Talk:Liquefaction

Assorted inquiries...

how is this different from "condensing"? -- Tarquin 18:18 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Good question, they both imply "enter the liquid state". Webster does not mention that liquefy implies that it should be from the gas state, though. User:Egil

Oxford English Dictionary: 'Liquefaction'. 'Liquification' does not have an entry, although it does sound more natural. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.106 (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

---

To whomever that moved from liquefy to liquify:

liquefy is the preferred variant in both Concise Oxford and Merriam-Webster. Please undo. [[User:Egil]

---

Again, rename it to liquefy. There is no reason to wait. See Egil's comment.

Done. Fowler says "e" too. -- Tarquin 23:23 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

---

Can we merge this to some article? This is just a dictionary entry and doesn't seem to expand well in the future either. Any idea? -- Taku 04:25 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Can we move liquefaction to its own article as it pertains to earthquakes and quicksand?

done. Ungtss 23:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

merge?

shall we merge this into Liquefaction now that it's a disambiguation page too? Ungtss 17:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

oops. liquification already redirects here, so we can't do that. shall we have an admin move this page to liquification? Ungtss 17:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest this page be deleted and redirect to liquefaction (disambiguation). Some redirects on this page can be added to the disambiguation page. GeoEng 03:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Oxford English Dictionary: 'Liquefaction'. 'Liquification' does not have an entry, although it does sound more natural.145.116.1.106 (talk) 09:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Merriam Webster also has no entry for liquification, liquefication, etc. I propose adding everything from the Liquefaction disambiguation page to the See Also section here and nominating Liquefaction for deletion. When deletion has been done, we should immediately move this page to Liquefaction (along with fixing all the incoming links and redirects as needed). Peter Chastain (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have done the first step, incorporating the material from Liquefaction here, and have put a comment into Talk:Liquefaction, proposing the second step (that Liquefaction be deleted). Peter Chastain (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Liquification isn't a word. This page almost misled me to using this spelling in an academic essay. Please hurry up and remove/merge/whatever. -Anonymous college student 128.198.25.20 (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The correct word is "Liquefaction", please help move. - Iokseng (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved to Liquefaction. -- IRP ☎ 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

---

{{movereq|Liquefaction}} User:Iokseng 15:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support, since that is the correct term. Is liquification even a word? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Current spelling is incorrect. I have placed a {{db-move}} tag on the correctly spelled title to request that it be deleted to make way for the move. -- IRP ☎ 20:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC), modified 20:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Liquification"/"liquify" vs. "Liquefaction"/"liquefy"

A simple Google Scholar search shows both terms are definitely used, although in different contexts. At least one author draws a distinction between the two. I've had trouble finding any reliable sources that explicitly address the subject...Any thoughts? Scientific29 (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

References removed

These two edits [1] removed the refs, why? Widefox; talk 10:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, good call; when I made that edit I was thinking liquefaction was ultimately going to be a DAB. I'll replace references. Scientific29 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Blender / Liquidiser

This edit [2] removed the blender section, which has now been linked anyhow. If it is correct to include in the broadconcept (which I think it is), it should not be in the hatnote and the section could/should be included. I put the section back. Widefox; talk 19:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent transformation into in a WP:Disambiguation page

RuneMan3, regarding this, what part of WP:DAB and WP:BROADCONCEPT states that the Liquefaction page should be a WP:Disambiguation page? It seems quite clear to me that it should be a broad-concept article, as it was before you turned it into a WP:Disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What do liquefied soil, liquefied tissue, and liquefaction in physics have to do with each other, besides referring to completely different concepts of the process? Also, I checked the articles that were talked about in the former article, and most of them were much more developed than this one was. Have I given a good explanation? RuneMan3 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I've queried editors at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation to weigh in on this matter. I'm not 100% sure if this page should be a broad-concept article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed all links that fail WP:DABMENTION; most of the rest seem suspiciously like partial title matches, and may also need to be removed, at which point there may not be enough links to have a page, and the title will be deleted. bd2412 T 22:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Having reviewed the previous content, I note that the previous lede stated the liquifaction "refers to any process which either generates a liquid from a solid or a gas, or generates a non-liquid phase which behaves in accordance with fluid dynamics"; if this is true, then it should be the subject of an article rather than a disambiguation page, as the page would then improperly be listing types of liquefaction as though they were not examples of this process. bd2412 T 22:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

As always, thanks for your help, BD2412. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think the previous concept article was vastly superior to the current dab page. older ≠ wiser 15:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have found some sources and will rewrite accordingly. bd2412 T 15:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have restored the original WP:DABCONCEPT page with additional sources indicating that this is able to be discussed as a unified concept. bd2412 T 16:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This is much better than the dab page! Probably should ask, though, if "liquification" is really an acceptable alternative to "liquifaction"? Apparently, it's a non-word that was at one time the title of this article. – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 17:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

My review of Google Books results indicates that "liquifaction" is about a hundred times more common - over a million hits compared to just over 10,000 for "liquification". In some works, they seem to be used interchangeably, with no explanation of any distinction between them. This strongly suggests that "liquification" is an error (an easy one to make, since it would seem to follow straight from "liquify"), but a common enough error that it is worth mentioning. bd2412 T 18:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Your logic would easily apply to the typo redirect, but to mention it in the lead is like saying, "Dog (sometimes called dawg)..." It's a misspelling of Liquifaction, so the footnote should follow the correct spelling and the misspelling only read within the footnote. Isn't that more encyclopedic? – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 19:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I have no strong preference, actually. bd2412 T 19:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! – Paine  13:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)