Talk:Hydrogeology

Thoughts on dividing up the article

This article has been populated with a lot of great information, and is presented well. But I think it could be improved further, in a way making it more readible in the context of an encylopedia, if it were broken up a bit. For example, by making new pages like "Hydraulic head", "Specific yield", "Theis equation", and so forth. What thoughts? Daniel Collins 17:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I actually had the same thoughts; I was considering doing that, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I think some of the material can also be merged with existing stubs, etc. For example, I know of existing porosity and permeability articles (more geology oriented), and I was thinking of moving the Theis eqn stuff into the aquifer test article, and I was hoping of re-writing that article too (I actually started a draft of it, but realized much of it was dupicated here).

I guess this article would be better served as a list of links to the many smaller articles, with a some text giving some context as to how they inter-relate.

I had already done this to some degree, I moved a bunch of material to the Darcy's Law article, and the aquifer article. I was also thinking of adding some sort of material on "methods of measuring ____" to each of the aquifer properties, but realized that would really push this article over the edge length-wise.

Heh, so I guess in a long-winded sort of way I am all in favor of this. --kris 18:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Good-o. I actually think a section on measuring would be good, even if it is an overview with links to specific equipment or methods in different articles. And we should be able to dig up some impressive graphics too, from our colleagues or ourselves. The ball is rolling. Daniel Collins 19:43, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Another thought. If we are dividing this artlcle up, should we make a hydrogeology category for all the pieces? I have been putting things in the general hydrology category, but if more articles are to come from this, a relavent category makes sense to me (and I guess that might mean removing some things from the hydrology category). --kris 20:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Instinctively, I personally would say not. So much of surface hydro, hydrogeo, and hydromet are important to one another that I would keep them together. If it gets overwhelming perhaps then we can reconfigure the categories, but if you take an average Joe Blogs perspective, as opposed to yours and mine, it's all the same thing and is perhaps best communicated that way. Daniel Collins 22:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I am looking at moving the hydraulic head section somewhere else, but I was wondering what would be best. There are already articles:

• water pressure -- a stub about water supply
• pressure -- fairly complete article about pressure in general
• head (hydraulic) -- a stub about this - sort of.
• Hydrostatic_pressure -- another stub, but probably necesary.

Maybe add this material to the "head (hydraulic)" article and show how they are related (the defintions used here and those already in that article (which is more civil engineering)? --kris 17:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Hydraulic head could be dealt with extensively in both hydrogeological and hydraulic engineering contexts. What about a disambiuation page for "hydraulic head", and a unique one for "hydraulic head (hydrology)"? Daniel Collins 17:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I was trying to figure out how to put the two together without the overlapping nomenclature getting too confusing, and it didn't look easy. The seperate hydrology version makes sense. I was also thinking about making a redirect page to this from "drawdown", and put a little more about that at the top of the page, since I see links to that here and there. --kris 17:52, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

On redirects, I think "drawdown" should be an entry unto itself. Maybe not containing much, and containing links to other articles, but reflecting its elemental nature.Daniel Collins 17:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Graphics

I think this is a very good article, and kris must get a lot of the credit. I'm inclined to nominate it as a good article. My feeling is that it deserves just two more things: illustrations, and a fuller intro. Daniel Collins 19:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)