Talk:Water

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2022

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)

Electrical Conductivity and Electrolysis

“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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

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)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Ineligible; closed as unsuccessful

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Dangers of dihydrogen monoxide

• ... that in the spring of 1997, a 14 year old's school science fair project made an argument to ban a chemical compound named dihydrogen monoxide? Source: Diydrogen monoxide
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: A fact about what started the whole thing.

Created by Chemification (talk). Self-nominated at 06:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Water; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Sorry, Chemification, but the article is not new or recently five-times expanded or newly promoted to Good Article, so it's not eligible. Please see WP:DYK for eligibility requirements and other information about DYK. The article is currently 59,328 prose characters, so a five times expansion is not really possible, but if you get it to Good Article status, you may be able to renominate within a week of that promotion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Disputed content

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)

Molecular polarity

• 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):

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

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

References