Talk:Water
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Water article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 190 days ![]() |
![]() | Water was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Electrical Conductivity and Electrolysis
[edit]“The decomposition requires more energy input than the heat released by the inverse process (285.8 kJ/mol, or 15.9 MJ/kg).” This is in clear violation of conservation of energy. Perhaps what they intended to say was that electrolytic decomposition is not 100% efficient? Mindyobusiness12 (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/160/6/060901/3262785/The-structure-of-water-A-historical-perspective?searchresult=1 78.3.35.214 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Ineligible; closed as unsuccessful
- ... that in the spring of 1997, a 14 year old's school science fair project made an argument to ban a chemical compound named dihydrogen monoxide? Source: Diydrogen monoxide
- Reviewed:
- Comment: A fact about what started the whole thing.
Created by Chemification (talk). Self-nominated at 06:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Water; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Sorry, Chemification, but the article is not new or recently five-times expanded or newly promoted to Good Article, so it's not eligible. Please see WP:DYK for eligibility requirements and other information about DYK. The article is currently 59,328 prose characters, so a five times expansion is not really possible, but if you get it to Good Article status, you may be able to renominate within a week of that promotion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Disputed content
[edit]The second paragraph in the article as it exists now says the followiing: 'Because Earth's environment is relatively close to water's triple point'. Wander over to 'triple point' and it says that the pressure of water at the triple point is:
'vapor pressure of 611.657 pascals (6.11657 mbar; 0.00603659 atm)'. This is a lot closer to the atmospheric pressure of Mars, and is well below the Armstrong limit.
Water also does not magically change into Nitrogen and Nitrogen into water using some nuclear process either.
Lies sound cool because lying is cool ... NOT. What arguments do people have here that this is not a lie? I think that should be taken out of the article.
2601:1C2:500:9460:D9E1:DCE2:333C:5EB4 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- "Earth's environment" includes the entire Earth's atmosphere, which definitely has points with pressure below the triple point of water. I can understand your concern if the article stated "Earth's surface" as that would be untrue, and maybe it is worded somewhat confusingly, but as it is right now there's nothing untrue about it. Reconrabbit (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- My dear friend, I feel a tone of aggression in your words, I understand your concern, but you don't need to be so aggressive with your words, be polite, as I'm being with you. (Note: I don’t wanna other discussion, so, get your mood on me, ok?) 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The claim is properly sourced to a university website by an expert. "the Earth environment is close to the triple point and that water, steam and ice can all exist at the surface." and also "Near the surface of the Earth water can exist in three phases - ice (solid), water (liquid), and vapor (steam)". "Relatively close" does not mean that earth is at the triple point. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Molecular polarity
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
- What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Under the molecular polarity paragraph it states "oxygen atom retains a negative charge while the hydrogen atoms are positively charged." this is technically wrong it should be a partial negative charge and hydrogen partial positive charge
- Why it should be changed: its wrong
- References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):[1]
Wickyman123 (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ LibreTexts chemistry https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Introductory_Chemistry_(CK-12)/15%3A_Water/15.01%3A_Structure_of_Water.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help)
"Oxidane"
[edit]a link in the infobox for the word Oxidane would be nice (it redirects to a nomenclature section, currently located at Properties of water#Nomenclature, information not currently found in this article). However, looking at how this infobox is configured (pulled through from the chembox template), I'm actually not at all sure how one would go about adding that. So I'm leaving this comment instead --Tomatoswoop (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2024
[edit]![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
102.223.58.254 (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
There are a few grammar errors that need to changed and there are grammatically incorrect
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Left guide (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Simplified vs. detailed version of the phase diagram plot
[edit]Remsense and I disagree on which version of the phase diagram plot to use. I prefer the detailed version, while Remsense prefers the simplified version. These are shown below.
-
Detailed
-
Simplified
I'd like to lay out both of our arguments so we can get a third opinion. My position is that the detailed plot is both more informative, due to many more different phases and points of interest being shown, and also easier to read off due to the fine coordinate grid. Remsense's position is that these extra features are hard to read in the thumbnail, and that the simplified version is easier to read in thumbnail form. I agree with that. Where we disagree is what should be given priority. I think that the job of the thumbnail is just to be a low-resolution *preview* of a plot, not a replacement for the plot. If everything is readable in a thumbnail, then that's a nice bonus, but not something one would expect. After all, everybody knows that one can click on the thumbnail to see the full version of a plot. I therefore don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice the quality of the full plot in order to make the preview look a bit better. I'd also like to point out that much of the text in even the simplified version is not readable in the thumbnail, and there are plenty of other good plots on the page that also aren't readable in thumbnail version, e.g. the water cycle one, agricultural map and water shortage map.
To summarize, the disagreement is (as I understand it) about whether the usability of the full version or thumbnail version of a plot is most important. Amaurea (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-2 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class level-2 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-2 vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class vital articles in Physical sciences
- B-Class chemicals articles
- Top-importance chemicals articles
- B-Class Food and drink articles
- Top-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- B-Class physics articles
- Top-importance physics articles
- B-Class physics articles of Top-importance
- B-Class Water articles
- Top-importance Water articles
- B-Class Materials articles
- Top-importance Materials articles
- WikiProject Materials articles
- B-Class Limnology and Oceanography articles
- Top-importance Limnology and Oceanography articles
- WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English