Jump to content

Talk:Ocean stratification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 1 February 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus, moving to effect a content split. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stratification (water) → Ocean stratification – I think this article should have a different name: It should be "ocean stratification" because its content is to 95% about oceans. This matches well with the existing article on lake stratification. EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should have a different name. It should be "ocean stratification" because its content is to 95% about oceans. This matches well with the existing article on lake stratification. If needed, there could be a disambiguation article for "stratification (water)" which would contain just two entries:
Or maybe we wouldn't even need such a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page for stratification already exists. EMsmile (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging people who previously worked on this and who are still active on Wikipedia: User:Hannahvdzande, User:Kkimble08, User:Pbsouthwood, User:Epipelagic, User:Arjayay, User:Trappist the monk. EMsmile (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your responses Cyfalk and Epipalegic. (yes, I would change the section headings after the moved) I'll wait a few more days (perhaps a week in total) and if no objections come in then I'll carry out the move. I've already requested that the current ocean stratification page (which is a redirect) gets deleted to make way for the move. EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the RM is still open after seven days, you can try asking WP:Closure requests for help. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Climate change has been notified of this discussion. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NATURAL and nom's assessment on article scope (that it is mostly about ocean stratification). Per Epipelagic, if the article is moved, Stratification (water) should redirect to Stratification#Earth sciences. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specifically, Stratification (water) would be tagged {{R with possibilities}}; this move does not preclude the creation of a broad concept article once we have the appropriate sources, text, and structure. This article, as of the RM proposal, is overwhelmingly about ocean stratification, and its edit history can be at the appropriate title there. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The oceans and lakes are not the only bodies of water in which stratification occurs. It is also known from caves, particularly caves which drain fresh water into the sea, where haloclines are a notable feature. Estuaries also have stratification, both haloclines and thermoclines. They are neither oceans nor lakes. There may be others I have not thought of, but I think these two are enough to make the point. I don't think these can be written off as non-existant or insignificant, therefore an article should exist to accommodate these other bodies of water. The title Stratification (water) is appropriate for this purpose and should serve as a top level summary of the broader topic and to disambiguate and link to the detailed articles. However, I would support a move of most of the content to Ocean stratification, and retaining this title and maybe some extracts as a summary for the various types of stratification. Technically this would be a split. No redirect would be required, but the articles should probably all link to each other by main hatnotes and/or "see also" sections. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal, Peter Southwood leads in the end to pretty much the same result (i.e. an article called ocean stratification and a high level or disambiguation article on stratification (water) but I see two aspects that mean additional work: Firstly, all the incoming links that are coming to the current stratification (water) would have to be corrected: most of them would likely have to be changed to go to ocean acidification (This is my impression from looking at the "what links to here" list, although I haven't done a full analysis of this yet). Secondly, where would the new content about stratification in caves and estuaries, rivers and any other bodies of water come from? Do you have it at your fingertips and could provide some text with references? If so, that would be useful. However, it's probably less important than stratification in lakes and oceans, otherwise someone would have already added it to Wikipedia in the past. - Overall, I don't really mind whichever way we do it, provided we end up with an article called ocean stratification soon which contains almost all of the content that is currently at stratification (water). EMsmile (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EMsmile, how is ocean acidification relevant to this discussion?
sorry, that was a typo on my end; now fixed. EMsmile (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New content on stratification in other bodies of water could probably be found in some of our articles on flooded caves. Off the top of my head I suggest the Mexican cave systems of the Yucatan/Quintana Roo region, but there are others that escape me at the moment. There may be content or useful links in Cave diving. If you ping me after this has been settled I will see what I can find.
There is probably enough information available from on-line journal articles to make a reasonable start, but that is just a guess, I have not gone into it in any detail. It is not particularly obscure or esoteric, and estuaries are a fairly well documented field of study, We have an article Estuary which mentions stratification.
It is probably less important than stratification in the ocean and lakes. So what? It remains encyclopedic content, and is probably more important than a lot of the stuff we allow space for. The amount of encyclopedic content that is not yet in Wikipedia probably exceeds the amount that is already in it by an order of magnitude or two (roughly, I couldn't cite it). It gets put in when someone gets around to it.
I too am not particularly concerned by the route taken to get the content split, as long as it is done correctly. I have also not analysed the number of links that would need to be changed, so have no idea whether more should stay with Stratification (water), or go to Ocean stratification. It is the responsibility of the splitting/moving editor to ensure that attribution is not broken, good content is not lost, and links are reasonably plausible. The additional work will have to be done some time. There may be less additional work overall if it is planned for and done now. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Perhaps we should then make it dependent on which alternative results in less work to change the incoming wikilinks. This article has 682 incoming wikilinks. When I eyeball the list, a lot of them seem to be from climate articles (which means they would want to wiklink to "ocean stratification"). So with your Option 2, I would have to correct all those. But I also know from experience that about 400 of these incoming wikilinks stem from the climate change template which includes this article. When we change it in the climate change template then 400 wikilinks will be corrected in one go which will be nice. Then I would only have to review and correct the remaining 282 incoming wikilinks (which is still a lot of work). Whereas Option 1, the one I proposed originally, would also require to check the incoming wikilinks but in addition, I would have to start a new article called "water (stratification)" and then create incoming wikilinks for it.
So in summary, I am fine with doing it your way, Pbsouthwood, which is Option 2. In that case, I would move 95% of the articles content a new ocean stratification article, which is currently a redirect.
Is everyone OK with me implementing Option 2 and withdrawing the move request? (I am not sure what I would do with the talk page content; do I have to split and move that as well?) EMsmile (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite shure what Option 2 is: Do you mean deleting a lot of text in "Stratification (water)" and adding this text to "Ocean stratification" (so that "Ocean stratification" is not any longer a redir)? In that case, we get some problems with attributing the changes to users, see WP:COPYWITHIN (and also WP:CUTPASTE). As far as I understand it, it is possible but not encouraged. --Cyfal (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One reason I dislike messy merges and splits. The talk page should stay with this article, whatever its name is or becomes, and a notice of the split with a link to this page can be added to the talk page of the other article. See template {{Split article}}. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 22:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While proper attribution happens either way, especially with the proper edit summaries and talk page templates, I think the attribution is much cleaner if we move then replace the resulting redirect at Stratification (water) with the broad concept article. Then, the broad concept edit history is at that title (Stratification (water), and no one has to hop to a different article's history for the pre-split history of Ocean stratification.
At the risk of repeating myself: if we're moving most of the text, as much of the history as possible should go with it. And since most of the edit history is for a text mainly about ocean stratification, not a broad concept article, I prefer moving first, then splitting.
Then again, just splitting with the proper edit histories and talk page templates still results in proper attribution. It just means I'd have to open another tab for pre-split history of Ocean stratification, a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things.
This is just a really long way to say: I still prefer moving before splitting, but either works. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Cyfal: yes, Option 2 is "deleting a lot of text in "Stratification (water)" and adding this text to "Ocean stratification" (so that "Ocean stratification" is not any longer a redir)". Whereas Option 1 is my original move proposal.
After reading through the recent posts about history and attribution, I think Option 1 is indeed the better option (i.e. moving and then afterwards creating a new article on stratification (water) which is just a high level article, and will start off as a stub or start article and then be built up over time). This should be agreeable to all, right? User:Pbsouthwood had said earlier: "I too am not particularly concerned by the route taken to get the content split, as long as it is done correctly." EMsmile (talk) 09:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarification. Of course I agree. --Cyfal (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There should be some content to copy from the moved article to the new version of Stratification (water) as a summary section for ocean stratification (with a main hatnote), just as there would be for all other existing articles on water stratification types, and could be for future articles on other water body types. This is standard operating procedure, not an issue.
As I understand it, the plan is to move Stratification (water) to Ocean stratification (with redirect) to minimise link hassles, then recreate Stratification (water) as a high-level summary article using what may be useful from the existing articles as summary sections. This looks like the least human work. I am not sure how soon the bot fixes of incoming links gets done, but it might be worth a check before converting the redirect into a replacement article.
In passing, there may be stratification in aquifers too. Let me know when the basic job is done and I will help with sorting out the new Stratification (water). I don't want to tread on your toes while you are busy. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think this discussion is now ready for closing by an uninvolved editor, so that the move can be carried out. EMsmile (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should be a simple formality, as basically we now all agree. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post move tidying

[edit]

Thanks, User:Robertsky for performing the move! Looking good now. @Peter Southwood I've now started a stub for stratification (water), could you please help to fill this with some more content? Thanks. - I'll also look at correcting incoming links next. And I've added the term to the template for physical oceanography and water which I've placed at the bottom of the article (the water template is surprisingly small / neglected?). EMsmile (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently in the process of checking "What links here" (namespace article only) on Stratification (water) and replaced these links by links to Ocean stratification or Lake stratification, if appropriate. I've stopped at Botn (Trøndelag), i.e. all articles above should, in my view, still point to Stratification (water), and all below still have to be checked. I will soon continue with these. --Cyfal (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Cyfal, I am really glad you took on this task! EMsmile (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished this task now. The remaining 101 articles still linking to Stratification (water) are either due to the templates {{Aquatic layer topics}} or {{Water}}, or they are related to general stratification, like e.g. Fluid Science Laboratory. Thank you for your encouraging words, EMsmile! --Cyfal (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, Cyfal! Much appreciated! Did you see the discussion on the talk page of stratification (water)? What's your opinion about using excerpts or "original text" for e.g. the content on lake stratification? Let's continue the discussion over there on the talk page. I am curious to hear your (and everyone's) thoughts. EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Density of seawater

[edit]

The description in the article is both incomplete, therefore not very useful, and may be overly detailed for this article. I suggest a spinoff to a separate article Density of seawater, which subtopic is referred in a large number of articles and could be usefully linked from them all. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the section on density seems overly detailed for this article. Not sure if a spin-off article is required/useful but would be guided by your judgement. I notice a section on density at seawater (quite short). Density is also mentioned a few times in the ocean article. Would a new article have to be called density of seawater though? Could it rather be density of ocean water? Seawater to me implies more the regions at the surface whereas ocean water feels more like the entire ocean. (there is still the ongoing debate if we really need to have sea and ocean side by side as two separate articles, see here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Sea#The_section_on_environmental_issues (although perhaps nobody has the energy at this stage to rekindle that)). EMsmile (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Two weeks later) Interestingly, the page Density of saltwater exists as a redirect to Properties of water#Density of saltwater and ice (and whose only incoming wikilink is Mariana Trench). Perhaps a spinoff article is prudent to centralize similar information currently scattered across at least three four articles (Seawater, ocean, properties of water, ocean stratification).
For what it's worth, Ocean water redirects to Seawater—and consistency (WP:CONSISTENT) is technically an article titling criterion. Within enwp itself, density of seawater appears (only slightly) more often than Density of ocean water. That is a minor point—in my view, the splitting is the priority. Any of the titles for the new article mentioned so far will serve the readers—especially if the other two pages redirect to the article—and this can be optimized later through a WP:RM if absolutely needed. Let me know if I missed anything—cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC) and 23:04, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Rotideypoc41352, glad you are moving this forward. Please see also the talk page at Ocean where I have also raised this issue: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Ocean#More_content_on_ocean_density_or_even_a_separate_article? What is your exact plan of action now? EMsmile (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Water column into Ocean stratification

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus with stale discusison for this and alternative proposals. Klbrain (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar concept. fgnievinski (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC) fgnievinski (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion, I am open to it. However, is water column maybe also used for lakes, not just for oceans? If so, would the merger be better to stratification (water)? If they are kept separate then at least the article Ocean stratification should be better linked in, perhaps by using an excerpt. EMsmile (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presently, water column is described exclusively as a concept in ocenaography. So, we could merge the content (2 references worth) to Ocean stratification, but then perhaps send the redirect to Stratification (water). Klbrain (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, please go ahead. EMsmile (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I found this article after having been preoccupied with Thermohaline circulation and its two limbs in the recent months. (Progress on those has unfortunately been fairly slow due to longstanding issues such as an incredible abundance of uncited content, but it's happening.) After a careful look, I believe that the exact opposite should happen: this article, stratification (water) and lake stratification should all be merged into water column.
It is the latter which is by far the most-used term - Google returns nearly 700 million hits for "water column" and 38 million for "ocean stratification", with the others receiving even less. You can also see it in our pageviews: the basic, two-paragraph article on water column nevertheless has far more pageviews than most others. Finally, none of the three stratification articles are remotely well-written: all can have large parts of just about every paragraph condensed away with little loss of information, so the merge wouldn't be very difficult. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews link above starts at December 2018 (and excludes redirects), but there was a page move followed by a split per #Requested move 1 February 2023 above. Excluding views before that per the last comment on #Post move tidying better reflects the situation as of this comment. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong views apart from the fact that ocean stratification ought to remain as an article and not be merged or moved. It's a topic that will become more and more important. - Secondly, the term water column is not intuitive for me (could be because I am a non native English speaker). I am in general all for merging articles that can be merged. Merging stratification (water), lake stratification and water column could work but the title of the merged article should at least have "stratification" in it, shouldn't it? EMsmile (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ocean_stratification&oldid=1262641693"