Talk:water footprint

water footprint
It seems to be water + footprint (sense "The ecological impact of a human activity, machine, etc."). FWIW, the OED does include it. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 15:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, on seeing the title I assumed it was an imprint somehow left in liquid water. I suspect even encountering the term in context it'd be less than obvious what it refers to (such as "freshwater" not any form of water). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the primary meaning of "footprint" is strong enough that most people won't think of the ecological meaning. Either people will think it's the footprints Jesus left when he walked on water or they'll think it's a footprint made of water (as when someone whose feet are wet walks across a dry sidewalk). I think this is a case where keeping is the better part of valor. —Angr 17:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The other side of this is that this term cannot be used without a definition outside of a usage context in which footprint would have the required meaning to those involved in the communication. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll concede that the definition of footprint can't be ambiguous when used in context. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per ambiguity. DAVilla 00:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep due to ambiguity.--Dmol (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 07:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)