. For example, in boiling water the precipitate will rapidly turn to the black oxide. If you don't want to put this information under the melting point, it should at least be in the article somewhere as it is important. Chris Barile 05:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melting Point 

message: I have the opinion that this article should remain a stub until we find some historical data on Copper Hydroxide. However, the article has advanced a lot, and once this information (maybe some more too) is obtained, we can remove the stub template. Any other opinions? Slartibartfast1992 02:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is plenty of information. We should include all uses in history under a section called "History", which, in my opinion, should be positioned first. Then I think that the sections "Synthesis" and "Reactions" should be merged under one section called "Chemical Properties" or something of the sort (personally, I think "Chemical Properties" is not that good, so I'll try to come up with something else). Uses nowadays should be put after that section. Finally, the last section (except for "See Also" and "References") should be "Copper Hydroxide in nature. I might be able to get a good picture of azurite for ths section.Slartibartfast1992 14:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, I read that link of yours, it said that that product was made of "the same Copper Carbonate that makes up azurite. That rules out two things: the placing of azurite as a mineral sample of Copper Hydroxide, and the using of your link as a reference. Slartibartfast1992 14:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That fact about carbon dioxide turning copper hydroxide into carbonate should definitely be included in the section "Copper Hydroxide in Nature". About the ratios in minerals, that should be the main point in that section. Examples such as Azurite and malachite should also be listed. Slartibartfast1992 04:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, you definitely took this article out of stubhood, if that's a word. Congratulations on a job well done.  Slartibartfast1992 01:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub? 

message: What more can be done to make this an 'A' article? I agree with the decision to remove the 'how to' section. I initially proposed this quite a long time ago. I've fixed the structure error in the hydrazide reaction (at least I think I did so correctly...it's really late right now!). I might be able to take some pictures of some nice copper hydroxide crystals. Chris Barile 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ones previously in the references section are actually footnotes, since they adhere to only one sentence (the numbers as superscript beside a sentence). The latter two are references, so they don't go with only one particular sentence. I'll fix this. --Slartibartfast1992 22:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finishing Touches 

message: Check out today's new editor's work here.  Is that user editing Wikipedia to help readers?  Or help themselves?--Smokefoot (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Illustration

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Copper(II) hydroxide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927005127/http://www.naturalpigments.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=417-11B to http://www.naturalpigments.com/detail.asp?PRODUCT_ID=417-11B
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The introduction states that cupric hydroxide is a strong base but the Reactions section says it is amphoteric. However, as far as I know amphoteric substances have a pH value close to that of neutral substances and hence couldn't be a strong base. So this should probably be reviewed. Susmitauri (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Amphoteric or Strong Base?

message: The datasheet says 80°C, the english ttext at reactuons says 100°C, the hungarian page says 185°C. What's going on? Frigyes06 (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: unlike melting, decomposition is not a well-defined phase transition.  Consequently, no particular temperature can be assigned.  Sort of dissatisfying, but that's the way it is. --Smokefoot (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melting point/decomposition point unclear.