Ice is currently an Earth sciences good article nominee. Nominated by InformationToKnowledge ( talk) at 20:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Frozen water: the solid state of water

This   level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology Top‑importance Talk:Ice is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemistry High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Materials Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Materials, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Materials on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaterialsWikipedia:WikiProject MaterialsTemplate:WikiProject MaterialsMaterials articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Limnology and Oceanography High‑importance This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Weather: General High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Section sizes Section size for Ice (36 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 5,468 5,468 Physical properties 8,425 22,934 Phases 11,052 11,052 Friction properties 3,457 3,457 Natural formation 2,044 27,554 On the oceans 2,476 2,476 On land 2,533 2,533 On surfaces 1,904 1,904 On rivers and streams 2,085 2,085 On lakes 2,336 2,336 In the air 17 2,211 Glaze and rime 2,194 2,194 Pellets 2,488 11,965 Hail 6,348 6,348 Snow 2,308 2,308 Diamond dust 821 821 Ablation 2,591 2,591 Role in human activities 29 25,069 Cooling 1,631 7,253 Harvesting 3,655 3,655 Artificial production 1,967 1,967 Land travel 4,751 4,751 Water-borne travel 2,589 2,589 Air travel 3,379 3,379 Recreation and sports 2,204 2,204 Other uses 18 4,864 As thermal ballast 1,869 1,869 As structural material 2,977 2,977 Impacts of climate change 101 19,579 Historical 6,000 6,000 Predictions 13,478 13,478 Non-water 1,660 1,660 See also 327 327 References 28 28 Further reading 398 398 External links 885 885 Total 106,493 106,493

Archives

Archive 1

I have been re-organizing this article with recent edits—each with an explanation, all of which were rolled back were rolled back by an IP editor without comment. This is to request that editor to explain the issues that he/she may have had with the recent material here, so that it may be subject to discussion and consensus. HopsonRoad ( talk) 23:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Cherkash: Thank you for your concern about fidelity to reliable sources in your revert of my edit. My edit was intended to reflect the enumeration of structures, described in Ice#Phases, which are not all crystalline, stable or formed without another material present. The previous iteration made it seem that all phases were crystalline. I was trying to use numbers that reflected crystalline, stable structures and distinguish them from other structures—amorphous, unstable or formed in the presence of another material. Perhaps you can look at what I was trying to do and achieve something that is satisfactory to us both. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 18:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Having seen no response to the above, here's my enumeration of the types of ice described in the table in Ice#Phases before I restore my edit:

• Total: 19 ( Amorphous ice through Square ice)
• Total crystalline: 18 ( Ice I_h through Square ice)
• Total crystalline that form without the presence of another substance: 17 ( Ice I_h through Ice XVI)
• Total stable crystalline phases that form without the presence of another substance: 16 ( Ice I_h through Ice XVI minus Ice I_c)

Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 11:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

My concern with this classification of yours is that it's not supported by sources (or at least you didn't provide any). Specifically, such properties as stability and conditions of formation are not well-defined without some extended clarifications: e.g. if something is "formed under pressure when confined to a limited space" – is this considered forming with or without presence of other materials? (I.e., how do you provide such confined space, and how do you create extra pressure?) Could it be formed without such presence of other materials in principle (even if it was formed in such presence in specific lab experiments)? Which materials are acceptable and which aren't (for the purpose of clarifying what "other"/"another" materials are)? Etc. I appreciate that you tried to summarize the properties and classify them according to your understanding, but without any sources that support this, I'm afraid this would be considered an example of original research. cherkash ( talk) 16:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for engaging here, cherkash. If we accept that the table in Ice#Phases correctly reflects reliable sources, then all I am doing is summarizing what is stated in the table, not making a new or different classification. If you are concerned about how I've counted things above, because the details in the table may be not correctly reflect sources given, let's fix the table contents first to properly reflect RSs.

As far as my enumeration is concerned, the only phrases that reflect that enumeration in my edit are: "stable phases—16 of them crystalline and independent of other substances". This sets "square ice" aside, because it is dependent on another substance, and "amorphous" aside, because it's not crystalline. 16 is the traditionally understood array of phases of crystalline ice, so this acknowledges that in the introductory material. The only other change in my edit is: "18 known stable, solid phases of water, either crystalline or in an amorphous solid state at various densities", which excludes Ice I_c—characterized as "metastable".

Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I already wrote above why I think the terms “stable” and “independent of other substances” are far from unambiguous. So using these terms in your attempted summary is controversial. Perhaps you could attempt re-phrasing if you still insist on necessity of such a summary – which (the necessity), quite frankly, escapes me. cherkash ( talk) 02:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I will attempt to do so. Thanks for your clarification. HopsonRoad ( talk) 03:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I can live with the notion that the complexity of my proposed summary language doesn't add value, since the complexity of the phases of ice is explained soon thereafter. Thank you for bearing with me on this one, cherkash. I have restored the language that you prefer. Sincerely, HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Right now, the Young's Modulus is listed in units of kg/cm^3. I think Young's Modulus is supposed to have units of Pascal, or kg m^−1 s^−2. I do not know what the correct value is supposed to be. I think the other mechanical properties have the same issue.

The value currently displayed seems to match the citation's ("The mechanical properties of ice") value of "elastic modulus" on page 25, but I guess this must be something different than the modern definition of Young's modulus?

Tjhance7 ( talk) 00:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

Good point, Tjhance7. I note another passage in the work cited that conflates mass with force, in reference to air pressure. It's time to find a better reference. It would be wrong for us to attempt conversions with the gravitational constant! Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 01:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

The alleged confusion of mass with force is actually non-controversial, as it used to be (and still is) quite common to express force in units of kg-force and then shorten the units to just kg. Same is also true in the context of pressures (with force-over-area dimensionality), where it could be expressed in units of kgf/cm^2, often shortened to kg/cm^2. One of the reason being that 1 atm is approximately equal to 1 kgf/cm^2, and so it’s convenient to refer to forces in such context using kgf, or simply kg, as a unit. Without carefully reviewing the source, this is my best guess of the context in which you encountered it in the text. If you think this is not the case, perhaps you care to give a page number at least so we can look into it together? cherkash ( talk) 02:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Cherkash and Tjhance7: Cherkash's observation is consistent with other sources that I have encountered. So, perhaps we should let the numbers stand, as cited. HopsonRoad ( talk) 02:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

I have changed the units in question to kg-force. HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC) reply

kgf has never been sanctioned, despite being common, and should be avoided in a modern publication (such as Wikipedia). Instead, these measurements should be given in Newtons (per cm²), and assuming 1kgf=10N is sufficiently precise given the rather wide ranges of values involved. But even better would be conversion to kPa or MPa. Martin Kealey ( talk) 15:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

And kgf/cm³ is wrong Martin Kealey ( talk) 15:20, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

see page 28 of the cited document, which makes it clear that the instantaneous value is 300~340 N/cm² while the "slow" value is 150 N/cm²; giving 15-34 is actively misleading by oversimplifying. Martin Kealey ( talk) 15:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC) reply

We should add a mention of Superionic ice aka Ice XVIII aka Superionic water (a phase of water that exists at extremely high temperatures and pressures) to this article.

[ /info/en/?search=Superionic_water ]

- 189.122.248.181 ( talk) 23:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

 Done HopsonRoad ( talk) 23:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The original article about square ice has been challenged: Zhou et al. Nature 528, E1–E2 (2015). The structure shown is believed to be a common water contaminant, salt.

The original author's answer to this reads: "... further experiments are needed to rule out the contamination hypothesis." and "With reference to the previous Comment and Brief Communication arising, we feel it is necessary to inform the readers that our further efforts to prepare and visualize square ice have been unsuccessful." This group indeed continued the search but did not find any hints towards square ice (for side-products, see Lehnert et al. ACS Nano 118, 7967-7973, 2017).

Nowadays, the community agrees that square ice has not been observed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.108.69.30 ( talk) 09:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing it out. Hopefully someone will review these articles and make the right edits. As you seem to be knowledgeable about this, please consider creating an account and contributing this. BernardoSulzbach ( talk) 15:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Source - Professional experience - I'm a propulsion engineer for Boeing.

Section 4.2.3: change "Jet engines do not experience carb icing, but recent evidence indicates that they can be slowed, stopped, or damaged by internal icing in certain types of atmospheric conditions much more easily than previously believed. In most cases, the engines can be quickly restarted and flights are not endangered, but research continues to determine the exact conditions which produce this type of icing, and find the best methods to prevent, or reverse it, in flight."

to: "Jet engines do not experience carb icing, however the same process that can accrete ice on the leading edge of the wing can cause ice to accrete on the leading edge of the fan inlet nacelle. If allowed to accrete, pieces of ice can be shed (either by aerodynamic loads or due to flying into warmer air), and ingested by the engine. This can cause damage to the rotating machinery (e.g. fan blades and/or compressor blades), up to the point of causing the engine to fail and require replacement. Jet engine inlets on aircraft that are certified for operation in known icing will therefore include an engine anti-ice feature (note that de-icing methods are not appropriate as they lead to intentional ice sheds which can be ingested). Modern engines generally route warm air bled from the compressor to warm the leading edge of the inlet, preventing ice from accreting in the first place, although electrically heating the nacelle lip skin is also a viable method.

Modern very-high-bypass turbofan engines may also experience ice accretion on internal stator sections within the core turbo-machinery, which can similarly cause damage to downstream stages of that turbo-machinery if/when shed. This phenomenon is sometimes called "ice crystal icing" as it theorized that the accretion is due to tiny airborne ice crystals which "stick" to internal stages of the engine as the air passes through the engine core. This tends to be a high-altitude phenomenon (e.g. at cruise altitudes for commercial passenger aircraft), as opposed to inlet icing, which tends to occur at lower altitudes where there can be significantly higher water content in the air. Various methods are used to prevent and/or shed ice crystal icing, and can involve subtle manipulations of internal engine actuators to encourage any accreted ice to shed, be extracted from the engine core and exhausted overboard via the fan bypass duct." WikiJonman ( talk) 16:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

WikiJonman, could you point to published sources that verify this information (preferably full citations with page numbers)? We can't cite personal knowledge. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 18:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I see a draft article about Draft:Ice XVII. Is this ready to have its own article? Can some of regular Ice editors confirm? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

The image shown in the top of the article gives the perception that ice is an exotic substance. Most people will never be able to see an ice core in Antarctica. I would recommend changing the image to something more commonly seen in everyday life, such as an ice cube or frozen lake. I accidentally removed the image when I edited it last time. Sanjay7373 ( talk) 19:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

That's a good point! I agree. For an article that is layman as it comes, the picture is not layman friendly. I recommend a switch, but not to a picture of an icicle, but perhaps a block of extracted ice, cut from a frozen lake or something of that nature. Leitmotiv ( talk) 19:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Your image is good too, and high-quality. Thank you very much. Sanjay7373 ( talk) 20:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Nah, don't thank me, thank the person who uploaded it to wikicommons. You're suggestion is great - this is an encyclopedia after all. The entry point to any article should be at ground level where everyone can see and understand what you're talking about. Only once that is established, may you expand the article into the intricate details. A picture of Antarctic ice with ancient bubbles is cool, but better off used later in the article. Leitmotiv ( talk) 20:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Mike Mounier while I agree with your correction of the use of capitals after colons in this article. Colon (punctuation)#Use of capitals suggests that authorities disagree about when it is permissible—it is not categorically incorrect. MOS:COLON is mute on the subject. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

MOS:SENTENCECAPS says, "When an independent clause ends with a dash or semicolon, the first letter of the following word should not be capitalized, even if it begins a new independent clause that could be a grammatically separate sentence: Cheese is a dairy product; bacon is not. The same usually applies after colons, although sometimes the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence, and especially if the colon serves to introduce more than one sentence. See WP:Manual of Style § Colons." Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC) reply

According to the phase diagram, there's orthorhombic Ice XI, at low temps and pressure, and hexagonal Ice XI, at high pressures. However, the table only mentions the former, and same with the article Ice XI. Is the diagram wrong, or is our coverage incomplete? — kwami ( talk) 09:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC) reply

hydrogen bonding should link to /info/en/?search=Hydrogen_bond — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.148.143.149 ( talk) 21:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The addition of the following pictures of Macon Ice Factory in Macon, Georgia under the Role in Human Activities section. Edwardsn09 ( talk) 22:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

 Not done. They're cool pictures, but the ice is not visible enough. We already have a diagram of an ice factory. ◢  Ganbaruby!  ( Say hi!) 01:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment on request, below

I oppose the addition of this image for three reasons:

1. It is a stereoscopic image, so its content is diminished in order to display the same information, twice, and further diminished by the colored border around the images.
2. It conveys little about ice or its manufacture beyond that there was once machinery to do this.
3. WP:IMAGELOCATION favors the right side.

HopsonRoad ( talk) 17:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add image of ice factory on left side of Mechanical Production section. Ma'amBushey ( talk) 16:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC) reply

 Not done: it's a bit hard to make out what's going on in that picture, and I don't think it tells you much. If you place it on the left, you'll be creating a MOS:SANDWICH, and if you place it on the right, you'd be replacing the diagram we already have of an an ice factory there, which I disagree would be an improvement. Given the editor above seems to agree with me (and does the result of the last edit request), I think I'll just close this. Interesting picture though. Volteer1 ( talk) 12:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I was interested in how dense the different phases of ice were and didn't find it in the article or external links. Google found me this link https://ergodic.ugr.es/termo/lecciones/water1.html but I haven't added it to the external links yet because I'm not sure how RS it is. RJFJR ( talk) 03:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

That looks to be material from a thermodynamics course taught at the University of Granada by Pedro L. Garcia. In my understanding that should be fine as an external link RS wise, though maybe a better solution would be to flesh out details of the existing table at Ice#Phases? For that, a better source would be needed though. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 06:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Velocity is a very specific thing. It is a speed and direction. As far as I know, especially in the context used here, velocity is the wrong term. It should be “speed” or even better, “rate”. Using “velocity” just sounds like trying to be scientific while being wrong.

I am going to make the edit. But I welcome discussion Jwink3101 ( talk) 13:51, 24 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Dear friends,

The linear thermal expansion coefficient in the right panel has missing unit. The unit should be K^-1 (html: K⁻¹). It looks like I cannot fix it.

Thanks, Jiri https://ufch.vscht.cz/research/researchgroups/statistical_thermodynamics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolafaj ( talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Reference 15:

<ref>{{cite news |last1=Metcalfe |first1=Tom |title=Exotic crystals of 'ice 19' discovered |url=https://www.livescience.com/exotic-ice-19-discovered.html |work=Live Science |date=9 March 2021 |language=en}}</ref>

and reference 45:

<ref>Metcalfe, Tom. Exotic crystals of 'ice 19' discovered. https://www.livescience.com/exotic-ice-19-discovered.html</ref>

are duplicates.

 Done Duplicate supplanted with original. HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Reference #27 from "Laurua" to "Laura". The referenced author name is incorrect at present.

Sanders, Laurua (11 September 2009). "A Very Special Snowball". Science News. Archived from the original on 14 September 2009. Retrieved 11 September 2009.

Thank you! Dripdry42 ( talk) 17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

 Done Cannolis ( talk) 17:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Please check the empirical thermal conductivity formula in the top infobox. In the (archived) reference given https://web.archive.org/web/20170210002542/http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/284777.pdf, page 13, the empirical formula is (lambda)Ice = 0. 0053 (1 + 0.0015 T) cal/cm sec degree, where T is in degrees C. The factor in front of T in the infobox is 0.105, not 0.0015. Thanks. 165.89.114.111 ( talk) 12:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

 Done Thanks for the advice! Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 13:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Why don't we have ice XVII ( https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13394) in the list of ice phases in the "Phases" section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khsacc ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Ice#Land travel
How thick does ice have to be for it to be savely crossed on foot? Peter Horn User talk 19:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC) reply

I found this: https://windy.app/blog/safe-ice-thickness.html Peter Horn User talk 03:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

"Stones just larger than golf ball-sized are one of the most frequently reported hail sizes.[64] "

The reference refers to severe storms in Alberta.

Plainly, much smaller hail is more commonly encountered around the world; most hail events are nothing like severe Great Plains storms.

This claim should be removed or replaced with a more representative example. 109.144.211.194 ( talk) 02:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for this observation. See if this edit addresses your concern. Cheers, HopsonRoad ( talk) 15:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

There's a pretty standard infobox for minerals (see Template:Infobox mineral), which technically should probably be used here. That said, I think that getting rid of a lot of the technical information that exists in the ice infobox would probably be doing the article a substantial disservice. Would anyone object horribly to me attempting to add mineralogical properties to the infobox? I don't want to simply cram the two together as it'd end up overly long, but that would probably mean information needs to be cut from both, likely with a note that we're talking about Ice Ih. I'd at least like to add the "general" section from the mineral infobox, probably as "mineral properties", for the most part. Warrenmck ( talk) 22:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The first word of the "Physical Properties" section is currently "Salt." It should be changed to "Ice." Ccaalliimmaann ( talk) 20:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done. Good eye. Closetside ( talk) 22:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply

The page discusses the hardness of ice at low temperatures, as seen in the quoted paragraph, but AFAICT not its mechanical strength at low temperatures:

"Because ice in natural environments is usually close to its melting temperature, its hardness shows pronounced temperature variations. At its melting point, ice has a Mohs hardness of 2 or less, but the hardness increases to about 4 at a temperature of −44 °C (−47 °F) and to 6 at a temperature of −78.5 °C (−109.3 °F), the vaporization point of solid carbon dioxide (dry ice)."

Should something about ice strength be added? If it is added to the page, I found this article, [1] ("Dynamic compressive behavior of ice at cryogenic temperatures"), which states the maximum uniaxial compressive strength as ~110-120 MPa at -125 degrees C and below compared to 32 MPa at -15 degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedantic Speaker ( talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ice is not frozen water, it is a frozen liquid 109.76.98.82 ( talk) 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

At the top of the article it says "This article is about water ice." RudolfRed ( talk) 16:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

sorry, didnt see that 109.76.98.82 ( talk) 12:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

We now list the dielectric constant of ice as ~3.15, with a footnote cautioning that this only applies to 1 MHz - 300 GHz. I would list the static value instead, which is around 100, depending on temperature. A huge difference!

The highly polar nature of ice is one of its distinctive features. "The" dielectric constant of a material is usually understood to be the static relative permittivity, and introductory texts rarely even mention that permittivity is frequency-dependent. Thus, many readers will gloss over or not understand the footnote, and come away thinking ice is much less polarizable than liquid water.

Details are in Relative_permittivity, especially Relative_permittivity#cite_note-21. In particular, the cited article reads: "there is an increase in the low frequency or static value, from 92 to 103, in polycrystalline ice as the temperature is reduced from 0°C. to −45°C."

Thus I would change this:

| dielectric_constant = ~3.15<ref>This applies in a range only, roughly 1 MHz to 300 GHz</ref>

to:

| dielectric_constant = ~95<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.3189/S0022143000018840|title=Dielectric Properties of Ice and Snow–a Review |year=1965 |last1=Evans |first1=S. |journal=Journal of Glaciology |volume=5 |issue=42 |pages=773–792 |s2cid=227325642 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

The next line already says that ice's properties vary substantially with temperature. As an alternative, we might consider listing both permittivity values; the high-frequency value is relevant for radioglaciology. 44a58 ( talk) 11:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done — Antrotherkus ^{Talk to me!} 23:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Currently, Phases of ice redirects to Ice#Phases here. This section is disproportionately large and hard to read, in large part due to the table that is simply too specific for a high-level article like this, as it describes phases that often do not exist in nature and which >99% of readers will never come into contact with.

Further, some of those are clearly just tiny stubs ( Ice V and Ice X are basically two sentences each, while Ice III, Ice VI, Ice IX and Ice XVI are basically a single paragraph), and even the larger pages contain a lot of condensable material. Merging this material into a single mid-sized article shouldn't be very difficult and it will allow readers to see which phases might be important (i.e. Ice XVII's potential relevance for hydrogen storage) at a glance, rather than having to click through the entire table/infobox to find out.

Finally, condensing the Phases section here should make it a lot easier to nominate this article for GA. In fact, Phases of ice page would itself have GA potential, which currently appears practically impossible for basically all of the individual sub-pages. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 16:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

First I'm unclear on your proposal. I could take it as:

1. Create a new page called "Phases of ice", replace the current section Ice#Phases with a summary pointing to the new page as Main, redirect all of the "Ice *" pages to "Phase of ice", or
2. Redirect all of the "Ice *" pages to Ice#Phases with new content replacing the existing content.

IMO the first version would be much easier to achieve. It would make discussing special cases like Ice XVII relatively easy since an entire section of "Phases of Ice" for that phase would not be undue.

Second, is there a secondary reference that can be used to justify the relative space given to each phase? So for example you might like to say "naturally occurring phases of ice", or "commonly studied" or so on but these can be disputed unless you have a overview ref. Johnjbarton ( talk) 17:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I would Support Johnjbarton's proposal 1, since it is helpful to our readers to understand all of the phases of water ice together, rather than in separate articles. — hike395 ( talk) 18:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Johnjbarton Yes, I most definitely mean the first option. The "Phases" section here is already by far the largest of all, and if every ice sub-page were to be merged there, it would probably take up half the article! I would much rather reduce this section to a summary that's 2-4 paragraphs at most - similar to how I have seen the other GA-tier articles summarize important subsections.

As far as an overview reference goes, would this Nature article work? After a brief search, I found it, and also this TWN article. Perhaps something else can be found as well, but I was too preoccupied with cleaning up the other parts of this article ahead of GAN to look any deeper. I added 31 reference today (from 117 to 148; luckily, a good number could simply be moved from the linked pages, but too many had to be found anew), and I still missed a couple of uncited paragraphs! InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 14:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

It's been a week with no objections, so I am guessing I can proceed with this now? InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 06:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes! Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, it is done! That is, Phases of ice exists as a separate article, the table from here has been moved over there, and then I merged all of those sub-articles over there, and expanded the table with columns for basic numerical data, as opposed to the previous, two-column "name - written description" format. The phases section here can probably still be adjusted/trimmed even now, and the new article certainly has some way to go.

In particular, I effectively had to combine a lot of material on the ordinary ice and on amorphous ice (and some facts about the less-common phases) into several introductory section that would made sense in a fairly short period of time, and I am sure it could be made much better. "History of research" is also mostly a compromise solution to store away the content from the few of the more-detailed articles on crystalline phases. Some of it can likely be condensed, or even dismissed as non-notable, but I didn't have time for that right now.

Either way, I think this article is definitely looking much cleaner now. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 22:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Wow, that's a lot of work, thanks so much for this! I find that sometimes the high level article lead a surprisingly poor existence on Wikipedia (like water cycle) as a lot of people prefer to work on the more specialised articles. So I really appreciate that you took on this high level article on "ice", and made sure there is relevant, up to date climate change content in it as well! EMsmile ( talk) 10:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you! I am hoping that this article will have a quick GA review for once, and then we'll see a little more attention to the rest of the cryosphere in general. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 20:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Johnjbarton So, with the merge concluded, what should be done about all the remaining links to individual phases in the template at the bottom (all the Roman numerals + "amorphous solid" and "superionic" links)? I guess they all need to go, but I am not sure of where exactly to place Phases of ice link in that template. InformationToKnowledge ( talk) 20:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply