Talk:H₂O
Validity
[edit]I see evidence of use as a common noun in English, such as google books:"glass of H2O". "glass of H₂O" get no hits, but I think that's because of Unicode and Google issues. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have created an English entry. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- You can now successfully search for "glass of H₂O" on Google. There are almost no results. Equinox ◑ 17:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Search results are cancelling superscript and subscript formats so you can search with common numbers. When you go through a link, you will see the proper formats, "glass of H₂O", in many results. --Octahedron80 (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Specifically sense 1: "Water as a chemical substance". Duplication of Translingual sense 1: "Water, by its molecular formula..." CitationsFreak (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- But English is a different "language" than Translingual. I dont think this should be considered duplication. —Soap— 08:49, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Soap: If H₂O-the-chemical-formula is translingual, i.e. used across multiple languages, then it definitely is duplication. We don't and wouldn't make sections for H₂O for the tens of other languages where chemistry is written about sufficiently enough. The only argument I see for it are grammatical differences, like the fact that it's uncountable in English whereas that might not be a distinction in other languages, but that falls apart to me pretty fast when you consider that that's the case for just about any chemical formula. There's no separate section for the number 17 in English and German just because one's pronounced sɛvəntiːn and the other ziːptseːn. Delete for me. Hythonia (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hythonia: We have the number in the English entry for 1, though not in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. J3133 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is also duplication, and should probably be deleted. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- @CitationsFreak: See RfD below. J3133 (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- That is also duplication, and should probably be deleted. CitationsFreak (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Hythonia: We have the number in the English entry for 1, though not in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc. J3133 (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Soap: If H₂O-the-chemical-formula is translingual, i.e. used across multiple languages, then it definitely is duplication. We don't and wouldn't make sections for H₂O for the tens of other languages where chemistry is written about sufficiently enough. The only argument I see for it are grammatical differences, like the fact that it's uncountable in English whereas that might not be a distinction in other languages, but that falls apart to me pretty fast when you consider that that's the case for just about any chemical formula. There's no separate section for the number 17 in English and German just because one's pronounced sɛvəntiːn and the other ziːptseːn. Delete for me. Hythonia (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep per Soap. There is one quotation (so far) for it (and IPA). DonnanZ (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete and move the quote (and IPA as
* English:) to the Translingual section. This, that and the other (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC){{IPA|en|...}} - Delete per above. brittletheories (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Delete as a duplicate of the translingual. — excarnateSojourner (talk · contrib) 01:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
RFD-deleted This, that and the other (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)