Jump to content

Talk:Aqua fortis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tone

[edit]

This reads like an excerpt from an alchemical textbook or like an encyclopedia article...from the 1500's. Could we head the article with something explaining that the uses described below originated when HNO3 was still called aqua fortis?

Resolved

[edit]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.112.116.69 (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this isn't aqua fortis? If this entry is from a 1728 book, then it's possible that whoever transcribed it thought the f was a long-s character. It's not an uncommon confusion. "Aqua sortis" would literally mean "water of chance" in Latin, whereas "aqua fortis" (strong water) is a very well known alchemical term for (essentially) nitric acid solution. Tarchon 00:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I usually catch those differences. I think I wrote this article after staying up all night, so that's my excuse :) — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-1 00:30

Merge with Nitric Acid

[edit]

This article should be merged with Nitric Acid. Dr. Morbius 20:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. It is merely a synonym for Hydrogen Nitrate. --Derek Yoda's friend (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an explanatory link. Biscuittin (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Merge the articles. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A formal merge suggestion was finally made, and the discussion of it is at Talk:Nitric acid#Merger proposal. DMacks (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

de Sade

[edit]

This is 84. in the third part of 120 Days of Sodomy.

Stub

[edit]

This article is a stub and unimportant. Instead of merging with Nitric Acid,Lets delete it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.224.179 (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of perceived importance to editors is not a valid reason for deletion (nor is perceived "extremely interesting!" a valid reason not to delete). Why would you want to make it hard for readers who encounter this term in older literature to learn what it means? DMacks (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]