Talk:Ice

Climate Change

Please remove the reference to climate change, or cite a source. Accepted wisdom is not allowed. 24.251.207.30 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, information in the lead of an article doesn't require a citation, as it is supposed to only summarize information present within the body of the article, which themselves should be cited. The whole section of Ice#Impacts of climate change describes this in more detail with multiple sources cited. Nonetheless, using sources in the lead isn't disallowed either, so if you believe this sentence to be sufficiantly controversial, you can update the article using one of these sources used in the body to substantiate the lead as well. CloakedFerret (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Mechanical Properties

What's with the bizarre units on the mechanical properties of ice? John G Hasler (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

What other units do you propose? And what reference uses them? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Might I suggest the Rankine scale for temperature and stones per cubic furlong for density? Pressure could be expressed in BTUs per gallon.

It might make the article clearer for some readers. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

ICE hatnote

I am not the person that added the agency to the hatnote; and I will add that I do support the idea (at least for now anyway), so I'm not going to remove it. But I would like to get everyone's take on whether or not it should stay. I'm going ahead and adding this section now because the immigration hatnote was recently added and I know good and well if I don't open a discussion, someone else will. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to: "For the American government agency, see United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.". In the US, this term "ICE" has be a the top of the news for many months. I think it is a legitimate point of confusion and the hatnote is fine. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Thar is exactly what im referring to @Johnjbarton, and i want to be clear. I am not proposing it's removal. I do believe it should be kept. I'm making sure there is consensus to keep it, because it was unilaterally added to a high traffic page, and the hatnote involves a contentious topic. I have past experiences with these kinds of hatnotes (notably that of Twitter/X), and often they get unilaterally removed almost as quickly as theyre added, and I'm trying to avoid the same situation here. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

As a suggestion for next time, ask for consensus to keep the hatnote. Then you and I would reply Keep. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as per above suggestion. I was originally going to have my opening statement count as the !vote for purposes of this discussion (as is practice in other discussions where the nomination counts as the !vote), reiterating that I opened this discussion as a formality only because it involves a contentious topic on a heavily viewed page. If it had been something else, I would have probably left it alone or boldly added it myself, but I also believe in the saying, "when in doubt, seek consensus first", and I think this could be one of those scenarios. So, while I strongly believe it should be kept, I do think the person who added it probably should have seeked consensus first in this case. As for why I think the hatnote should be kept (at least for now anyway), for anyone in or associated with the United States, if it's not in the context of water or the solid state thereof, it is likely referring to the immigration police agency that the acronym ICE has become synonymous with, and I could reasonably see a lot of people type in that acronym looking for the immigration police instead of the solid form of water. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Slipperiness of ice

New research has come out suggesting a process called cold, displacement-driven amorphization (Atila et al, 2025) to explain the phenomena of ice being slippery. This paper argues that the amorphization is the primary mechanism.

It is also my understanding that frictional heating, pressure melting, and premelting, all fail to explain the slipperiness of ice under certain conditions.

Subsequent research (Bore et al, 2026), which still argues that friction is the primary mechanism, acknowledges the existence of this amorphization and that it likely occurs in their simulations.

Is this enough evidence to include cold, displacement-driven amorphization in this article? This is my first time commenting about a topic so apologies if this is formatted wrong. Torina1235 (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

A very recent review:

• MacDowell, L. G. (2026). The key physics of ice premelting. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 164(3).

cites Atila et al 2025 among over 200 references but does not call it out as especially significant.

My guess is that there is plenty of material in the review we could add. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2026 (UTC)