Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oceans/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Removing referenced material

The following discussion has been moved from User talk:Ainundil:

Please do not remove properly referenced material, as you did today at Abyssal zone[1] and Bathyal zone[2]. Such edits are considered disruptive. I have since reverted your edits. I reverted similar edits you made to Hadal zone[3] and Pelagic zone[4]. I also note that you marked these substantive edits as minor edits, which you should not have done. Again, this sort of behaviour is considered disruptive. Please try to be more careful when making substantive edits in the future. If it happens again you are likely to receive an official warning. nagualdesign 22:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I added back in the material on serpentinization[5] (ref) so it wasn't all bad. Credit where credit's due. nagualdesign 05:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
That is not properly referenced material, ¿do you read it? because it contradicts you... I'm a Geoloigist Profesor in the Univeristy... you are contibuting to fake information.. Read the abysal zone cite that you restore: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/207/4437/1345 ... in the abstract says clearly that the hodrothermal vents are at 2550 meters deep, that is not the abysal zone. And, of course, that is not a properly referenced material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainundil (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Considering that you cannot even spell Geologist, Professor or University you'll have to forgive me for doubting your supposed credentials. The citation that I restored to Abyssal zone (double s) was a Science article by D.M. Karl, C.O. Wirsen and H.W. Jannasch titled, "Deep-sea primary production at the Galapagos hydrothermal vents". No I did not read it since the reference isn't available to me, but I have no reason to doubt its validity. The paragraph in question was, "Some sea floor locations, such as mid-ocean ridges, are unique in that they contain hydrothermal vents. These vents emit geothermically reduced sulfur compounds that allow for microbial primary production, sustaining many benthic organisms in absence of the sunlight required for photosynthesis." If you disagree with this please explain why. Thank you for the link to sciencemag.org but since it is only a small abstract it does not really help. The fact that it states that the Galapagos Rift is 2,550 m deep, among other things, may be irrelevant. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the abyssal zone includes the ocean floor, and therefore contains benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms. I suggest that you discuss this with other editors on the article talk page.
I see that you have now made further edits. Your Cientific fact correction (sic) of the Pelagic zone article added back the sentence that you had previously removed - "Many organisms live in hydrothermal vents in this and other zones." - while also providing copious references, but you have duplicated it and the references for some reason, which isn't necessary. You also added the following paragraph, including even more references; "There is a common misconception that there is vulcanism or hidrothermal activity in this region, however volcanic activity occurs at mid ocean ridges in Bathyal or Abyssal zone. Hadal zone or Hadopelagic zone, is located in the ocean trenches in active margins, despite there are called active tere are not volcanic or hidrothermal activity in the ocean floor." Putting the spelling and grammar aside, the paragraph directly contradicts the other now duplicated and referenced sentence, and I strongly suspect that the part about 'common misconception' is original research based solely on your own experience here at Wikipedia.
You made a similar Cientific fact correction to the Hadal zone article, adding the same paragraph about the 'common misconception' along with some random bits of whitespace. And as I said in my previous edit summaries, this contradicts what it says at Hydrothermal vent#Black smokers and white smokers. Perhaps you do know what you're talking about, who knows?, but your edits to Wikipedia are at best rather sloppy and your attitude seems to be combative. For those reasons I'm going to request that other editors take a closer look at your contributions. I hope you understand. nagualdesign 23:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

For any editors trying to make sense of all this, it may be worth referring to the map at Hydrothermal vent#Distribution based on the InterRidge ver.3.3 database, which I have linked to show the deepest lying vents first. As you can see, there are at least 26 known vent fields at or below a depth of 4 km (abyssopelagic). Despite what 'Profesor' Ainundil is saying, we have verifiable information from a reliable source that hydrothermal vent fields have been found ranging from 5,800 m deep all the way up to the ocean surface. Focussing solely on vent fields of the mid-ocean ridges they still range from 10 m deep down to 5,100 m, the deepest of which being in the Galapagos Rift, the subject of the contested Nature article (the shallowest vent field within the Galapagos Rift is the Eye of Mordor Seamount at just 1,555 m). Make of that what you will. Personally, I'd like to see Ainundil's credentials as "Geoloigist Profesor in the Univeristy", since I suspect he may be telling porkies and I can't abide lie-tellers, but I'll keep my pointing finger in my pocket for the time being. nagualdesign 03:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Having taken some advice on this I have again reverted your latest edits.[6][7][8] Please do not restore the material without further discussion. Pinging previous contributors to those articles: @Tom.Reding, Rhinopias, Epipelagic, M layman, In ictu oculi, Rrburke, Fmadd, Mashaunix, Oshwah, Materialscientist, Nyttend, Cwmhiraeth, RN1970, DavGxyz, Junosoon, Snek01, Shaded0, Cirriphilia, JWNoctis, Wiae, DeniedClub, Josqu, Arjayay, RN1970, Dawnseeker2000, Finlay McWalter, Fama Clamosa, Magioladitis, Giraffedata, Thelistofgenerals, Ifnord, Serols, Atvelonis, TheDoormouse, SignOfTheShadow, DocWatson42, Ogress, Nbarth, Ragityman, and Entranced98: Would some of you please take a look at Ainundil's recent edits and the discussion above and weigh in. I don't know enough about oceanography to make a call one way or the other, and Ainundil appears to have copious amounts of references to cite. If he's right then there's something very wrong with Hydrothermal vents and the references it cites. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign 06:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
First - I'm not a native English speaker. You have the right and the duty to doubt about anything.
Second -About the citation "Deep-sea primary production at the Galapagos hydrothermal vents" I send you the link to read it(at least you can rear its abstract). http://science.sciencemag.org/content/207/4437/1345. The fact that Galapagos Rift, studied in this article is at 2,550 m deep is crucial. This citation is used to prove that vents exist in Abyssal zone (more than 4000m), but at 2,550 is the bathypelagic zone 1000 to 4000m; hence this reference is not suitable for the Abyssal zone article. Was a mistake in my firs correction to say that are no vents in Abyssal zone, but the discussed reference is not about abyssal zones. I added new references that are about this zone at Pelagic zone article, that can be used for the Abyssal zone article.
Thirth - Yes duplication was an error. I pretend duplicate the references in the text not in the bibliography, because vents exist either in bathypelagic zone and in the Abyssal zone and cited articles talk about both zones.
Forth - I don't understand the contradiction. (Maybe the redaction can be impruved) Trenches and rifts are totally different things. volcanic activity occurs at rifts in mid ocean ridges in Bathyal and Abyssal zone. Hadal zone or Hadopelagic zone, is located in the ocean trenches, and there are not volcanic or hydrothermal activity there. You can verify this fact in any geology text book or serious web pages. Also you can read the wikipedia articles https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge, https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Oceanic_trench.
Five - You have discovered that the article "Hydrothermal vent#Black smokers and white smokers" must be corrected also, because there is no "Hadal spreading centers". First it contradicts all the scientific articles and books that exist (also it contradicts itself). In fact, deepest hydrothermal vent is at 4,960 m deep, (news.nationalgeographiclivescience.com) this fact is cited in the wikipedia article; Hadal zone is below 6,000 m!!, but this and other articles says that there are vents in hadal zones... !!!! .... Second, you cannot use another Wikipedia article to prove you are right, as wikipedia is not a reliable source. I added some of scientific references that you and other editors can read. The mistake about hadal zones/trenches and vents are everywere in wikipedia, and in the web. If you search in internet about vents and trenches/hadal zones you can find a lot of websites (sadly with wikipedia at first place), however, if you use Google Scholar or if you read a geology book, you will not find any article or book talking about vents or hyothermal activity in trenches or hadal zones.
Sixth - I sincerely hope that you and other editors take a closer look at my contributions. I don't have fear to a serious analysis, and I aware of my writing errors, but, I hope that you and other editors seriously study the real cientific material in order to correct this scientific misconceptions. You can read my references or in any serious book in your library or talk to any expert in your local university. My professional authority is nos relevant. This is cience, facts are relevant, and you can verify the facts if you study. But if you wana contact me: pnunez@fcien.edu.uy, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pablo_Nunez_Demarco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainundil (talk) 7:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I'll respond to each of the points you made by number:
  1. Since English is not your first language I suggest you make edit requests on article talk pages, where other users can copy-edit your work before adding your contributions to article space.
  2. I read the abstract, thank you. As I mentioned above, the abstract may not cover everything, and the mentioning of one particular depth in the opening paragraph may be irrelevant. As also noted above, the InterRidge Vents Database shows that vent fields within the Galapagos Rift alone vary from 1,555 meters to as deep as 5,100 meters.
  3. The duplication was among the least of the problems, as...
  4. ..the part that you had duplicated - "Many organisms live in hydrothermal vents in this and other zones." - contradicted the other part that you had added - "There is a common misconception that there is vulcanism or hidrothermal activity in this region..." - and I'm not sure how I can make this any more obvious. In case you didn't realize, that was the edit you made to Pelagic zone. Also, just because a particular textbook says that there are vents in one region it does not follow that there are no vents in differing regions. In fact, as I've already stated, according to the InterRidge Vents Database there are vents at every depth down to 5,800 meters. If you wish to contend that the source is unreliable then we can discuss that, but first you ought to click the link and read the data yourself.
  5. Again, there is nothing wrong with the references at Hydrothermal vent as far as I can tell. It seems like you simply haven't read them, despite multiple attempts on my part to steer you in that direction. The sentence in Hadal zone that you seem to have a problem with is, "Most life at this depth is sustained by marine snow or the chemical reactions around thermal vents..", but there are indeed vents in the deep ocean trenches at least as far down as 5,800 meters. You would argue that it isn't below 6 kilometres so is therefore not hadopelagic, others might argue that the definition of hadopelagic is "the deepest region of the ocean lying within oceanic trenches" and has less to do with specific depths. It could also mean that chemical reactions around thermal vents in the waters above provide nutrients in the hadal zones. I suggest that you discuss these things at Talk:Hydrothermal vent before editing that article.
  6. I really have no wish to drag you through the mud, but you don't exactly inspire me with confidence either. You were the one who claimed to be a university professor, which I agree is irrelevant, or at least less important than verifiable facts. I have a strong feeling that you have read a few books and those books are probably outdated, since the scientific study of the ocean depths is ongoing, and I dare say that more knowledge has been gained about the subject in the past 10 years than in the previous.. well, forever. Science books go out of date pretty fast. I know this as I have read a great deal, and have often found myself stopping to check the publication date when an author isn't quite up to speed on current findings. The fact that you think the deepest vents are at 4,960 m but our source says 5,800 m tells me that the source is probably more up-to-date. In fact it wouldn't surprise me at all if even deeper vents have been discovered in the past few months.
As far as moving forward with this, I'd like you to at least read everything discussed here in full, and look through some of the links provided before responding. And I think it may be for the best if we wait for an uninvolved editor to weigh in. I hope that's okay with you. nagualdesign 09:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: well said above. Not my subject area unfortunately, if I touched those articles I imagine it was simply formatting or housekeeping. @Ainundil: it's quite possible that you are right and changes should be made. But Wikipedia struggles a lot with WP:FRINGE edits and removing a ref like Science article by D.M. Karl, C.O. Wirsen and H.W. Jannasch titled, "Deep-sea primary production at the Galapagos hydrothermal vents" will just set off alarm bells for competent patrollers looking for vandalism. The best thing to do would be add sources (Spanish is okay) at Talk:Abyssal zone and Talk:Bathyal zone, then slowly correct article. Thank you for your contributions. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Just a gnome out of my depth here. Looks important enough to bring up at WP:OCEANS, which I see you've already done, nagualdesign, or possibly a parent/related WikiProject. On the surface, the edits pinged appear more-or-less constructive (except as mentioned immediately above about the Science removal, and some of the prose invites further investigation). Ainundil, it would behoove you (generally, and, especially now given other editors doubts and the number of sources you've attempted to add) to link to as many sources as possible, so that it's easier for others to WP:VERIFY. I easily found a link to the the first ref in the first reversion mentioned by nagualdesign, for example. Lastly, I was suspicious at first of ref/author spamming, but, at a glance, there appears to be a reasonable amount of diversity in the links.</puns>   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
No opinion from me; all I've done at any of these articles is removing an extraneous {{fact}}. Nyttend (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The part "Many organisms live in hydrothermal vents in this and other zones." is in Batyal zone part and Hadal zone item - the text "There is a common misconception that there is volcanism or hydrothermal activity in this region..." is in Hadal zone item, there are no contradiction.
According to the InterRidge Vents Database there are vents at 5100 and 5800 meters (acording to publications of the year 1979 and 1993), but there are inactive. And there must be inactive vents in all the ocean floor, because the Seafloor spreading. Your source also says that deepest active vent is at 4960 m. Some recent articles state that this 4960 m vent is the deepest one ( Webber, et al.(2017). The formation of gold‐rich seafloor sulfide deposits: Evidence from the Beebe Hydrothermal Vent Field, Cayman Trough. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems. / Connelly, D. P., et al. (2012), Hydrothermal vent fields and chemosynthetic biota on the world’s deepest seafloor spreading centre, Nat. Commun., 3, 620). I would like to point out that vents-data.interridge.org is not a reliable source of information; is like wikipedia.
About the hadopelagic definition. According to both definitions there are not vents in the hadopelagic zone. There are no vents bellow 6000m and there are no vents in ocean trenches since this region (next to the subduction zone) has no volcanic or hydrothermal activity. Volcanic and hydrothermal activity in the ocean is related to rifts and seamounts, not to trenches. And this problem is the objective of all my editions, to state that vents are in Batyal and Abyssal zones, not in hadal zones. Chemical reactions around thermal vents in the waters above provide nutrients in the hadal zones, yes, like photosynthesis reactions in photic zone provide nutrients to the hadal zone. But you cannot say they live in/around thermal vents. in fat their food source is ocean snow, I added, not just one but 8 articles form 80's to 2015, to support that statement. If you can find and article talking about hadal vents, and its biological communities I sincerely want to read it.
* In Pelagic zone says: "many organisms live in hydrothermal vents" in the hadal zone. as I stated that is wrong.
* In the Hadal zone says "most life at this depth is sustained by marine snow or the chemical reactions around thermal vents".
* In hydrothermal vents says: "A black smoker or deep sea vent is a type of hydrothermal vent found on the seabed, typically in the abyssal and hadal zones at spreading centers" (there are not vents in hadal zones and this is also wrong because spreading centers (rifts) and hadal zones (trenches) are completely different and opposite things).
* And finally there are no information about Benthic hydrothermal vent system in any article, although hydrothermal vent system is mainly located in Benthic zone, nor in the Abyssal nor in the hadal zone (As you can verify in the InterRidge Vents Database).
I provide to you "copious references" in my editions: 5 books and 14 articles to support my statements (and there are articles and book with less than 5 years) and can send you even more references from this year Phillips, B. T. (2017). Beyond the vent: New perspectives on hydrothermal plumes and pelagic biology. Liu et al (2017). The Hadal Biosphere: Recent insights and new directions. or some recent Jamieson et al. (2010) Hadal trenches: the ecology of the deepest places on Earth. However according to you my "few" books and articles - half of them of this decade and some of this year - are outdated. You are providing only one source that did not contradict me. I'd like, also, you to at least read everything discussed here in full, and look carefully through some of the links provided (i can send you all this bibliography if you want). I don’t care if you trust in me or not, but if you do not trust in (or at least read) the large number of references that I provide to support the corrections I did, this discussion does not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ainundil (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to address a few of the points you've raised here, you should place the rest of your suggestions below.
In hydrothermal vents says: "A black smoker or deep sea vent is a type of hydrothermal vent found on the seabed, typically in the abyssal and hadal zones at spreading centers" (there are not vents in hadal zones and this is also wrong because spreading centers (rifts) and hadal zones (trenches) are completely different and opposite things). - You say that this is wrong in two ways, but the way I read it the "at spreading centers" part is more of a caveat. From what I've read so far you're certainly right in that hadal zone are typically subduction zones, but is it not true to say that some trenches (such as the Cayman Trough) that were once subduction zones are now spreading, and it is in those places in particular that we see hydrothermal vents (ie, in hadal zones at spreading centers as opposed to hadal zones in general)?
And finally there are no information about Benthic hydrothermal vent system in any article, although hydrothermal vent system is mainly located in Benthic zone, nor in the Abyssal nor in the hadal zone (As you can verify in the InterRidge Vents Database). - There are definitely hydrothermal vents in the abyssal zone, right? The IRVD says so. I can't tell if you've just made a typo or something and I'd appreciate some clarification.
I scanned the article you linked to: Jamieson et al. (2010) Hadal trenches: the ecology of the deepest places on Earth. You're right that it doesn't mention hydrothermal vents. However, under "Food supply in trench environments" it does say, "Chemosynthetic bacterial communities occur in trenches [38], providing localised resources for a host of specialised organisms. Few have been found to date, but their close association with subduction zones and other geological features [39,40] suggest that more will be discovered as sampling effort increases." Reference no.39 is Fluid venting in the eastern Aleutian Subduction Zone. That reference talks about cold seeps, methane plumes and suchlike, with no mention (in the abstract) of hydrothermal vents, but one of its references is Hydrothermal methane plumes in the Mariana back-arc spreading centre, leading me back to square one. I honestly don't know what to think at this point. nagualdesign 13:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ainundil: I read the question you posted on ResearchGate. Thank you for doing that. Hopefully we'll get a qualified answer from the scientific community. Would you also mind asking them to provide references in their answer(s), since Wikipedia requires information to be verifiable rather than simply true? And could you also link to this discussion, or at least explain that what we're discussing is a little more subtle than you alluded to in you question? I don't think anybody is claiming that trenches in general contain hydrothermal vents, but it does seem that there are trenches that were subduction zones tens of millions of years ago which are now geological hot spots. And don't worry, Pablo, nobody is going to burn you in a public square, I promise. Regards, nagualdesign 20:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Comments

There's a lot happening here, let me see if I can sort of help. For one, this article is a complete mess to begin with, and there are a lot of valid questions that could be asked about what should and shouldn't be included in this article. I would argue that the in depth information about why hydrothermal vents are found where they are isn't relevant to this article, however, I would also agree that hydrothermal vents are not currently known to be found in the hadalpelagic zone. The typical definitions of hadalpelagic are either "deep sea trenches" or "under 6000 meters", so either common definition falls deeper than known hydrothermal vents. I think that work needs to be done to definitively outline wikipedia's position on where the zones fall and what the most accurate and current scientific definition of depth/condition of each zone. I would encourage this contributor to maybe work on more relevant articles, like the ones on hydrothermal vents or seafloor topography. If there are more specific scientific disputes happening here, let me know and I will try to provide a verifiable answer. As far as removing good citations, obviously, that is always no bueno.TheDoormouse (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ainundil: I haven't viewed all of your edits, but I think that the appropriate things to address here on your talk page are how you handled these edits (and why others might disagree with you) rather than discussions on whether or not the content is accurate. I saw your edit to Abyssal zone but I did not take any action because your rationale seemed to make sense and you appeared to have knowledge in the subject. Regarding that specific edit, it would have been helpful if you had stated in your edit summary that you were moving the source & information to another article, and linked to it. Editors don't like seeing others "delete" sourced information that is accurate—but not appropriate for that article or particular section—because it's harmful to the project, but obviously with the whole picture it doesn't seem like you weren't attempting to harm the project! (Also, refer to WP:COPYWITHIN on how to attribute text copied from other Wikipedia articles, and check out Help:Minor edit § When to mark as minor changes for when to use the "This is a minor edit" checkbox by the edit summary field. You may also be interested in learning more about adding references using markup.)

Although I disagree with how your expertise has been questioned in light of your English abilities, I do think that we should all be open-minded about material we may not know about regardless of our knowledge in a particular topic. There are many things and advances happening around the world, and many editors bringing sources to Wikipedia that may be new or just not yet well known. My quick assessment of the "zone" chart when I saw your edit leads me to believe that nagualdesign has a point with #5 up there about specific term definitions. (See how templates treat "zones" at {{Aquatic layer topics}} and "ocean habitats" at {{Ocean habitat topics}}.) Although I don't think you violated WP:V, just know that subject matter experts are not exempt from policy and guidelines that ensure content is reliably sourced and verifiable. No matter who adds content to an article, without a reliable source for verification it could be original research. Rhinopias (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@TheDoormouse and Rhinopias: Thank you for your input. I'd appreciate if you can play a part in the discussion to come (see below). Those articles are indeed a bit of a mess and this mini-project will hopefully address some of the concerns that have been raised.
@Ainundil: I apologize for taking your limited English as an indicator of your expertise. There are many vandals and trolls on Wikipedia, many of whom use poor spelling and grammar, and along with your removal of referenced material I couldn't help thinking that you might be one of them. Claiming that you're a university professor when in fact you are a PHD student is also a great way to undermine your own credibility. I hope you appreciate the efforts I've made to have your contributions properly assessed, rather than just dismissing them out of hand.
@Adotchar, Volcanoguy, 65HCA7, BrucePL, Vsmith, Leschnei, Frietjes, BatteryIncluded, Ernsts, and OAnick: Since I've pinged 10 editors who contributed to each of the aforementioned articles (Pelagic zone, Bathyal zone, Abyssal zone and Hadal zone) I thought it worth pinging 10 editors who contributed to Hydrothermal vent. Any help you can provide here would be appreciated, since that article has become intrinsic to the discussion. (If all you ever did was some minor edit(s) and you don't wish to join this discussion then no reply is necessary. You are basically the most recent (non-IP) editors listed in the page history.) nagualdesign 06:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ainundil, thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I consider your edits to the Bathyal zone article very useful. For example it is correct, that hydrothermal vents are in depths 2500 m. So it is the bathyal zone as defined 1000 to 4000 m. If the range 1000 - 4000 m is correct, then you did it correct. Other editors should not remove informations you added there. But if hydrothermal vents are also in 5000 m, then the same information can be in the Abyssal zone article too. / Some time ago I had doubts if depth of zones is defined correctly on Wikipedia. I remember, that I found very contradicting resources, that used the term "bathyal" in various or in incorrect ways. I would recommend to add more authoritative resources about definitions of zones including alternative views (if exist) and including incorrect examples. I know it can be difficult task. I failed to found proper definitions. Meantime I would recommend to add informations with exact depths in meters to those zones articles. I am glad, that you iniciated the discussion, because it will get Wikipedia more clear and more informative. Thanks and have a nice day, --Snek01 (talk) 11:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Article amendments

Okay, although this is a user talk page, the above discussion has now been linked to from all corners of the project, so I think this is as good a place as any to discuss changes to the oceanographic articles and reach a consensus before adding material to the relevant articles. Here we can pool references and figure out what should go where (and maybe later this discussion can be copied or moved elsewhere). For the sake of clarity please ensure that you mention which article(s) you're suggesting edits and/or offering references for. And Ainundil, please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). If we can limit ourselves to succinct, bullet-pointed comments, and threaded replies to those comments, this will be a lot easier to keep organized. nagualdesign 05:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

  • It seems to me that the term hadopelagic specifically refers to the deep ocean trenches in the ocean floor, regardless of depth. While the ocean floor itself may be around 6,000 m down, if there are places where the ocean floor is somewhat higher and there are trenches there then those trenches are still considered hadopelagic. If that's correct then the articles should reflect that. nagualdesign 05:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In the same way, benthic means on or near the ocean floor regardless of depth, so unless I'm mistaken all deep ocean vents exist in benthic zones (at various depths). nagualdesign 05:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd like some clarification as to how geologically active deep ocean trenches are, and what form that takes. If they are subduction zones then I can understand there being no hydrothermal vents. If they are "spreading centres" then there must surely be vulcanism going on, and whether or not there are currently active vent systems currently being explored would be fairly irrelevant. nagualdesign 05:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
According to a BBC article from 2013, "UK scientists exploring the ocean floor in the Caribbean have discovered an "astounding" set of hydrothermal vents, the deepest anywhere in the world." They were discovered in the Cayman Trough at a depth of 5 kilometers. But according to the Oceanic trench article trenches are indeed subduction zones, and trenches that are partially infilled are known as troughs, so I'm none-the-wiser. nagualdesign 05:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the Cayman Trough article I see that it's pulling apart (spreading) and has a maximum depth of 7,686 m, which by any definition is hadopelagic. (As an aside, the black smokers there are 450 °C (842 °F), making them among the hottest known undersea vents.) nagualdesign 05:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Layers of the pelagic zone
  • It may be worth deciding here a working definition of the various zones in question. As per the diagram to the right, the pelagic zone refers to the deep ocean from top to bottom, the bathypelagic or bathyal zone extends from 1 km to 4 km deep, the abyssopelagic or abyssal zone extends from 4 km deep to the ocean floor (or abyssal plain), and the hadopelagic or hadal zone is the region lying in ocean trenches (ie, below the abyssal plain). Note that the depth of the abyssal plain is not specified here since it varies. Alternatively we could apply the 6 km demarcation, which seems rather arbitrary to me. And the abyssopelagic might more properly be defined as extending from 4 km deep to above the ocean floor, with the ocean floor itself (and the region immediately above) being the benthic zone. If we can agree on these, at least, then we won't end up repeatedly talking at cross-purposes. Whether this working definition is later applied in article space can be discussed later. nagualdesign 07:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I would agree that that is an excellent source. The most comprehensive source for locations of active vents that I am aware of. TheDoormouse (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

resuscitation

Please if you have this on your watch list - please help lets resurrect this project - if you are reading this - thanks - lets go! JarrahTree 09:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Consistent maps for big bodies of water

Please sea here!!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Help please!

The project page has active' - the project tag for talk pages has inactive - someone with good template editing please help ? and resusicitate the project tag - the project cannot revive on a dead talk page tag - or at least clues ?JarrahTree 14:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Ocean, Sea, World ocean

Each of Ocean, Sea and World ocean has a "not to be confused with" hatnote listing the other two articles. But this is unhelpful, because there is no description of WHY the 3 articles are different. Could one or more editors from this WikiProject work up a better hatnote, using the {{about}} template with for statements, to specify what each of the 3 articles discusses? Thanks! UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Mediterranean sea (oceanography)

This article seems like original research to me. There are almost no references backing up the claims and searching for "Mediterranian sea" brings up Mediterranian Sea. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sea#Merger_proposal

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sea#Merger_proposal . Sdkb (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This could really use some more eyes! - Sdkb (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horizon Guyot/archive1

Greetings,

is there someone who is interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horizon Guyot/archive1? The criteria are on WP:WIAFA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Limnology and Oceanography Barnstar

I've made the Template:The Limnology and Oceanography Barnstar. Awarded to users who've shown great editing skills in improving Limnology and Oceanography related-articles. Jerm (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Coast, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Mariana Trench and Challenger Deep

Hello, came here to ask for assistance in updating these two pages (and any other mentions) about the deepest part of the ocean. The remarkable work being done to survey and explore the three pools of Challenger Deep and the nearby Sirena Deep by Victor Vescovo has changed from being a place where "more people have walked on the moon than been to the bottom of the ocean" - that's not true anymore. The amazing submersible built by Triton Submarines has allowed Vescovo to dive to the bottom nine times and counting, and the absolute number of bottom divers to reach 14 (and counting). The speculation about future dives dates back to before Cameron's DeepSea Challenger, circa 2012, and the whole "race to the bottom" narrative is over. Due to my being associated with Triton Submarines, I will not materially edit the articles myself, but there is no question that they need to be revised and updated significantly. I'm putting the running list of descents on Talk:Challenger Deep as they happen. Please reach out if you are interested, and I'm happy to contact you directly. Thanks.--Brad Patrick (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Challenge to the current definition of "seven seas"

One definition that is shown for the "Seven seas" is

"(it) is ab ancient phrase for all the world's oceans." In another place, "Since the 19th century, the term has been taken to include the seven oceanic bodies of water."

I agree with the second statement but cannot accept the first one. The ancient Greeks did not know all the world's oceans. And a sea is not an ocean. In another place, this second statement is sort of accommodated by including the Caspian Sea and Aral Sea in the 7.

But the truth really lies somewhere else.

The Mediterranean Basin was well known to the Greeks and many others at that time. And their 7 seas were ALL CONTAINED WITHIN THE MEDITERRANEAN BASIN!.

these are the ancient (and 21st century seas) located there.

  1. 1. AEGEAN
  2. 2. ADRIATIC
  3. 3. IONIAN
  4. 4. LIGURIAN
  5. 5. MEDITERRANEAN
  6. 6 TYRRHENIAN
  7. 7. SEA OF CANDIA

These 7 seas were the very well known and very well travelled by all the peoples of the Mediterranean Basin. The original reference is lost in history but it was a common term for the merchants - all of whom wanted to sail the 7 seas and trade with all the countries located there.

Another very interesting fact is that, in ancient times, only the southern portion of the water complex was known as the Mediterranean. Which means that Alexandria was on the Mediterranean but most of the other ports within the basin were not for some other sea (by name) seas were the waters bordering Italy, Greece, etc. Today, we tend to dismiss the existence of some of these ancient names, but that does not invalidate them. \ I am a retired University Professor of Geography and I have played this name game with many of my students - especially those going to Europe - hoping to swim in the Mediterranean - without actually visiting a European coastline that actually borders on the Mediterranean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:FFC0:3B:3443:DB33:D6F6:6AAF (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I am just wondering if there are people watching this page who have an interest in topics that deal with oceans plus climate change, or oceans plus Sustainable Development Goal 14? If yes, please get in touch. I am working on a project that is improving content on SDG 14 which is all about oceans... Please see here for further information: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/SDGs/Communication_of_environment_SDGs#SDG_14_(Life_below_Water) Can you help with determining if we have the right articles on our list? Currently we have chosen around 50 (we might be able to tackle a maximum of 100). Mainly looking for articles with high view rates. EMsmile (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Seabird

I have nominated Seabird for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 01:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Notification of discussion on merging ocean and sea

A discussion is underway regarding what's supposed to be the difference between the articles on ocean and on sea, and if they could be merged. Please help and participate here. EMsmile (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, these are the updated links: Please contribute to the discussion about how sea and ocean currently overlap and how this could be improved. See on the talk page here. In addition, see merger discussion of world ocean into ocean here. We need more inputs to the discussion. (But please don't just think of it as a "geography" question as there is more to it).EMsmile (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some inputs for Black Sea

Greetings,


Requesting your visit to article Black Sea and inputs on splitting and restructuring @ Talk:Black Sea#Some article restructuring and overhaul

  • And also requesting to visit Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları, an article is about Ottoman times female slavery with a special focus on the state of non-elite common women slavery in those times; presently looking for more specific inputs and expansion regarding female slave trade across Black Sea coastal cities and help expand the same if you find yourself interested in that topic too.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting inputs to marine biology

If you have an interest in marine biology, please head to the article's talk page and participate in the discussion that is currently taking place there about the image and caption used in the lead section. See direct link here. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Seaspiracy

The article for the new, rather controversial, Netflix film Seaspiracy has a number of ongoing discussions about its debated scientific accuracy, including which sources are trustworthy, who to be quoted and how this should be written about. Given there are marine experts here input would be highly welcomed. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The Metals Company

I recently created an article for The Metals Company, formerly DeepGreen Metals, a deep sea mining company. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Requesting inputs

Greetings

Requesting (brainstorming) inputs regarding Manual of Style proposal @ Chronological listing of coastal townships

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Please help me

Greetings,

Hi, I am User:Bookku, my expectations to get expanded Black sea related articles failed miserably. I am expecting and requesting at least some help in expanding the article Draft:List of erstwhile slave trading townships with regions surrounding Black sea. In next steps I wish to have a proper map showing erstwhile slave trading townships across black sea.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Chemical oceanography

An article that you have been involved in editing—Chemical oceanography—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

More eyes needed regarding new article on "Plastic pollution in the ocean" / microplastics

Please take a look at the ongoing discussion on where in the Wikipedia web the content about microplastics in oceans should be primarily located, and whether a stand-alone article on Plastic pollution in the ocean would be a good idea. The discussion is on the talk page of microplastics here. EMsmile (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: the end result was to create marine plastic pollution. EMsmile (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sea surface temperature

Sea surface temperature has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

There has only been one comment so far - if no one else comments I am going to delist Chidgk1 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Duh - forgot it is a community reassessment so I am not allowed to decide only suggest. Please could one of you guys decide and close. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Result was: kept. Vague concerns that the article may be outdated are not sufficient to delist. EMsmile (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Help with a Draft page for ocean organization

Would anyone be willing to provide tips on getting this draft page approved? Draft:The Ocean Foundation

Thanks so much! Wikicontributor1993 (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A new stand-alone article for ocean temperature?

A discussion is ongoing about creating a new stand-alone article for ocean temperature. Please take a look at the discussion on the talk page. The term used to redirect to sea surface temperature and is now currently a disambiguation page. EMsmile (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1982 Pacific typhoon season

1982 Pacific typhoon season has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Oceans/Archive_2&oldid=1241586317"