Talk:Water

History of the understanding of water

Include something of Gay-Lussac's discovery of the composition of water. I'm sure more could be included here.

Salt? Citation?

There's a factoid that says that 3.5% of seawater is NaCl. But neglects to mention other salts. I'd like a citation. I'm thinking someone used the phrase 'salt' to mean 'all salts' and then someone else linked it up to a specific salt (thus leading to an error).

[removed gas question, probably going to properties of water if unanswered there]

Oh yeah,
~ender 2013-05-15 19:14:PM MST

Incorrect graph in "Law, politics, and crisis" section

The graph shown in the "Law, politics, and crisis" vaguely resembles the data described in the section's text. Suggest revising it to use the actual data points or removing it entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.204.154 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 October 2013

There are two spelling errors. Change "litres" to "liters" on line three and five of "Agriculture" section. SwedishStallion (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: That is not a misspelling. See Litre. RudolfRed (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Chemical and physical properties

I removed the bullet point:

* Water vapor is miscible in air.

because it clearly is not. At 56.7  °C, the highest temperature ever recorded, at 100% saturation, the water vapor/air ratio is only 13%. This is exactly the definition of immicible.Nick Beeson (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Water Vapor is Invisible

I think that the first image should be clarified: clouds are not made of water vapor, they are made of liquid, condensed water. The image should read:

"Water in three states: liquid, solid (ice), and water vapor (invisible) in the air. Clouds are accumulations of water droplets, condensed from vapor-saturated air." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcortesucla (talk • contribs) 21:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Sentence on so-called fourth-phase in introduction paragraph

There's been a couple of inserts of a fourth-phase in the introduction paragraph. It seems like this is the wrong place to put such a statement. I frankly don't think it should be included in the article at all, as it's a bit niche and not well supported. Wikipedia should be reserved for established ideas supported by the literature, and marked clearly as such when it's not part of the consensus. It certainly shouldn't be a place for people to put their pet theories. I don't know if that's what's happening here, but linking to a researcher's home page as a source, and putting a single sentence in the introductory paragraph without any more material in the article, suggests something like that may be happening. Grj23 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)