Talk:Dew

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

Some people believe walking on dew on grass in mornings is good for eyesight-Fact or Myth?--Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut, which held its ground 09:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth - how could that possibly be true? --WikiSlasher 06:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tilty123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

Is it really appropriate to advertise Mountain Dew in the introduction? Unusual Cheese 14:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, it really isn't. there may be some good cultural examples of dew being related to purity, but mountain dew sure isn't one of them. Aibara 05:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the picture on top[edit]

(that one) doesn't show dew but guttation, i think. --85.232.17.19 (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (de:benutzer:boronian|talk)[reply]

medicine[edit]

Why does someone keep removing our addition to the article which details the incredible medicinal value of morning dew? IT REALLY WORKS PEOPLE! RCSociety (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dew. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Harvesting Section[edit]

This section feels lacking and outdated. The accuracy of current presented information is also questionable due to the initial lack of sources paced throughout the section. I may end up doing a complete rewrite of it to improve the accuracy and reliability of the section itself. If anyone has an issue with it or prefers the previous one, feel free to change it back.Tilty123 (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]