Talk:Fresh water

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Spelling edit

It is formally "freshwater", not "fresh water". I have changed this and made "fresh water" redirect to the new, correctly spelled page. I am an oceanographer and we spell it "freshwater" in our proposals and articles.

Facts Problems

This article does not agree with the H2O article on the % of fresh water and where it is stored at.

Freshwater vs. Salt water

At what salinity level does freshwater scientifically become saltwater? That information would be useful in the article.

The actual amount of salt in fresh water is, by definition, less than 0.05% by volume. Otherwise, the water is regarded as brackish (0.05-2.99%) or defined as saline (3 to 5%). The ocean is naturally saline at approximately 3.5% salt. At well over 5% it is considered brine, however this is common only in inland salt lakes like the Dead Sea, with a surface water salt content of around 15%. Right now I haven't got the time to edit the text though, but feel free to use these percentage levels and fix this close to dreadful article... :-) Tommy Kronkvist 15:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural conversion

of salt water into fresh water.  It is best to dig the hole near or on the beach so water will naturally appear in the hole.

-First you will need a buket, bar, glass pane, and digging tools.

-Place the bar in the ground where you have dug a whole.

-Put the bucket on the bar, then simply wait for the salt water inside the hole to evaporate into the bucket. Remember not to forget the glass pane ontop of the hole. Wait a week or two for evaporation to take place.

-There u have it. Natural Fresh rain water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where to go from here?

I was going to take a stab at this article, but I'm not sure where to start. To start with, should it be one word (freshwater) or remain as it is, as two words (fresh water)? How about organization? Tommy Kronkvist's comments were helpful, but what is the source for citation purposes? Ginkgo100 23:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it should remain as two words. WaterGuy

Since "fresh water" is a noun and titles are nouns, it should remain two words. "Freshwater" is an adjective. --Yath 16:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)regular water = freshwater[reply]

The picture on the page makes no sense. Reflection of people? Fish pond? 84.249.212.184 23:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the title of this article should definitely be Freshwater. Fresh water is not the technical term used. the google hits are 20:1 favouring Freshwater, but more importantly all the encylopaedic google hits point to Freshwater. The present title is the biggest embarrassment i have ever seen on wikipedia. Anlace 04:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy?

"Many species can live in fresh water == Headline text ==Bold text , including freshwater fish species."

I'm guessing that by the first "species" we're talking about "organisms"... I know that the wording is technically correct, but it seems somewhat circular, and I'm not certain if stating that freshwater fish can live in freshwater environments is too obvious. I'm kind of new to editing Wikithings (lol obvious no account), so I thought I'd better bring this up in discussion rather than toss in my interpretation of what was meant to be said. That, and I'm nowhere near educated on the matter.

216.170.23.236 01:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think you're absolutely right about that sentence. I removed the whole thing, as it adds nothing to the article. In the future, please don't have any qualms about being bold -- many articles have badly written parts that would benefit from a good rewrite. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and Inconsistent?

These articles on Fresh, Saline and Brine water (etc) are confusing and inconsistent -- how is 50 ppt equal to 50% ? Really needs some clarification, because PPM, PPT and % are all on very different scales.. --MaXiMiUS 07:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total dissolved solids

To be added?
fresh water < 1500 mg/L TDS
Source: ISBN:0-13-148193-2, page 188
--Saippuakauppias ⇄ 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have only selected parts of the talk page been moved?

Only parts of the original talk page at Talk:Freshwater have been moved here, this selective move has the effect of leaving out all discussion that motivated the move from "Freshwater to "Fresh water" in the first place - the record is incomplete and in a way even "biased" against the move by not including the discussion of the move itself. Roger (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh water percent fix

Per the cited source (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8b.html), lakes and rivers/streams make up 0.011% of the earth's freshwater, not 0.0001%. Zeke Hausfather (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add "Consumption for freshwater per person is a Planetary boundaries metric."

Add "Consumption for freshwater per person is a Planetary boundaries metric." 99.19.40.44 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Planetary boundaries to note the absence of consensus for any of the individual metrics pointing to the article Planetary boundaries, even from an article which would be appropriate if the metric were notable. You're still trying to refer to the article on planetary boundaries, rather than the subject. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What subject? 99.109.126.249 (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of planetary boundaries aka tipping points or tipping points is a complex one, and it's not clear what should link to it. This article might link to the article defining the planetary boundaries used in the article planetary boundaries, if it were sufficiently notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not aka (also known as), since you are comparing "apples and oranges" ... planetary boundaries doesn't equal tipping point (climatology) or tipping point (physics), although those terms are used as "boundaries". 99.119.131.205 (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place for discussion, but what is a planetary boundary but a tipping point related to a global effect? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add connection to Drinking water also. 99.181.141.126 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the changes to Planetary boundaries ...

Boundary issue Freshwater consumption
Suggested indicator Consumption of water and the global hydrological cycle
Suggested limit 4000 km³/yr of runoff resources

Add "Consumption of water and the global hydrological cycle is a Planetary boundaries metric.", but another wp article might be drinking water/potable water (consumption), water resources, and water crisis. 99.181.129.252 (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China Takes Loss to Get Ahead in Desalination Industry NYT

China Takes a Loss to Get Ahead in the Business of Fresh Water Michael Wines published: October 25, 2011 ... There are plenty of reasons for China to want a homegrown desalination industry, not the least of which is homegrown fresh water. ... 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Drinking water? 99.190.85.15 (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Connectivity issues to this article for me ... maybe later, or someone with a different configuration/situation? 23:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk)

"distilled seawater" ... distilled water 99.181.138.228 (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

simplifed link reabability. 99.109.125.146 (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]