Talk:Sea/Archive 2

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

Area of the sea?

Nice article, but it seems to lack a rather basic fact: the total area of the sea. I suppose we can use the "70% of the world's surface" figure to derive it, but would be nice to have it explicitly cited and stated somewhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In principle I agree, but I can see why it would actually be difficulty to determine. Firstly, do we include inland seas like the Caspian or the Dead Sea? And, probably more importantly, how do we deal with the coastline paradox. Probably the reason such a figure is not already included is that it's actually impossible to accurately find such a figure. oknazevad (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
As far as I know, the coastline paradox refers to length, not to area, right? The coast's length behaves like a fractal, such that with ever increasing zoom you reach ever increasing amounts of deviation, but the area of those fractal regions is limited and presumably well defined to within a certain margin of error. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to define an area to individual countries either, or indeed to Land, which does have an area listed. I guess I was thinking of the world ocean, rather than including the Caspian, but actually if this is to be the analogue of Land then it should include the area of all the world's seas, however that is defined.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead sentence

It's great that we made the article better in 2013, but the content we had for the 12 years before that (howevermuch worse) was at least at the right namespace. I, among many many others, came here looking for what any native English speaker would expect at an article on "sea": an overview of the content that we moved to list of seas. Add my voice to those asking for a move to the sea (or even the Sea) when it comes back around next time. As the OED lists, the article has been required for the broader sense (yes, including in British English) since nearly the end of Old English. If the present name made sense, ocean (as The Ocean) would redirect here as well. Sea and ocean should be at their PRIMARY senses and the sea and the ocean (in their separate sense) should point to one, the other, or world ocean.

[Side discussion: Chiswick Chap seems to have begun his edits without any discussion here at all. Editors oknazevad and Coin945 immediately noted objections and Coin945 eventually hit upon putting Chiswick Chap's information at the sea. Cwmhiraeth supported Chiswick Chap on the disingenuous grounds that they were not changing the article's topic; Coin945 noted that Chiswick Chap's argument for not including the article ("that's almost only used in titles of books and films") may be good faith but is patently untrue—WP:TITLEFORMAT clearly carves out space for uses (such as this) that completely change the meaning of the term (see, inter multa alia, the crown versus crown; the Queen Victoria versus Queen Victoria; the Enlightenment versus enlightenment; and the way that troubles redirects to the Troubles)—and Chiswick Chap simply ignored him. Similarly, when 69.125.134.86 noted his objection, Chiswick Chap disingenuously claimed "This conversation has been had already, at length" when in fact he had been supported by half or fewer of six or seven editors. Subsequently, still more editors disagreed—Marla the Mop, Bonkers, SandyGeorgia—and Chiswick and Johnbod again fell back on claiming this was asked and answered. Carcharoth noted Britannica's article is at ocean, belying comments that this was an American v British English issue. Only RedSlash noted his support of the change and he did so on poetic and emotional grounds that don't much support its encyclopedic appropriateness. I do agree with Dr. Blofield that the editors involved did yeomen's work; all the same, the process was very rushed and (unless it's unlinked and placed elsewhere) I see no sign whatsoever of consensus to support the change we've seen. If anything, the consensus points the other way.]

Regardless, we should clearly bold the articles in the lead sentence: The sea is something very different from a sea or even the sea—the article is an essential element of the term and, without it, refers in its PRIMARY sense to the oceanic subdivisions, not collective. Likewise the ocean versus ocean. — LlywelynII 11:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

[Assuming at least one inevitable revert regardless of the merits of the above, given the prominence of the article, do kindly notice that the edit to the extraneous comma should be kept or the sentence needs to be rephrased. Likewise, the third term in the lead should be either bolded or removed.] — LlywelynII 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Ocean" means "outer".

"World Ocean" means "World Outer" or "Outer World" and doesn't make sense. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ocean_Sea#The_Ocean_Sea_-_a_page_of_its_own. --MarkFilipak (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"World Ocean" is perfectly straightforward. "Ocean" is not a synonym of "outer" in English, in Latin, or in ancient Greek, so I'm not really sure where you're coming from with this. — LlywelynII 23:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Discoveries" of the Americas and the Amazon River

The statements that Christopher Columbus discovered The Americas and Amerigo Vespucci discovered the Amazon River sound rather dated. Yes, they discovered them as far as Europe is concerned (ignoring the Vikings), but it makes it sound like America was otherwise a deserted continent (or that the point of view of Native Americans is irrelevant). Is there any way this could be improved to sound more nuanced and less dated/Eurocentric? Kaldari (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I see the wording has been kept for Amerigo Vespucci having "discovered" the mouth of the Amazon River, but I've noticed it has been changed for Christopher Columbus. I believe the following paragraphs do a great deal to avoid the Eurocentrism you've mentioned, by detailing earlier and contemporary voyages of discovery. Since it could be fixed for Columbus, I see no reason it can't be fixed for Vespucci. I think it's enough to say something in the lines of "...having been known as the first of the late 15th century European navigators to explore the mouth of the Amazon river and the coast of South America...". Since we'd be mentioning dated Eurocentric conceptions of discovery though, perhaps we could further explain this phenomenon by bringing the widespread notion that Brazil has been "discovered" by Pedro Álvares abral in April 22 1500. I'd advocate though, that as it has been done on the part about Columbus, the wording should clearly state that these notions, although still pervasive, are dated and inaccurate.
I've removed both instances of 'discover...', substituting neutral phrasing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Guys, it's fine to try to combat Eurocentrism (WP:BIAS) but snarky twaddle like this amounts to Europhobia and is just as POVy. There are plenty of Europeans and Americans well past taking Washington Irving's mythologizing at face value. (I'm sure you count yourselves among them.) — LlywelynII 23:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, I've found another Eurocentric statement. In this case, to be more accurate it's more north-centric:
"The sea also varies in latitude from the cold waters beneath the Arctic ice to the colourful diversity of coral reefs in the tropics."
I suggest changing "...beneath the Arctic ice..." to "...of the polar oceans...". It's understandable to mention the Arctic, as most landmass and population is on the Northern Hemisphere, but latitudes are an astronomical concept applicable to any planet or star, and as such do not respect any human preconceived bias.
Does anyone oppose the changes I've suggested? Ebacci EN (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
The phrase "beneath the Arctic ice" is simply an example; note that while the Arctic is northern, the coral reefs are mainly southern. I've removed the 'discover...' wording for neutrality. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Coral reefs are tropical (neither northern nor southern), but—inasmuch as the Arctic is an icebound ocean and the Antarctic is a continent—there is no ethnocentrism involved in using one and not the other as an example at sea. — LlywelynII 23:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing

Obviously, this is an overview article and we should aim to keep things terse while still giving FA-quality coverage (i.e., yes, we'll run long). I've tried to patch up some of the obvious mistakes like the triplicate treatments of oceanography and there are some judgment calls like how much detail to give about plate tectonics or tsunamis. Still, I've noticed that there are some things that are simply missing but should be at least described and linked through:

Let's hear if you notice any others. — LlywelynII 13:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly? — LlywelynII 10:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sea. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 18:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sea. 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) 09:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Content merge

I was looking over a student's work at impact of the sea and I believe that this would be better merged into this article. There are some issues with the content the student wrote, so this will need to be a selective merge. I wanted to see what people's opinions were. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Not this article. Sea in culture is a more appropriate target. The topics are much more closely matched. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:15, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Pbsouthwood. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"The word "sea" is also used to denote smaller, partly landlocked sections of the ocean."

The word "sea" in English is also used to denote entirely landlocked bodies of water that are not connected to the oceans, such as the Caspian Sea. This article is gold-starred, so maybe this has been dealt with somehow (and I didn't read all of it), but that definition of "sea" in the intro really struck me, with regard to the grand exception of the Caspian Sea being disconnected from the ocean. It's described as a lake in its own article. Moncrief (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a good point, Moncrief. I added a new clause to this sentence to point out this exception. I also have no idea if this subject has been dealt with before, but just because this is a WP:featured article doesn't mean it can't be improved! Thanks for pointing it out. - PaulT+/C 06:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:World_Ocean#Why_does_this_article_deserve_to_stand_alone?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:World_Ocean#Why_does_this_article_deserve_to_stand_alone?. Sdkb (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not open merge discussions for the same proposal at two places. Use the discussion here, this is the more established article. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
That was me putting out a feeler two weeks ago, just to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious. The feedback I got from that led to the proposal here, and I agree that this is the proper place for discussion from here forward. - Sdkb (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

I know any page with lots of {{convert}} templates finds this a little difficult, but the usage of this page was established here, here, and here as American English. Chiswick Chap took some pains with his 2013 rebuild and thanks for that, but kindly maintain the existing format consistently, pending a new consensus. — LlywelynII 00:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Not so - see below (May 2019). Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ENVAR

After some to-and-fro editing by others, I have removed the ENGVAR tag. This was first added in this very dubious edit back in 2014, citing 3 diffs. But the first and last of these prove nothing re ENGVAR (Oxford spelling), and the middle one, with a "harbor", was removed almost immediately as vandalism (slightly unfairly, but it was an illiterate ip with 6 or so edits). The article has, and had when passed as an FA in 2013 a "travelled" in the 3rd line. The current version has 3 "colours" and no "colors". So I presume it uses British English, and has for years. As recently as 2011, when the article was still essentially a list of seas, I can't see any ENGVAR diffference in this version. Between then and 2013, it was greatly expanded, with British English editors doing most of the work. Anything else to say? Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

As I think about it, it actually makes some amount of sense for this article to use British English rather than American English, based just on the fact that Britain has such a strong cultural and historical connection to the sea. - Sdkb (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
And the US doesn't? Sure, there's lots of landlocked parts of the US, but there's also thousands of miles of coastlines, with major port cities all over them. Canadian English, Australian English, pretty much any variety would be appropriate. There's absolutely zero claims to WP:TIES for such a major, worldwide topic. That said, that makes the choice arbitrary, and editing history has essentially established the variety; there's no reason to change it. But I just wanted to make it clear that the choice is not because of some closer connection. oknazevad (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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.
The result of this discussion was "No consensus". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I propose to merge World Ocean into Sea. Looking at the ledes, World Ocean begins by noting that the world ocean is known colloquially as the sea. Sea, meanwhile, notes up top that it is alternately referred to as the world ocean. Taken together, this would indicate to me that they are about exactly the same topic, and thus should be combined. Sea, as the far more established article, is the obvious destination for the merger. Sdkb (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: There seems to be some information about the organization of the sea (e.g. how many oceans are there?) at World Ocean that could perhaps be merged into the definition section here. I'm not an expert in oceanography or in the process of merging; I just wanted to call attention to this, and I'll likely defer to those with more experience/expertise about how exactly the details should be handled. - Sdkb (talk) 04:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge as there is no real distinction. LittleJerry (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as proposed. Frankly, I'm still very unhappy with the way this article was re-scoped without any prior discussion in 2013 (see the #Lead sentence section above for the background). It was a hijacking plain and simple based on the colloquial (and somewhat poetic) use of the phrase "the sea", and ignores the scope of the common terms "the ocean" and "the seas" (note the plural) and also the way "sea" is used commonly as only part of the entirely of the world's marine environment, not the whole thing, as this article largely assumes. Now, that could be in part an ENGVAR thing, or it could just be a case of using an imprecise term instead of a more precise one like "world ocean", which is unambiguous. So, while I do think there needs to be some work on the series of articles to eliminate redundancies and clarify scope, I don't think this merger is the Aleah to go about it, not without a wider and more thorough discussion that doesn't force one assumption on an article that was clearly scoped differently, as this article was before it was changed without discussion. oknazevad (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Oknazevad: Thanks for pointing me to the earlier discussion. I'm not familiar with the whole history of how the scope of this article and the others came to be defined, and I think you may be right that further discussion is needed to sort all that out — it's clear that there's a lot of messiness between Sea/Ocean/World Ocean/List of seas/etc. I see all that as a bit beyond the domain of this merger discussion, though. The observation that led to my proposal was just that, as currently written, the scopes of this article and World Ocean are the same, thus a merger is warranted. Perhaps we ought to start a separate conversation below about the scopes issue, since if there's a consensus to change the scopes of some of the articles in this area, that'd save us the trouble of having to perform a merge. - Sdkb (talk) 03:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Merge since there's no real difference between the two. --Chumash11 (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have similar sentiments as oknazevad stated above. A "sea" is generally a smaller, partially enclosed saline waterbody (ref) while an "ocean" is much larger and is used to refer to the 5 to 3 oceans that make up the "World Ocean". In general, a "sea" is part of a larger "ocean" waterbody, unless completely enclosed by land such as the Caspian Sea. It seems like this article (Sea) is a bit out of scope and, like oknazevad noted, leans a bit too much on the colloquial/poetic use of "the sea" which does not align with the geographic of definition and the title of the article, "sea". The World Ocean refers to a specific, interconnected waterbody, which includes a collection of oceans / seas / gulfs / etc... and I think should have its own article. It is similar to the distinction between Lake and a specific waterbody that is a lake such as Lake Baikal. Jayzlimno (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, as I said above, I'm certainly sympathetic to those concerns, but this merger discussion really does not seem to be the proper forum for arriving at a new consensus about the proper scope of multiple high-importance articles. If you and others feel this way, why don't you start a separate discussion so that we can give that issue the full attention it deserves? - Sdkb (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes I agree, Sdkb, the scope of the article should not be decided here. I'm also not sure how to go about proposing adjusting the scope of a featured article. Any suggestions? Just start a new section on it's talk page? Thanks. Jayzlimno (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There may not currently be much difference in the scope of the articles, but it seems that there should be. This is fixable. Fixing is a better solution than over-expanding the topic "Sea", which is already large (over 160kB), and possibly beyond its natural scope. It may be more appropriate to split out some of the content that is more relevant to "World Ocean" to develop World Ocean. However, this article is a featured article – the content has been approved by a significant local consensus – so major changes, particularly changes to the scope, should be agreed here before making them. Bear in mind that though oceanographic concepts are legitimate encyclopedic material, other uses and meanings of a word in general English usage are also valid, including distinctions between sea, a sea and The Sea which may be a problem for the article naming conventions. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
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.

@Cwmhiraeth: Do you have any thoughts about how we ought to move this discussion forward (as Jayzlimno) had asked)? There seems to be at least a substantial minority that feels the scope of this article should be changed, but without an idea of what the proper forum for a discussion on that would be, there's no way for them to move forward. - Sdkb (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:? - Sdkb (talk) 02:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
At 75kb, Sea is a very large article. I really see no advantage in making it longer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Sdkb, The people who think the scope should be changed can make a reasoned suggestion on what they think the scope should be, and why it should be that way. If the reasons are good, the suggestions may be considered. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2020

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 section.

Sea → World Ocean – As discussed in the merger proposal above, “world ocean” and “sea” mean different things. If that’s the case, then this article clearly discusses world ocean, not sea. So I think we should merge the page currently titled World Ocean into this page, rename this page to World Ocean, and create a new Sea article that discusses that topic. 150.250.5.24 (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment – Like mentioned above, this was the article's scope until 2013: A sea is a large body of saline water. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is not an appropriate use of a Requested Move. World Ocean already exists and has a clear scope. Any material on sea that is meant for World Ocean can be moved there, and the scope of sea can be broadened as necessary per WP:BROADCONCEPT. -- Netoholic @ 20:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • So given that this isn't a requested move, I'm not sure quite what it is in a technical sense. Does anyone know? But I'm likely to support it as proposed. Sdkb (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Strange wording: A wide variety of organisms, including bacteria, protists, algae, plants, fungi, and animals, live in the sea

I think this sentence should be changed, but I'm not sure to what: "A wide variety of organisms, including bacteria, protists, algae, plants, fungi, and animals, live in the sea". It seems a little silly to say "a variety of organisms, including [literally every type of organism that exists]". Why don't we just say something like "A wide variety of organisms, including members from every kingdom of life, live in the sea." Ikjbagl (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 November 2020

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: WP:SNOW closed. (closed by non-admin page mover) Nohomersryan (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Sea → World Ocean – Now that World Ocean redirects to this page, we can change the title to World Ocean (which accurately describes the scope of this article), and then do whatever we want with Sea. 24.228.128.119 (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a sea; this is an ocean. I don't know why the terms are used interchangeably in English, but they are different. I'd support restoring World Ocean as it was before. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME (I've been pretty big into science for many years and never even heard of the term "world ocean". I've almost always just heard of it referred to as "the ocean/oceans" or "the sea") ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and speedy SNOW close next editor please In ictu oculi (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Who on earth knows the sea as the world ocean? Clear WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
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.

Sea vs. World ocean

I know this has been discussed several times prior, but this article seems to be more about the World Ocean than sea. The short description for this page is currently “Large body of salt water”, wheras the short description for World Ocean is “The interconnected system of Earth's oceanic waters”. I think most of the content in this article should be moved to World Ocean, and this article should be reverted to how it was many years ago, simply referring to a large body of salt water. Would you agree? 24.228.135.248 (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Ocean is the one that needs to justify its existence. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whether the broad interconnected body of salt water or called "the ocean" or "the sea" is an ENGVAR issue, and one that used to be settled with this article being specifically about the smaller subdivisions of said world ocean, which is the scientific use of the term "sea", until a well-meaning but undiscussed rescoping occurred in 2013. There were plainly objections to the rescoping at the time by myself and other editors (see the talk page archives) with no clear consensus emerging, but despite that the article still retains its redundant character to the ocean article, which predates that scope change. Frankly, I'm still steamed that maybe three editors completely changed the purpose of this article without prior discussion based solely on their personal attachment to the use of the term not in scientific contexts but in one dialect. oknazevad (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. This seems to be a strange glitch of wikipedia procedure whereby everyone agrees a change is needed but there isn't a path by which to get it done. I agree with oknazevad, I think. Would this be a fair recap -
    • World Ocean should more or less contain the contents of this page
    • Ocean should still be a page, and its current contents are great, although there may be some overlap between it, and the above bullet point, which would require one of them to be scaled back, but that's fine; that's a secondary discussion
    • Sea should be about a large, indeterminate body of salt water, focusing on its literary usages, and its use in specific lake names such as Caspian Sea and Dead Sea, plus you've got your Mediterraneans, your Caribbeans, etc. At present this page doesn't seem to exist.
    • All this would be achieved by the proposal currently under discussion, which is why I support it. Alternatively, perhaps we don't need Sea at all, in which case this current page could be renamed to World Ocean and the current World Ocean could be destroyed. Does anyone have thoughts on this -- perhaps if we agreed where we need to get to, we could think about how to get there? Apologies for any misapprehensions; I'm new to all this so please bear with. In fact I'm only here because I was researching the Single European Act and got lost. 51.9.201.66 (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons above.Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see discussion at ocean talk page

There is a discussion going on at the ocean talk page about the three articles ocean, sea and world ocean. I know this has all been discussed before but a satisfying solution has never been found (the status quo is not satisfying). So I am making another attempt to reach consensus. See discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ocean#Improvements_to_headings_and_overlap_with_two_other_articles Basically, I think we are inching closer to merging "world ocean" into "ocean". Then the next step would be to either merge "sea" and "ocean" or to get it clear which content should be in "sea" and which in "ocean" so that we don't have two overlapping articles. Please contribute here so that we don't have two parallel discussions but just one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ocean#Improvements_to_headings_and_overlap_with_two_other_articles . Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Reducing those sections where sub-articles exist

I have noticed that this article repeats a lot of content from sub-articles, rather than just leaving a summary and then pointing the reader to the sub-article. This contributes to the large overall large size of his article which is 74 kB (12296 words) "readable prose size" which is regarded as very long. Therefore, I propose to reduce these sections to just 1-2 paragraphs (and move content to the sub-article if it's not already there): seawater, waves, tsunamis, currents, tides. This will help to bring this article back to how it should be, i.e. a high level overview article. WP guidance says " if > 60 kB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)" EMsmile (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This should be a workable strategy. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll give that a go, slowly step by step. While making those changes (or afterwards), I think it will help us to get a grasp on the "overall content" question which you mentioned above and which has been kicking around for several years now, always ending in the "too hard" basket where the unsatisfactory status quo remains. I am thinking if we make these slow stepwise changes it will help us figuring out what is going on. So I will start over the next few days with reducing those sections where sub-articles exist and move what I would call "excessive detail" into the sub-articles. I think that is not controversial. EMsmile (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I have done the shortening now for the sections on "tides" and "tsunami". See what you think about this. Both text blocks I have moved to the talk pages of tide and tsunami so that the editors there can decide how they want to integrate it into those articles. I am looking at "seawater" now and think that it is also far too detailed and would benefit from shortening. EMsmile (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Great that your condensing the article ! Please do not use the existence of sub- articles as the criterion for condensing, per discussions elsewhere. (Featured) articles should stand on its own, and condensing should happen relative to its importance, not to whether people theoretically could click on another link to get more information. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

So what about the section "life in the sea"

I thought perhaps it helps if we look at specific sections. There is a section in this article called "life in the sea". It starts with "The oceans are home to a diverse collection of life forms that use it as a habitat." (note how it talks about oceans, not "the sea"). It also says: "Main article: Marine life" Now if we look at the article ocean it has a section called "Biology". It starts with "Oceans have a significant effect on the biosphere." It also says "Further information: Marine biology and Marine life". So when I try to improve both articles, I am wondering: do they each need to repeat the same thing? Or should one refer to the other? How would "life in the sea" ever be different for the article on "sea" compared to the article on "ocean"? It's simply the same thing, currently spread over two articles, isn't it? EMsmile (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree and I like your pragmatic section-approach. If we can find out which section belongs best to which article(Sea, Ocean and World Ocean) then we could get/provide also a clearer image on their difference. So they need to work together and link each other appropriatly. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, where are all the page watchers for this article? There are apparently 326 people watching this page. Please contribute to the discussion! My proposal now is to move the section called "life in the sea" to ocean and just leave a short summary here and the link across. This is in an effort to reduce duplication on the two pages. Reactions to this proposal? Equally, I would suggest to move the section "Environmental issues" to ocean and to just leave a short summary here. My justification is that we would move the natural sciences stuff to "ocean" and leave the cultural/history/human content at sea. EMsmile (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm ok with a consistent (and explained) division like that (see above), but yes we need more consensus on it. Most of those 326 people won't be editing any more, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
As one of the page watchers still editing, I am also OK with that approach, but I am an engineer and it would probably be worth having some input from natural sciences and humanities specialists on the division. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I was one of the two editors (the other was @Chiswick Chap:) who created this article from nothing and brought it through FAC. I regard that achievement as the most important thing I have done on Wikipedia, and have been following these various discussions with some dismay. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The sections each provide a "Main" link to the principal article on that topic, and a short summary which should be one or two paragraphs. It makes no sense to start moving stuff about really; this was discussed extensively at the time and I certainly don't wish to go over it all again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Good to see some new people joining the conversation here. When you say: "At the time" that was by now 8 years ago (according to the milestone listing it was 8 years ago that the article achieved FA status). I think it's justified 8 years later to take another look, especially if other articles come up and the overlap is massive. See the section "Biology" at ocean. Just because something has been discussed 8 years ago doesn't mean new people are not allowed to take a new and fresh look. Nobody owns any of the articles. So I would be curious to hear your opinion on the question that I asked at the start of this section: "How would "life in the sea" ever be different for the article on "sea" compared to the article on "ocean"? It's simply the same thing, currently spread over two articles, isn't it?" Also, from what I can see, most of the sections have far more than 2 paragraphs, even if sub-articles exist. So there might have been some "content creep" over the years. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Major changes should improve the article. It is currently listed as FA, so any major changes must leave it as FA, or they would not be "improvements". If you are willing to take the article through an FA review it is quite a learning experience. As a level 2 vital article it should get some scrutiny. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Life in the sea has a hatnote link to the main article Marine life. This is not a problem per se, but maybe the summary could be condensed a bit more, and it might be appropriate to use a slightly different summary in different contexts in different articles. Other articles may also use summary sections on life in the sea if it is sufficiently relevant, and they may also be the same or tailored to fit. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the difference between Sea and Ocean is that Sea aims to be a balanced view of all aspects of things marine, a rounded whole, whereas Ocean is a number of marine-related sections with no basic plan. The Marine life article covers the living organisms well but lacks the habitat and ecological relationships with which Sea deals. The Biology section of Ocean is just a list. There is plenty of room for improvement in Ocean if EMsmile feels like getting down to work! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cwmhiraeth, yes, I do feel like getting down to work. That's exactly the reason why I have been writing on the talk pages of ocean, sea, world ocean in the last two weeks to try and talk with other editors and to reach consensus about those three articles and that's why I have also made some non controversial edits in those three articles already (none of them have been reverted so far so they must have been OK). I have also read the previous discussions where people have talked about how the articles about ocean and sea overlap. With regards to the comment by Peter Southwood: yes, my aim is always to improve articles when I make edits. But I don't believe in "ring fencing" articles that have FA rating. It's great that they have FA ratings but that's not to say there is no room for improvement. I was recently involved in the FA review for menstrual cycle and the amount of work that went into that article in the last two weeks to ensure it passes its FA review was mind boggling. Just because an article has the FA stamp does not mean it's "perfect" forever on. This one got its FA stamp in 2013. I dug out the old version from 2013 where it got its FA stamp, it's this one. That version has hardly any information about environmental issues, and very little on climate change issues for seas/oceans, nor linking to the relevant related articles, apart from marine pollution. I am just saying this to show that articles do need to evolve and we cannot argue "once FA stamp, it's perfect forever". So with regards to those environmental issues, we can either build up the section in the article on sea. Or we could say this kind of information should rather be at ocean and we just link across. This is one of the things I have proposed above and I think could be workable. Overall, I am trying to look for solutions and make sure we best serve our clients (readers) with the content that we provide at sea and at ocean.EMsmile (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome to do the sort of improvements you have suggested above, it is the proposal of mergers of Sea and Ocean, and the wholesale movement of information away from Sea into other articles that spooks me. I have no view on the merger of Ocean and World ocean, but large scale mergers are very difficult to do properly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The way to deal with the lack of coverage of environmental issues is to have a summary section covering that topic and a main article going into the details. This is probably easiest to do if the main article is written first. The summary and the lead to the main article should be similar. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Environmental issues

Should the section on environmental issues be a level 2 subsection as currently the case, or are these "issues" all aspects of the existing subtopic "Humans and the sea"? Our article Environmental issues is currently in need of work. It fails to define exactly what can be meant by the term, and particularly fails to indicate how it is defined by reliable expert sources. It is a bit of a coatrack amongst terms, which does not help us here. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the relevant main article for this topic is probably this one: Human impact on marine life (it's also in need of improvement; and perhaps be renamed to "Human impact on oceans"). I don't think that the "environmental issues" should be moved into the section "humans and the sea" because it doesn't really fit there compared to the other topics in that section: all the other topics are about what humans do with the sea on purpose and deliberately. The marine pollution on the other and is not a deliberate act but an unwanted side effect. Also, something like "ocean acidification" is only indirectly caused by humans, via our greenhouse gas emissions. So I think the environmental issues would theoretically deserve their own heading. However, if we decide to move the "environmental issues" entirely to ocean then only a mini summary would suffice here. EMsmile (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about 7 seas

My Question is:How come when you look on Google it says there is 7 Seas But Here(Which I Would Approve)Says 5?

Your could take a look at Seven Seas for a possible answer.  Velella  Velella Talk   17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Reducing those sections where sub-articles exist

I have noticed that this article repeats a lot of content from sub-articles, rather than just leaving a summary and then pointing the reader to the sub-article. This contributes to the large overall large size of his article which is 74 kB (12296 words) "readable prose size" which is regarded as very long. Therefore, I propose to reduce these sections to just 1-2 paragraphs (and move content to the sub-article if it's not already there): seawater, waves, tsunamis, currents, tides. This will help to bring this article back to how it should be, i.e. a high level overview article. WP guidance says " if > 60 kB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)" EMsmile (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This should be a workable strategy. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll give that a go, slowly step by step. While making those changes (or afterwards), I think it will help us to get a grasp on the "overall content" question which you mentioned above and which has been kicking around for several years now, always ending in the "too hard" basket where the unsatisfactory status quo remains. I am thinking if we make these slow stepwise changes it will help us figuring out what is going on. So I will start over the next few days with reducing those sections where sub-articles exist and move what I would call "excessive detail" into the sub-articles. I think that is not controversial. EMsmile (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I have done the shortening now for the sections on "tides" and "tsunami". See what you think about this. Both text blocks I have moved to the talk pages of tide and tsunami so that the editors there can decide how they want to integrate it into those articles. I am looking at "seawater" now and think that it is also far too detailed and would benefit from shortening. EMsmile (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Great that your condensing the article ! Please do not use the existence of sub- articles as the criterion for condensing, per discussions elsewhere. (Featured) articles should stand on its own, and condensing should happen relative to its importance, not to whether people theoretically could click on another link to get more information. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

So what about the section "life in the sea"

I thought perhaps it helps if we look at specific sections. There is a section in this article called "life in the sea". It starts with "The oceans are home to a diverse collection of life forms that use it as a habitat." (note how it talks about oceans, not "the sea"). It also says: "Main article: Marine life" Now if we look at the article ocean it has a section called "Biology". It starts with "Oceans have a significant effect on the biosphere." It also says "Further information: Marine biology and Marine life". So when I try to improve both articles, I am wondering: do they each need to repeat the same thing? Or should one refer to the other? How would "life in the sea" ever be different for the article on "sea" compared to the article on "ocean"? It's simply the same thing, currently spread over two articles, isn't it? EMsmile (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree and I like your pragmatic section-approach. If we can find out which section belongs best to which article(Sea, Ocean and World Ocean) then we could get/provide also a clearer image on their difference. So they need to work together and link each other appropriatly. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, where are all the page watchers for this article? There are apparently 326 people watching this page. Please contribute to the discussion! My proposal now is to move the section called "life in the sea" to ocean and just leave a short summary here and the link across. This is in an effort to reduce duplication on the two pages. Reactions to this proposal? Equally, I would suggest to move the section "Environmental issues" to ocean and to just leave a short summary here. My justification is that we would move the natural sciences stuff to "ocean" and leave the cultural/history/human content at sea. EMsmile (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm ok with a consistent (and explained) division like that (see above), but yes we need more consensus on it. Most of those 326 people won't be editing any more, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
As one of the page watchers still editing, I am also OK with that approach, but I am an engineer and it would probably be worth having some input from natural sciences and humanities specialists on the division. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I was one of the two editors (the other was @Chiswick Chap:) who created this article from nothing and brought it through FAC. I regard that achievement as the most important thing I have done on Wikipedia, and have been following these various discussions with some dismay. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
The sections each provide a "Main" link to the principal article on that topic, and a short summary which should be one or two paragraphs. It makes no sense to start moving stuff about really; this was discussed extensively at the time and I certainly don't wish to go over it all again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Good to see some new people joining the conversation here. When you say: "At the time" that was by now 8 years ago (according to the milestone listing it was 8 years ago that the article achieved FA status). I think it's justified 8 years later to take another look, especially if other articles come up and the overlap is massive. See the section "Biology" at ocean. Just because something has been discussed 8 years ago doesn't mean new people are not allowed to take a new and fresh look. Nobody owns any of the articles. So I would be curious to hear your opinion on the question that I asked at the start of this section: "How would "life in the sea" ever be different for the article on "sea" compared to the article on "ocean"? It's simply the same thing, currently spread over two articles, isn't it?" Also, from what I can see, most of the sections have far more than 2 paragraphs, even if sub-articles exist. So there might have been some "content creep" over the years. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Major changes should improve the article. It is currently listed as FA, so any major changes must leave it as FA, or they would not be "improvements". If you are willing to take the article through an FA review it is quite a learning experience. As a level 2 vital article it should get some scrutiny. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Life in the sea has a hatnote link to the main article Marine life. This is not a problem per se, but maybe the summary could be condensed a bit more, and it might be appropriate to use a slightly different summary in different contexts in different articles. Other articles may also use summary sections on life in the sea if it is sufficiently relevant, and they may also be the same or tailored to fit. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I think the difference between Sea and Ocean is that Sea aims to be a balanced view of all aspects of things marine, a rounded whole, whereas Ocean is a number of marine-related sections with no basic plan. The Marine life article covers the living organisms well but lacks the habitat and ecological relationships with which Sea deals. The Biology section of Ocean is just a list. There is plenty of room for improvement in Ocean if EMsmile feels like getting down to work! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Cwmhiraeth, yes, I do feel like getting down to work. That's exactly the reason why I have been writing on the talk pages of ocean, sea, world ocean in the last two weeks to try and talk with other editors and to reach consensus about those three articles and that's why I have also made some non controversial edits in those three articles already (none of them have been reverted so far so they must have been OK). I have also read the previous discussions where people have talked about how the articles about ocean and sea overlap. With regards to the comment by Peter Southwood: yes, my aim is always to improve articles when I make edits. But I don't believe in "ring fencing" articles that have FA rating. It's great that they have FA ratings but that's not to say there is no room for improvement. I was recently involved in the FA review for menstrual cycle and the amount of work that went into that article in the last two weeks to ensure it passes its FA review was mind boggling. Just because an article has the FA stamp does not mean it's "perfect" forever on. This one got its FA stamp in 2013. I dug out the old version from 2013 where it got its FA stamp, it's this one. That version has hardly any information about environmental issues, and very little on climate change issues for seas/oceans, nor linking to the relevant related articles, apart from marine pollution. I am just saying this to show that articles do need to evolve and we cannot argue "once FA stamp, it's perfect forever". So with regards to those environmental issues, we can either build up the section in the article on sea. Or we could say this kind of information should rather be at ocean and we just link across. This is one of the things I have proposed above and I think could be workable. Overall, I am trying to look for solutions and make sure we best serve our clients (readers) with the content that we provide at sea and at ocean.EMsmile (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome to do the sort of improvements you have suggested above, it is the proposal of mergers of Sea and Ocean, and the wholesale movement of information away from Sea into other articles that spooks me. I have no view on the merger of Ocean and World ocean, but large scale mergers are very difficult to do properly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
The way to deal with the lack of coverage of environmental issues is to have a summary section covering that topic and a main article going into the details. This is probably easiest to do if the main article is written first. The summary and the lead to the main article should be similar. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Questions about the lead

Hi, @User:Femkemilene I noticed that you reverted my edit in the lead but didn't react to the question I had asked above on the talk page. So I would like to ask again just to understand your reasoning for reverting. The only difference I can see is that I had suggested to put the sentence that is now last in the lead as the second sentence. The reason being as it differentiates sea from ocean and is the only differentiation. Secondly, my version had called it "second rank" whereas your version calls it "second order". I don't mind either wording, it's the same thing, isn't it? So I'd like to know why this sentence couldn't be the second sentence of the lead: "The word sea is also used to denote second-order sections of the sea, such as the Mediterranean Sea, as well as certain large, entirely landlocked, saltwater lakes, such as the Caspian Sea.". My second question is: should we wikilink the word "ocean" in the first sentence, since we have a separate article about it? It feels a bit odd to wikilink a word in bold - which is supposed to be a synonym - but then again if we have an article for it then why not wikilink it? Same question about "world ocean" in the first sentence - wikilink or not? Please also head to the talk page of "world ocean" and leave a comment there to indicate your opinion about whether a rough consensus about merging has been achieved or not (here). EMsmile (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I missed this before..
The old version to which I reverted called it second order later in the first paragraph, which is a better location for something jargonny, but should ideally also be reworded. Second order sounds more general to me than second rank. I think the exact wording of the first paragraph really depends on how we want to divide the material between sea/ocean or whether we want to merge.
Per somewhere in the manual of style we shouldn't wikilink it. When there is a clear distinction made between sea and ocean, we should wikilink it when it first appears in the meaning of the other article. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Used Merriam Webster as a source for definition

I have changed and re-arranged the first paragraph a bit using the definitions found in Merriam Webster which I find quite useful here. I have done an equivalent edit at ocean. So it's clear that "ocean" and "sea" can be synonymous, and that "sea" can also denote smaller bodies of water than the word "ocean" does. EMsmile (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we all knew that (native-speakers over the age of 10 anyway). This is the sort of remark that worries me about the editing going on here. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not think you have improved the article. Please look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section where you will see that the lead is not a place for such definitions, but is for summarising the main body of text. Instead, you could put the information in the section handily entitled "Definition", and summarise it in the lead, which will then not need the citations you have added. And when adding citations to an article, please match the citation style to that of the citations already used in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
The second sentence is suboptimal prose now; I don't know what it means even with a degree in physical oceanography / meteorology. I prefer the old version. Before tweaking those initial sentences, we should get a structured discussion on what should be in either article. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@User:Femkemilene, the "old version" had the same sentence in the first paragraph: it was the last sentence of the first paragraph which read: "The word sea is also used to denote second-order sections of the sea, such as the Mediterranean Sea, as well as certain large, entirely landlocked, saltwater lakes, such as the Caspian Sea.". The only thing I have done is to move that information to be the second sentence and split the long sentence in two. My proposal says "It can also be a "body of salt water of second rank more or less landlocked", such as the Mediterranean Sea. The word "sea" is also used for certain large, entirely landlocked, saltwater lakes, such as the Caspian Sea." The only difference is that the new version uses "second-order", wheras the first version used "second rank" (I don't mind if you want to change that back; either of them is a bit vague). I think it's helpful to have such kind of sentence at the very start because it shows how "sea" can be different to "ocean". And yes, of course User:Cwmhiraeth, the lead should be a summary of the article. But having two sentences about the definition would not be too much (like I said, it already had those two statements even before I made the change; just not right after each other). References in the lead are "allowed" and this can be personal preference whether to include them or not. I usually prefer the "better be safe than sorry" and include references, particularly for key statements. I don't understand your comment about citation style - what did I do wrong there? EMsmile (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@User:Femkemilene: Regarding that "structured discussion", I have tried to initiate this (see above on the talk page) but the responses are only trickling in and it feels the process gets stalled very quickly (since many people prefer keeping the status quo). If you have ideas on how to do this better, please help (you were amazing in getting the very difficult task done of renaming "global warming" to climate change, something which many others tried but failed to do! So I know you have great skills for this). In the meantime, I am taking a two pronged approach: trying to lead the structured discussion to a consensus, and in parallel making careful, slow changes to the article which everyone can follow and agree to or not, and build on or not. I don't believe in "leaving the lead to last" because every day while we keep discussing this, there are 1200 page views. These people deserve to read stuff that is good, and often they don't read past the lead. So it's important that the lead is as good as possible already now and not just in a few weeks... EMsmile (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: the same could by said about a lot of content on Wikipedia (I refer to your statement of "I think we all knew that (native-speakers over the age of 10 anyway)"), so what's the point in saying this? Also, keep in mind that many non native speakers also read on the English Wikipedia, and we have a duty to them as well. What kind of worries exactly do you have? You worry that we are going to make the article worse? Well, the opposite is my intention. I am trying to make it better. And I am trying to make the article ocean better. Both articles should go hand in hand; fit together like a puzzle. So far they don't. EMsmile (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
I know you are trying to, but are you succeeding? You've been at these articles for some time now, before concluding "So it's clear that "ocean" and "sea" can be synonymous, and that "sea" can also denote smaller bodies of water than the word "ocean" does". I've said several times (in the several discussions you've started) the sort of process that is needed to get big changes made to big articles. So far we just have more confusion, with multiple suggestions all over the place(s). I agree with the others that we don't want much on terminology at the start. The definition as "a body of salt water of second rank more or less landlocked" is also a really poor one, and should be removed. How landlocked are the North Sea, South China Sea, Irish Sea, Aegean Sea and so on? It's just nonsense. Also, if the entire lead has a link to ocean I can't see it. One is needed. Meanwhile, the fiirst sentence at ocean is now "An ocean (or sea) is the body of salt water which covers approximately 71% of the surface of the Earth." There's soooo much wrong with this. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
This discussion worries me a great deal. Questions such as "Are you succeeding..." personalises this debate to a great degree. The question should be "are we, as experienced and talented Wikipedia editors, improving things?." For my part I believe that EMsmile is making a truly valiant effort to make rational sense of the three articles under discussion, and commenting that there is "'soooo' much wrong with this" is neither helpful nor constructive. Can we actually agree to make progress. What we had was most unsatisfactory. We need something a great deal better. It can hardly be beyond our whit to make that happen.  Velella  Velella Talk   23:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Velella:, @EMsmile: has taken up a hard task, these terms are so intertwined. PS: I find it interesting that back in the 2000s all three articles seem to be clear. Sea = sub-sub (optional: all); ocean = sub (optional: all); world ocean = all. I seconed now EMsmiles edit to move the para up after the introduction sentance about the sea, since its second order understanding was hidden in its main description, which is now also not interruped by the second order definition.

I have now proposed and added mentions and links to all three article's introduction, to possibly bring in more discussion and hopefully clarification about the differences. Besides its weird to have those three similar articles and not reference each other.Nsae Comp (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Nsae Comp: I like the recordering of sentences you have done for the first paragraph in the lead. However, we are not meant to put a wikilink together with the bold terms of the first sentence. So I think they ought to be removed again. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Avoid_these_common_mistakes The fact that there is a desire to have those terms provided as "synonyms" and also as wikilinked terms to other articles shows the full dilemma we face here... Something can't be a synonym and at the same time have a separate article on it!? We'll get to the bottom of it eventually but the process won't be easy. EMsmile (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Reducing level of detail in the history sections?

Would anyone object if I reduced some of the text and details currently provided in the sections "History of navigation and exploration" and "History of oceanography and deep sea exploration" and moving such content to the relevant sub-articles? To me it seems that the level of detail given here is a bit excessive for this kind of overview article. By moving some of it we can also reduce the degree of Europe-focus a bit, which is important given that "sea" should be a global topic and not just viewed from the lense of European explorations etc. Same applies to the section on naval warfare, by the way. Some of that could also be moved. EMsmile (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would. I think these sections are about right in terms of length, though perhaps the Eurocentricity could be addressed by additions. They may not interest you much, but I suspect they are popular with readers, more so than much of the stuff higher up. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Let me provide one example. Why do we need all this content? I think it's excessive detail that can be moved to naval warfare and a condensed, shorter version left here (if at all): "Submarines became important in naval warfare in World War I, when German submarines, known as U-boats, sank nearly 5,000 Allied merchant ships,[1] including however the RMS Lusitania, so helping to bring the United States into the war.[2] In World War II, almost 3,000 Allied ships were sunk by U-boats attempting to block the flow of supplies to Britain,[3] but the Allies broke the blockade in the Battle of the Atlantic, which lasted the whole length of the war, sinking 783 U-boats.[4] Since 1960, several nations have maintained fleets of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, vessels equipped to launch ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads from under the sea. Some of these are kept permanently on patrol.[5][6]" And I don't think there is a need to add even more information on naval warfare here, given that a sub-article exists. So to reduce the Eurocentricity, some of the details about the two World Wars could be taken out, and moved to the sub-article. EMsmile (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Note also that the article is 70 kB readable prose which is regarded to be on the high side.EMsmile (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Here is another example of excessive detail that could happily be moved to the relevant sub-article "Furthermore, in 1921, the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) was set up, and it constitutes the authority on hydrographic surveying and nautical charting,[7] and is therefore the world authority when it comes to defining seas. The current defining document is the Special publication S-23, Limits of Oceans and Seas, 3rd edition, 1953. The second edition dated back to 1937, and the first to 1928. A fourth edition draft was published in 1986 but so far several naming disputes (such as the one over the Sea of Japan) have prevented its ratification." EMsmile (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Anyone would expect an article on such a huge subject "to be on the high side". The last two sentences you quote could be condensed. I don't agree about the WW stuff. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
For huge topics, staying below, say, 10,000 words helps focus, and is beneficial for readers and editors. My experience is that broad articles typically improve when you try to bring it down, even if you never reach your 'goal'.
I don't think exact numbers are necessary in this article for wars, and agree with both of you that the Limits of Oceans and Seas sentence can be condensed. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I did some smaller edits to condense. Please feel free to revert. I will update the energy section further tomorrow. I think the overall proportions of sections is fine, so if we want to condense it'll be a slow and careful process. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, FemkeMilene. Current word count is 11,634, so definitely on the high side. To Johnbod: I am not sure if this is true "Anyone would expect an article on such a huge subject to be on the high side". In my opinion, it's the overview articles that can actually be shorter, just giving an overview and leaving all the details (especially those that are region-specific) for the relevant sub-articles. Compare e.g. with Earth which has only 49 kB (7823 words) of readable prose size - for a "huge" topic. EMsmile (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Another aspect to consider is the Eurocentric nature of this article. One wonders whether some detail would not be more appropriate for an article of "history of European seafarers" rather than a global article called "sea". So this is just something to keep in mind when/if we do any condensing work. Something like "but the Allies broke the blockade in the Battle of the Atlantic, which lasted the whole length of the war, sinking 783 U-boats." might be very relevant from a Eurocentric viewpoint but could probably condensed when trying to give this article more of a global, overarching, overview character. EMsmile (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Update: regarding the example that I mentioned above, I have now shortened it to this: Furthermore, in 1921, the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) was set up, and it constitutes the world authority on hydrographic surveying and nautical charting.[8] A fourth edition draft was published in 1986 but so far several naming disputes (such as the one over the Sea of Japan) have prevented its ratification.. (I am not sure if the reference given - IHO's website - is suitable as a source to say that IHO is the world authority? Maybe it is, just wondering if a neutral reference wouldn't be better). I have moved the deleted sentences to history of cartography EMsmile (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Helgason, Guðmundur. "Finale". Uboat.net. Retrieved 13 September 2013.
  2. ^ Preston, Diana (2003). Wilful Murder: The Sinking of the Lusitania. Black Swan. pp. 497–503. ISBN 978-0-552-99886-4.
  3. ^ Crocker III, H. W. (2006). Don't Tread on Me. New York: Crown Forum. p. 310. ISBN 978-1-4000-5363-6.
  4. ^ Bennett, William J (2007). America: The Last Best Hope, Volume 2: From a World at War to the Triumph of Freedom 1914–1989. Nelson Current. p. 301. ISBN 978-1-59555-057-6.
  5. ^ "Q&A: Trident replacement". BBC News. 22 September 2010. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
  6. ^ "Submarines of the Cold War". California Center for Military History. Archived from the original on 28 July 2012. Retrieved 15 September 2013.
  7. ^ "International Hydrographic Organization". 15 March 2013. Retrieved 14 September 2013.
  8. ^ "International Hydrographic Organization". 15 March 2013. Retrieved 14 September 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sea/Archive_2&oldid=1188710508"