Talk:Ice 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials 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.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials articles
This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Currently, Phases of ice redirects to Ice#Phases here. This section is disproportionately large and hard to read, in large part due to the table that is simply too specific for a high-level article like this, as it describes phases that often do not exist in nature and which >99% of readers will never come into contact with.
Further, some of those are clearly just tiny stubs (Ice V and Ice X are basically two sentences each, while Ice III, Ice VI,Ice IX and Ice XVI are basically a single paragraph), and even the larger pages contain a lot of condensable material. Merging this material into a single mid-sized article shouldn't be very difficult and it will allow readers to see which phases might be important (i.e. Ice XVII's potential relevance for hydrogen storage) at a glance, rather than having to click through the entire table/infobox to find out.
Finally, condensing the Phases section here should make it a lot easier to nominate this article for GA. In fact, Phases of ice page would itself have GA potential, which currently appears practically impossible for basically all of the individual sub-pages. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First I'm unclear on your proposal. I could take it as:
Create a new page called "Phases of ice", replace the current section Ice#Phases with a summary pointing to the new page as Main, redirect all of the "Ice *" pages to "Phase of ice", or
Redirect all of the "Ice *" pages to Ice#Phases with new content replacing the existing content.
IMO the first version would be much easier to achieve. It would make discussing special cases like Ice XVII relatively easy since an entire section of "Phases of Ice" for that phase would not be undue.
Second, is there a secondary reference that can be used to justify the relative space given to each phase? So for example you might like to say "naturally occurring phases of ice", or "commonly studied" or so on but these can be disputed unless you have a overview ref. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would Support Johnjbarton's proposal 1, since it is helpful to our readers to understand all of the phases of water ice together, rather than in separate articles. — hike395 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton Yes, I most definitely mean the first option. The "Phases" section here is already by far the largest of all, and if every ice sub-page were to be merged there, it would probably take up half the article! I would much rather reduce this section to a summary that's 2-4 paragraphs at most - similar to how I have seen the other GA-tier articles summarize important subsections.
As far as an overview reference goes, would this Nature article work? After a brief search, I found it, and also this TWN article. Perhaps something else can be found as well, but I was too preoccupied with cleaning up the other parts of this article ahead of GAN to look any deeper. I added 31 reference today (from 117 to 148; luckily, a good number could simply be moved from the linked pages, but too many had to be found anew), and I still missed a couple of uncited paragraphs! InformationToKnowledge (talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is done! That is, Phases of ice exists as a separate article, the table from here has been moved over there, and then I merged all of those sub-articles over there, and expanded the table with columns for basic numerical data, as opposed to the previous, two-column "name - written description" format. The phases section here can probably still be adjusted/trimmed even now, and the new article certainly has some way to go.
In particular, I effectively had to combine a lot of material on the ordinary ice and on amorphous ice (and some facts about the less-common phases) into several introductory section that would made sense in a fairly short period of time, and I am sure it could be made much better. "History of research" is also mostly a compromise solution to store away the content from the few of the more-detailed articles on crystalline phases. Some of it can likely be condensed, or even dismissed as non-notable, but I didn't have time for that right now.
Wow, that's a lot of work, thanks so much for this! I find that sometimes the high level article lead a surprisingly poor existence on Wikipedia (like water cycle) as a lot of people prefer to work on the more specialised articles. So I really appreciate that you took on this high level article on "ice", and made sure there is relevant, up to date climate change content in it as well! EMsmile (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnjbarton So, with the merge concluded, what should be done about all the remaining links to individual phases in the template at the bottom (all the Roman numerals + "amorphous solid" and "superionic" links)? I guess they all need to go, but I am not sure of where exactly to place Phases of ice link in that template. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion: change the first row to "States" and include "amorphous solid" "crystalline phases" and " "superionic"(?). Or "States and phenomena", so the second row is only "formations". The links can point it sections (or better WP:anchorinphases of ice. To be clear, the template won't have the roman numerals. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that would be excessive, because it would just link to the same article as the other three links. Only difference is that it would go to the beginning (which is not great anyway: need to figure out how to make that lead consist of 3-4 paragraphs) rather than to a section. "Ice ages" link actually goes to a separate article from anything in that row, so it's rather different. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maybe briefly mention sea level rise in the lead, saying that this is only from grounded ice. (cf. next item)
Historical: could you please make it clear in the text that melting of ice sheets and other floating ice does not contribute to sea level rise. There are plenty of readers who won't have grasped this as they hear (correctly) that melting ice is causing impending disaster. I suggest you state in terms that only the melting of grounded ice affects sea level, as you have hinted (but not quite stated) in the graph caption.
I think you also need to state in terms that the loss of Antarctic sea ice sheets is accelerating the movement of glaciers and hence loss of grounded ice, i.e. its melting can indirectly raise sea level.
Very important disruption of the two overturning circulations: it would be very useful to present a world map of the global circulation, with (probably newly added, not a big task) arrows for where meltwater flows would disrupt the circulations.
On the oceans: you've include pancake ice, but there are numerous other sea ice forms in the Arctic (and Antarctic) as freezing progresses, such as nilas, young ice, brash ice, fast ice, compact ice, frazil ice, grease ice (two poorly-cited articles, unfortunately), not to mention ice floes and oddities like ice eggs. It seems we're missing an account of that complex process. You could use a list or table to name the forms of sea ice compactly; it might be a good place to use an image gallery; if you use a table you could have a column for small images directly next to the text.
The lack of detail on sea ice forms contrasts oddly with the rather extensive coverage of ice pellets: why so much on that, when other forms like graupel aren't mentioned at all? This seems quite uneven (to coin a phrase), for both sea and land forms. I think we need more on the variety of forms here (blue ice (glacial), hoar frost, yukimarimo, etc.), and a feeling that at least "the main points" (to quote the GA criteria) are actually covered at least briefly. Again, maybe an illustrated table of the terrestrial forms of ice would be helpful.
I feel that tables would make this article feel "heavy": it used to have a large table for Phases of ice (now moved over to that newly created article) and it really broke up the flow. We also have so little written for many of those forms that a) sooner or later, it probably makes sense to merge all those stubs into just a few articles; b) there isn't a whole lot of information that are standardized enough to fit into a table. I chose two galleries instead, and wrote some additional paragraphs. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First non-stop flight across Atlantic: please add the date, 1919.
See also - surprised that the Density link and "ice crystal" aren't used in the text, they should be.
Can't see any value in linking the Water portal: the article is thick with genuinely useful and fully-navigable links to genuinely-related articles, which the portal really isn't.
Yakhchal image: it looks as if the ice is outside the structure! Please explain that the system works entirely inside the yakhchal. The image is actually very poorly designed as the ground is shown as one thing, whereas there should be an inset for the mechanism (there could be a dotted circle around the bottom of the structure, with a bigger dotted circle for the mechanism, joined by two dotted lines, for instance), and no ground shown beyond the yakhchal itself. As it is, it's a hopeless mess, and most of the image is taken up with uninformative blue or brown deadspace. I could help with that, I guess.
Late 19th-century ice factory: please explain what the components are in the caption.
Probably the only way to avoid being speculative about it is going straight to its reference, and that reference is an ancient Popular Science volume with 900 pages. It might be easier to choose something else.InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
US propaganda film on Road of Life. Please explain in caption why this is relevant: the word "ice" should be in there somewhere.
Spot checks are fine. I'll assume good faith with the offline sources, many of which are books without page numbers at the moment, see list below.
Pages needed
[1] needs page number or at least chapter.
[2] ditto
[3] ditto
[7] ditto
[10] ditto
[11] ditto
[21] ditto
[84] ditto
[105] ditto
[106] ditto
[107] ditto
[111] ditto
[124] ditto
Better sources needed
[24] please replace news item with its source (the research paper)
[29] ditto
[38] ditto
Other
[54] please add "|display-authors=6" (or similar) to the ref; you might like to do this consistently across all >6-author articles.
[58] seems to be a dead link.
[98] what does page 34–1 mean?
Haven't started on this yet. The hunt for page numbers in particular often makes me question if finding an online reference wouldn't be easier. Guess there's still the weekend.
OK, I've found more issues than I was expecting. Most are very minor and will be quick to fix; there are some important but not very complex things to say in the text; and the coverage of forms of ice does seem to need more work with text, images, and citations. After that we'll be ready for GA. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you need to take ciations out from the lead? I would actually add more. Reason being: if this lead is transcribed somewhere else with the excerpt tool, then citations in the lead are useful. As per MOS:LEADCITE there are no blanket rules for citations in the lead. But it is a bit odd that only the first para of the lead has citations (and rather weak ones?!). I would add the most important citations to all paras (without overloading it with citations). EMsmile (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well we can't leave it as it is, that's for sure.
I've removed the 3 citations from the first para of the lead that seemed to me ill-fitting. But I would suggest to add some high quality citations throughout the lead, taking some of the same citations that are used for the main text? EMsmile (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an option. Actually the policy should be clarified, as many editors feel the lead is meant to be citation-free.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 pageorWikipedia 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.
article was recently promoted to GA, is long enough and is within policy. Hook is sadly interesting to a general audience and short enough. Image is freely licensed. QPQ is complete. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 19:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
I am guessing @RCraig09: might want to try additions like this, since he rarely thinks much of the graphical edits I make on my own. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
article was recently promoted to GA, is long enough and is within policy. Hook is sadly interesting to a general audience and short enough. Image is freely licensed. QPQ is complete. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Bibcode:2021TCry...15..233S. doi:10.5194/tc-15-233-2021. hdl:20.500.11820/df343a4d-6b66-4eae-ac3f-f5a35bdeef04.
