Talk:Puddle

A fact from Puddle appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 January 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a puddle was blamed for the death of a mediæval merchant who drowned while crossing it, believing it to be only shallow, when it was actually deep enough to engulf him and his horse?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/January.

Wikipedia

Nice one...[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good heavens![edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I like this article.[edit]

Quibble[edit]

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)[reply]

Yes, it looks more like a sort of boggy area... --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 21:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Liquid Phenomenon[edit]

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)[reply]

Surface tension?[edit]

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)[reply]

This Medieval Legend[edit]

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)[reply]

is puddle thinking really notable?[edit]

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)[reply]