Talk:Water

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Water article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
To-do list for Water: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Discuss the dangers of water.
  • Discuss water on other planets, and its origin on Earth.
  • Expand some short statements into full paragraph.
  • Add section discussing the water cycle.
  • Add a section on tides.
  • Add a section on water-based power (hydroelectric, wave, tidal etc).
  • Replace the iceburg illustration with a real picture.
  • 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.
Priority 1 (top)
This article is part of WikiProject Science, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Science. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Water as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic,  Esperanto,  Hebrew or Italian language Wikipedias.
Peer review Water has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Good articles Water has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
A Water has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] 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?

PS. Formatting is fucked!

hahaha lol thats what i was going to coment on--Slogankid 11:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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 solving 18:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Pagw 16:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; it wasn't removed. It was moved to the bottom of the page. New comments go at the bottom of the page. Look at the bottom of the page for your comment and my response. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Behavior at Standard Temperature and Pressure

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???

Knotwork 20:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I really hoped to find the dielectric constant of water here as a function of temperature. Oh well =[ 24.128.156.216 11:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Matt

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?  88.109.27.55 10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

2/19/06

[edit] Wikiproject Spoken Articles

I plan to speak this article into...uh...a spoken article, so please don't anyone else do it, mmmkay? Cernen Xanthine Katrena 20:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water Use and Total

How many gallons of water are used each day and how much water is there in the world?

Water, water everywhere, but not enough to drink: 1400 million cubic km. Daniel Collins 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Water is not colorless

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. --Dschwen 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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\talk 21:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
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\talk 21:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
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. --Dschwen 21:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Ļ

[edit] 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? Drmagic 01:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Dschwen 17:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --66.82.9.12 13:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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.

[edit] Water availability

Would Image:WorldWaterAvailability.png (this) image be useful in English for this (or some other) article? gren グレン 06:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, if it was in English. I can't translate it though, as I don't know even one word of German. ONUnicorn 15:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Query

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?--feline1 09:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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 - MPF 21:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
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

[edit] 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. 70.111.244.69 01:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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...

Yes, PURE water is unusual but tasteless. See this Google search. Art LaPella 03:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of water from the body

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. AdamBiswanger1 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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. --Muéro 21:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] 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.

--Nyourhead 07:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Why should we leave erroneous data on the page? Vsmith 13:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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. :) Nyourhead 10:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

It doesn't weigh anywhere near that much. I'll look for a reference. -- Moondigger 19:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
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 Dormio 19:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
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! -- Moondigger 20:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

69.114.151.9 keeps editing the article, renaming key words to childish/nonsense words, i.e. 'DooDoo'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.87.23.220 (talk • contribs).

Vandalism is so rife on this article that it should be semi-protected. Nunquam Dormio 06:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection; but I doubt it'll happen. I think the amount of vandalism is just barely under the threashold for semi-protection. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the response I got:

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)

~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 15:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

More vandalism:

"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."

How 'bout that semi-protection?

--Ivan Diaz 16:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

        --Effilcdar dec 7, 06

[edit] Archive

This talk page is kind of long. There seem to be comments here from as far back as 2004. Anyone object to archiving? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as no one has objected yet; I'll go ahead and archive it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

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)

[edit] 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? Lswinger 12:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Lswinger

Fine with me. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 13:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article reformatted

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. -- Moondigger 17:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

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)
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? -- Moondigger 19:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagreed with moondigger. Moved the chembox back down to the chemical section, where I put it originally. - Jack (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Jrockley, maybe you could relax and wait for the discussion to unfold? I gave my reasoning above. -- Moondigger 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
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? -- Moondigger 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
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. -- Moondigger 00:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's a section of Jrockley's talk page from a couple months ago when the infobox was added. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] water

why water get dirty? 205.250.5.46 02:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Universal solvent"

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 -- Quantockgoblin 13:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember hearing that in high school Chemistry, and I hear it all the time on tv and stuff. I'll try to find a citation for it though. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Vandalism

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).

[edit] 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. 65.32.239.181 16:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That wire has a certain conductance. Its material has a conductivity. Fixed the unit in the article. 64.195.252.242 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thales of Miletus

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."

--JianLi 07:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Question: Freezing water/expansion

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?

PLEASE HELP THIS IS DRIVING ME NUTS!!
-Rob user:151.197.51.42

Why don't you try it? -Will Beback · † · 22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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?

You might consult Ice#Ice at different pressures. Also Crystal, Crystal structure, Crystallization, Crystallographic defect, Amorphous ice (irrelevant, but neat), Ice-nine (also irrelevant but interesting). -Will Beback · † · 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
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)


[edit] 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. --Ruben 23:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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."209.191.166.202 16:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)jonah

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 solving 17:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Pagw 14:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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 solving 15:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not featured?

I'm surprised. Has this article ever been nominated for being featured? --CyclePat 04:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valdalisation

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, Moverington 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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? --CyclePat 17:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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).

[edit] Aqueous solution

I've noticed that aqueous solution redirects to water, and I feel that aqueous solution merits an article of its own, especially as water doesn't really explain much about aqueous solutions. I also think that the disambig page at aqueous should redirect to an article on aqueous solutions. I outlined my thoughts on the matter at Talk:Aqueous. -- Iotha 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politics

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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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) Dashboardy 08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Dashboardy

I've fixed this section, by mentioning that HF has only 1 fluorine while water has 2 oxygens. This is more correct Dashboardy 08:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Dashboardy

[edit] Percentage of Different Water that exists on earth?

I'm doing a school project, and I can't find this anywhere. Help? -Chwoka 17:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

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.
You might also look at Water cycle, which has a good table. -Will Beback · † · 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dangers of water?

can someone tell me about the dangers of water? like floods and stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.6.118.206 (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Ok, but i need kinda like a list and description of what water can do or what it can make.65.6.118.206 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Student T.

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......

[edit] Blue water?

Although appearing colourless is actually slightly blue? Needs proper citation or a good source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catalyst37 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Lightning

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)

[edit] Length

isnt this article too long? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.148.138.70 (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] why the vandalism???

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).

[edit] 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. Fizzackerly 17:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interlingua

Please add [[ia:Aqua]] to this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.10.0.110 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC).



[edit] definition of water for new people

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).

I like the way you think 71.48.133.201 04:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)professor blue71.48.133.201 04:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

AlainD 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/a/t/Talk%7EWater_fad6.html"