Talk:Hydrology/Archive 1

Archives
Talk:Hydrology/Archive

Sinhalese
The Sinhabees are not ancient- they are Indians who moved to Sri lanka from the North of India. there was already a Tamil civilzation in Existence in sri lanka when they arrived because of the close proximity of South india and northern sri lanka.The sinhalese who have tried to rewrite history would like one to believe that they were the ones who designed all the architectural and other artifacts.

Civil engineering?
Why is hydrology categorised under civil engineering? Earth science would be much more appropriate!


 * The field of hydrology developed from two different tracks. One, as you note, was earth sciences, or more accurately then, natural sciences. Even Galileo was a hydrologist, measuring the flow rate of rivers. But the uses of hydrology have long been in an engineering context, and originally in terms of river engineering. It subsequently grew to encompass water resources management, whose quantitative bent has been more a trait of engineering than of earth sciences. Daniel Collins 00:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hydrology is a standard degree course that is offered in civil engineering universities in the United States ... I'm not sure why hydrology is not also included in civil engineering. I'm stating this as a civil engineer whos area of specilization was in hydrology.  I'm changing the category back to also include civil engineering. I can provide a list of US civil engineering programs that focus entirely on hydrology. MCalamari 17:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it safe to say that hydrology is an important part of Civil Engineering, but hydrology does not have its origins in Civil Engineering. There is distinction between how subjects relate in the technological sense, verses how disciplines relate in a historical context.  In a political context Civil Engineering has tremendous economic incentive to lay claim to Hydrological Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Ecological Engineering, and Ecohydrological Engineering.  In the USA this has been successful.  However, globally Biosystems Engineering, and Agricultural Engineering remain active in these domains.  Hydrology is a basic science shared by many disciplines. BrianAsh Oct. 2007.


 * Since I work in the engineering/science field, I can say that hydrology is practiced by engineers as it relates to the design of flood control structures (levees, weirs, dams, etc.). This is better defined by the term "hydraulic engineering" in my opinion.  However, hydrology as a science (modeling, ecosystems, etc.) is practiced by a range of professionals: geographers, geologists, biologists and of course hydrologists. Pkrembs 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hydrology and "hydraulic engineering" are different .... the civil engineers may be doing hydraulic engineering when they design flood defences and control structures, but they need to practice "hydrology" when they consider how much water they need to cope with. Melcombe (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fleshing out the hydrology entry
I've recently expanded the hydrology entry and opened up a number of additional avenues to focus on. Please review and help out to fill in the holes or make necessary changes. Daniel Collins 00:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fluid dynamics?
How much and how does hydrology relate to fluid dynamics?D-rew 18:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible merging
I note that a cross-reference to "Water distribution on Earth" was added, with an indication that it might be merged in. I would suggest not doing this, but rather treating it in the same way as some of the existing cross-referencing higher up .... a brief paragraph with a link to a "main article". Melcombe (talk) 10:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Meanings of Aqueduct
For those interested, it would be useful to have some input regarding the multiple meanings of Aqueduct, particularly correct classification: Aqueduct. —Sladen (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient
Nash–Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficient is a nearly orphaned article. Can anyone add appropriate links to it from other articles and add it to any appropriate topics lists? Michael Hardy (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RELATIONSHIP WITH LIMNOLOGY
Should not Limnology be mentioned in this article in connection with Hydrology? Is it a branch or related field?George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added it under the heading "Related field". Melcombe (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Context and fluid dynamics
I have removed "fluid dynamics" from the lead because: I have also removed the category Category:Physics, as hydology is not immediately a part of physics and no physicist would think so. Melcombe (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is just one of many things that might be listed, including all the wikilinks that appear in the section "Overview".
 * The subject of "fluid dynamics" is mentioned nowhere else in the article, and the lead is meant to be a summary of the points made in the article: see WP:LEAD.
 * At most "fluid dynmaics" is a related field ... most hydrologists would say that hydrology takes over where fluid dynmaics leaves off.

Tagging
This article is tagged to death with requests for citations. Inline tags make sense when only a few or needed, but not when they are used wholesale. However, Melcombe is right to draw a distinction between Refimprove and More footnotes. Looking at the comparison, it seems to me that all the tags (including Refimprove) could be replaced by a single More footnotes. Comments? RockMagnetist (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just been in discussion with a supposedly experienced editor who is going about removing old tags of these forms on the grounds that they are non-specific and no-one has done anything about them for some time. It seems safer to retain tags for individual points. In addition the description page for Refimprove says "Please consider marking individual unreferenced statements with citation needed instead of placing this template", which tends to argue that the individual tags are better. Melcombe (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The inline tags were added on the same date as the refimprove tag, so they aren't any more effective in spurring action. I saw that statement on Refimprove, but I doubt they had in mind an article in which most statements are uncited. Does it make sense to tag lines in a section like Hydrologic measurements, which is just an outline? It might be worth identifying the priorities for this article and choosing the tags to suit them. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The phrase did use the plural in statements. The tags did mainly mark unexplained jargon that is/was totally unexplained for a general reader. Links to other articles on their own are insufficent and their typically needs to be be either a brief explanation or a citation for things like claimed applications. The lack of action in the "history" section might be improved by adding specifics tags for points that need to be given a citation. The point/usefulness of the section Hydrologic measurements sees dubious at best and we should attempt to improve its strructure and purpose, starting by  renaming it, as much that is there is not really about "mesurements". Melcombe (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you are doing the important thing, which is improving the content. One good edit is worth ten tags. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On other planets? Wouldn't that be Exo-Hydrology?
The conditions on Earth are only positively seen on Mars, where the processes are so different (no surface water, no atmospheric water, no known living things) that only the barest regimens of hydrology apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.22.113 (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hydrology. 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/20130524020626/http://vpr-norman.ou.edu/centers-institutes/list/center-natural-hazards-and-disasters-research to http://vpr-norman.ou.edu/centers-institutes/list/center-natural-hazards-and-disasters-research
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000919052111/http://www.nih.ernet.in/ to http://www.nih.ernet.in/

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) 10:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Additional citations for verification.
As 43 in-line citations have been added to this article since it was tagged in January 2011 as needs additional citations for verification, it seems appropriate to remove that tag, and to ask editors who discover areas where additional citation would improve the article, to mark the specific places where that ought to occur using, for example, the Template:Citation needed. Broad areas needing such work, if any, should be discussed here on the talk page by topic. --Bejnar (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Replace article lede image
I've swapped out the lede image for the article. It seemed perverse to show an image of the whole globe - which yes, is 70% water at the surface - when that 70% is the ocean, and so explicitly excluded from the study of hydrology. The article itself notes this! I've switched it for one more explicitly showing the water cycle that I found on the Commons, which IMO also has the benefit of looking cooler (!). Happy to discuss. DanHobley (talk) 10:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)