This is an archive of past discussions about Water. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Egregiously bad. The density of ice is NOT a constant. This is grade school physical science and yet this article claims the density has a specific value! Sure, at 0 C, 1 atm pressure, 1 Gravity acceleration, pure water with a given isotopic constitution will, at equilibrium, have a specific value. But the simple claim that "ice has a density of X" is a great example of incompetent editing.174.131.48.89 (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh come off your high horse and try to help vs pontificate. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I am currently working on the article water cycle and came here to see if there is useful content here that I could repeat at the other article. The section on water cycle is not bad, however hardly any references are used. Should this be corrected or is it deemed acceptable since the statements are so broad and well known? Also I am thinking of using the excerpt tool to add an excerpt from water cycle. What do you think about this suggestion? EMsmile (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

In the etymology section it is stated that a cognate of 'water' is Greek ύδωρ (ýdor). I think it might be better to be a bit more specific and say 'ύδωρ' is Modern Greek, as it might easily be mistaken by the similar Ancient Greek word ὕδωρ (hýdōr or húdōr, with spiritus fortis and relevant long 'o'). -37.11.122.76 (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

We just have a paper published in Science, we would like to make such changes: Water (chemical formula H2O) is an inorganic, transparent, tasteless, odorless, and nearly colorless chemical substance, which is the main constituent of Earth's hydrosphere and the fluids of all known living organisms (in which it acts as a solvent[1]). It is vital for all known forms of life, despite providing neither food, energy, nor organic micronutrients. Humans comprise 40 to 70% water and turnover about 10% of this every day. ^[1]. Its chemical formula, H2O, indicates that each of its molecules contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms, connected by covalent bonds. The hydrogen atoms are attached to the oxygen atom at an angle of 104.45°.[2] "Water" is also the name of the liquid state of H2O at standard temperature and pressure. 199.48.182.28 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't know what changes are being proposed here--unless it's just the addition of a published paper, which isn't necessary for this lead. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

water is important part of your life. it necessary to drink water everyday. Vaibhavi khot (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the second line of the article, "It is vital for all known forms of life, despite providing neither food, energy, nor organic micronutrients," to "It is vital for all known forms of life, despite not providing food, energy, or organic micronutrients." Many style guides, such as The Chicago Manual of Style (entry 5.234) and Garner's Modern English Usage, agree that "neither ... nor" constructions are best limited to exactly two items in a list. Urzane (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree.  Done. Zefr (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change paragraph: “ The surface temperature of Earth has been relatively constant through geologic time despite varying levels of incoming solar radiation (insolation), indicating that a dynamic process governs Earth's temperature via a combination of greenhouse gases and surface or atmospheric albedo. This proposal is known as the Gaia hypothesis. ”

To

NEW PARAGRAPH: “ The Gaia hypothesis suggests that the biosphere actively engages in self-regulation, maintaining the Earth's environmental conditions suitable for life. One proposed mechanism for this regulation involves feedback loops related to climate, such as the one stemming from marine algae. When temperatures rise, these algae produce more of a volatile cloud-seeding chemical, dimethyl sulphide, which stimulates cloud formation, subsequently reflecting radiation back into space and cooling the planet. ” SOURCE: Gillon, J. Feedback on Gaia. Nature 406, 685–686 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/35021165 DanielElh (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I am inclined to reject this edit request. I'm not sure that dimethyl sulfide is the best example of how temperature is regulated in the Gaia hypothesis. And, regardless, it is unclear why this detail should be in an article about water. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

“The decomposition requires more energy input than the heat released by the inverse process (285.8 kJ/mol, or 15.9 MJ/kg).” This is in clear violation of conservation of energy. Perhaps what they intended to say was that electrolytic decomposition is not 100% efficient? Mindyobusiness12 (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/160/6/060901/3262785/The-structure-of-water-A-historical-perspective?searchresult=1 78.3.35.214 (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Under the molecular polarity paragraph it states "oxygen atom retains a negative charge while the hydrogen atoms are positively charged." this is technically wrong it should be a partial negative charge and hydrogen partial positive charge
• Why it should be changed: its wrong
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):^[1]

Wickyman123 (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the article as it exists now says the followiing: 'Because Earth's environment is relatively close to water's triple point'. Wander over to 'triple point' and it says that the pressure of water at the triple point is:

'vapor pressure of 611.657 pascals (6.11657 mbar; 0.00603659 atm)'. This is a lot closer to the atmospheric pressure of Mars, and is well below the Armstrong limit.

Water also does not magically change into Nitrogen and Nitrogen into water using some nuclear process either.

Lies sound cool because lying is cool ... NOT. What arguments do people have here that this is not a lie? I think that should be taken out of the article.

2601:1C2:500:9460:D9E1:DCE2:333C:5EB4 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"Earth's environment" includes the entire Earth's atmosphere, which definitely has points with pressure below the triple point of water. I can understand your concern if the article stated "Earth's surface" as that would be untrue, and maybe it is worded somewhat confusingly, but as it is right now there's nothing untrue about it. Reconrabbit (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

My dear friend, I feel a tone of aggression in your words, I understand your concern, but you don't need to be so aggressive with your words, be polite, as I'm being with you. (Note: I don’t wanna other discussion, so, get your mood on me, ok?) 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The claim is properly sourced to a university website by an expert. "the Earth environment is close to the triple point and that water, steam and ice can all exist at the surface." and also "Near the surface of the Earth water can exist in three phases - ice (solid), water (liquid), and vapor (steam)". "Relatively close" does not mean that earth is at the triple point. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

a link in the infobox for the word Oxidane would be nice (it redirects to a nomenclature section, currently located at Properties of water#Nomenclature, information not currently found in this article). However, looking at how this infobox is configured (pulled through from the chembox template), I'm actually not at all sure how one would go about adding that. So I'm leaving this comment instead --Tomatoswoop (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Water has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

102.223.58.254 (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There are a few grammar errors that need to changed and there are grammatically incorrect

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Left guide (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this 2409:40E7:1BC:F877:F9C6:9900:EF04:67AC (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Try Properties of water  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Remsense and I disagree on which version of the phase diagram plot to use. I prefer the detailed version, while Remsense prefers the simplified version. These are shown below.

• 
  Detailed
• 
  Simplified

I'd like to lay out both of our arguments so we can get a third opinion. My position is that the detailed plot is both more informative, due to many more different phases and points of interest being shown, and also easier to read off due to the fine coordinate grid. Remsense's position is that these extra features are hard to read in the thumbnail, and that the simplified version is easier to read in thumbnail form. I agree with that. Where we disagree is what should be given priority. I think that the job of the thumbnail is just to be a low-resolution *preview* of a plot, not a replacement for the plot. If everything is readable in a thumbnail, then that's a nice bonus, but not something one would expect. After all, everybody knows that one can click on the thumbnail to see the full version of a plot. I therefore don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice the quality of the full plot in order to make the preview look a bit better. I'd also like to point out that much of the text in even the simplified version is not readable in the thumbnail, and there are plenty of other good plots on the page that also aren't readable in thumbnail version, e.g. the water cycle one, agricultural map and water shortage map.

To summarize, the disagreement is (as I understand it) about whether the usability of the full version or thumbnail version of a plot is most important. Amaurea (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the more detailed phase diagram because it provides more information. But for the thumbnail and easier to read argument is pretty practical. I don't see why we cannot include both - with the right captions. Some sections have multiple images. But if we have go with one, the detailed one is best because you cannot read the simplified image well either and the specific heat capacity of water plot on the "on earth" section already looks very detailed that you have to click on it to see the detail. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. Do you want to have a go at updating the article, or should I do it? I think having both versions right next to each other might look a bit redundant, since the detailed version has everything the other one does, and more. I would prefer to have just the detailed version, I guess it could maybe work as a compromise to have both... Amaurea (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Including both versions sounds like a good idea. I'm also willing to support both versions unless we have to include one only per Ramos1990. _ZZ^Z'S 20:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I think everyone has a common denominator of the detailed one for sure. Amaurea, want to replace it? Ramos1990 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, if everybody is fine with me just replacing it with the detailed one, I'll just do that. I haven't heard back from Remsense, but I guess we'll see if he objects once I've done it. ... There, done. Amaurea (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not legible at its current display size. Another option would be to make it larger, but its current presentation is pretty obviously unacceptable, like I plainly said before. It's not reasonable to have thumbnail images only serve any utility once they are expanded. Remsense ‥ 论 22:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree to some level, but the simplified version isn't good either. It's nearly unreadable on my computer monitor and probably worse on the phone, and the bright red crosshair lines blot out the i in liquid entirely. The gas / liquid / solid labels also need to be larger or darker to be comfortably readable on 4k or even sub-4k monitors (I'm on an LG 8:9 aspect 2560x2880 which doesn't have a super high pixel density compared to most 4k screens and it's still bad). At normal viewing distance the smaller descriptive labels are way too small, the temperature / pressure labels might as well be unreadable, and the axis labels / numbers are unreadable without zooming which is particularly bad since it's a logarithmic graph. The fact that it's impossible to properly make the data readable on the thumbnail of the simplified chart indicates that a format change is needed. I'd suggest cutting off the vertical axis just above the critical point and the horizontal where that confusing dotted line between ice I_c and ice I_h is right now, which allows nearly twice as much space for vertical labels and about 33% more for temperature labels without loosing anything. Ideally that curve towards the triple point of liquid / ice / Ice III would be removed for the sake of sanity, too. From reading the phases of ice article and some of the cited sources, it seems unclear that this is a correct triple point with liquid water anyway, and there's likely to be another phase that hasn't been identified correctly. Some of the forms of ice have "impossible" triple points with liquid water and other ice phases that should have formed from liquid at higher temperatures already so it's unclear how the data was accumulated.

The main problem with the original is that only some of the roughly 29 different phases of ice that have been discovered are marked with absolutely no indication that they're ice phases; I don't think it's common knowledge that ice even has a large number of phases, or at least everyone I show phases of ice to is surprised by it. I wasn't aware until I read that article some years back and I've studied chemistry more extensively than most people. I don't think 99% of readers would know why there were roman numerals there. This article barely mentions the phases of ice so it's not immediately clear. The fact that LDA, MDA, HDA, VHDA, eHDA, and Ice I through XIX exist (along with the named forms I'm not going to list here) as of 2025 should be mentioned if those numeral labels are kept and then I wouldn't have any real problem with it. The sizing of things isn't any real improvement between the two, the simplified one is just less cluttered (and makes less sense without those ice triple points indicating why there's liquid curving back towards lower temperatures at high pressures when this is the opposite of how these graphs normally work). A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Water issues has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 8 § Water issues until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 15:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)