Talk:Water

Did you know nomination

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

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Dangers of dihydrogen monoxide

• ... 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

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)

"Oxidane"

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

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

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)

I certainly agree with the more detailed phase diagram because it provides more information. But for the thumbnail and easier to read argument is pretty practical. I don't see why we cannot include both - with the right captions. Some sections have multiple images. But if we have go with one, the detailed one is best because you cannot read the simplified image well either and the specific heat capacity of water plot on the "on earth" section already looks very detailed that you have to click on it to see the detail. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. Do you want to have a go at updating the article, or should I do it? I think having both versions right next to each other might look a bit redundant, since the detailed version has everything the other one does, and more. I would prefer to have just the detailed version, I guess it could maybe work as a compromise to have both... Amaurea (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Including both versions sounds like a good idea. I'm also willing to support both versions unless we have to include one only per Ramos1990. _ZZ^Z'S 20:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think everyone has a common denominator of the detailed one for sure. Amaurea, want to replace it? Ramos1990 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if everybody is fine with me just replacing it with the detailed one, I'll just do that. I haven't heard back from Remsense, but I guess we'll see if he objects once I've done it. ... There, done. Amaurea (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not legible at its current display size. Another option would be to make it larger, but its current presentation is pretty obviously unacceptable, like I plainly said before. It's not reasonable to have thumbnail images only serve any utility once they are expanded. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

chemistry of water to the water molecule, properties of pure water, fresh water, sea water.

Discuss this 2409:40E7:1BC:F877:F9C6:9900:EF04:67AC (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Try Properties of water  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)