Talk:Well

message: I have read that drilling has been around for a long time, see link, may be a good idea to reflect this in the text
http://www.epmag.com/Production-Drilling/Ancient-Chinese-drilling_4266  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.113.2 (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancient Chinese Drilling

message: "What links here" offers some suggestions for enriching this brief entry. Wetman 11:12, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Try "What links here" 

message: The picture looks lovely, but it's not a well but a medieval Icelandic bathing pool which seems to me to be a significantly different thing to a well.--JBellis 14:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture 

message: I had to clean up the last paragraph about the Ukrainian wells because it was horrible.  I'm not certain it belongs here, even after cleanup. Jepace 18:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs to have a point. This person has a point, but goes over vaguely of his real intentions. His thoughts wonder. It is boring too. Anyone can make anything interesting to read if they put some tone into it. Intunewithsurroundings 23:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian wells clean up 

message: This article is a big mess.  It needs to be cleaned up and have some order put into it.  Currently it is a bunch of pictures of hand dug wells, which are quaint but probably belong it an article called "pictures of hand dug wells".  Some classification and structure is needed, as well as some discussion of modern wells.  Any ideas regarding this? --kris 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a heavy restructure and cleanup.  Take a look around, switch around changes you don't agree with, wiki your day away. -- Joshua BishopRoby 18:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and reorganization 

message: Can't all those wiki-dictionary links be wikilinked to articles on wikipedia? SGGH speak! 21:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki links 

message: Is there a comprehensive term in English for the aboveground structure on a handcrank-operated water well, such as those illustrating the page for wishing well? This would include the box- or ring-shaped structure at ground level, the upright supports for the shaft to which the rope and bucket are attached, and the characteristic little roof above. I've seen some construction plans but these only name the parts, not the whole. -- Thanks, Deborahjay 10:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you call the "little roof" and the posts that support it a gazebo? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not call something an adult person couldn't shelter in 'a gazebo'. How about wellhead - or is that just an oil-drilling term ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term for the aboveground structure 

message: Whoa. There is a lot of misinformation in this article and it is poorly written especially in spots. Iron and manganese are not considered carcinogens. An artesian well does not "usually" flow above ground surface - only occasionally and then it is called an artestian flowing well. Arsenic is not a common contaminant in the same group as the others - in some areas it is more common and it obviously depends on the concentration as to when it is called common. Minerals/chemicals that should be mentioned as naturally occuring under the Natural Contaminants section which is poorly titled are also calcuim and magnesium and sulphates though there are other frequently occuring chemicals also.
When it says that Reverse Osmosis is often used to filter water - it very often is not used as it can be plugged by iron or other frequently occuring "contaminants" or just is not needed to treat the specific problems in the water.
Under the "Natural Contaminants" section again ... Coliforms are only a indicator test that harmful bacteria may be present such as E.Coli. which is only one type of coliforms. There are also different types of E.Coli. some of which are more harmful than others. We have non-harmful coliforms naturally occuring in our body. Are not references usually added in Wikipedia? I am not so familiar with it. I could go on but I don't have time.
In the interim perhaps this page should be suspended. I don't have time to properly edit this page. November 2007 Shawn. 199.214.24.153 16:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I read the drilling section and found it needed many more sources. I skimmed the rest and found sources to be scarce. I will work on this in the coming days, but I don't know too much about wells. And what about the whole "this page was going to be deleted but now its not" thing at the top of the discussion page? I don't think that it should be deleted, just worked on. Could we possible take that tag about deletion down? Killiondude (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misinformation and poorly written 

message: In normal set-ups a storage tank with a pressure of 40-60 psi is also added to the system (so the pump does not need to operate constantly.
KVDP (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the article, it should be noted that an alternative to a storage tank is a system of elevation. In stead of using elevation to pump the water up and opening a valve when it is required (see the GROW water system and the system installed in Donnachad Mccarthy's 3acorn's house; this may be seen via the It%27s_Not_Easy_Being_Green-documentary)
KVDP (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Update, not sure whether the replacement is possible after all (aldough it should if the tank is placed at a higher level. This because the system noted (a rainman water harvester) works also by pressuring. See here. Another article to read is featured here
KVDP (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storage tank 

message: I moved a duplicate chunk out of drilled wells, but deleted this
:This is the cheapest and simplest type of water well known today, however it is only useful at relatively shallow depths (up to 75 feet) and for small capacity wells.
Seems like unreferenced OR. Arguably a natural hole in the ground (artesian well) is cheaper and simpler than pipes and drivers ...
Why the need for capacity and depths? A huge pipe could drain an underground pressurised lake hundreds of feet down extremely fast... It's a combination of technology & geology. 
NB Siphon#Maximum_height implies pumping will only work to 32 feet/10 meters above natural groundwater level - deeper it becomes a barometer with vacuum or water vapor at the top ! Again it is independent of the type of well. Interesting link, but seems to include unattributed images from the remaining link *Driving a well with a well point
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Driven Wells 

message: The very relevant area covering methods (such as devining, sounding) and other techniques for locating water wells and sources in advance of drilling/boring/ digging does not appear to have been dealt with throughout the article Osioni (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: see:* Unconventional Water Detection - article from Journal of Scientific Exploration by Hans-Dieter Betz (1995)
Osioni (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Locating/Detecting Water Wells

message: In spain we have a lot of water mines, the one behind my house is dated 1680. The romans and greeks built them because they lived near the ocean, and when digging down they would reach salt water, so they dug sideways into the hillsides. I am not really clear on whether they should have their own article or should be a note in this article or even if they're considered a type of artesian well, since no pumping is required. to tell the truth, other than some great pictures, I can't really offer much info to fill out an article. Brinerustle (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Water Mine

message: Aljibe redirects here, but I think that for encyclopedic use someone is more likely to look that up in its sense of cistern rather than well. - Jmabel | Talk 20:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aljibe? 

message: Without desiring to add unscientific problems to the article, it seems to me that Dowsing should at least be in cultural references here. I'm reluctant to add it to there or to the siting section without some discussion however. It's a well-known concept in terms of water wells but understandably problematic for an article with specific scientific requirements. Would a better possibility be to move cultural references to a separate page and link from there? --Kickstart70TC 20:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would really fit in "cultural references".  I think it might fit better into "well siting", as its own sub-section, as I understand that "some people dowse to site a well, but that there is no scientific proof that it gives better than chance ...".  Having said that, I've just edited the section to remove an obvious spam link, and the one that's left is to a short paper with bad spelling ("modelling", "moddeling" and "modeling") hosted by another probable commercial site; I'm not sure if the subject in the paper is much better than dowsing, but I haven't read it too thoroughly. Tim PF (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dowsing 

message: Dear User:DMahalko, thanks for your recent edits on this page. However, I felt that some of the content that you added was going into too much detail for this page and was better off on the related pages (groundwater pollution and onsite sewage facility). Therefore, I have shortened it and rather highlighted the links to the other pages. Also it would be good if you could provide references (sources) for the content you added? Thanks. EvMsmile (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits regarding prevention of pollution 

message: Add a little bit about well screen and the methods of installation of well screen . Btw iam athiyaman (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well screening