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
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
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?
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)
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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;
talk19:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
bd2412T22:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)reply
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 EllsworthCLIMAX!17:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)reply
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.
bd2412T18:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)reply
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,[1] so the footnote should follow the correct spelling and the misspelling only read within the footnote. Isn't that more encyclopedic? – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX!19:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)reply
References
^Some authors contend that there is a distinction between liquefaction and the misspelled liquification, with the latter term applying only to processes involving heat. Ray Knox, David Stewart, The New Madrid Fault Finders Guide (1995), p. 36.