Talk:Puddle

Nice one...

one of the more Funny entries...kudos to whoever came up with this.... hydkat 07:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I only created this when I found Puddle (M. C. Escher) on this page, so I moved the existing article to a proper location and created a stub on puddles. So, where can I cash these kudos? :-) smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 07:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to list this for Articles for Deletion if it wasn't so damn encyclopedic. Fun! -- Plutor 14:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the History section is a bit too much. I would remove that. Piet 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

But that is the fun part! It wouldn't half as good without it. hydkat 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but it's an encyclopedia! Fun is not the first goal here. Credibility for example is more important. There's more than enough fun to be found all over the internet, I don't think we really need it here? Piet 11:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course its an encyclopedia! I know that. I even agree with the credibility issue. But why should you delete facts just because they are fun? There really was a silly legend about persons drowning in puddles and the same goes for the legend about Sir Walter Raleigh spoiling a perfectly good, and expensive, coat for a stuck-up queen! The real debate should be whether to rename it from History to something like urban legands and myths hydkat 14:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I only chose 'History' because I'm not too imaginative and couldn't think of anything better. But I do like "urban legands and myths", or maybe just "legends". If you think this un-credible, see this image I found on Commons. Takes diagrams to a new level... smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 14:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I laughed really hard! I'm surprised it's not in the article :-) I give up, keep the article if you really want it, but please re-read it, and make it sound like an article from an encyclopedia. Just one example: "This causes the notorious 'splash'"... Please... Piet 11:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As an avowed deletionist, this is a great article and I'll see anyone who doesn't agree in the pits of AfD hell ++Deiz 03:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens!

ARGH! Why didn't I think of writing an article on "puddle"? I feel like such a fool - 07:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC) The Great Gavini _{post me stuff}

Other things to add

This could mention:

• The gentlemanly thing to do - placing a jacket over the puddle for a lady to walk over safely
• The ungentlemanly thing to do - driving through a puddle to splash people on purpose

violet/riga (t) 10:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

That second point reminded me of a case recently where a man was fined £150 (about $275) and got three points on his license for doing just that [1]. I've added it to the article. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Which in turn reminded me of a case back in 1982 when a school friend lost control of his car trying to do that and went head-on into an oncoming Transit van. Not cool. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Quibble

Does the picture of the child really show a puddle? Seems to contradict the description of what a puddle actually is so I would ask should it be there? SeanMack 11:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it looks more like a sort of boggy area... --Celestianpower ^háblame 21:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I found this picture on Commons; would this be better?

Better image?

I was about to say that puddle in the artical is poor. I don't like the picture you have either sorry. as the focus is not on the puddle. Oxinabox 02:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Liquid Phenomenon

I thought that was an excellent way of describing the subject matter of this article, and I see no reason why it should have been taken away. Unless 62.57.0.221 or anyone else objects, I'll be putting it back shortly.

Pfzngn 23:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Surface tension?

Is a small accumulation of water held together by surface tension really considered a puddle? I've always felt that accumulation in a depression was an integral part of what makes a puddle. JulesH 17:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This Medieval Legend

is charmingly vague. I particularly enjoyed the horseman who "later walked through the 'puddle'" and "actually found himself drowning". Did he drown or get out of the water when he "found himself drowning"? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

is puddle thinking really notable?

i would like to remove the section on puddle thinking as it not notable as it is only mentioned as being in a single book (albeit one by a fairly well known author), whoever i would like to know if this an acceptable decision to make. Gaismagorm (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)