Talk:Liquid

Physics Top‑importance

	Physics portal 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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemistry Top‑importance

	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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Materials High‑importance

	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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Nomination for Good Article

I am nominating the article for Good Article status.

I will try to determine if it meets the criteria. ScientistBuilder (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, without even reading the content it will be a quick fail as there are too many uncited statements and paragraphs. Polyamorph (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cited everything that I added, with the exception of the intro, which is more or less just an expansion of the lede. That actually came from back in the Logger9 days (remember him?), when I was trying to help translate his work into something the average reader could understand. I was still pretty new back then.

There's one paragraph in the Applications section without a cite, but it was originally part of the paragraph below, and someone came along and divided it into two. To this day, I often don't bother to put a citation for every paragraph if all the material came from the same source, because it seems redundant and over-citing, so that's something to always look for. Still, most of the uncited material looks like it should be relatively easy to find sources for, but I think this article may still need a substantial amount of work to elevate it to good-article status. There are still a lot of unanswered questions here, so it may be worth it to take some time to improve it first, and then you'd have a far better chance of getting it through the GA process. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so is Sanger is a producer or a developer pls help me understand what this is about please help me understand please help 2603:6081:4A00:123A:C9CF:F497:6E0:41F9 (talk) 02:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's a sanger? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "sanger" is Australian slang for a sandwich. Nothing to do with liquids as far as I can tell. Zaereth (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Describe physics of matter interms of microscopic explanation of the four states of matter

Describe 129.140.0.25 (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Closely packed, loosely packed, spread apart, and bound by electric and magnetic fields. How's that? Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is liquid a locked article?

what controversy could possibly be making the warriors grab their keyboards? 106.128.96.97 (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the page is semi-protected due to persistent vandalism. If you would like to make an edit you have two options. 1) Make an edit request here, or 2) create an account and wait 4 days (after 10 edits). Polyamorph (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Introduction"

After the actual article introduction, there follows a section titled "introduction" which begins by repeating the same points made before it. Wth. I'm surprised to find such a mess on such a fundamental article. DiscreetParrot (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the two introductions, but I did not compare the result with the article content yet. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Was literally about to implement the exact same change. DiscreetParrot (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was still a lot of repetition in the introduction so I rewrote much of it. I also reordered the sections based on the introduction. Some sections like "Applications" and "Prediction of liquid properties" are not yet summarized there. Also, the reordering had the effect that some of the very technical stuff is now too early in the article. I'd imagine that the solution would be to try and reduce the technicality here and instead wikilink to the pages with the advanced stuff. Or move them to the last section, if that can be naturally done. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 04:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]