Contents

Talk:Glossary of chemistry terms

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Glossaries (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries articles Chemistry Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Rate equation#First order reactions|first-order reaction]] The anchor (#First order reactions) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. [[Rate equation#Second order reactions|second-order reaction]] The anchor (#Second order reactions) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Will start updating this page soon. TheSun 02:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Hi, I wonder if you could add electrophoresis to the list of Chemistry terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.238.34 (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - If there is a problem with this page, one must delete all these pages also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glossaries . Nowhere does it say that Wikipedia is not glossary. If I'm mistaking, please point me directly to this spot. I will remove the deletion template in three days if there is little or no proof in support of deletion. TheSun 04:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is debate over it as we speak. I will remove the deletion template until resolution is made.TheSun 04:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"a device that gains energy as electric charges pass through it" -- huh? · rodii · 02:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Explain doltan law Yaseen maisam (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We wanted to learn all these terms in a flashcard format so we built one and made it freely available. Thought it would be helpful for anyone who wanted to learn the content of this glossary in a flashcard format like Anki to also be able to discover that they exist and have access to it from the source.

Was going to suggest it to be added in the external links section like the following but as it is linking to our own site, following the instructions of the Wikipedia guidelines, thought it would be best to leave this in the talk page for other contributors to see if it would be relevant or see if there was a better place/format to put it

• Flashcard version of the Wikipedia Glossary of chemistry in an Anki-readable format

Darigov Research (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PJsg1011, I'm not sure what you mean here. We can have both definitions, by all means, but we should be clear that the Avogadro constant is not the same thing as the Avogadro number. Perhaps we can fully split the entries? 172.82.46.195 (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies – yes, that's precisely what I meant, the entries should be split and both definitions should be retained, as you've done. The distinction between the constant and the number is important and valuable. I made a few small subsequent edits − first, I added "discrete" again because I think it's important to emphasize that the Avogadro number counts things that must be considered indivisible for the purposes of the counting. Second, I reorganized the phrasing of the Avogadro number definition. Third, I moved the shorthand notation N_A into parentheses after the term itself, which I hope will be adopted as a glossary-wide standard for indicating all shorthand symbols and abbreviations. Happy to discuss further if any of this is problematic. I'm also open to preserving just one or the other entry if it does not prove too confusing to combine both concepts concisely into a single definition.—PJsg1011 (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great to me as you've adjusted it. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks of elements in the periodic table 2A03:2880:21FF:17:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it is used in many of the definitions, but never defined itself :( 209.195.249.10 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]