Talk:acid

Would the "Types of acids" section be better off in an appendix? --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They are all just "derived terms" really. SemperBlotto 07:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

They definitely shouldn't be listed here explicitly. Another possibility, of course, would be to tag their referents all with Category:Acids, and then link to the resulting category list.

Yet another possibility (which I've done in a couple of other similar cases) is to link to the corresponding Wikipedia list or category, if it has a better chance of being comprehensive and well-maintained than ours. —Scs 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

RFC Reasons
For these reasons the article probably needs looking at closely - a superficial edit probably wont do. &mdash;&mdash; Saltmarsh 11:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The first adjective definition is worded as for a noun - this has had the effect that at least two of the translations (German & Greek) are nouns.
 * 2) There is the inappropriately long list of acids, mentioned above.


 * I have done some cleanup. "Hidden" the list of acids (people can press "Show" to see it). Removed noun definition from adjective section. Improved definitions and removed encyclopedic usage notes (that were rather dated anyway). SemperBlotto 12:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * p.s. The three sub-definitions of the chemistry noun will all have the same translations. SemperBlotto 12:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)