Talk:Water quality

message: Here in Payson, Arizona, our water supply is obtained from wells.  The aquifers from which these wells draw includes 70% natural water and 30% of percolated wastewater-treatment-plant effluent (It is allowed to percolate down from the Town Lakes, which are fed solely from effluent).  We have fine water.  I believe that we can up that proportion to 75% percolated effluent if we can rise above golf-course politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.42.86.239 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Effluent in Payson, AZ

message: The term water quality is internationally accepted as a description of the constituents of concern in raw and treated waters.  The term Safe Water, while to the point, is not a term of the industry and thereby would cause confusion as technical discussions move forward.  We will need to keep the term WQ as the standards as we progress in the conversation about the constituents and water law.  The Safe water page is a openning to water law, which is a huge.  I would suggest we rename it to water law and let it progress from there on its own.  WQ needs to stand on its own.FOK SD OA 17:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: strongly oppose merging safe water into water quality.  this proposal is somewhat akin to merging wildlife into planet Earth.  water quality is a huge topic affecting ecosystems and natural water bodies that have nothing to do with safe water. Anlace 19:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New proposal for merging of various articles on water quality and pollution: Water quality has various dimensions, depending on the context. I would distinguish (at least) between drinking water quality; quality of treated wastewater (both municipal and industrial); and ambient water quality (i.e. water quuality in rivers, lakes, groundwater and the sea). In all countries of the world water quality standards are distinguished between these categories of water. Therefore I suggest to have one "umbrella article" on water quality with references to three such (new) articles. The article on ambient water quality could be merged with the one on water pollution. The one on drinking water quality could be a sub-set of (municipal) water supply. And the one on wastewater quality could be linked to or merged with sanitation and/or sewage treatment. The article on safe water should, in my view, be merged with these new articles.--Mschiffler 23:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: strongly oppose any proposed merger of water quality with water pollution.  these are both huge and different topics and this merger discussion has a long history of discussion with a consensus to keep these topics separate.  for one thing water quality is a concept that exists independent of man made sources.  it deals with chemical and physical characterization of a vast number of water systems.  water pollution is essentially human generated with some small arguable contributions from natural sources.  these are each VAST topics and if anything should be further split not merged.  the concept of merging safe water to drinking water is a long ongoing discussion and is certainly one that can be entertained.  again in the case of wastewater quality, it is probably best to let it evolve on its own, since it is a very large topic as are sanitation and sewage treatment.  Anlace 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merging "[[safe water]]" 

message: I will address all of your concerns, I'm doing an independent study project on water pollution/quality/erosion, and my exam is to update those pages. User:Jonwilliamsl(User_talk:Jonwilliamsl|talk]]|contribs) 00:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that original research is not within Wikipedia guidelines.  Thanks for your future interest in contributing through reliably sourced material. Anlace 15:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course-I will be simply adding more info that I find and expanding the pages. User:Jonwilliamsl(talk|contribs) 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm doing it all!

message: The site at www.thewatertreatments.com appears to be commercial and the link was deleted per WP:LINKS. All information on the site appears to be from other sources, and provides no references, sources or sponsorship information. Moreau1 (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: This article is mainly about ambient water quality, but it has included a brief discussion about human consumption, i.e. drinking water quality, for illustrative purposes. The drinking water article and related articles (e.g. Bacteriological water analysis, Waterborne diseases, Water purification, etc.) are the appropriate place to provide more details and references. I reverted text that was drilling down into a more detailed drinking water discussion, which is unnecessary here. Perhaps adding some hatnotes such as 'Main', 'See also', etc. would be useful here.
It would also be useful to revise the remaining description of the US regulatory program in this article, to become a general overview of drinking water programs worldwide. Moreau1 (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted text on US drinking water program

message: The current Chemical hydrology contains much less than the current article here and even less than Freshwater environmental quality parameters. Unless there is a sound logical reason for its continued separation, I suggest it be merged here.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur with merging the Chemical hydrology article into this article and replacing that article with a redirect to this article.Thewellman (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from Chemical Hydrology

message: This article is about water quality, primarily providing an introduction/overview of the concepts and process of WQ analysis, and providing a few examples of the types of tests that may be conducted. (The article also has the beginnings of descriptions of WQ standards for a few areas of the world.) The article is not a directory of every analytical method or procedure that happens to have a Wikipedia article. If you add up all the published physical, chemical, biological methods, etc. there are probably thousands of different methods out there. In this regard, some "See also" links have been deleted from the instant article: Biological monitoring working party, MBAS assay, Trophic state index. If someone wants to have a directory of WP articles about methods, a separate article can be created for such a directory. See also WP:LINKFARM. Moreau1 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a directory of analytical methods

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Water quality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.nutrientnet.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There was a wrong translation. --House1630 (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have created a new article, and now it is correct. --Fmrauch (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  German version 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Water quality. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160212053301/http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/envsan/technotes/en/ to http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/hygiene/envsan/technotes/en/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150907012135/http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/coast/nsandt/musselwatch.aspx to http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/coast/nsandt/musselwatch.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303235455/http://pa.nutrientnet.org/ to http://pa.nutrientnet.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hi All,
We are contacting you regarding our request to add a reference on your pages. Recently we have been invited, accepted and published by MDPI, International Scientific Journal peer reviewed, regarding an identification methodology on microplastics/microorganisms, involved in ocean water, food and drinking water. The MDPI staff suggested us to publish our work's reference on Wikipedia. The research work has been peer reviewed by independent academic experts and our research team which led to our manuscript is composed by a Public College and a non profit academic entity. We are not advertising or promoting anything, we are just reporting academic research results and we did not receive any external funding.
It is our first time working with wikipedia and I hope this can clarify the situation. Looking forward to hear from you
Thanks --BaBuH007 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is most inappropriate for MDPI to advise you to publish references to your work on Wikipedia. There are many reasons for this. Firstly Wikipedia looks to secondary or tertiary sources to support assertions made in articles. Only rarely are primary sources acceptable and then only where there is no secondary source and the matter being referenced is of some significance. Secondly, posting the same reference across many articles is regarded as link-spam, not an attempt to improve Wikipedia but an attempt to get more notice for your publication. Wikipedia is not there for the promotion of your reputation, the reputation of the journal or publisher or the reputation of the body you represent - for more on this please see WP:FORUM . I have made an identical response to the same question that you posed on my talk page. I am also pinging  as you raised the identical query on their talk page. Asking the same question in many places on Wikipedia is also strongly frowned upon as Forum shopping, so please avoid that in future.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:REFSPAM is completely unacceptable. You might want to find a less disreputable publisher than MDPI in the future. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns over article content 

message: Hello, I am a student of an environmental aqueous geochemistry class that is incorporating Wiki Education as part of our curriculum. I have listed some proposed changes/edits on this page: User:LapisLazulite/Water quality. I hope that these edits help in the article's concision/consistency. I will update this talk page with further proposed/completed edits. Please take a moment to review, thanks. LapisLazulite (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: - As a Wikipedia editor you are, of course, most welcome to make any changes that you think are both pertinent and supported by reliable sources. Your suggestions are well thought through and at least some may well improve the article. However, be very careful in changing text in the lede. This should summarise text elsewhere in the article and there is no requirement to to source statements if they are sourced in the main text. This issue about potability arose some years ago when there was a debate around freshwater and potability with a misunderstanding amongst some that fresh equated to potable. It doesn't of course. Be very careful in quoting legislation and rules from one country only. I appreciate that the US is your home country but rules and legislation vary widely across the globe and it is best to try and take a world-wide view. Do be prepared for other editors reverting your changes and be prepared to argue for your suggested changes on the talk page. The end result should be a consensus that is consistent with reliable sources. Best of luck and welcome. Hope that you stick around long after your graduation.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Thank you for the welcome and notice regarding content discrepancies. I'm happy to give explanation or revise where necessary. Regarding the lead/intro, I determined my edits were just since the first sentence's source had failed verification, my sources were consistent, and the second sentence was plagiarism. I appreciate the encouragement to focus my efforts globally, the WHO has been a helpful resource so far. Hopefully I can contribute more info about other countries (and other topics!) in the near future (after more reading). Kind regards. LapisLazulite (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits for clarity and validity