This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.181.168.148(talk) at 00:48, 10 February 2008(Deleted random gibberish). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:48, 10 February 2008 by 70.181.168.148(talk)(Deleted random gibberish)
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Article's purpose: Water's importance for life and humanity.
rewrite with purpose in mind (what is wrong with it now? has this been discussed?)
?? Small portions of water occur as groundwater (1.7%), ..glaciers ..ice caps ..Greenland (1.7%) ??
Discuss the dangers of water, including brief discussion of reactive properties and include its NFPA diamond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_704).
Expand appropriate short statements into full paragraph.
re-organization toward this purpose
missing topics within scope
Under missing topics; a substance we clearly know so much about, it seems to me it perhaps should have the chemical box/medical/physical data as this would be quite baseline?
Add a section on water-based power (hydroelectric, wave, tidal etc).
Water on other planets
consider deletions with this purpose in mind
spin-off topics tangential to scope
change types of water to forms of water.
please include the role of comets and meteors in bringing water to earth
Section on Deuterated compounds of water has error
The section says Bitch
Hydrogen has three isotopes. The most common, making up more than 95% of water, has 1 proton and 0 neutrons. A second isotope, deuterium (short form "D"), has 1 proton and 1 neutron. Deuterium, D2O, is also known as heavy water and is used in nuclear reactors for storing nuclear wastes.
Deuterium is not used in nuclear reactors for storing waste, it is used as a neutron moderator. ManInStone Sept 2007
Section on "Deuterated compounds of water" is incorrect
Suggest changing the header to "Heavy Water" and replacing with:
Hydrogen has three isotopes. The most common, making up more than 95% of water, has 1 proton and 0 neutrons. A second isotope, deuterium, has 1 proton and 1 neutron. D2O is also known as heavy water and is used in some nuclear reactors such as the CANDU. The third isotope, tritium, has 1 proton and 2 neutrons, and is radioactive. D2O and T20 differ from H2O in being heavier and denser, and occur naturally in low concentrations. Consumption of large amounts of heavy water may adversely affect biochemical processes.
Oh come ON!
"Water is a chemical substance that is essential to all known forms of life. It appears colourless to the naked eye in small quantities, though it is actually slightly blue in colour. It feels wet to the touch."
No shit? Really? Aside from wikiPeadantry, is there ant reason to keep that last sentance?
This article gets a lot of vandalism. I've removed that sentence. It's not necessarily true anyhow (Ice is still water, and it doesn't always feel wet). Now that the article is semi-protected maybe it'll get a bit better. (P.S. new comments are supposed to go at the bottom of the page) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optical Properties
My first post seems to have been removed for a reason unknown to me...anyway...
Is there a reason why there is nothing on the optical properties of water (the refractive index etc.)? I would put them in but I don't know if there is any kind of preferred format that is used for this kind of thing.
The section on physical properties claims water is in dynamic equilibrium between liquid and vapour at 'standard temperature and pressure' which is a wikipedia reference itself and confirms that it means approximately the freezing point of water and normal atmospheric pressure. Shouldn't water also be in equilibrium with the solid state at that temperature and pressure???
Surely Knotwork has a point here! Shouldn't it read: "water is in dynamic equilibrium between solid and liquid at 'standard temperature and pressure' " ? According to the 'Dynamic equilibrium' page, dynamic equilibrium between liquid water and water vapour occurs in different conditions, specifically: at any temperature, if the air is saturated. If Knotwork and I are wrong could someone properly explain why? 88.109.27.5510:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Display in Opera
The page doesn't display correctly in the Opera browser. I think it has something to do with the image or table floating.
It works fine with Opera v7.52. However, the "Thermochemistry" table on the right site doesn't display correctly in IE6SP1.
While nitpicking another users comments about water supposedly beeing colorless, I noticed that this article states the same. In fact the excitation of molecular vibrations by certain frequencies of light leads to a distinct absorption spectrum[1] which has a minimum in the blue region and a comparativly high absorption in the red to near-infrared region. Water only seems colorless to us because we usually look at tiny amounts and do not notice this absorption. --Dschwen21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how technically there is some color - but not at the level of ordinary human observation. We shold come up with some wording to reflect this. How about "colorless to the naked eye"? or "colorless for any volume of pure water most people are ever going to see"? Johntex\talk21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better would be "appears colorless to the naked eye in small quantities, though can be seen to be blue in large quantities or with scientific instruments" - then we provide one or a few references. Johntex\talk21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good. I wouldn't say "any volume of pure water most people are ever going to see", just think diving. Granted you'll probably never be diving in pure water, unless you take a plunge into Super Kamiokande, but apart from scattering related coloration the effect would still be there. --Dschwen21:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Water: the liquid of life
Remember: if you are a very active person, drink 8 glases of water!
not active? drink about 3-6 glasses of water a day.
Define how much a "glass" of water is. There are different sizes of glasses. Generally, it is stated to drink 8 8-ounce servings of water, which amounts to 2 quarts, or roughly 2 L. That also includes the water found in foods, though. And how active is "very active"? And what if someone is "active" but not "very active"? Really unhelpful advice if you don't define the terms you use. -- 12.116.162.16216:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
water's "color"
i thought water appears blue because the sky happens to be blue. the article says that water in large bodies, is blue. now on cloudy days, it's gray. so what gives? Drmagic01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reflection of the sky, impurities (scattering centers) make up the color of naturally occuring water for the most part. But pure H2O has a faint blue color. The article correctly states this fact after a tiny revision. The old version incorrectly stated that water was colorless. --Dschwen17:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Science is Spotty
Throughout the article the chemistry is very spotty and not well explained as to why certain properties actually make water what it is and as useful as it is. For example:
Some substances, however, do not mix well with water, including lipids, some proteins and other hydrophobic substances. This is why oil and water, famously, do not mix.
Water doesn't mix with oils because water doesn't mix with oils is essentially what this line (and, similarly, many others) is saying. Things like this need to be cleaned and cleared up. --66.82.9.1213:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fix it. See water (molecule) for the chemistry details. The water article was split into a general and a technical article way back when. This is the water for dummies version :-) Vsmith
About SUEZ in Mexico
I dont know where did the info stating that suez has operations in Mexico come from.. To begin with, mexican National Water Comission, the company that is in charge of the water at federal level, is an state-owned entity of the goverment, secondly, the constitution of mexico states that all natural resources are property of the nation (just as the petroleoum). Perhaps SUEZ was hired by the mexican goverment to build desalinization plants or so but definitively it has no water concessions as this is prohibited by mexican laws.
Almost all other chemicals are denser as solids than they are as liquids, and freeze from the bottom up. Do we have any examples of other chemicals which share this property?--feline109:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bismuth, sculpting bronze, and the alloy used to make type metal do so. In the latter case it is important as it means that the metal fills, rather than shrinks away from, the moulds it is cast into, thus creating sharp edges which give better quality printing - MPF21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says that water is most dense at 3.98, but i have also heard that at -4 it starts to then become more dense again. This isnt mentioned at all. Neither is it's specific coefficient of expansion. Also, in reference to above, Water is the only substance which is at it's most dense as a liquid, but others do sometimes have a more dense liquid phase than at some temperatures of the solid, but there is a temperature at which the solid is will be more dense than any temp. of the liquid. Matt McGowan 7th feb, 2007
How much water we need
As opposed to a real number, I remember the "rule" being that you drink when you are thirsty, aside from strenuous activity or exercise, which would require more. 70.111.244.6901:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tastelesness
Water isn't tasteless in my experience. I mean, if it had not taste how could one know it was water you were drinking? And water from different parts of the country tastes completely different. But then again I suppose pure water might not have any taste...acht I dunno...forgive my ramblings...
I imagine that water is lost from the body in a number of ways, not just those listed in the article. Breast feeding, bleeding, ejaculation, menstruation, saliva loss, etc are all probably significant losses of water--and yet the article lists urination, sweating, defecation, and exhalation as if that is the complete list. AdamBiswanger118:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without a good source, this is just speculation (although, what's in the article now should also considered to be speculation, for it also is without a source). I encourage editors to try to find a citable source so that Wikipedia can be made more accurate. --Muéro21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well but those are processes that always happen, always consuming water. Menstruation doesn't happen if you're not a woman, bleeding doesn't happen if you're not injured, etcetera and they are temporary losses, not permanent. And they are small too (apart from breast feeding maybe?) -Freebird-21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Freezing Point
I see that the addition of the freezing point of water was removed. Why?
I am adding it back, and anyone who wishes to explain the reason for the removal
please do so here.
Vsmith. You are a high school science teacher, of all people, I assumed you would surely do your research before stating that the data I have provided is erroneous. Ok well please allow me to explain for everyone interested in this little debate.
First off. The wiki site is titled water. It contains properties of this molecule. It is defined as H2O This would signify to pretty well everyone it is speaking of PURE water. Not polluted water, rain water, tap water, distilled water, etc.. This article by the University Of New South Wales School Of Physics in Sydney Austrailia denotes why PURE water aka H2O does not freeze at its melting point of 0 °C, 32 °F (273.15 K) but rather at the noted -42 °C, -43.6 °F (211.15 K) Please take a read of these articles on wiki as well. Freezing , Nucleation, Water_(molecule)
Thank You all for your time.
If you would like to include this information in another way other than on the physical property pane. Please do so. I just feel better knowing that wikipedia is as accurate and informative as possible. :) Nyourhead10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weight of water?
I think it might be helpful if we said the weight of water per, say, a cubic foot. I heard from this distinct professor from texas that it weighs about 62 lbs. per cubic foot.
The information is there (density). In everyday terms, one litre weighs one kilogram or, in British Imperial units, one pint weighs twenty ounces. Density varies with temperature as discussed in article. Nunquam Dormio19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected -- water weighs in the neighborhood of 62 lbs per cubic foot. I knew it weighed approximately 8.6 lbs per gallon, but figured one cubic foot would only amount to a volume of 2-3 gallons. Apparently one cubic foot is enough space to hold almost 8 gallons of liquid. Surprising! -- Moondigger20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
69.114.151.9 keeps editing the article, renaming key words to childish/nonsense words, i.e. 'DooDoo'.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.23.220 (talk)
Declined, not enough activity to justify protection at this time. There looks to be enough users available to revert vandalism on the page (which doesn't seem too frequent), so semi-protection should only be used if it becomes too much to revert. Cowman109Talk 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
"Water (in its pure form) taste like poop, smells like cooked spinach and is a substance that is essential to all known forms of extraterestrial existance and is known as the universal solvent. It appears green and fuzzy to the streaking weirdo at IHOP ."
I'm assuming this should be...
"Water (in its pure form) is tasteless, odorless, and transparent. It is essential to all known forms of life."
Now the intro to the article has a bunch of crap about water tanks right at the intro that I know shouldn't be there but I didn't realy want to cut out a chunk like that without others aproval or the consideration that it might be moved. I am in favor of at least some type of protection, it's not as if the article has any breaking news that will need to be changed quickly. If a lower leval viewer wants to change somthing it wouldn't kill them to post it to the talk page to get looked over by more senior members.
I archived a lot of stuff from this talk page. Most of it was older than a year. I also archived the image vote I made, and a previous image discussion as I felt a concensus (albeit a weak one) was achived in the vote and all the images take up a lot of room.
However, while archiving I noticed this comment which somehow escaped my attention previously:
I uploaded this image as an example for what the above users have suggested. I would like feedback as to which images to include, how long each image should appear (in milliseconds), etc., before putting this on the water page. --Muéro 22:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems that I was not the only one interested in that type of solution; and perhaps this comment escaped the notice of other people as well. I thought I'd bring it back to the talk page for additional discussion. I think it's a good idea, though I would pick different images. Specifically I'd leave the girl in the pool out per JZG's reasoning (see the image archive for that). Anyone else have ideas? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to water uses
For my English 314 Technical Writing Class, we were assigned to post an article on Wikipedia. I wrote mine about how water affects and is used in food processing. I have seen the to do list for this article and understand that it has a good rating. With that in mind, I was wondering if it would be ok if I posted a section under the uses section of this article about food processing? Lswinger12:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Lswinger[reply]
Between Samsara and I, the article has been pretty extensively reformatted today. If anybody objects to the changes, or has a suggestion for a better way to handle it, please speak up. The placement of the portal tag is my primary concern; if it's inserted into the upper-right section above the infobox, the text flows strangely. -- Moondigger17:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one question I have is about the chemical infobox being at the top of the page. Why? There is a seperate article on the water as a molecule (Water (molecule)) which (appropriately) has the full infobox at the top. Wouldn't the abreviated chemical infobox in this article be better placed in the Chemical and physical properties section? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I placed it at the top for a few reasons. Samsara's earlier edit was an attempt to reduce the image density in the article. One of the worst "offenders" was the Chemical and Physical properties section, which contained six images plus the infobox. Moving it to the top of the article helped alleviate the clutter in that section. Second, I thought it made sense to match the de-facto standard layout of most chemistry-related articles, which usually contain the infobox right at the top. Third, it seems somehow more encyclopedic to me to have it at the top. Fourth, it helps resolve the ongoing question of which image should appear at the top of the article, discussed recently.
That said, obviously if others disagree with the new layout it can be modified. I'm not familiar with infobox formatting, but if it is moved back to the other section we should reformat it to take up considerably less space. If you feel strongly about moving it back, maybe we could raise the question "officially" here on the talk page, in its own section? -- Moondigger19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, as you point out the full infobox is in the Water (molecule) article; it makes a certain amount of sense for an abbreviated infobox to be at the top of the water article, doesn't it? -- Moondigger19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, the full infobox is in the Water (molecule) article. You said, "I thought it made sense to match the de-facto standard layout of most chemistry-related articles, which usually contain the infobox right at the top," but this article is not primarily a chemistry-related article. Water (molecule), however, is. This article is supposed to be more general then that one, and includes information about chemical and physical properties as a subsection. If the infobox is at the top, then we're saying that this is a chemistry-related article and there is no point to Water (molecule) remaining on its own - they should be merged. User:Muéro's sample gif As for the image, I thought it looked like the consensus on the poll I made was to have Image:Water droplet blue bg05.jpg at the top, which is why I archived that discussion. However, I did not think that the idea of an animated gif recieved the amount of attention it deserved, so I maintained one comment from the image discussion above. I would really like to see some more discussion of that since User:Muéro volunteered to create one and did create a sample. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the focus isn't on chemistry, and the full infobox already exists on the water article that does focus on chemistry, then why have an infobox on this article at all? It takes up a lot of space considering the amount of information imparted. One or both of the molecule diagrams could be more easily placed without having to sit inside the infobox. -- Moondigger00:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, recently, some anonymous editor removed the chembox. Are we happy about this? Jack · talk · 01:13, Friday, 2 February 2007
No, I'm not. The guy has a history of vandalism, and I still believe it held some good info that Joe Bloggs could understand - Jack · talk · 01:17, Friday, 2 February 2007
I'm not sure what the statement "water ... is known as the universal solvent" means.
I certainly wouldn't say water is a "universal solvent". There are probably more compounds that are insoluble in water than are soluble in water. For example grease does not dissolve in water, that's why soap was invented, and when it rains most of the world doesn't dissolve!
Perhaps this is some well known phrase I've not heard; if so can we find a citation to support it?
Perhaps the statement should read "water ... is the universal solvent of life" - even that it is fairly meaningless. I suggest removing the statement. Your thoughts please -- Quantockgoblin13:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to a chat room post that explains why it's called that [2]. Not exactly the kind of reliable source we would want in the article, but hey, good enough for the talk page. I might have a book at home I could cite if I remember to look when I get home. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)14:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Opening my Science textbook to the section on water, it says very clearly that water is known as the universal solvent. Just sayin--
I want to remove "I am emma and I amhothothot from the main site, but I can't find it. Can any wiki guru get that for me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.66.11 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Conductivity units
Erm. My headphones' wire of finite cross-section and length has a conductivity that could be measured in the the millions of micro siemens. 'Water', being dimensionless, can't. Thats all I know -Copper's article describes dimensionless resistance with a different unit.
65.32.239.18116:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was in the intro. I felt that it didn't belong there, so I'm moving it here in case anyone finds a proper place to put it into the body of the article.
Thales of Miletus, an early Greek philosopher, known for his analysis
of the scope and nature of the term "landscaping", believed that "all is water."
On Christmas day, I was putting some bottles of seltzer water outside to cool when this popped into my head. All of the chemistry teachers at my school could not come up with an answer:
If you freeze water, it expands. If you, say, freeze a bottle of water, the pressure gets to the point where the bottle bursts. Now, what if you filled a burst proof container with water and put it well below 0 degrees celcius and standard pressure (1 atm). If there is no room for the freezing water to expand into, and the container cannot burst, expand, or bend in any way, does the water freeze?
Rob: I do not have the means, or at least an impenitrable container. I tried it in a nalgene, but the lid broke. I found articles online with almost identicle questions, but all the responses were along the lines of 'the container would end up breaking under those temperatures.' Just for clarity, let me state that it is a hypothetical, un-breakable container in an ideal universe. And depending on the response to this question, there could be a second part to it:
If the answer was that it would not freeze without room for expansion... then what would happen if the container suddenly opened up (i.e. if you took the lid off the bottle)? Would all the unfrozen water suddenly freeze into a solid?
Oh, and by the way, Wikipedia artilce talk pages are not the right places to bring questions like these. Instead, please see the Wikipedia:Reference desk. These talk page are just here to discuss improvements to articles. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you've been guessing, it would do one of two things. It would either freeze and yet take up a smaller volume (probably by freezing with a different structure), or it would stay liquid below it's normal freezing point. Which it does depends on the exact values of the pressure and temperature, for details see this article
The water would not freeze, for the reason that freezing involves the particles of matter slowing down and spreading out. If the lid was suddenly opened, the water would flash freeze, nearly the opposite of sublimation.--
At a pressure of about 2000 atmospheres, water remains liquid down to -22.0 C. Below -22.0 C, water has no liquid phase. In a rigid container, it would most likely become Ice III (there are about 20 different kinds of ice). See here. Rracecarr12:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's similar to superheating water above it's boiling point (like in a microwave or something) and then putting a fork or other non-smooth item into the water. For some reason the water superheats instead of boils. When the fork is put in, it causes bubbles to form, and the water starts boiling. So, the extension of that is the water would get to (or below?) the freezing point, but would not solidify, since it couldn't expand. When the container opens, it would immidiately begin forming ice, since it is at or below freezing and can now expand. I'm not an expert in this, I'm just giving what i think would happen. -- 12.116.162.16217:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question (restated): What happens to water that is cooled from +1 deg C to -10 deg C, if it is in a container that is so strong that it does not stretch or expand (so that the volume of the water stays constant)?
Answer: The pressure of the water would go up and up and up. As the pressure goes up, the freezing point of water goes down, helping it stay liquid. But it takes a lot of pressure to lower the freezing point just a little. By the time the temperature reaches -1 deg C, the pressure is forced up to over 10 MPa. As the pressure goes up, the density of the liquid form also goes up. So, there would have to be a mixture of liquid water and solid ice so that the average density averages out to exactly 1.0. This same process continues this way down to -10 deg C, and then all the way down to about -20 deg C. Then, as the pressure reaches about 200 MPa, everything changes. That is the end of normal ice. There is a switch there to ice-three (Ice III) and other special forms of solid water. These are much more dense than normal ice, and also even more dense than liquid water, at these high pressures. (And there is no liquid water below this temperature.) So, if the volume is held constant, as the temperature goes below about -20 deg C, the pressure has to stay a constant 200 MPa, and there would be a mixture of normal ice and Ice III, so that the average density would be exactly one. (Note: this answer is based on just reading the graphs. If you have more knowledge, please provide a better answer.)
Now, WP is not the right place to ask and answer these kinds of questions. But, WP articles should definitely contain all the basic information, to answer such basic physics questions -- in the most accessible way possible. And in this case, this question highlights that the WP water and ice articles currently do a bad job of giving information about water and ice densities at various temperature and pressures. The Water Phase Diagram and Density/Temp vs. Pressure graphs at http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html by Martin Chaplin are much better, so let's work to improve WP. That website is full of great details, but hard for ordinary people to understand. -69.87.200.232 (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
overall water use
"Since 1980, overall water use in Canada has increased by 25.7%. This is five times higher than the overall OECD increase of 4.5%. In contrast, nine OECD nations were able to decrease their overall water use since 1980 (Sweden, the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Poland, Finland and Denmark)."
The original source states the above and it is rewritten in the article. With "overall water use", do they mean use per capita (All people's water use divided by number of inhabitants) or do they mean the overall use in the country. Without dividing it by the number of inhabitants, the figure makes no sense of course. I assume that the former meaning is intended, but I thought of the latter first (which made me write this), because of the unlucky wording. I won't change it to per-capita, because according to my (non-native) understanding, it sounds ambigous. --Ruben23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
food preparation
In this section, there is a reference to an image I do not see. "Not only does microbial growth affect the safety of food but also the preservation and shelf life of food. Figure 2 shows a slice of moldy bread, an example of microbial growth."209.191.166.20216:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)jonah[reply]
I added an image of moldy bread. However, reading through that section I'm wondering if someone copied it straight out of some book somewhere? It really reads like a copyvio, what with the "Figure 2" stuff and the odd references to "Vaclacik and Christian, 2003" and "DeMan, 1999" without giving any clue who Vaclaciek, Christian, and DeMan are or what book or paper they may have written. Anyone else think that section is a little odd? If so, can anyone identify where it came from? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving17:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Optical Properties
Is there a reason why there is nothing on the optical properties of water (the refractive index etc.)? I would put them in but I don't know if there is any kind of preferred format that is used for this kind of thing.
I presume that the reason it's not there is simply that no one has added it. If I were you and I had information to add; I'd add it. Wikipedia encourages its readers to be bold in adding any information they think needs to be added. As far as format goes; read through the article and figure out where you think it'd fit best. Then create a sub-heading by typing ==Optical properties== (or whatever you want the subheading to be - the important thing is the equal signs). Then type your text. You are encoraged to cite your sources, and this page has some handy fill-in-the-blank templates which you can use. Some people find those templates confusing and prefer not to use them; they are not required. In other words; no, there is no preferred format. Just do it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving15:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some idiot's vandalised it; the article now starts;
Water is a gay substance that is essential to all known forms of bum.
Im guessing that this used to be :
Water is a clear substance that is essential to all known forms of life
Im going to change it back, Moverington20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pee review!
I noticed a peer review. But no follow up! Did we implement the suggested changes and more importantly are we ready to go for featured article? --CyclePat17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would highly doubt that this would come anything close to passing a featured article nomination. The peer review was in 2004 - several years ago. It's currently listed as a good article, but I don't really think it even quite makes it up to the current GA standards, let alone featured. If you want to try to clean it up until you think it's good enough for featured; by all means go ahead. Likewise, if you want to ask for a new peer review for the current version of the article to help you learn what needs to be done to get it to featured; go ahead. But I really think it's a long way from featured at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The section on privatization is clearly biased against it. It cites as sources only newspaper reports. Even in Bolivia, one of the cases mentioned, despite the protests, the fact is that water prices *went down*. [3] has argued that privatization is unpopular despite, rather than because of its consequences.
Other than that, rate increases are often due not to privatization per se, but to subsidy cuts which are performed at the same time (even though they are really separate issues).
luispedro (Jan 27 2007)
H+ OH-
1 x 10^-7 water is dissociated per liter or mole I am not sure but it is 1 x 10^-5 percent for any given volume of pure water when at a chemical equilibrium. For that reason the amount of H+ is exactly equal to the amount of OH- which is why it is on the ph scale of 7
if what i said can help the article in anyway please someone check my factuality and put it into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barry White (talk • contribs) 05:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Factual accuracy dispute
If you read the paragraph carefully, it is implied that fluorine is more less electronegative than is oxygen. This is incorrect (needs fixing) Dashboardy08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Dashboardy[reply]
Please ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk. For a less preceise answer, one of the image captions says:
Over two thirds of the earth's surface is covered with water, 97.2% of which is contained in the five oceans. The Antarctic ice sheet, containing 90% of all fresh water on the planet, is visible at the bottom.
Water slightly blue yet appearing colourless? I think that this needs citation and was removed until competent source has been provided.
water can hydrate our bodies, keep us alive, and ...it can also kill us. Might i note the tsunami ??? AND KATRINA???? the ...er...hurricane that is. water is a wonderful substance that although as scary as it may be keeps "all of us here humans" alive.....got that line from the movie deliverance......interesting....a stupid movie like that shows simple things that all of us can relate too......
This article doesn't have any discussion of water's role as a charge-separating molecule in the production of lightning through convection transport (both on Earth and on Jupiter). Could this be included? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i swear...i have never before seen such a group {not the guys who stood up for wik yall are smart;)) of idiotic idiots. the reason for this website is to teach not to teach about poop or other such innececary subjects.....ya know what i mean??? if you idiotic KIDs call yourself adults get real and grow up i mean come on people water is a sincere subject for sincere people if you arent sincere get off and go to some club and talk about those stupid things —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Candino (talk • contribs) 21:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Gaia in an article about water
The section headed "Position of the Earth relating to water" appears to be something of a disparate collection of ideas & themes. I'm not sure most of what's stated in that section is particularly relevant to an article on water. In particular, the Gaia rant seems rather incongruent, along with the suggestion of the constancy of Earth's temperature over geological timescales being simply incorrect. I'll have a go at editing, unless there's a strong objection in which case a new heading along the lines of the significance of water in climate change might be appropriate. Fizzackerly17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, the English language really sucks. I heard about some guy working on some kind of collaborative communication solution that does not involve something so misleading as the March 15th, 2007, 3:38PM version of the Wikipedia entry for "water." The definition of water is beyond words, at least the ones I have available. Water IS NOT typically referred to as a chemical. In my experience, the word "chemical" refers to manufactured, that is, man-made synthetic substances, often liquids (some including water and some not), though also solids and gases. I find it absolutely ridiculous and unnecessary to use the word "chemical" at the beginning of the wikipedia entry ... in such an obviously confusing way ... and then "protect" the article from direct editing. We are taking about water here. Rain. Puddles. Rivers. Lakes. Oceans. I have constructed and refined wiki software that avoid such group-think crap and denies word-game manipulators. Maybe you want to help me get funding to get a secure place to work ... BETTERDIFFERENT.COM NATE88 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by N888 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I will not lower the standards of wikipedia for the ignorant masses. If you don't understand the word chemical, go back to elementary school. --Savant1319:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Human use of water
This topic is as critical for wikipedia quality as it is vital for humanity.
However,
There is no mention of the use in agriculture, although more water is consumed for irrigation than for direct human use (drinking, cooking, washing,…).
The section "as solvent" could be renamed in a more generic "cleaning" or "washing", and include the largest use in that category : the sewerage system.
The section "thermal transfer agent" do not mention that most of the houses and building relies on water for heating.
Some kind of statistics would also be appreciated.
Is this still true? Is this a good theme? Just what is important to humanity?
Some sort organizing objective is surely necessary to improve this page. This article is going to be an overview of this subject, and so we will need to be somewhat ruthless about what is covered here. The page is already a long enough for break up. Some technical topics may need to be dropped or reduced. This may hurt, and I expect to lose some of my pet topics.
Also somebody explain or justify these in this article, especially with some reference?
Add a section on the memory-effect that water has (research by Dr. Emoto).
Consider adding expansion on physical properties of water including Molier Diagram and exerts (if available) from the Gov't lab (forgot name) results on other "phases" of water at various temperatures and pressures; these were the basis for the design of the BWR reactor.
The "Solar distance and Earth gravity" section claims that liquid water would be unlikely on Earth if our distance from the sun was a million miles more or less. Does anyone have a citation for this? Given that the Earth's distance from the sun varies by about 3 million miles over the course of the year, I'm skeptical.
I've added a source that says 5% (which would be about 8 million km or 5 million miles), and changed the numbers accordingly. You can find it on Google books.[4] The author got the estimate from Kondratyev KY, Hunt GE (1982) Weather and Climate on Planets. Pergamon Press, Oxford, but I haven't been able to look up that book to verify. If anyone can check it out, please update the citation accordingly. --Itub13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox location
The infobox for the article is located after the introduction. Any ideas why this is so? Better yet, are there any objections to relocating it to the head of the article? --Aarktica17:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information on Water as a chemical was diverted to a sub-article sometime in 05 I think. Then for a long time this article had no infobox. Then someone added a shortened version of the chemical infobox in the section on water as a chemical. For the full infobox, see the sub article referenced in that section. The reasoning is that the infobox (dealing solely with chemistry) is more appropriately located in the section of the article it deals with, rather than in the lead as it is in the sub-article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving19:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase branch water is a redirect to water, but the article does not contain the word "branch." While the phrase "branch water" does just mean ordinary water (esp. in the context of mixing liquor), this meaning should be made clear in the article in order to justify the redirect. Can anyone think of an elegant way to fit that in? --Trevor Burnham06:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given how important a topic the greenhouse effect is today, shouldn't the paragraph that mentions it be separated into it's own category? The current article says: "Water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere provide a greenhouse effect which helps maintain a relatively steady surface temperature. If Earth were smaller, a thinner atmosphere would cause temperature extremes preventing the accumulation of water except in polar ice caps (as on Mars)." I propose we add a new section that mentions water's part in the greenhouse effect, just like the article on [water vapor] does or, in fact, that the [Greenhouse Gas] article does. Invasion1008:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Etymology is definitely relevant to an encyclopaedic entry on one of English's most fundamental words. This is from etymonline. Note the last line:
O.E. wæter, from P.Gmc. *watar (cf. O.S. watar, O.Fris. wetir, Du. water, O.H.G. wazzar, Ger. Wasser, O.N. vatn, Goth. wato "water"), from PIE *wodor/*wedor/*uder-, from root *wed- (cf. Hittite watar, Skt. udnah, Gk. hydor, O.C.S., Rus. voda, Lith. vanduo, O.Prus. wundan, Gael. uisge "water;" L. unda "wave"). Linguists believe PIE had two root words for water: *ap- and *wed-. The first (preserved in Skt. apah) was "animate," referring to water as a living force; the latter referred to it as an inanimate substance.
Why is the caption to the water molecule figure "Water is a natural and renewable energy source.
It is also the base of human life, considering people are 2/3 water.". It's hardly a helpful caption and doesn't really have the same tone as most of wikipedia 129.67.50.19513:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is dumb, so I've changed it to "Water is the base of human life, and an abundant compound on the earth's surface." Feel free to change it or post here with suggestions. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, DNA is carbon based, therefore human life is carbon based and water dependent. The statement should read at minimum "Water is a requirement of human life". The statement should not read that water is a renewable energy source!!!! The statement may read that it is "an abundant compound on the earth's surface", but this is a rather tacky statement.
Overall I think the caption should read "Water is a requirement of human life, and is the largest potential source of hydrogen other than hydrocarbons". Noah Seidman23:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just having a discussion on WP:NPOV touching on other planets and I realize this article doesn't actually have a section on water on other planets. It does however mention it in the lead. I realize the article is very full as it is, but perhaps there should be a small section on this subject discussing the presence of water on the moon, Mars, Europa etc, and it's necessity for life or habitability on those planets (and the fact that its spectra is searched for in space). If we don't mention it in the article, it seems inconsistent to give it a mention in the lead (which is only supposed to mention material presented in the main body) as follows:
Outside of our planet, a significant quantity is thought to exist underground on the planet Mars, on the moons Europa and Enceladus, and on the exoplanet known as HD 209458 b.
XCan someone change the stat for water percentage in atmosphere?
I notice that the article says that about 0.0% of the earth's water is in the atmosphere. I found a site that gives a more useful number for that figure, but I don't know how to add references.
Here it says the earth's atmosphere holds about 0.001% of the total water on the planet. Can someone who knows what they're doing add it?
Water usage
It says that the US uses 2000 cubic meters per person per year. A cubic meter is 1000 cubic liters, so this means the average person uses 2000000/356 liters per day, or 5617 liters. I know some developed countries use an extraordinary amount of water, but isn't 5 tonnes per day a bit much? The UN development report reference gives 575 liters per day for the US, which sounds more believable. It's hard enough to believe a person can use even half a tonne a day, but 5 just seems impossible. Richard00108:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, assuming the statistics are correct, you have to look at them a bit differently. The statistic doesn't say it's simply talking about personal household usage (the UN statistic you mentioned sounds reasonable for that). It appears to refer to the total US water consumption, listed as a per capita statistic. So that would include all the water used in growing crops, raising livestock, manufacture of various products, etc. The amount of these things exported would also inflate the statistic. 76.202.59.9103:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71% or 70%
The general agreement is and we need to correct this, a simple statement about 70% will be correct, % of water on earth.
Correctish, unless somebody has as a citation with error bars. This is mostly to give a magnitude of coverage. 70% is good as a representation of 7/10, but it seems fair to say "a bit over 70%." Seasonal and tidal variation seem unlikely to move coverage by 1/2%, but rising mean sea level can. This sort of change should, however, be covered elsewhre for now. Unless somebody has a peer reviewed recent reference, something like "just over 70%" or the like should do.rmo1303:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who gives a shit? It's close enough. Wikipedia is serious business
Is this really a "good" article?
I put in some editorial points in the to do template some time ago. This is very important article to really put in order. Sections 1 and 2 seem to be in some sort of order, but border on being jargony and uneven in depth of coverage. Sections 4-6 seem very uneven, a sort of montage of detailed subjects unconnected by logic or appropriate transitions. This is blatantly out of line with criteria 3b for a good article. Should this be delisted? In the mean time we should think about using Category:Coherency_templates such as
I'm actually re-reviewing all of the chemistry articles currently as part of WikiProject Good Articles' sweeps process. In doing so, I have found that this article was listed as a Good Article on December 16, 2005, by Llywrch. I am unable to find evidence of a complete GA review on this article in the talk pages or archives, but I can see that this was done in the early days of the GA program, and the criteria had not developed to what it is today. So, in short, I cannot say that this article passes the current Good Article criteria, and am going to delist it now, as I can see numerous issues.
First, there are several 'citation needed' tags in the article. These MUST be addressed. While the GA criteria do allow for a few gaps in references, citation needed tags are an indication that another editor has challenged the information, and this is a no-no.
Secondly, is the NPOV tag in the 'poltics: middle east' section. Good articles cannot have any serious NPOV issues, so this disqualifies it right there.
Third, I see several problems with organization. While the prose is overall quite good, the organization of information seems to be going off into all sorts of tangents and not really bringing the information together. Too many sub-topics, sub-sub-topics, and sub-sub-sub-topics, make the article very difficult to read. I think this really hurts the article in the long run. Perhaps the best solution would be to keep this article focused on the chemical substance of water, primarily, and move most of the cultural and political impact information to other articles, providing a brief introduction to some of this impact in this article. The vast number of sub-articles listed as 'main' and 'see also' links probably should be looked at as well; some of these can probably be combined and merged with other articles, some are not really related to this topic (or only slightly), so probably shouldn't be listed. There's just too many issues related to this to name them all here -- this will be quite a mammoth undertaking.
I did check all of the images in the article, and they all do check out per the image criteria. There are several featured pictures used by this article (3 or 4), though I am concerned that some of these images might just be added to give more exposure to someone's featured picture. For example, while the image of the earth from space at the top is nice, it doesn't seem to be contributing anything to the article, and it wouldn't hurt to get rid of it. It couldn't hurt to go back and look at all of the images in this article anyway.
Anyway, that should cover the significant problems with the article. It's difficult to cover everything, since there's so much. It's still somewhat sad to see this article leaving WP:GA, since it's so important. But for now, that's the best option. Hopefully, the article will be renominated once these issues are resolved. Dr. Cash02:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you make some good points and suggestions, I'd like to take issue with your suggestion that "Perhaps the best solution would be to keep this article focused on the chemical substance of water, primarily, and move most of the cultural and political impact information to other articles, providing a brief introduction to some of this impact in this article." Water (molecule) is focused on the chemical substance of water, and this is ment to be a more general article touching on all aspects. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving03:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there is a micro-consensus for major revision, some organizational issues are on the table. This needs to be a unifying article on water, linking major topics, it needs to touch on many topics from chemical/physical properties to religious/spiritual meaning in a rather superficial but coherent way. I propose:
Rewrite to do list starting with statement of scope and limitations. A previous attempt is noted at Talk:Water#To_do_list. Perhaps a list of the 5 to 8 overall headings should be there.
I went browsing today for articles that would be likely targets of vandalism and bad writing, and figured water would be a sure hit. Sure enough! This article is remarkably bad. I respectfully urge that this radio frequency gimmick be left out. It is a chemistry trick that has no real relevance to an artile on water, in my opinion. Now, if we could only apply the same standard to the rest of this long, rambling article...
I am not trying to introduce vandalism. Please stop implying that. I didn't write this in the article because I know this can possibly stir controversy. That is also the exact reason I ask here. If nobody thinks this important enough to mention here, then fine. I will not put this here. And if you dislike the article so much, you can certainly rewrite it. Chris!my talk04:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter how many newspapers report the same dubious fact from the same dubious source. The number of Google hits does not increase the credibility of the claim. --Malleus Fatuarum04:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do leave it out. This is one more in a long list of similar, blatantly pseudoscientific claims, and it doesn't belong here. --Reuben22:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The matter has just made the December 2007 issue of Popular Science, pp.27, article "Heat Waves," where they state that though the phenomenon is conclusively shown to exist, critics claim that the radio emission generator uses up far more energy than it creates (thus far), and is thus "a carnival trick at best." The magazine, however, effectively takes a neutral stance, and awaits further developments. --Chr.K.21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watter??
That's a terrible opening to the Water article. Who gives a damn that people in Yorkshire call it 'watter'? On that basis, why not put "L'eau in France" or 100 other regional variations? Of course the article is protected and so this odd paragraph cannot be edited. Please consider removing this unnecessary statement. Yorkshiremen eh, think they own the world. 146.87.82.24211:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is protected if you haven't a user ID - so why not register?
I've changed the 'Watter' reference to a footnote.
The lead section says that earth has a total of 107 Tt of water. What units are Tt? Could someone please clarify, e.g. 107 Teratonnes (Tt) if the unit is Teratonnes? ShalomHello01:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Water on high gravity planets
Under the section about Solar distance and Earth gravity it states that "If a planet is sufficiently massive, the water on it may be solid even at high temperatures, because of the high pressure caused by gravity." but isnt this incorect because of the fact that water EXPANDS when it turns to a solid? Can someone please corect this.
InedibleSubstance01:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several different forms of ice, depending on the pressure, and some are more dense than liquid water. See the article on ice for details. --Itub10:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to say this, but the beginning of the article before the text, which lists the characteristics of water such as melting point and boiling point, needs heavy editing in terms of spelling and grammar. Part of it is incomprehensible (see the Collateral section) and appears to be written by a non-English speaker. I don't mean to insult anyone but this needs to be cleaned up.Mhklein00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the section in question. The section meant for, and is found at, Water (molecule). Water (molecule) "describes water from a scientific and technical perspective"; water, this article, on the other hand, describes water's "importance in sustaining life and humanity". (Quoted from disambiguation-link section of the Water (molecule) article.) --Ianleow714:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--72.22.154.3803:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[[Link title[[Media:<blockquote>
Insert non-formatted text here
</blockquote>
<gallery>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
Image:Example.jpg|Caption1
Image:Example.jpg|Caption2
|}
</gallery>]]]][reply]
Water freezing point isn't 0 celsius
"Freezing temperature" is when the liquid turns into solid. Water does that only at -42 celsius, so is that its freezing temperature? Water will freeze at 0 celsius only under certain conditions... Gil_mo (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it says melting point, not freezing point. I can assure you that at normal atmospheric pressure, water melts at 0 degrees Celsius. Sakkura (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to freezing point, not melting. And as the article explains, if there are no nucleation points water will freeze at -42 deg. celsius. If there are no objections I will correct the article. Gil_mo (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly explains that water usually freezes at 0 degrees but can be supercooled under certain conditions. There is no reason to change anything. Sakkura (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Constipation, 8-10 glasses?
The article makes the claim that water has little or no effect on constipation (saying that the myth is dispelled); however, it seems to me that the general consensus wherever I look is that water intake is a good way to battle constipation. When I had a bowel obstruction, my doctor recommended more water intake. And a Wikipedia article on constipation also states this. I think the article needs to be modified to reflect this truth.
I have heard that drinking 8-10 glasses on water a day is recommended for the average person to be healthy; however, I have also heard that this isn't necessary, and that one should only drink when thirsty. Even more confusing, there are those who say it's dangerous to drink only when thirsty (only when the body warns you that you need water). And this article itself seems to state in the beginning that the consensus is to drink 8-10 glasses, and then later, in the same section, it states that 8-10 glasses of water intake isn't necessary. So which is it? The section contradicts itself. 207.12.38.83 (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The published reports contradict each other, the drinking water section only references them and attempts to categorize them (as in, this one is from "advocates", this one is medical, etc) --Cubbi (talk) 01:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected here from a discussion on the negative dimension of democracy I wanted to see if the negative component of water, ie drowing was noted. Only one indirect reference.
Perhaps the negative side to water, ie drowing, ie in water or through body misfunction, would be a suggestion.
Happy New Years !
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Uses of water
Someone added a sentence just to say that "water fuel cell" and "water ionizer" are "uses of water". "Water fuel cells" were a minor nonsense scam which was eventually stopped by the Ohio courts. Water ionizers are not a use of water, but rather, something that operates upon water. Regardless, the sentence was not placed properly in the article. Xezlec (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistencies in picture headings
There are inconsistencies in the headings for the picture, and it's really starting to bug me.
For example, "ice used for cooling" has no punctuation or capitalization.
Two pictures away, "A water-carrier in India, circa ~1882. In many places where running water is not available, water has to be transported by people." has both capitalization and punctuation.
Declined, not enough activity to justify protection at this time. There looks to be enough users available to revert vandalism on the page (which doesn't seem too frequent), so semi-protection should only be used if it becomes too much to revert. Cowman109Talk 00:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
