Talk:Ocean/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

History

Be nice to see some recent research into the history of oceans: how they came to be, how old they are, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.249.80 (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

• I agree, I just landed on this page expecting to find details on the theory that water was brought to Earth by comet impacts during the early days of the solar system (was looking to refute the biblical assertions of all the oceans having come from beneath the Earth's crust).--Biturica (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Unknown sea creature

Could anyone help me identify the strange creatures in this picture? Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 23:05, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Abyssal and other zones

There should be a paragraph discussing and linking to Abyssal zone and other ecological zones within the oceans, but I'm not up to trying to write it right now. 216.240.37.31 04:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation page

I added a link to Ocean Software Ltd since in many articles it is referred to as Ocean. I will try to cleanup those pages. Meanwhile should a disambiguation page should be created? Felsir 13:01, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Coming here from an AfD discussion, I wonder if any ocean expert(s) here could do something about the section on Origins. There ought to be something in Wikipedia on that topic, but I'm not convinced a separate article is necessary until at ledhgcast a section's been written here. I'm not, however, the one to write it, at least not now. -GghbTBacchus^(talk) 02:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week

Physical oceanography is a current candidate on the Science collaboration. Vote for it if you want to see this article improved. --Fenice 07:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

What is an ocean?

I came to this article to see a definition of ocean, but I failed to find one. Or, even worse, I found one which is followed by sentence "From this point of view, there are three "oceans" today: the World Ocean, and the Black and Caspian Sea..." which is not what the most common sence of the word in question is. I'm not being bold and inserting a definition myself because I don't have one, but I really feel this article could use a decent definition of ocean... --Dijxtra 23:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, I think there's too much about this "World Ocean" business in the intro, considering its relative importance in the context of "oceans" in general. I'd suggest making a note about the implications of the geologic definition later on and leave only "Geologically, an ocean is an area of oceanic crust covered by water" in the intro. -Elmer Clark 22:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it better now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unschool (talk • contribs) 23:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Fish

Can you talk about fish?

--Sam Wang 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

...try here? -Elmer Clark 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Image:Oceans.png

I understand why the image next to the opening paragraph was place here--it's a rather unique view. But I think it should be replaced, or at least removed. First of all, and most importantly, by the admission in the caption, it is simply out of date--the Southern Ocean needs to be represented. Even without that, I can't figure out for the life of me why the South China Sea is demarcated. Seems to make the image even more confusing. Unschool 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a featured picture, and should be kept in until a better version is produced. --Henrygb 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have since created an animated GIF (which transitions through the various reckonings of the major oceans) and replaced the above image. Feedback would be appreciated. Quizimodo 17:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's a little late for feedback on this, but yeah, the animated GIF is fantastic. It's neat because it's something that kinda set apart this project from the run of the mill encyclopedia. It certainly beats the pants off of that old image. The only thing that I would change is that I wish that there was a way (and, for all I know, there is and I'm just ignorant of it) to stop on one image and/or move through them at a viewer-controlled pace. Unschool 03:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Better late than never: I can change such images fairly easily. However, I do not think there is a way to stop this animated GIF or move through it at a variable pace. I set the tempo to what I thought was a reasonable rate, and there are few enough slides so that it is hopefully not confusing. The only other suggestion I have is to create a series of static slides and place then somewhere in the article ... perhaps with the table? (see below) :) Quizimodo 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

% of earths surface?

The Arctic Ocean takes up approximately 17% of the Earth's surface. The Pacific takes up about 32%, The Atlantic takes up close to 27%, and The Indian ocean takes up 24%.

if you add all those up: 17 + 32 + 27 + 24 = 100%. that seems to me to mean that it is referring only to the % of the Earth's water surface (whatever the correct phrase for that is), and not to the entire surface. Otherwise this statement seems to indicate that the entire surface of the planet is covered in Ocean. unless I'm missing something of course, which is entirely possible. Sahuagin 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I believe it is referring to the % of the oceanic (or World Ocean) surface; a relative slither of the entire water surface is not covered by the oceans. Anyhow, as its unsourced I have removed the information in its current form: I am preparing a summary table for the oceans and will place it in the next day or so. Quizimodo 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It's 70%

Cut down the Extraterrestial Oceans section?

I added a bit to the existing section. So far, we have a confirmed case of a planet with 'hot ice', a disputed case of water vapour and a planet that could have oceans if the composition is right. The first two 'transit', so there is evidence what they are made of, whereas the third is not in line-of-sight with the Earth and its sun and its nature is unknown.

Still, there are more worlds being found all the time and the section could grow. Or be separated off, with a shorter paragraph and a link to the main article.--GwydionM 18:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No one commented, so I added Oceans Beyond Earth. Now linked here as well.--GwydionM 15:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see your suggestion until now. Here's what I think:

• The separate article is a very good idea. Glad to see that you've created it.
• I think the the material regarding non-earth oceans that remains here in Ocean should be removed. Maybe at the top we can have something in italics like "This article deals with Oceans on Planet Earth. For information about other oceans on other celestial bodies, see Oceans Beyond Earth.
• I actually would prefer a less fluffy title for your new article, to me it sounds a bit like the title for a novel. My suggestion would be to simply call it, Extraterrestial Oceans.

Whether you take my suggestions or not, good job! Unschool 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the section title. Now that Oceans Beyond Earth exists, should we reduce what's said here? Mention just Mars and Europa, which are the best cases? Say that exoplanets with oceans are expected but there are none yet found?--GwydionM 17:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to move the article to 'Extraterrestrial oceans', which I believe is a far more encyclopedic title; I've also edited the article lead to reflect this. Quizimodo 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Expert

Ocean#Trivia

The first source doesn't appear to be very authoritative, though the argument it propounds is fairly compelling. The second source is an academic article but I don't have the resources to asses its reliability. I reckon the information does have a place within the article, probably Ocean#Physical properties. Leobh 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to physical properties section under new color subsection. Deleted trivia section - don't need a magnet for nonsense. Removed expert tag, do you have a reason for questioning the authority of the Amsci.com source? Vsmith 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, apologies, that was completely unnecessary of me. Added a link to the article on the matter (of water's color). Leobh 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

I am not reverting right now, because I avoid edit wars at almost all costs, but I ask you to re-read what you have reverted this to. The current opening sentence reads: An ocean . . . is a principal part of the hydrosphere: a major body of saline water that, in totality, covers about 70% of the Earth's surface.

Okay, now first of all, I completely agree with your desire to make it clear that the ocean/oceans covers/cover 70% of the earth's surface, regardless of whether they are seen as one ocean or several. We're in agreement on that point. But your version actually fails to make this clear.

You start off using the singular indefinate article, "an", which, when combined with the next phrase "is a principal part of the hydrosphere", is perfectly fine. No problems thus far. Then you go on to say (after a rather undesireable colon—but I'll leave that alone today) "a major body of saline water". I've got some minor problems with this (due to the colon), but there are no overt errors thus far.

But then you say, "in totality". Of what are you speaking here? Sure, sure, neither of us are idiots, and we both know that what you mean is the totality of all of the world's oceans. But that's not what you are saying, because you have only referred to "an ocean". You've never told us that there are multiple oceans, and, even if you had, since within the same sentence you were defining a non-specific single ocean, if strict logic is followed, you are telling us that "an ocean covers 70% of the world's surface," because you've made the amount of the earth's surface covered by "an ocean" part of the definition of "an ocean". By further extension, if there do happen to be as many as two oceans in the world (assumable since you did not refer to "the ocean", then together they must cover 140% of the world's surface. If you're thinking that this sounds absurd, you're right. But I didn't write it; it is at the bare minimum one possible interpretation of the verbiage that you've chosen to employ. I won't argue that this is the only way to interpret the wording (though I believe it to be the most logically sound—thus absurd), but it's certainly better to find a way to word it that doesn't lead to this interpretation.

Now look at the verbiage that you eliminated. An ocean . . . is a major body of saline water and a principal part of the hydrosphere. In totality, the world's oceans cover about 70% of the Earth's surface (or an area of some 361 million square kilometers).

As I see it, you have one principal point of contention with this that may merit revision. There is no mention of the fact that the world's oceans can very correctly be considered to be a single body of water. Personally, I think that the fact that this issue is addressed in the first sentence of the second paragraph is more than adequate. (Indeed, if it is to be covered in this introductory paragraph, it will necessitate a re-writing of the second paragraph's opening sentence, or it will sound stupidly redundant.) But all that is besides the point, because, as I read it, your edit does not address this issue any better than the one you just got rid of. Why? Because, for the grammatical issues mentioned above, you have have not made clear to the reader whether there is one ocean or multiple oceans or (as the case of course is) that both views are viable.

In summation, you use a verb of the third person singular while rendering the definition of an indefinate subject, but include a statement that only makes sense either with a set of plural indefinite subjects or a definate singular subject. You can't have it both ways—it is grammatically nonsensical. The previous edit was grammatically sound. It only failed to make clear that many sources regard the World Ocean as a single entity. And since this is addressed moments later, in a section that, for Pete's sake, is labeled "Overview", is that so bad?

Please give this some serious consideration. I may be away for a while (perhaps for as long as two or three weeks), so I can't promise that I'll respond quickly. I do feel that the current edit simply cannot stand, for grammatical reasons alone. But I don't need to have the previous version reinstated, as long as what we get is both factual (something that I know from your history that you value greatly) and correct from technical standpoint. Cheers. Unschool 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted your edits to the introduction because of one principal point of contention: that the ocean is also considered a single body of water which spans the globe. Consult other volumes, in addition to the sources in this article, and this unity of the ocean is prominently noted -- for instance, the Merriam-Webster's entry for 'ocean' indicates the following:

• 1 a : the whole body of salt water that covers nearly three fourths of the surface of the earth
• b : any of the large bodies of water (as the Atlantic Ocean) into which the great ocean is divided

The original introduction is an attempt to equitably and succinctly deal with this duality (perhaps not ideally), but your edits definitely do not. I do not agree with your assertion that the '140%' interpretation is the most logical. 'In totality' may include the waters of adjoining seas, which are sometimes excluded when considering the area of the ocean(s) proper.

So, feel free to edit the introduction while keeping this duality in mind. Perhaps, for comparison, glance at the entries for 'ocean' in some other volumes. Quizimodo 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this dodges the point about seas particularly well, but how about ...

An ocean (from Ωκεανός, Okeanos (Oceanus) in Greek) is a major body of saline water, and a principal component of the hydrosphere. Approximately 70% of the Earth's surface (an area of some 361 million square kilometers) is covered by ocean, with more than half of this area over 3,000 meters (9,800 ft) deep. There are several geographical categorisations of the ocean area on Earth, with different schemes recognising 1 (World Ocean), 3 (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian oceans), 4 (+ Southern Ocean) or even 5 (+ Arctic Ocean) oceans. Average oceanic salinity is around 35 parts per thousand (ppt) (3.5%), and nearly all seawater has a salinity in the range of 31 to 38 ppt.

This (hopefully) improves the grammar of the intro, and introduces the idea that "ocean" is defined several different ways on Earth. Or am I missing the point? By the way, as an oceanographer, I'm much happier with salinity expressed as PSU. PPT is also correct, but salinity is rarely expressed that way in my experience. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- generally, I like it. As for the third sentence, in all honesty, I think it may be redundant and perhaps it can be refined or we can do without it: while it does summarise the various reckonings, these are elaborated upon in the image caption upfront and (with consideration of seas) in the 'Overview' section. (FWIW, I like how various models are briefly dealt with in the introduction of the 'continent' article.) As for salinity, I think PPT is far more common and easily understood by the general audience (and some of the volumes above indicate ocean salinity that way), but there's no reason why PSU cannot be dealt with as well/elsewhere. Quizimodo 16:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I don't mind losing the third sentence, I just thought it was worth having that in there to make it clear that there are multiple definitions of the "oceans" (I'm a four basin man myself - the Arctic ain't no ocean!; except when it's the world ocean). As for PSU, well, you're probably right - PPT is more easily understood by general readers, and it's not as if readers can't follow links on salinity to find out more about the PSU scale. Cheers, --Plumbago 17:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reconsideration of the intro. I consider this current edit to be perfectly acceptable. I appreciate both your comments and your well-thought out edits. But I would like you to know that I completely agree with the importance of noting that unity of the world's oceans. In fact, if you will look back here, you will see that the language used in the beginning of the second paragraph, making clear the unity of the oceans, is largely unchanged from what I wrote over six months ago. I'm not sure why you doubted my concurrence with this important concept. Anyway, looks super! Unschool 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem: I don't think there's any doubt now of your concurrence; it was just that your recent edits didn't fully communicate that. :)

Speaking of which: perhaps the following sentence (or similar) can be supplanted for Plumbago's 3rd sentence above:

• ... A continuous body of water surrounding the Earth, it is customarily divided into several principal oceans using various oceanographic criteria. ....

oceanographic = geographic instead?

It's brief and gets the point across, but is not as detailed as the originally suggested text. (It may still be redundant with content elsewhere, though.) I also intend on (belatedly) creating a brief table of the oceans, for placement in the 'Overview' section. Thoughts? Quizimodo 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed 'Oceanography' wikiproject

Please be advised that an 'oceanography' wikiproject is being proposed. I encourage any editors of this page to enroll. Thanks! Quizimodo 13:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed oceans project

Anyone interested in joining a project to deal with the oceans is free to indicate their support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oceans. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

oceans

have you ever thought of how the ocean got to where it is now? well some people say that there was just one lake or pond that evaporated them made rain clouds and it rained on and on till it was the ocean.of course this would have taken millions or billions of years in the process, but it still has the point in how the ocean came to be. well imagine that the world looks like how mars looks today,"blank." (well it would have bumps and mountains of course or else there would be no land today.)it could be like that but it is almost imposible for that to be.well now imagine that the earth was all water to begine with.there could be underwater volcanoes to create the land that we live on now.for all we know we could be living on millions of extict volcanoes right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.168.10 (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that there doesn't seem to be anything much on WP about the origin of the oceans, nothing specific at Precambrian or Archean, which are the general names for the epoch in question. The view of most geologists, I think, is that there were indeed hundreds of millions of years of rain - beginning maybe about 4 billion years ago - that filled the slowly cooling basins with masses of water, less salt than in the present seas and slightly acidic. Of course there are no direct geological traces of this. /Strausszek (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal status

I wonder, does this page mention the legal status how the oceans are treated by countries? Should it? I added a link to the Law of the Sea in the see also. – b_jonas 12:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not always correct...

huh? what are talking about? *dream on*dance on* 19:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)

Coverage of surface: three-quarters or two-thirds?

The page says "The oceans cover ¾ of the earth’s surface". If we're going to round to fractions then two-thirds would be (slightly) more accurate! <ducks> 82.9.170.24 (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Better quote the actual figure, around 71%. You can look at this page for a summary of estimates, or this page or that one. le Korrigan →bla 14:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

there is a sorts of oceans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.144.19 (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

if you think about it there is only one ocean it the world becuse all of the "oceans" are connected to each other in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.215.210 (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Biology/Ocean and Life merge

I don't understand why there are two sections here, I think they should be merged. Utaneus (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ponds lakes

Is it ture that pondand lakes is fresh water and is it cold and hot or both.

I am doing a projet on ponds and lakes so i need some imformunter about ponds and lakes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.179.153.173 (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ponds and Lakes

A lake is a large boby of fresh water. Lakes can range in size from small ponds to huge bodies of water such the Great Lakes in the U.S.

Lakes and rivers are closely tied. Some lakes are the source for some rivers. Imporant rivers,most often,originate from lakes. Some rivers end in lakes.

Since both rivers and lakes are fresh water and flow in and out of each ohter. They share similar Characteristics and many species reside in both habitate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.179.153.173 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Refs/The Times

Oceans in The Times - advice please - check how to add this reference.86.12.18.104 (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

References should really only be added if they act as sources for material in the article's main body. If no new material is added, references should generally not be added, although new references may be appropriate if they provide further evidence / examples for material already in the article (or represent an updated source for it).

On the specifics of the reference you mention, it is one of several newspaper sources ([1], [2], [3], [4]) for a census of marine life survey that has recently been published. Beyond you having read it today, what is special about this source (e.g. what new material does it contain?) that suggests it should be added to this article? If there isn't an obvious answer to this question, you need to consider what it adds to what is already here. It may be that this article isn't the most appropriate one — because of its subject, perhaps the one on the Census of Marine Life would be more appropriate? Again though, consider whether it brings useful new material to that article.

If you think that adding the reference is justified, have a read of this section of the Wikipedia:Citing sources guidance. This will ensure that you add it in the correct way so that readers can find it and read it for themselves. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There is lots of New Material - but not entered specifically! I don't know! Perhaps dump it, or is that the easwy way out. The article is such a massive one in its subject matter ....Osborne 20:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oceanography?

I wonder about the appropriateness of making this article separate from oceanography. Michael Hardy 01:36 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's appropriate. Come here if you want to know about oceans themselves, go there if you want to know how oceans are studied. Thundermaker (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What makes it salty?

i looked at this page to see what makes it salty for school and i dont see my answer. if the answer is there please tell me where, and if not please give me my answer and i think you should write about what makes it salty in the article. thanx *dream on*dance on* 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talk • contribs)

Sounds like a good suggestion to me, but there is no reply after one month. Is anyone monitoring this article? David spector (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess many went on holiday. Anyhow, an answer is available compliments of the USGS [5], which has a link to an alternate explanation. [6] Better later than never, I suppose. :) Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The 5 maps of the oceans

someone has tampered with the info under the maps, making reference to ugly men! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.89.54.198 (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone notice the ocean?

Did anyone notice the ocean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent the Dawg (talk • contribs) 19:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Southern Ocean

The disclaimer on this page on the Southern Ocean bullet point ("...generally not considered...") is not consistent with the explanation on the topic's own page, which I think is definitive. Unless there is argument to the contrary, I will replace the disclaimer with a blurb saying that S.O. is a new definition. Sharkford 04:17, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

hi my name is sheila and i don't like what u did to my article about the oceans .

Why is the Southern Ocean listed as larger than the Arctic ocean? The Arctic is clearly larger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.229.18 (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Ocean (artist)

i'd like for someone to contact me -username thesurfer - who is editing this page. you need to include the music artist, Ocean, into the music list. i would be happy to contribute this. the gospel group, Ocean, had disbanded in the early 1970's and yet they are listed.

I contacted the record company that distributes her CDs and asked for information to create my article about her.Her career warrants being included on this page and i am a supporter of her work, and her amazing contributions to saving life in the oceans too.

also, i've noticed that many bands or performers are listed in wiki who are not nearly as accomplished or well-known as is Ocean, and i wonder why whomever edits this page has not included her or so far allowed me to include her and to keep the edits i've made. please explain to me why you are displaying this sort of prejudice? cite - the page for "cosmic", and many other pages. the artists in music holding these otherwise generic names are always listed at wikipedia, regardless whether they are household names yet. Larger music sites had stopped listing the old gospel group of the same name a few years ago and have Ocean, the singer-songwriter-producer i would like to add the information on, as an additional listing for Ocean on the page we are discussing. I can also cite references and listings where needed.

This article is about the ocean, not things called ocean. So the 'See also' section links to relevent ocean (as in sea) related articles. The external links section is similar but, obviously, links to external sites. The website for the artist known as ocean is not really related to the ocean, and will not help anyone gain any further information about the ocean by looking at it. If the artist is big enough for an article to be written you could request an article and see if someone is willing to write one. Also, the Ocean (disambiguation) page is for linking to articles on wikipedia, not to external sites, otherwise these pages would be full of links to other sites.

The ocean is a world

The ocean is a world; amazing, unexplained, simple, extreme, strange, normal, wonderful. Can one define the word ocean?

The ocean is often poluted, such as the world we live in. The ocean contains different creatures, and different ways of surviving; fighting, harmony, chaos, peace. It is not that different from what we would call "our world".

Watching the waves crash, and the moonlight reflect off the water, its the unexplained, desirable, world of water.

Oceanic Currents?

this article should explain how and why oceanic currents are formed. Is it the rotation of the earth?205.155.15.1

No ocean pic?

Uhh, this may be a stupid question, but why is there no pic of an ocean in the article? All the charts and graphs are very informative, but they dont give you a sense of what the ocean IS.

Yeah, well, I guess that's my fault. I told another editor that I'd take such a picture myself (you know, so there'd be no copyright issues), but when I tried, even with my best panoramic lens, I just couldn't fit the whole thing in. My bad.

need to update the volume reference?

does the volume paragraph need to be updated in light of http://www.global-adventures.us/2010/05/19/average-ocean-depth/ ? -- 109.186.109.219 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.114.128.183, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I had to do a Biomes Book project for school, and one of the drawings we had to make was of the zones of the ocean. I searched the web for a good photo of the required zones but couldn't find one. I would like to help other people at my school who will be doing this project for years to come and for everybody else. I would like to have this image added into the Ocean zones and depths section. I know this section already has an image of the zones, but this image shows the layers in terms of depth, mine shows zones as distance from shore. Thank you!

Add Image to Ocean Zones and Depths section - Zones of the Ocean Image

Source: One of the zones of the ocean : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neritic_zone

98.114.128.183 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but images must be licensed appropriately to allow for their use on Wikipedia. Can you find the copyright for this image? ^Avicenna_sis @ 04:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I made the image so do I have to put something on it or.....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.128.183 (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Wikipedia image copyright page but am a little conpuzled. © 2010 Nathaniel Albrecht (Is this what I have to do?)

OK looking at other images here on Wikipedia I can tell that you need a...

Description: Diagram of the zones of the ocean lengthwise. The levels on this diagram include the Intertidal, Neritic, Oceananic, and Benthic zones.

Date: May 6, 2010

Source: Self-Made

Author: Nathaniel W. Albrecht

Permission: I, the copyright holder of this work, nearby release this into Public Domain. This applies worldwide.

To be safe (Don't know if legal or not) I, the creator of this work, grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Edit request from 98.114.128.183, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I had to do a Biomes Book project for school, and one of the drawings we had to make was of the zones of the ocean. I searched the web for a good photo of the required zones but couldn't find one. I would like to help other people at my school who will be doing this project for years to come and for everybody else. I would like to have this image added into the Ocean zones and depths section. I know this section already has an image of the zones, but this image shows the layers in terms of depth, mine shows zones as distance from shore. Thank you!

I made the image so do I have to put something on it or.....?

I'm looking at the Wikipedia image copyright page but am a little conpuzled. © 2010 Nathaniel Albrecht (Is this what I have to do?) OK looking at other images here on Wikipedia I can tell that you need a... Description: Diagram of the zones of the ocean lengthwise. The levels on this diagram include the Intertidal, Neritic, Oceananic, and Benthic zones. Date: May 6, 2010 Source: Self-Made Author: Nathaniel W. Albrecht Permission: I, the copyright holder of this work, nearby release this into Public Domain. This applies worldwide. To be safe (Don't know if legal or not) I, the creator of this work, grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

98.114.128.183 (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note: If you are looking to post an image you made yourself, see Files for Upload (as you can not upload any pictures without an autoconfirmed account). If you are taking it from Wikipedia, you must make sure that it is not under fair use, and then you must cite it. Hope that helps. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 23:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Photoguy2801, 15 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I had to do a biomes book for school and needed to include a photo of the zones of the ocean. I could an image to use so I made one and would like to upload it here for them to use, and others. I made this image. Can you please put the image in the Zones/Depths section. Thanks! (This image is different from the other one because it shows the zones going out.

To cite, these images from my text-book verify that the zones are right. :)

The file to put in the article: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ocean_Zones.jpg#file

The reference images: http://picasaweb.google.com/nal.html/201005May#

Photoguy2801 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

As nice as this image is, note that we already have a more detailed version in the article. Since this version already conveys the same (and more) information, albeit potentially boringly, it's preferable to the image suggested. Sorry. --PLUMBAGO 14:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: per the previous editor. SpigotMap 15:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Image discussion

Hello all. I am wondering if we can get some feedback on these images? the one on the right is now in the article. It does display a lot of info, and in the opinion of some editors, is kind of "bland." The image on the left shows similar information, though it is lacking a little compared to the other version, and is more vibrant. Photoguy2801 has expressed a desire to add the image to the article, however I am not sure it contributes anything. (Being "pretty" is not really what we aim for in an encyclopedia.) It does give a better visual about what life lives in these areas, however.

that being said, does anyone think we should add the image to the article? If not, what changes might the image on the left need before it might be added? Any other feedback? ^Avicenna_sis tb? @ 16:58, 3 Tamuz 5770 / 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has responded yet so... I thought my image was good, but I do understand why you would not want to give that info up, but like the color of this image. I decided to merge some of the info from the other image into this one so.... would you accept it now? If so I will update the image on Wikimedia. http://picasaweb.google.com/nal.html/Downloads#5483058709539193138 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoguy2801 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The new image is nice enough, but it just has less information. And adding the extra information present on the existing image would make it too busy. Diagrams are meant to be clear first and foremost, especially in an encyclopaedia. I say we shouldn't change. --PLUMBAGO 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Plumbago. The new image might look pretty and have a nice colour, but it is confusing and has very little information. Some editor, who hasn't discussed the matter here, has removed the existing image and replaced it with the pretty one. I have reverted the edit, which can be reinstated if consensus for the change is established here. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should keep the other graphic so if they need detailed info about the ocean depths/zones they have it but. But also think we should add this other image in as a 2nd image for this section. It adds something very important that the other graphic does not have, what type of animals/plants live in that area. Why do we need to replace the current graphic, both are nice, just add another (the colorful one). --98.114.128.183 (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Yes, the new diagram has some nice-looking marine animals in it, but I seriously doubt they're positioned in the correct depth ranges. The diagram is further compromised by smiling crabs, coral reefs that seem to extend down to 5000 m and giant tidal waves that, judging from the vertical scale, tower more than 100 m above sea level. The diagram is absolutely fine for a school project, but would be completely misplaced here. Sorry. --PLUMBAGO 13:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I updated the image, in the article adding a new one. Win-Win. Doesn't take away anything, people can still get the detailed image (that one is even bigger) but can also look at this one. Win-Win. The more info the better. If anyone thinks the edit is super, super, bad leave me a message on my talk page. Doesn't takes anything away at all, adds info like the plants/animals. (@Plumbago - Yeah I sorta-agree. The image was never meant to be anything about the vertical zones, it was about the horizontal zones. I reverted the image back to its original version.) --Photoguy2801 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not win-win. It's clutter. The new image adds nothing since the old one includes both horizontal and vertical zonation. Furthermore, and as I noted above, the new image also confuses things by implying distributions for biological groups which are simply incorrect. As such, since it both contains less information and conveys incorrect information it is a nuisance image. I'm afraid I'm deleting it again as superfluous and unhelpful. While Wikipedia does not seek to mindlessly mirror conventional encyclopaedias, and there is a place for doing things differently, that doesn't mean that common sense can be ditched. Sorry. --PLUMBAGO 19:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Given up. If that's how you want it, have it that way. --98.114.128.183 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not about how I want it, this is about using the best information to convey a subject. The image you are trying to add is repetitive (in part), actually contains less information and also conveys misleading information. Does that sound appropriate for an encyclopaedia to you? This is not MySpace or Facebook. As it happens, I actually quite liked the new image, but it's just not appropriate given what we already have, and given its deficiencies. Sorry. --PLUMBAGO 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong interlanguage link

How it get rid of this stupid interlanguage link: new:चमुत्तिरम् (सन् २००२या संकिपा)? I have to remove it from Wikipedia every language to make it stop re-appearing? Hellerick (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ocean median depth

In the intro it is stated that more than half of the oceans have a depth of at least 3000 km while later in the physical properties it is stated that a little less than of marine waters is 3000 km or more in depth. Just wondering... Samoojas (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Liquid water on other planets

"Earth is the only known planet with liquid water on its surface and is certainly the only one in our own solar system. [...] The planets Uranus and Neptune may also possess large oceans of liquid water under their thick atmospheres, though their internal structure is not well understood."

Wouldn't large oceans of liquid water "under their thick atmospheres" be on the planets' surfaces, thereby contradicting the statement that Earth is certainly the only planet in our Solar System with liquid water on its surface? Also, since Uranus and Neptune are s..s..so c..c..cold, could we possibly have a few words here explaining how on Earth (or even on Uranus/Neptune) it is possible for liquid water to be present in those places? 86.177.104.235 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Background

May I make the background blue? It seems appropriate, and the World Book encyclopedia does the same thing. Pinguinus (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Different users use different skins for Wikipedia. The background color depends on the user's skin and is not controlled by the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean skins. I meant this.

Please don't make anything that style. It's horrible, and black type on dark blue is almost imossible to read. 86.160.220.168 (talk)

Pollution

Article needs a section on pollution. Such as http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/radiation_main.html--Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2011

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration funded by the United States Department of Commerce, the average depth of the ocean is 4,267 Meters and the maximum depth is 11,030 Meters. Please see source at:

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html

Mikeehale (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure which part you thinks changing. Sorry.

"This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"."

Please be specific, and re-request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It was something in the lead section. I've Done the edit request. →Στc. 06:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Jupiter and Saturn

I have read the whole second paragraph in the description, and the second sentence about the surfaces of Jupiter and Saturn fits nowhere in the topic, and I shall remove this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObiwanLostToBarney (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree, ocean is defined as a large planetary body of liquid above the mantle. It does not assume "surface", only that they are differentiated bodies. Both Jupiter and Saturn are technically differentiated and strongly believed by scientists to possess a stratum of liquid - that very much fits the description of an ocean. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

5 oceans?

There have always been only 3 oceans - the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Indian Oceans. Now some people are trying to sell us this crap with the Arctic and the Southern Oceans. What's up with that? That is just a load of crap. So, what's next? the Norwegian Sea is gonna be turned into the Great European Ocean?.... Norum 05:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just how different people view it. We have to respect that. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Titan

The article says only about subsurface ocean on Titan (moon), presumingly saying about Europa (moon). Titan is known for its extensive system of rivers and lakes (or oceans depending on point of views), but on the surface (and presumingly under as well, just like ground water on Earth). Elk Salmon (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusion is likely due to the two completely different bodies of liquid on Titan. One surface and another subsurface. Recent discoveries suggest that the mantle and crust might in fact be separated by a layer of water similarly to Europa but In addition to the surface lakes of methane. http://www.space.com/11550-saturn-moon-titan-underground-ocean.html The subsurface ocean would have a geological function like the mantle on Earth.--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Improper references in section "Dwarf Plants and..."

The references listed in the section Dwarf Planets and trans-Neptunian objects produce errors in the references list because they are not properly created. Are the names/years significant or just made up? — Jonadin^(talk) @ 02:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This has since been fixed. — Jonadin^(talk) @ 18:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Short scale or Long scale

The word "billion" should not be used... How can the reader know if this is using short scale (1000 000 000) or long scale (1000 000 000 000)?Undead Herle King (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

How Large ?

Just how large by volume does a body of water have to be to qualify as an ocean ? Does it need to be a global or worldwide body ?? This is not defined. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Definition is outdated.

I understand that we're not lexicologists or whatever, but the hundreds of years old defintion of "ocean" presented here - ie a large body of seawater - basically renders any contemporary astronomical use of the term unfairly specious. Its far too narrow and raises so many more questions than it answers. We have the quandary where the word "sea" or "lake" is instead used in reference to extraterrestrial bodies of liquid, but the same problems exist - they aren't seawater either. How can we measure the saltiness of for example Europa's ocean without drilling hundreds of kilometres through the crust. Assuming that size is not defined then just how salty does it have to be to qualify as an ocean ? The Caspian Sea is a large body of saline water, yet it is somehow too small to be an ocean. So are we to assume that an ocean is any body of salt water larger than the Caspian Sea ? Earth's earlier oceans likely contained less salts than they do now therefore how can we know how old the "ocean" in fact is ? If aquifers like the Great Artesian Basin turned salty, would it indeed be re-classified as a sea or ocean ? --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A lake is defined as "any relatively large body of slowly moving or standing water that occupies an inland basin of appreciable size" according to Britannica and a sea is defined as "a body of salt water of second rank more or less landlocked" by Merriam-Webster. It defines an ocean as "any of the large bodies of water (as the Atlantic Ocean) into which the great ocean is divided". So an "ocean" is a division of the World Ocean according to Merriam Webster. How is this?

An ocean (from Greek Ὠκεανὸς, "okeanos" Oceanus) is a body of saline water that is a geographical subdivision of the World Ocean.

I wanted to work the "saline water" part into there, but I think "geographical subdivision" is awkward. That's the idea though, right? That way we aren't defining an "ocean" by its size (or just simply "large") but that the word "ocean" is used to refer to a specific area of the global ocean. — Jonadin^(talk) @ 00:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I recently updated the article's lead paragraph:

An ocean (from Greek Ὠκεανὸς, "okeanos" Oceanus) is a body of saline water that composes a large part of a planet's hydrosphere. In the context of Earth, it also refers to major divisions of the planet's World Ocean, such as the Atlantic Ocean. The word "sea" is often used interchangeably with "ocean", but a sea is a body of saline water in a more inland location rather than a location in which it encompasses the land around it.

I believe that the usage of the hydrosphere in the definition satisfies the "contemporary astronomical use of the term" requirement. Additionally, I used the widely found definition of an ocean being a division of the world ocean and also clarified "sea". – Jonadin^(talk) @ 19:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Circular definition

The opening paragraph defines an ocean as a body of "saline water". But it is directed to the seawater article, which is defined as "water from a sea or ocean". So I have relinked it to saline water article. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Info

Some info from seagrass article: The ocean currently absorbs 25% of global carbon emissions.

Perhaps include to article 81.242.237.143 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Please correct the following four sentences in the second paragraph of the first section

"Earth's global ocean is the largest confirmed surface ocean on all observable planets. Approximately 72% of the planet's surface (~3.6x108 km2) is covered by saline water that is customarily divided into several principal oceans and smaller seas, although some sources prove that the ocean only covers approximately 71% of the Earth's surface.[6] In terms of the hydrosphere of the Earth, the ocean contains 97% of the Earth's water. Oceanographers have stated that out of 97%, only 5% of the ocean as a whole on Earth has been explored."

For example, if there is disagreement on whether 72% or 71% of the surface is covered, we should give the approximate coverage that is more widely accepted and then state the alternate view as an alternate view (assuming, of course, that there is sufficient controversy on this fact to even justify a comment that alters an approximation by 1%). Also, if the other source really "proves" that it is 71%, then there would be no need to state the 72% at all. For these reasons, the sentence could be substantially improved with a little rework.

There are similar improvements that we should consider for the other three sentences as well.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismarkat (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Definition

Oceans exist elsewhere other than earth and contains liquid methane. So the definition should not claim oceans contain saline water, it should claim oceans contain liquid compound (and saline water, in the context of earth). --PlanetEditor (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

No extraterrestrial oceans have yet been discovered. No-one calls Titan's methan lakes (!) "oceans"; they are extremely tiny compared to the Earth's oceans. Earth has many non-ocean bodies that are much larger than them (Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, ...) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Volume of the World's oceans

This article gives the volume of the world's oceans as "1.3 billion cubic kilometres". The article on the Pacific gives its total volume as "2.8 billion cubic kilometres". What gives? Neither reference is terrible but the one for this article is a secondary source compiled by "students". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.37.201 (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed Pacific Ocean. The 2.8 billion was nowhere in the source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Southern Ocean

I am quite puzzled by the definition of the Southern Ocean. If I understand the article about it correctly, its definition and boundaries are not universally agreed upon. It appears on some maps, but definitely not on all maps. Why, then, do quite a lot of Wikipedia articles refer to it as a fact? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe because of this? "Despite this, the 4th edition definition has de facto usage by many organisations, scientists and nations - even by the IHO." Do you have any suggestions about how to change the wording of this article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, no, because I'm not a professional geographer. I'm just very uncomfortable about this "de facto" thing. The source at that article for the de facto part is an example, and though it's valid as an example, it's not a real proof that "many" organizations use it. I know that some maps include it and some don't. I don't have numbers. It leaves me confused, because I'd love Wikipedia to be consistent and stable, and I don't really know what to do.

I came here because my niece, who is studying geography in school, asked me for homework help and I was surprised to find "Southern Ocean" mentioned there. Even here textbooks are not consistent with this - some of them mention the Southern Ocean and some don't. Wouldn't it be nice if Wikipedia was more consistent?

So I don't really know what to do, but the problem is quite real. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ocean

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ocean's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NASA-20140403":

• From Cassini–Huygens: Platt, Jane; Bell, Brian (April 3, 2014). "NASA Space Assets Detect Ocean inside Saturn Moon". NASA. Retrieved April 3, 2014.
• From Extraterrestrial liquid water: Platt, Jane; Bell, Brian (3 April 2014). "NASA Space Assets Detect Ocean inside Saturn Moon". NASA. Retrieved 3 April 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"Ocean" means "outer".

I don't believe the ancients ever used the phrase "World Ocean". "Ocean" means "Outer", so "World Ocean" means "World Outer" and doesn't make sense. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ocean_Sea#The_Ocean_Sea_-_a_page_of_its_own. --MarkFilipak (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing in the lede is meant to relate the current term "World Ocean" to the usage of Oceanus in antiquity. Esoxid^{talk•contribs} 20:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@MarkFilipak: How is the word "Ocean" related to the word "outer"? Jarble (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Mixing time and residence time

The mixing time of the ocean's water is not the residence time of a dissolved constituent, and so the article's implication that the two terms are synonymous is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.0.31 (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

What's up with calling the pacific ocean peaceful? 24.218.161.224 (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Average depth

According to NOAA it is 4265m - http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/oceandepth.html. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

Sea/ocean definition

Intrigued by this definition of a sea as "a body of saline water (generally a division of the world ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land". Strictly speaking, all the oceans are partly enclosed by land, so they are all seas! Gymnophoria (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Image caption

There is a picture of the sea -- well, the Atlantic Ocean apparently, captioned: "Surface of the Atlantic Ocean meeting Earth's planetary boundary layer and troposphere, a range view which varies depending on the assumed surface elevation." Something seems to have gone wrong: this makes no sense to me. Since the article is about oceans, mention of different layers of the atmosphere seems unnecessary. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

ocean

the ocean is an ecosystem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.103.42 (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

oceans in the world

A Ocean is a body of saline water that composes much of the Earth's hydrosphere.On Earth,an Ocean is one of the major convectional divisons of the world ocean.There are FIVE[5] oceans on our planet ,namely The Pacific Ocean ,The Atlantic Ocean ,The Indian Ocean ,The Artic Ocean. However, many countries including the U.S.A ,Africa ,North America ,South America ,etc.Due to the vast expanse of water that exists on the Earth ,our planet is called a Water Planet.Scintists believe that life originated in the Hydrosphere. The Ocean is made up of seas ,Bays ,Gulfs ,Straits ,Lakes ,etc.Rivers and the areas covered under ice also form a part of the Hydrosphere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.0.183.7 (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Too Much Science

This article is based too much on science and not on other subjects related to the ocean. For example, what does the literature of poetry say about the ocean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.71.77.235 (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ocean. 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:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7fH7YXcl8koJ:ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca with https://web.archive.org/web/20150311032757/http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html on http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070915012040/https://www.oceansatlas.com/unatlas/about/howoceanswereformed2/originsofoceans/originofocean2jte.html to http://www.oceansatlas.com/unatlas/about/howoceanswereformed2/originsofoceans/originofocean2jte.html

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) 12:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2018

Over 75 percent of the water is from the ocean Folsomprince (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. qwerty6811 :-) Chat Ping me 18:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Consistent maps for big bodies of water

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

Relation with Sea article

Just to clarify, what exactly is the difference supposed to be between the Ocean and Sea articles, because the Sea article starts with, “The sea, the world ocean or simply the ocean”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2019

what lives in oceans?

for many years, fishes, sharks, whales...have lived in oceans. However, people destroy them. S201501105 (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2019

Can you please change the area or Arctic Ocean to 106,460,000 sq KMs under Oceanic divisions section Cspatnaik.wiki (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 15:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Books

Are we able to add a Wikipedia book to this and say the other oceans? --Julianstout (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ocean vs Sea, American English

@Johnbod: I realize that your insistence that "ocean is often used interchangeably with sea in American English but not in British English" only makes sense if you do not understand what the word "interchangeably" means. It does not mean "instead of". It does not mean that American English speakers say "ocean" while British speakers say "sea". "Interchangeably" means that both words can be employed to refer to the same object.

The Oxford Learner's Dictionary mentions ocean vs sea here: [7], and this is also located at their "sea" article. I quote: "In British English, the usual word for the mass of salt water that covers most of the earth’s surface is the sea. In North American English, the usual word is the ocean"

If the usual word for "mass of salt water that covers most of the earth's surface" in British English is "sea", then the word "usual" implies that "ocean" can also be employed in British English to refer to the same object. If both words can be used to refer to the same object, then the words can be used interchangeably in British English. If they can be used interchangeably in British English and in American English, then it does not make sense to specify that the word can be used interchangeably in American English only.

We should not give readers the false impression that only American English speakers use the word "sea" when referring to the ocean. Therefore, your insisted phrasing is misleading and should be removed.

In fact, consider the following: the Ocean article is distinct from the Sea article; on Wikipedia, the Ocean article is meant to specifically refer to the world's five oceans (Atlantic, Pacific, etc.). If, as you insist, the Ocean article should specify that only American English speakers use the phrase interchangeably, but not British English speakers, then the impression is given that American English speakers would be apt to say, e.g. "Pacific Sea" or "Atlantic Sea". As an American English speaker myself, I can attest that I have never heard anyone say those phrases. The phrase "Pacific Sea" is certainly not used "often".

The sentence should be deleted entirely. It is immediately followed by the sentence "Strictly speaking, a sea is a body of water (generally a division of the world ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land,[6] though "the sea" refers also to the oceans"; the final clause should be enough for the lede. BirdValiant (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read the ref I provided (which I found very easily - no doubt there are others). The words are interchangeable in AmEn - one may use either. This is not so in British English. The source opens (at some length) the tricky question of when "ocean" is used in Br En, but is very clear that it is not in all contexts. Btw, your edit summary "If British speakers swim in "the sea" even if they're in the ocean, then they too are using the terms interchangeably" made me laugh, as a rather magnificent non sequitur. Your penultimate para has a bit of a point, although "The word "ocean" is often used interchangeably with "sea" in American English" does not really say what you suggest (that would be "can always be used"), & I will think how to address that. Since you seem unfamiliar with Br En, I'll point out that we never say "Atlantic/Pacific Sea" either. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: You say "the words are interchangeable in AmEn", but the fact that no AmEn speaker says, e.g. "Pacific Sea" means that they are not completely interchangeable for the purposes of this article, which is to refer to the 5 oceans individually. This usage is certainly not used "often". It is irresponsible to suggest that AmEn uses the terms interchangeably in in this context. At any rate, specifying subtle differences between AmEn and BrEn in this lede is an unnecessary distraction. Accordingly, I have been bold and removed the offending sentences entirely and replaced it with one which is in concordance with the "not to be confused with" hatnote. BirdValiant (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

And I have reverted you - please don't edit war on this! All the text says is "The word "ocean" is often used interchangeably with "sea" in American English", which you now seem to be accepting is actually true, and an important point imo (for example it clearly came as news to you, I expect unlike anything else in the paragraph). The "not to be confused with" hatnote is a pious wish, but the division between the two articles is indeed confusing, & I seem to remember the subject of much discussion in the past. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: The words "ocean" and "sea" are not interchangeable in AmEn for the purposes of this article because AmEn speakers do not say such things as "Atlantic Sea". Can you not see how your insisted sentence can mislead readers into the following false conclusions?

1.) AmEn speakers say phrases like "Atlantic Sea", or

2.) BrEn do not say "the sea" when referring to the global, interconnected body of water covering the majority of the Earth's surface; only AmEn speakers do.

I don't care if you think that these constitute "magnificent non sequiturs" worthy of laughs. This is an encyclopedia. The text should be as clear as possible, and should take into account any possible ways by which our writing could be interpreted in ways which we did not intend. The sentence should be deleted, or at least written in a way which does not give false impressions, such as by removing the specific reference to American English, or by mentioning both American English and British English. However, the latter attempt would almost certainly provide a distraction for the reader, so deletion is preferable.BirdValiant (talk) 03:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: There you go, that's a lot better. Thanks for not merely reverting again. I still say that it's bit of an unnecessary distraction, but at least it's not misleading, like it was previously. BirdValiant (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's leave it at that. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Use of ocean resourses" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Use of ocean resourses. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "only 5% of the ocean has been explored"

The claim that only 5% of the ocean has been explored is oft-repeated but rarely backed up by actual evidence. There is an extensive discussion in this article as to why this claim is (1) completely ambiguous and (2) incorrect, and NOAA (which the claim I have now removed referenced) now only states that "more than eighty percent [of the ocean]... remains unmapped". I have therefore replaced the previous claim that "less than 5% of the World Ocean has been explored" to "less than 20% of the World Ocean has been mapped". I am still unhappy about this though, because it gives the impression that we do not know anything about the other 80% of the ocean. This is not true, as gravimetry-derived data products like SRTM+ provide global coverage at a course (kilometre-scale) resolution.

Побережья морей и океанов усеяны жидами пархатыми. Достаточно треугольных масонских крыш. Везде крипты. Вырожденцы народы-уроды мира. Жулики и воры, грязные подонки. Свободного места, природы не осталось. Плохо твари кончат. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:812F:7262:9452:AABE:ED39:10C5 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

marine environment

what is marine environment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.118.114.182 (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Please add a citation to the line "A magma ocean is thought to be present on Io." in section 4.2. The appropriate citation is either the NASA press release on the subject (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=2994) or the publication itself (https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201425).

Thank you. Cdkharris (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Cdkharris: Though apparently this indicates you should now be able to make edits to semi-protected articles on your own. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

British/American terminology

From the intro: "As a general term, "the ocean" is mostly interchangeable with "the sea" in American English, but not in British English."

This doesn't make a lot of sense, and isn't really in tune with what the footnote says: "Unlike Americans, speakers of British English do not go swimming in "the ocean" but always "the sea"."

What is accurate: In speaking of ocean waters, particularly from the perspective of someone on the shore, British English tends to speak of "the sea", whereas American English tends to refer to "the ocean"—e.g. swimming in the sea (British) or the ocean (American).

Lynneguist1 (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC) lynneguist1

That is partly true, and part of it. But Americans have the option of using either, while Brits just don't - it wouldn't be idiomatic at all in British English, amounting to a mistake for a learner of BE. The full gamut of uses in both varieties of English is very complicated, but something needs to be said. You're welcome to suggest a better way of putting it. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lynneguist1 and Johnbod: the slightly differing uses of 'ocean' and 'sea' in idiomatic British and American English is interesting and is adequately sourced, but it is insufficiently important to mention in the lead section. I suggest incorporating it in the 'Etymology' section which we could then rename to 'Linguistics'. Or we could omit it entirely. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree. The existence of this and "sea" understandably confuses some people. There is more on talk on this than anything else, which suggests it shouldn't be sent to the basement like this. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Average temperature of the Ocean

The average temperature of the Ocean is 3.5 °C, not 3.9. The citation is: Bereiter, B., Shackleton, S., Baggenstos, D., Kawamura, K., & Severinghaus, J. (2018). Mean global ocean temperatures during the last glacial transition. Nature, 553(7686), 39-44. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25152 See figure 1 caption. Also about this article: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/science/oceans-average-temperature-is-3-5-degree-celsius/articleshow/62363696.cms 81.61.9.17 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Moved content to article astrooceanography

I've just moved some content to astrooceanography as we had already provided a link to there saying "Main article" but then went into too much detail here. So I've only left the bare minimum information and am sending the reader to the related article for more information. I was a bit unsure if it should go there or to Extraterrestrial liquid water and have asked on the other talk page. (I had mentioned this in my talk message a few days ago, and didn't see any objections; hope people agree). EMsmile (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

"The oceanS" VS "the ocean"

The article uses both "the oceans" and "the ocean". I want to propose to change all cases of "the ocean" more in line with how the article is established at the moment by the introduction. This would involve changing most "the ocean" into "the oceans" or clarify that the system of the oceans is meant, but in such cases they might be moved to world ocean (or maybe sea). Nsae Comp (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd be hestitant about that. There are many contexts where the terms are not interchangeable in English - each will be right in some sentences & wrong in others. In others either could be used. Are you sure you can distinguish between these? Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Of course it should be decided for every case, but I was proposing it as an approach for checking them. Nsae Comp (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving excessive detail to relevant sub-articles and using excerpts

I am going to make some improvements where I move excessive detail into the relevant sub-articles, and then use the excerpt function from that sub-article. I'll start with the section on oceanic zone now. Perhaps if we apply this concept more rigorously (only leave summaries when sub-articles exist) we'll gain greater clarity what this article really does contain that's different from other articles. EMsmile (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I started doing this work for "oceanic zones" but looking at the sub-article of oceanic zone (singular) it is actually used differently to how we use "oceanic zones" (plural) in this article. Hmmmm.... EMsmile (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Used Merriam Webster as a source for definition

I have changed the first two sentences using the definitions found in Merriam Webster which I find quite useful here. I have done an equivalent edit at sea. So it's clear that "ocean" and "sea" can be synonymous, and that "sea" can also denote smaller bodies of water than the word "oceans" does. EMsmile (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

So by reorienting this article away from "ocean as A large body of water" to "ocean as THE large body of water" you are not only preparing merger of world ocean, but also sea, imho.

I am glad that you mentioned/added:

"It is also "any of the large bodies of water into which the great ocean is divided"."

...and kept therefore some of the previous introduction/lead

I still would have prefered that Sea and Ocean are specialized articles of world ocean as geographic categories. But if there is not enough consense and literature to back this understanding then so be it. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Improvements to headings and overlap with two other articles

I came to this article because I am working on a range of articles related to Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life below Water). See project description here. I don't understand how this article can have a section heading called "Travel" and one called "Earth's global ocean". Also I am missing sections on important threats to oceans, such as ocean acidification. I notice those other two related and overlapping articles called sea and World ocean. I saw some of the previous discussions about changing the structure or perhaps merging and would support these processes (see on talk page of World Ocean here). It can't stay how it is now, as it's quite messy. I don't see why we would need three articles on the same topic; or if we do need all three then they need to be more clearly separated from each other. The one on World Ocean starts with "The World Ocean or Global Ocean (colloquially the sea or the ocean) is the interconnected system" giving those other two terms as if they're synonyms but then linking to the other articles. That's very confusing. If they are synonyms then they don't need separate articles. And I feel that with regards to climate change topics at least, the word "ocean" is more dominant than "sea", or example ocean acidification, Effects of climate change on oceans, Oceanic carbon cycle. On the other hand we have sea level rise and Sea surface temperature. Curious. @User:ASRASR @User:Johnbod @User:oknazevad @User:Nsae Comp EMsmile (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Sea and ocean have complex overlapping meanings in English, made still more complex by WP:ENGVAR differences. The current broad division between Sea for science topics like ocean acidification and Oceanic carbon cycle, and Ocean for geographic topics like North Sea makes sense. As many Germans before you have noticed, the English language is a funny old thing. Whether we really need the short World Ocean is a question, but it can perhaps be justified as a sort of glorified infobox. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

He-he, did I give away that I am German? ;-) And did you mean it the other way around, i.e. "ocean" for science topics but "sea" for geographic topics (but then we have Pacific Ocean?). I think Step 1 could indeed be to merge "World Ocean" into "Ocean". Or has this been discussed a dozen times already? I'll add a merger tag. EMsmile (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean it the other way around - I was making the point that many topics with "ocean" in their name belong in Sea and vice versa. It's just a fluke of language history that we don't have ocean water, ocean level and so on. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Have added the merger tags now. Also I think the section on "Extraterrestrial oceans" should be shortened as there are sub-articles for that already. Or if not, it could be moved to become its own article called Extraterrestrial oceans. EMsmile (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

There is an article called Extraterrestrial liquid water but I suppose Extraterrestrial oceans also includes non-water liquids. EMsmile (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As so often on Wikipedia, I think we cant solve this, because we depend on the public discurs and the development of the terms. E.g. most people might not even think of the sea as the world ocean, as a system that is, when they look out from the coast onto any sea or ocean.

I personally prefer to establish world ocean as the article about THE sea or ocean, and have the relevent parts from sea and ocean moved there. The solution for that is that the article Sea needs to be more like Ocean, or as its short description allready does, acknowledge that sea can refer to different bodies of saltwater e.g. Mediterranean Sea, North Sea, etc.. I guess the last argument is more obvious for north-west Afroeurasians (like in german speaking countries) and other places of the world with large partially-enclosed parts of water of the world ocean which are called Sea in english. Nsae Comp (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "World Ocean" before looking at that Wikipedia article (yesterday). As per WP:Commonname I think "Ocean" makes more sense than "World Ocean". Would it help to distinguish between "ocean" and "oceans"? Maybe not. But I think we'd be already better off if we managed to merge it from 3 articles down to 2. Afterwards, we can ponder over merging sea and ocean as well, or if not, to delineate them more clearly and have no overlap. Perhaps it helps to decide if they are "parallel" articles or if one is the parent article and the other one the sub-article. - Either way, I think we need to separate out the Extraterrestrial oceans part into a separate article, or move it into Extraterrestrial liquid water. EMsmile (talk) 06:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the articles Ocean, World Ocean and Sea could be merged in light of the ongoing UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sust Dev https://www.oceandecade.org/. Regarding whether "world ocean" has an easy technical definition or whether it is more of metaphorical expression, I was enthused by the use of the term by the media (The Economist) in their annual World Ocean Summit https://events.economist.com/world-ocean-summit/ We should ensure there is proper linking in these articles with SDG 14 and the UN Decade and also consider merging the three articles. @User:Johnbod @User:oknazevad @User:Nsae Comp @User:EMsmile ASRASR (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, since I was pinged, the fact is whether the whole interconnected body of salt water is called "the sea" or "the ocean" is really an ENGVAR thing, with British use defaulting to "the sea" and others defaulting to "the ocean". Frankly, we had this sufficiently organized years ago until someone steamrolled through a rescoping that ignored that fact and ENGVAR without prior discussion. We should undo that rescoping post haste, because in the time since there has been nothing but confusion and redundancy. oknazevad (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how the ENGVAR thing could cause us so many problems. Can't we just merge "sea" and "ocean" and "global ocean" into one (or if not all 3, then at least 2 of them), and call the merged article "ocean" and then mention the different variants under "terminology"? We had a similar discussion about "bathroom" and came up with this in the end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathroom#Variations_and_terminology . Or would it help if we had a disambiguation page? EMsmile (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No, we can't. We have disam pages already. There is sense in keeping the science and geography in different articles, if only to avoid massive length, but we need to be clearer to the reader than we are at present on what goes where. Other than that, what do "so many problems" actually amount to? There is imo nothing that needs to be done "in light of the ongoing UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sust Dev" - that's not the way to look at it. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

What would undoing the "rescoping" actually involve? To say "British use defaulting to "the sea" and others defaulting to "the ocean"" is a massive oversimplification at best, and more wrong than right. There is one particular set of uses where America (or North America?) uses ocean and everyone else sea, but it doesn't go much further than that. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I see there is already a disambiguation page for ocean. - Looking at the article sea, it starts like this: "Not to be confused with Ocean or World Ocean. The sea, the world ocean or simply the ocean is the connected body of salty water that covers over 70 percent of the Earth's surface." So first it says "Don't confuse it with ocean", and then it says "sea and ocean are used as synonyms". How confusing is that?! EMsmile (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• A move discussion at World Ocean has been set up improperly, with a link at "Discuss" to this section. It needs it's own section with a clear proposal (or choices, since everyne seems to have different ideas). Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, I don't understand your point. Why would you want to discuss the same thing, or related things, on two different pages? EMsmile (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I can see you don't understand. You need a proper proposal, with its own section, on this page, that gets notified to the lists. This rambling section is not the place. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Listening to the arguments, for me two solutions seem to be possible: either they are all three kept and sea is refocused about any body of water called sea, like the article ocean does with ocean, subsequently elevating the article world ocean; or this approach of having general articles for the term ocean, and sea, is scraped and left to their disambiguation sites, allowing all three current articles to be merged. I tend to be a fan of understanding an encyclopedia having articles about terms and not sideline terms into disambugation sites, but focusing on the main meaning of terms is fine with me for such a wide reaching issue as the world ocean, so I start to be okay for a merger of all three, even though it hurts my mentioned understanding. Though keeping two will be the worst solution imho, it will only sustain the mess since it mixes the above mentioned two approaches to encyclopedias, thats the bottom line I have arrived at. (PS: if merged please dont delete but redirect the old sites, deletion is overused imho) Nsae Comp (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Nsae Comp I think I agree with you. I could spend some time on merging the three articles. I quite enjoy merging. The merged article would be called "ocean", right? Do I need to set up another merger proposal somewhere? Or wait a few days and then go ahead if no objections? EMsmile (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

NO need to wait that long (I'm objecting already), and YES, you do need to do a proper and clear proposal. This seems to be partly a proposal to divide areas of sea called "seas" from areas called "oceans". I don't see much benefit from that. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I think they are too long to merge - see WP:SIZE. I think a consistent and clearly-explained division between geography with history and scientific topics is viable, & would involve some swopping around, then clarity in the leads. That might moving quite a lot from Sea (now 168kb) to Ocean (now 40kb), bringing a better length balance. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I dont think size should be hindering a merge, if sub-topics are too large, extra articles can grow out of them like for the chemical descriptions of the oceans in both Sea and Ocean, this would also further the purpose of raising and detailing issues of the sea, particularly considering the the dustainable development goals project. PS: I dont know if sea or ocean are the better articles to merge into, for me sea is a more legal term and ocean a literaly oceanographic term. I think I tend to ocean, because legal language is for me subordinate to oceanography. "The" ocean also hints toward the understanding as the world ocean, making that variant also more obvious and redundant at the same time. But that issue is for me of low importance, because it can be decided later at any point to move the merged article to either redirect site that was installed with the merge. PPS: beside that I reallized that beside the sea and the ocean, that also "the seas" and "the oceans" as plural combined with "the" is sometimes used to refer to the world ocean, I like that nuance and use it implies/highlights that it is a world ocean and that it is not about only one of the segments named xy-sea/-ocean. But the use of the terms is to be decided by native-speakers, unlike me. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nsae Comp that size is not a barrier here. Often content that is too detailed needs to be moved to sub-articles anyhow. For me, I come from the SDG 14 side so I have a tendency towards "ocean" not "sea". I agree that there will be some swapping around (if indeed we don't merge them). As a starting point, I am clearly missing a section in the ocean article that mentions the current human-induced problems such as as ocean acidification, temperature rise, marine pollution. Looking at the article Global Ocean, I see them lumped here in a section called "Anthropogenic presence and impact" but it's very messy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean#Anthropogenic_presence_and_impact As a starting point, I propose to start a section on "Environmental issues" which may just be a bullet point list, pointing to the relevant sub-articles. We could even use excerpts from the leads of the most important sub-articles. We can't have a Wikipedia on oceans and not talk about environmental issues, in my view. They need to be mentioned. Not in detail, but so that people know the key terms and then can click through to the sub-articles. For that reason, I would propose to move this section across from sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea#Acidification Perhaps once we start with some gentle moving and swapping of sections we will reach more clarity how the two articles are different from each other, or how they are not. EMsmile (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I've done some work on World ocean yesterday and after some tidying up of two sections, the article is now shorter. It actually only consists of one section now, the one called "organization". Even that one is no different from the content we have at ocean. So what's the point in having a separate article? I propose that we make a bold move and merge the rest of World ocean into ocean and have a redirect from "world ocean" to ocean and be done with it. EMsmile (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

So do a proper formal proposal - see WP:MERGE. These are prominent articles (unlike the stuff you normally work on frankly) and there may well be objections. Btw, don't you have a WP:COI with regard to Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life below Water)? Probably needs to be declared more clearly. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod what's that snipe supposed to mean, and is it really necessary to make a nasty comment like that? Really? "unlike the stuff you normally work on frankly"?? So you decide now what's prominent and what isn't? Do you base it on view rates? I do a lot of work on climate change articles. Does that classify as prominent/important enough in your mind? Also, please explain what kind of WP:COI you think I might have? Having an interest in Sustainable Development Goal 14 constitutes a conflict of interest in which way? If you feel that I need to disclose my connection to this project in more detail, I can do that, no problem. - And I don't think we need a fancy proposal to make a decision on world ocean which is a an article that only contains one section now. Obviously, the question about sea and ocean is a bigger one, particularly because sea is a featured article. Before making a formal proposal for merging those two, what is your rationale exactly for keeping them separate? What should go into one article and what in the other? (given that the terms are used interchangeably at least in some of the English variants spoken around the world). EMsmile (talk) 08:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I was merely going from the information on your user page. To be clear, are you paid for the work you mention there? You've made it clear from the start that promoting Sustainable Development Goal 14 (Life below Water) is a major motivation for you here. Whatever you think, WP policy is clear - why not just follow it? Who says I want to keep them seperate? I was the first to raise the WO issue above. What I want is for the fate of these large and important articles to be decided by a wider consensus than we are seeing here. I don't understand why you resist this so strongly, and I am exposed to personal attacks and bullying (below) to avoid this. Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod I am monitoring this page and find your comments inflammatory and more like personal attacks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks Let's try to be a little more constructive. No need for gatekeeper behaviour, especially when it comes to pages one has not invested much time in. Do respect other editors' efforts. The world ocean page has never received much editorial attention, has remained at START level for 14 years, is not a term in Britannica, but still somehow receives about 1000 daily views (indicating interest in the term). ocean receives at least double the views and has much more content. So it makes sense to put our efforts into the more established page and point to it when people search for world ocean. This is the "proposal" and can be further discussed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Ocean cc.@User:EMsmile ASRASR (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Now that is a personal attack! And yet another of the tag team who doesn't understand process - the merge "discuss" link points here, not to Talk:World_Ocean. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

if the location of the discussion link is your main problem, Johnbod, then that's easy to fix. I'll change it now. Can we now get back to content?? EMsmile (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I've made it clear it's not. It should go to its own section here, AND HAVE A PROPER FORMAL PROPOSAL. How many times..... Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I have created a section on the talk page of World ocean which is good enough as a proposal. Please comment there. The article World ocean has exactly 332 words of readable prose. Can we please make this process not overly complicated? Anyhow, let's give it a few days and see what other people who are watching these two pages have to say. Surely there are more people than you and me who have an opinion and want to contribute. For your info, you are the one who started with the personal attacks by saying to me "These are prominent articles (unlike the stuff you normally work on frankly)" - a completely unnecessary snipe. If you don't want to be attacked then please don't attack others either. Thanks. Regarding COI, I can't see how I could have one. No, this is not paid editing, it is part of a communications project to improve some Wikipedia articles funded by a Swedish government agency. I had provided the link to this project before but will do it again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/SDGs/Communication_of_environment_SDGs I have also added a COI user box to the top right of my user page. Please read there and see if you think my editing on articles such as ocean or climate change constitute a COI. Happy to take this to a higher level if you think there is a need to. EMsmile (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It has now you've just removed most of it! This is my point. To you, following normal WP procedures seems to be "overly complicated". I can't see how my comments about "the stuff you normally work on" (as listed on your user page) is in any way a "personal attack". I am unhappy with the prospect of an editor with a very pronounced angle on the subject, little apparent experience on major rewrites of big topics, and little respect for WP process reshaping these articles to suit their personal preferences, a process you did not wait to gain any consensus for before beginning. I've seen that leading to trainwrecks in the past. You should probably clarify the language on you user page re your involvement with the UN stuff. The subject certainly needs more exposure - as the main mover you could post notices to relevant wiki-projects, or even do an RFC. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

A "proper" proposal is not needed. Firstly, because you cannot demand work from others. Don't be rude. Secondly, because hashing things out in ongoing discussion is just as valid as a formal proposal per WP:NOTBURO. No, we don't need a formal merge template and all that if discussion and consensus are already emerging. oknazevad (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This is very unhelpful, and patently untrue! WP:MERGE is clear: "No permission or discussion is needed if you think the merge is uncontroversial; just do it (but it might get reverted). Otherwise, the merge should be first proposed and discussed, as detailed below...." Since a triple merge will inevitably involve a choice between "Ocean" and "sea", which has been the discussion of endless discussion in the past, it is impossible to think the matter "uncontroversial". I see no consensus emerging after several screens-full of rambling discussion here, partly because, apart from a triple merge, there is no clear proposal. If you want to be helpful, you could expand on your comment above: " we had this sufficiently organized years ago until someone steamrolled through a rescoping that ignored that fact and ENGVAR without prior discussion. We should undo that rescoping post haste, because in the time since there has been nothing but confusion and redundancy." What would that involve? Were these the changes User:Danu Widjajanto made in 2018? A new steamrolling is exactly what I want to avoid here. Johnbod (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess you mean the following changes to Sea: Diff, between 861860165 and 864386541? Well I dont know why these changes were not more scrutinized back then if they were viewed critical, but I see on a first look that the changes did transform the lead from an unclear mentioning of both (general and plural) understanding of sea, to just as THE sea, making the issue we are struggling still today more obvious but not any more resolved, imho.

If I may try a comparison: our problem is like if we would would have the articles sky, atmosphere and Earth's atmosphere all three talk about the latter. I still think the article Sea should be basically about saltwater bodies (plural), oceans sbout any ocean, and world ocean about Earth's global body/system of water. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

At this point in time, I am not talking about a merger of sea and ocean. That can come later (maybe or maybe not). Let's not get ourselves confused with "triple mergers" at this point in time. Right now, let's agree on where we stand with world ocean and collect view points about merging it into ocean or not. Please put your positions over here on the talk page of "world ocean" where I have created a proposal and space for merger discussion. So far we have one "oppose" from Johnbod there. Let's see what others think? Let's collect view points for a few days and then make a decision that is based on consensus that will hopefully emerge. So please head over to here and state your point on just World Ocean merge (not the discussion about sea as that is a separate topic; we can discuss that at a later stage). EMsmile (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Update about merger

Update: The article "world ocean" has now been merged into "ocean" and a redirect has been put in place. Remaining two articles out of the group of formerly three interrelated articles are now sea and ocean. EMsmile (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about tables

There are several tables in this article which are not accompanied by any prose. I wonder if we really want to keep them or if they ought to be moved to a sub-article (or if we need to add prose to go with them). Also I am surprised that the table "Generalized characteristics of ocean surface by latitude" requires 7 references. I checked the first two but could not easily verify if the content of those references matches the content of the tables. What do you think about this?

Gases

Characteristics of oceanic gases

Gas	Concentration of seawater, by mass (in parts per million), for the whole ocean	% Dissolved gas, by volume, in seawater at the ocean surface
Carbon dioxide (CO2)	64 to 107	15%
Nitrogen (N2)	10 to 18	48%
Oxygen (O2)	0 to 13	36%

Solubility of oceanic gases (in mL/L) with temperature at salinity of 33‰ and atmospheric pressure

Temperature	O2	CO2	N2
0 °C	8.14	8,700	14.47
10 °C	6.42	8,030	11.59
20 °C	5.26	7,350	9.65
30 °C	4.41	6,600	8.26

Surface

Generalized characteristics of ocean surface by latitude

Characteristic	Oceanic waters in polar regions	Oceanic waters in temperate regions	Oceanic waters in tropical regions
Precipitation vs. evaporation	P > E	P > E	E > P
Sea surface temperature in winter	−2 °C	5 to 20 °C	20 to 25 °C
Average salinity	28‰ to 32‰	35‰	35‰ to 37‰
Annual variation of air temperature	≤ 40ªC	10 °C	< 5 °C
Annual variation of water temperature	< 5ªC	10 °C	< 5 °C

Mixing time

Mean oceanic residence time for various constituents

Constituent	Residence time (in years)
Iron (Fe)	200
Aluminum (Al)	600
Manganese (Mn)	1,300
Water (H2O)	4,100
Silicon (Si)	20,000
Carbonate (CO32−)	110,000
Calcium (Ca2+)	1,000,000
Sulfate (SO42−)	11,000,000
Potassium (K+)	12,000,000
Magnesium (Mg2+)	13,000,000
Sodium (Na+)	68,000,000
Chloride (Cl−)	100,000,000

EMsmile (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Its good material, but yes it needs text that makes use of it; keep Nsae Comp (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed the data on residence time is worthy of more explanation. Will put this on my to-do list. Of great importance is the role of limiting nutrients like N, P and Fe in primary productivity which directly determines the oceans ability to fix carbon, ie the potential sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. https://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/cmoreserver/summercourse/2008/documents/Paytan%20&%20McLaughlin%202007%20Chem%20Rev%20copy.pdf @User:Nsae Comp @User:EMsmile ASRASR (talk) 02:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I have now added explanatory text to the tables (with the help of an external expert). Now the only table that still needs some text to introduce the table is the one in the section called "Surface" (I am not finding that section heading very clear either). EMsmile (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I've improved the text for the "surface" table as well now. All done. EMsmile (talk) 08:08, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need the table "Oceanic absorption of light at different wavelengths"?

There is a table in the article for which the current reference given is not correct. I don't have the textbook in front of me but one of the authors, Tim Jickells, told me the table is not in his book:

Oceanic absorption of light at different wavelengths

Color (wavelength in nm)	Depth at which 99 percent of the wavelength is absorbed (in meters)	Percent absorbed in 1 meter of water
Ultraviolet (310)	31	14.0
Violet (400)	107	4.2
Blue (475	254	1.8
Green (525)	113	4.0
Yellow (575)	51	8.7
Orange (600)	25	16.7
Red (725)	4	71.0
Infrared (800)	3	82.0

Two options: either we hunt down the source for this table: A quick Google search for “Oceanic absorption of light at different wavelengths” took me to this page: https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/6-5-light/ which seems to be an open access book on oceanography by Paul Webb: https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/ but it doesn't have the table either. I haven't yet searched further. Option 2 would be to replace the table with a couple of sentences. Tim suggested: "I'm not sure the table itself is needed and the exact values must depend on the turbidity of the water. How about saying something like this after the first sentence of this section: Red light is absorbed most strongly so penetrates least in the ocean (to less than 50 m generally) while blue light is absorbed less well and can penetrate to up to 200 m. and then cite that nice Webb book you found. The table then is deleted because there isn't a source for it." EMsmile (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I am have now taken out the table and replaced it with the proposed sentence and reference. EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Reviewers comments (June and July 2021)

I have been in e-mail contact with a content expert on oceans and will incorporate the suggestions received from the expert (via a marked-up Word document) in the next few days. Here is the overall feedback from the expert: Hi, I have been working away on the Ocean wikipedia article for the last couple of weeks on and off. [Regarding the] the Sea article, [...] there is some very good material in that article and I have suggested some links to it, particularly over the history of human use of the ocean and seas. There are areas of ocean science that I know very little about so I can't really offer much on those. Elsewhere I have been through the article and tried to do three things:

• Make sure what is in there is correct and up to date.
• There were some sections that consisted of just tables with little or no discussion (such as on elemental residence times) and I have tried to provide some text to make sense of these.
• Finally there were some sections that did not seem very logically organised so I have taken the liberty of moving these around into what seems to me to be a more logical running order. EMsmile (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I have now completed the round of revisions that I mentioned above, based on the inputs by the external expert. I think it's much better than before (but still not perfect). Comments anyone? EMsmile (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I have now completed another round of major revisions, working with Tim Jickells (book author) who kindly donated a lot of time for this. Today, I expanded the lead to include more about temperatures, ocean zones, currents and climate. Over the next little while, I will still continue with some tinkering. Mainly I want to now improve the readability of the article to ensure lay persons can understand everything. Anyone out there who'd like to help with that? EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Readability improvements

I'd love to help with readability. If you have an example of a sentence or paragraph that needs help, I could provide a sample rewrite. Otherwise, I'm just happy to make small readablity improvements where I find them. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pyrrho the Skeptic, that would be good if you could help, thanks a lot. If I was to tackle this I would use the free Hemmingway App which is a great little tool to point out problem areas of the article. Basic things to look for are sentences that are too long or too much passive voice or overly complicated words where simpler ones exist (sometimes this can also be solved by adding a wikilink). I've written about readability improvement work and the Hemmingway App here in the past. I think a good approach is to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't have English as a first language, or someone who wants to translate the article into another language. Then make it easy for them to do so. If you find any sentences where the meaning is unclear, do raise those issues here on the talk page (in a new section) so that we can figure it out together. Thanks! EMsmile (talk) 04:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the thorough guidance, that's very helpful. I'll apply the app, give that a read, and see what small things I can do for the article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have done some editing with the average reader in mind. I work to make sure scientists are happy with accuracy while at the same time making sure the science is "accessible" and readable to lay persons. Please comment on the edits in terms of accuracy.PlanetCare (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

For example, this sentence needs to be improved so the concept is more clear (but it's giving me fits): "The global pattern of winds and atmospheric circulation creates a global pattern of ocean currents driven by the wind and the effect the circulation of the earth or the coriolis force." It seems to say that winds create currents which are driven by the wind. Would this edit be accurate: Winds and atmospheric circulation, along with the coriolis force, create the global pattern of ocean currents, which affect the circulation of water throughout the oceans. Or is it saying that the currents impact the coriolis force? PlanetCare (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the sentence should be improved and then be put back into the lead (unless you find it repetitive with something else?). The issue of ocean currents is really important and need to be in the lead. The same sentence also appeared in the main text (I had earlier copied it from the main text to the lead). I have now changed it to this in the main text: The global pattern of winds (also called atmospheric circulation) creates a global pattern of ocean currents. These are not only driven by the wind but also by the effect of the circulation of the earth (coriolis force). I hope this is correct. EMsmile (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Your improvements to the article's text did help. I changed the sentence in the lead a bit, and do think there's enough there about the link between ocean currents and atmospheric circulation. See what you think.PlanetCare (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative word for "matrices" in microplastics?

I brought this up on the Microplastics article, which contains the original text used in the microplastics excerpt, but haven't heard so I thought I'd try here. The beginning of this section reads: "Due to their ubiquity in the environment, microplastics are widespread among the different matrices." I think the word "matrices" is confusing. Even "environmental matrices" I think would be a bit esoteric for the general reader, and there is no Wikilink I can think of that would explain to a general reader what is meant by "matrices" in this context. Does anyone with knowledge of this terminology have any suggestions? Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Pyrrho the Skeptic. I forwarded your question to Tim Jickells who has helped so much with the Ocean article last month. He wrote: "Personally I can see the confusion in this sentence. I would suggest (as a non expert) that "microplastics are widespread amongst marine particles" would be what it meant." I'll change it accordingly. He's also given me two names of microplastics experts in Plymouth whom we could ask for further advice. I'll e-mail them. EMsmile (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for following up with my question, EMsmile. It's appreciated. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to keep things tidy, the discussion continued here. EMsmile (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2021

In section "Relationship of currents and climate", line 2, there is a typo 'thermoahline'. Please change it to "Thermohaline". Pbajpai07 (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Terminology/American/British English

The article claims, and cites a source whi which claims, that there is some dialectical difference between US and GB English in that GB speakers never speak of swimming in "the ocean", but always "the sea".

I really don't think this is a reflection of different varieties of English. Common sense, upon looking at a map, would indicate it's a consequence of geography: American coasts are flanked by "oceans" (Pacific and Atlantic), British coasts by "seas" (North, Irish, &c). (There ARE still a great many of folks who consider seas to be distinct from oceans, and would therefore consider it wrong to refer to a sea as "the ocean", despite scientific terminology; science hath no authority over language, whether it thinks it does or not). So, I recommend that claim be removed: it is trivial, and even though it is sourced, common sense, as I have shown, renders it suspect. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:14D5:5FC9:8C5F:AB3A (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Good points. I also doubt that this sentence is actually universally true "unlike Americans, speakers of British English do not go swimming in "the ocean" but always "the sea"." (can't access the book that is used as a reference). I think we should remember that speakers of British English does not equate to people living in Britain. For example in Australia the spelling is also British English but people would say "going swimming in the ocean", perhaps because Australia is surrounded by oceans. Probably the same for South Africa, India, New Zealand? If we could find more reliable and accessible references that explain this issue of US versus British English usage of ocean and sea, that would be good. Overall global trends seem to be more usage of the word ocean than sea in many instances, like UN Decade of the oceans, oceanography, ocean warming, ocean acidification (but sea level rise). EMsmile (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your EMsmile edit removing the variation re 'swimming in the sea/ocean' for a number of reasons: Firstly you have based your edit on what you believe is true - Wikipedia is not about WP:TRUTH but about what can be verified from reliable sources WP:V, WP:RS. Secondly, British English is the language spoken in the UK not in Australia, which is Australian English. There are numerous other articles detailing English variations including Irish English, Canadian English, South African English and so on. Thirdly the differences may be about geography or more likely how geography informs language but both of you are specualting rather than supporting the information with reliable sources. The claim is sourced, it is not trivial from a linguistic perspective and appeals to 'commonsense' is not how information in Wikipedia is included but by the use of reliable sources. Robynthehode (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Robynthehode, the way it is currently worded, it is confusing, especially for non-native English speakers. It would be clearer if it said "people in Britain say swimming in "the sea" but not "swimming in the ocean"". However, I feel this kind of information is overly Euroc-centric it if only applies to people who live in Britain. Why is their choice of words more important than people who speak English in other parts of the world, like Australia or India? Overall, just because a statement is written in a book doesn't make it a universal truth and I think we should be allowed to question the statement and to question if it's so important that it needs to be cited in Wikipedia. I think the article would be better off without that sentence (after all, it is just included inside of the references section, not in the main body). It seems to me that the person who started the discussion (see above) felt similarly. EMsmile (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Again I think you are missing the point. The use of the example of swimming in the ocean/sea in American and British English is to show how the terms 'ocean' and 'sea' are used in different parts of the world. I have no objection to other examples being used to clarify usage. You are wrong to say it is Eurocentric as the comparison is between American and British English. The comparison could say in American and Australian English....if you want. You are right that something stated in one book is not a universal truth but, again, Wikipedia isn't about truth but about information supported by reliable sources. If you objected to the reliability of the source in this case you might have more traction. Yes I think you are right the other editor agrees broadly with you but Wikipedia is about WP:CONSENSUS not a majority view of editors. Unless you (both) have an objection to the inclusion of this content that accords with Wikipedia protocols then it should remain (although it could be enhanced or expanded if supported by sources). Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 07:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

How about my suggestion to change it to: "people living in Britain say swimming in "the sea" but not "swimming in the ocean"". I think this would reduce confusion a lot. The current wording is confusing. I live in Australia and here we usually say "we use British English spelling", not "we use Australian English spelling". Therefore, when there is talk about "British English speakers", I feel that it does include Australians. What you call "Australian English" is not far removed from "British English" at all (more like a subset of it), and with regards to spelling it's actually identical. Therefore, when I read "speakers of British English do not go swimming in "the ocean" but always "the sea"" I objected to it, on the basis that Australians are included in "British English speakers" and they do say "swimming in the ocean" (I don't have a reference at my finger tips for that, but one could easily see it in news articles of www.abc.net.au - which is not a proper reliable source, I know. It's just common knowledge. EMsmile (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you read any of the content in Wikipedia that I linked to e.g. Australian English, WP:V verifiability and WP:RS reliable sources? If you did you wouldn't make statements such 'What you call "Australian English" because its not my term but a well sourced article in this encyclopaedia. You should also read about point of view WP:POV and no original research WP:OR. It doesn't matter what you 'feel' is included in British English nor does anecdotal 'I live in Australia and here we usually say...' have any place nor do assertions such as 'It's just common knowledge' provide support for your opinion. These are all contrary to the Wikipedia protocols stated. I've looked at the source for the phrase in this dispute and it looks a reliable academic source to me. Unless you have other reliable sources to counter the one used then its pretty much end of discussion. Robynthehode (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

True, no point in discussing this further. I have no reliable source at my fingertips to back up what I said, and have no time to search for one. Maybe someone else who reads this in future will have information to share and know of a reliable source. Sometimes it's not easy to find reliable sources for "common sense" things. At the end of the day, I was just supporting what the person on 5 November wrote (scroll up), "I really don't think this is a reflection of different varieties of English.". Sadly, he/she is no longer engaging in the discussion, so there's nothing else to add for now. EMsmile (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)