Talk:Mud

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Mud is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Soil High‑importance

	Earth sciences portal Mud is within the scope of WikiProject Soil, which collaborates on Soil and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.SoilWikipedia:WikiProject SoilTemplate:WikiProject SoilSoil articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not necessarily liquid?

"Mud is a liquid or semi-liquid mixture of ground soil usally refered to as dirt", a quote of the first line of the article. "Mud house in Amran, Yemen" A quote of the text beneath the first photo. Now, the building is obviously not made from a liquid, so the definition is wrong. -OOPSIE- (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all matter has the potential to be solid, liquid, or gas. Would you not call concrete a solid because it is made in liquid form, or water not a liquid because it can evaporate or freeze? This only refers to the most commonly thought of state. 74.109.249.145 (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso is a volatile colloidal suspension of finely ground coffee particles in hot water. I think chemists and physicists would define espresso differently at different levels (as it were) of refinement, according to the tenets of their specific disciplines. I can only speculate that it might be much the same sort of situation with mud.

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ ^{{say it} {contribs}} 07:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Across "the country"?

I'm sure in the paragraph "Albuquerque and other towns across the country such as Gillette, Wyoming hold a yearly event in which participants play volleyball in a giant mud pit" the reference intended is to the United States. Perhaps a bit more information coupled with a bit less americocentricity would do the job. --70.58.93.98 (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, feel free to change it: all the more so if you feel something's not properly WP:CITE, demonstrates any WP:COI, or advances a specific WP:POV. Of course, new citations from reliable sources, noteworthy and verifiable information, and copyediting to improve anything from sheer readability to WP:NPOV are always welcome here. And if you feel the writing demonstrates bias, do your best to write a little out it out.

It's genuinely great that you feel strongly enough to stop in here and mention that you want to see the article made better. Don't be afraid just 'cause it won't be "perfect" with a single, simple, casual edit. Heck! A humble little stubby nubbin of an article like this has vast potential; and I seriously doubt any of us will ever live to see the day that "Mud" becomes a "perfect" encyclopedia entry. So?

Do it! Make it better. It can be something as simple as adding or removing a comma in the article. :^) :^)

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ ^{{say it} {contribs}} 07:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about use in industry and/or environmental science?

Really? No mining engineers, hydrologists, or prospectors have anything at all to say about mud? Not even so much as a passing peep acknowledging, say, the various uses of bentonite clay at drill rigs, the mechanics of in-situ leach technology (as in Uranium mining), or the ecology of alluvial plains?

You know something we don't? Please: do chime in! Don't worry: you won't break anything, lose your tools in the hole, or migrate any hard-to-isolate contaminants to Wikipedia faster than tritium migrates through sandy substrate to groundwater. ;^) ;^)

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ ^{{say it} {contribs}} 07:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about building with adobe?

No Southwest homesteaders, architects, historians, artists, interior designers, wall-to-wall carpeting-installers, janitors, or housewives have anything whatsoever to say about mud?

Go ahead -- track it in! :^) :^)

Cheers, ༺།།ༀ་ཨཱཿ་ཧཱུྃ།།འཚེར།།xeltifon།།སར་ཝ་མང་ག་ལམ།།༻ ^{{say it} {contribs}} 07:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mud

Who here loves mud? I do and I love wallowing in it! Cl03tr00p3r (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yum 2A02:C7F:861D:6A00:85F:B448:80C3:EFF9 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Houses made of mud should be described here

Not only adobe technology exists.Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asante Traditional Buildings

Atta-Kwame Mud house Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adhesive

This unsourced section seems very dubious, though it has been in the article since 2004, more or less: this edit was the first mention of stucco, at a time when the article was more or less a disambiguation page.

I cannot see that stucco would be referred to as mud except perhaps in construction site slang, (presumably US, as it's not mentioned in the Oxford English Dictionary).

I will remove the unlikely-looking statement here. PamD 21:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues

This 2003 article has far too much-unsourced material. There is also non-relevant material. The lead sets up the perimeters with "Mud is soil, loam, silt or clay mixed with water." The section "As food" can certainly be relevant but the subsection, "Foods named "mud", is not. The last sentence states, " Never does this confectionery mud actually contain real mud." I will look for some sourcing when I can but may edit out all the unsourced and possibly (original research material. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]