Talk:North Sea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeNorth Sea was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 1, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 8, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 26, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Leading paragraph[edit]

So, as the talk page notes in several discussions above, the lede for this article is tricky because there is so much information and it is difficult to summarize concisely. I have just significantly rewritten/reorganized the lede because i thought it it did not read very smoothly; it was more like a list of facts than a summary. Furthermore, there aren't any body of water featured articles or any real templates I could find to base this off of. I have tried as far as possible to make these changes in accordance with WP:LEAD. It states that an article of this size should generally have a lede of about 4 paragraphs and focus on aspects in proportion to their importance. I arranged it thus:

  1. What, where, and how big? for a geographical article i think these are the most important items.
  2. why is this notable now? most people are probably more interested in what's going on now than working up through history. this wound up being basically summary of the economy since it's geopolitical importance has waned.
  3. History. I thought the flow of "it's important now because... Historically, however..." was smoother than splitting it up.
  4. Geology, geography, and environment. These items have less to do with the notability of the sea and are more just general facts about it. The fjords are kind of notable since the best examples are on the north sea but the economy and history are, it seems to me, the reason more people will be coming to this article. (this is certainly a judgment call; I am open to arguments the other way. But I couldn't really think of any myself.)

I tried to remove any facts that might want citation. I also tried generally to remove any specific facts in favor of a very general overview. Any given fact in a summary takes you on that slippery slope of 'if we include this we have to include that.' Also broad characterizations make for smoother reading than lists of facts.

Anyway I figured, since the lede has been through several iterations I'd try to get a general outline for people to agree on in here so that we can avoid complete rewritings as much as possible, but I welcome any comments to this framework or edits. --InspectorTiger (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France[edit]

It would appear that France is one of the littoral countries of the North Sea but it is not included in the first sentence.Eregli bob (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only just. Mentioning it may imply that all of France's coast is on the North Sea, whereas it is actually only a very small part. Bazonka (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'If we have to mention France and the North Sea (sorry, but it just isn't a Northsea nation for me) then maybe the geopolitics behind it, and also explain away how places like Deal and Margate are considered lying on the English channel even though they lie somewhat to the north of northernmost (North Sea lying) bit of France. '''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.210.155 (talk) 13:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]

About 45km of France's coast is on the North Sea, and Deal and Margate are definitely not on the English Channel. Who says that they are? Bazonka (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maps less than satisfactory?[edit]

With regard to the map currently sitting in the 'economy' section, it would be useful to know what the black line running through various countries is - I'm presuming it's the drainage divide. If confirmed we should label it though perhaps for the purposes of the section one without that adornment might suffice. The drainga ebasin is dealt with elsewhere.

As regards the 'geology' section, I'm not convinced the existing map is helpful or relevant as the map covers much of Europe, N Africa and the Middle East and the N Sea is in one small corner.

Can anyone improve the article on either count? - my own abilities with images on WP are limited! cheers 11:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geopersona (talk • contribs) 11:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Less known German name[edit]

I don't know, how to handle the knowledge, or better, where the right place to right is, but I don't think, it's unimportant. A more or less uncommon German name is "Blanker Hans" (means: "bare/naked Hans"). It's only known in north Germany, if it's known. Also it's used in the poem "Trutz Blanker Hans" (resist Blanker Hans), an poem about the town "Rungholdt", which was destroyed by a North Sea's storm.79.194.208.144 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a real name, or just a nickname? If the latter, I don't think it should be mentioned. If it's a proper name, then we would need a reliable source before it can be included, and even then I'm not convinced that it's relevant for an English-language encyclopedia. Let's see the source first though. Bazonka (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I would call it a nickname or a real name. To me, it's more of a mythological name which personifies the terror of the raging North Sea ("Hans" = "John"). Sorry, don't have any sources. --217.239.14.124 (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Blanker Hans" isn't a name for the North-Sea itself, but for the storm surges of the North-Sea, so there is no reason to feature that name in this article. 193.159.188.202 (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German Sea[edit]

Historically was it called the German Sea. Like the "Irish Sea". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.32.142 (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is already mentioned in the article. Bazonka (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on North 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) 00:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on North 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) 20:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea didn't protect Britain from invasion until the Romans[edit]

The article now states that "The British Isles had been protected from invasion by the North Sea waters until the Roman conquest of Britain in 43 CE". That's nonsense of course. There have been numerous invasions into Britain before those time, the latest before the Romans were by some Belgic tribes just 1 or 2 centuries earlier. Another major invasion that we now know of, is the one by the Beaker people. JRB-Europe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy[edit]

The size of the sea differs significantly between the opening paragraph and the Geography section. I'm virtually sure the former is wrong, as the island of Britain alone is 80,000 square miles. Samer (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basin Country[edit]

Four countries are in the North see drainage basin by Rhine river: Switzerland and Italy. Almost all Switzerland and Lago di Lei in Italy. I wrote this contribution but it was reversed. I hope you can check this. Liechtenstein and Austria are countries in the Rhine bassin as well. So I suggest to modify. What do you think? talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreAMICO (talk • contribs) 13:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I modified Basin countries because af definition of basin. Please check my changes comment added by AndreAMICO (talk — Preceding undated comment added 10:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit[edit]

Oops, typo. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

France on the North Sea[edit]

TylerBurden, regarding the inclusion of France as a country by which the North Sea is bounded: Your edit summary, when you reverted someone's addition of France, was "That's the English channel." As explained at English Channel, The International Hygrographic Organization considers the North Sea to extend to the lighthouse of Walde just east of Calais. So all of the French coastline east of that—a stretch that includes Dunkirk—is on the North Sea. That's about 28 miles/45 kilometers of French North Sea coast. Largoplazo (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Largoplazo Thanks for informing me, I checked out the source and you're right, so I'll undo my revert. TylerBurden (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lying between[edit]

Hi Tyler, you wrote in your edit summary that "Scandinavia includes Sweden, which does not connect its water borders to the North Sea". This is true, but it is also true for some of the other regions listed, e.g. Great Britain and Wales (Irish Sea), Norway and Finnmark (Barents Sea), Germany and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Baltic Sea), France and Corsica (Mediterranean Sea) etc. Stara Marusya (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still don't think the solution to that is making the lead more vague by using ″Scandinavia″ (which in some English definitions can even include Finland). TylerBurden (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Epeiric[edit]

The second sentence of the article says that the North Sea is an epeiric sea. The word "epeiric" is linked to an article that says that's a synonym for being an inland sea. The North Sea really obviously isn't an inland sea. I know the wiki game - we've all been there, someone's going to find some reference using the word epeiric in relation to the North Sea, and observe that a wikipedia article saying that means inland sea isn't reliable so we shouldn't change this article and meanwhile someone will find some other source that says or could be intepreted as meaning that epeiric is inland so the other article shouldn't change either but if there is anyone out there that is even marginally sane then at bare minimum this aricle shouldn't say it's epeiric while linking the term to an article that says that means it's an inland sea when it really clearly isn't. 46.31.205.228 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"What constitutes an "inland sea" is complex and somewhat necessarily vague. The United States Hydrographic Office defined it as "a body of water nearly or completely surrounded by land, especially if very large or composed of salt water"." It doesn't seem crazy if you go by that definition. Oxford also specifically mentions the North Sea in its definition. So with that in mind, I think you should provide some better arguments than "it really clearly isn't". TylerBurden (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Sea&oldid=1219366479"