Talk:Petrichor

message: That's really interesting! I didn't even know that this smell was true or even existent - I thought i might have been some sort of dust kicked up by the rain or something - I didn't know this was actually a compound. Definitely one of the most pleasant smells.
:Yeah, I had the scent confused with the smell of ozone after a big thunderstorm. I'd like to see what this article looks like once expanded. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgive me for being skeptical but the smell associated with rain is a pretty widespread one - it seems unlikely given the wide variation of plant life that a single plant-based oil could be responsible for the so-called "smell of rain" everywhere. I'd have thought a more likely explanation is the smell of wet dust.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.203.155 (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is another post-rain smell that occurs over and near asphalt roads and parking areas that is not mentioned in this article.  I've never seen it discussed anywhere.Tedtoal (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rain odor associated with asphalt 

message: I don't know why I bothered coming to the wikipedia for a definition of a word I first heard on Doctor Who. Not only does the following website (http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/atmospheric/question479.htm) provide a more well-rounded definition, but this wikipedia article doesn't even mention the significance of the word on an episode of Dr Who. Isn't it relevant that many people didn't even know this word existed until they watched Dr Who?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.227.6 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not have a go at editing the article yourself? I can't see why Dr Who requires a mention here, just because you didn't know a word existed previous to your TV watching experience doesn't make it worthy of an encyclopaedic mention, if it did then we would be crediting Countdown (game show)Countdown constantly. Fraggle81 (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wiki has an 'in popular culture' section on many of its articles, I think it's fair to assume there might have been a mention of Dr. Who here. Having the word as part of the narrative in a popular TV series is surely more significant than a fleeting mention in Countdown. 146.112.56.75 (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappointing 

message: "Some scientists believe that humans appreciate the rain scent because ancestors may have relied on rainy weather for survival." Wiki
That is true on the surface, but I fail to see why the scent of petrichor was important to our survival after the rain.  I mean TWC tells me our sense of smell of petrichor is 200,000 times more sensitive than sharks to blood.  I have a sinus condition and it is all the same to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.90.215 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good question. Unfortunately, the source cited doesn't, in turn, cite any sources, leaving the "some scientists" insufficiently vague. Which scientists believe this and why? A good secondary source, the kind that Wikipedia likes to use, should cite primary sources. El piel (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrichor 

message: It seems that, among the "respectable" dictionaries, only the Oxford English Dictionary has "petrichor" amongst their ranks.
Does anyone know why? Why the OED sees it as a word and why no one else seems too? It seems that that would be a very important sub-subject to add. 174.26.225.155 (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Presently, it's in Merriam-Webster, Collins, Cambridge, and AHD. I also didn't get any hits in older editions of dictionaries. Looking at the n-grams, the term took off after the year 2000, so the references were probably just slow to add it. Opencooper (talk) 12:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only in the OED! Why? 

message: The sentence:
"This would indicate that the plants exude the oil in order to safeguard the seeds from germination under duress."
It seems superfluous considering the preceeding one already mentions the oil reatards seed germination.
This sentence also assumes intention (with the "in order to") which I would avoid as it isn't scientific.
I suggest to remove it. Does anyone have concerns with this?
Iwisich (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intention 

message: It is unclear to me from the article if petrichor refers exclusively to the oil emitted by plants, or if it refers to the combined scent of the oil and geosmin. If it's the latter, then what is the name of the oil? This should be made more clear (by people knowledgeable in the subject, i.e. not me). — UnladenSwallow (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precise meaning of petrichor 

message: , what is the purpose of beginning some refs with ? It seems like the refs stand fine on their own with that preamble. Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "That is:" in refs 

message: Native French speaker here; the word "propre" does mean "clean", but it also means "proper" or "own". Having read the article, and searched for occurrences of the word propre in the rest of the journal, to get familiar with the language at the time, I  don't believe what was meant here is the "clean smell of earth", but rather "earth's proper smell" or "earth's own smell". This is probably best translated, simply, to "On the smell of earth", but I would leave this to native English speakers to decide. Nicolascorreard (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "On the clean smell of the earth"