Talk:Great Blue Hole

Bimini road
The Bimini road is a close to this location as Ireland is to Poland. Therefore I am deleting the following sentence. "Finding Karst topography in this location supports the possible explanation of the nearby Bimini Road as a natural limestone pavement." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.95.212 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reverted that edit, because I think it was made in good faith, but for the wrong reason, to a paragraph that could perhaps be better worded. Belize - Andros is indeed 800 miles, however Andros - Bimini is only 80 miles, which certainly is geographically "nearby", as the sentence was meant to read. Even 800 isn't actually that far, AIUI the geology is pretty static over the whole section.
 * Deleting just one of these two sentences doesn't make much sense. If you consider that Andros is too far from Belize, or if you think that a good study of Karst in the Caribbean still isn't relevant to Bimini, then kill the whole para. Or else re-word and make it clearer, if you can think of better copy. I'd like to preserve at least some scientific rationality in one of these articles though, because the Bimini Roads article itself has too much crazy in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The following paragraph has nothing to do with the Great Blue Hole in Belize, so I am removing it. "Cousteau also investigated Andros island on the other side of the Gulf basin[3] and described similar Karst cave features, although less spectacular than a collapsed blue hole. Finding Karst topography in this location supports the possible explanation of the nearby Bimini Road as a natural limestone pavement." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.198.95.212 (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lighthouse Reef
I am changing the Lighthouse Reef link to link to the Belize Barrier Reef article. The original Lighthouse Reef article was deleted. Dreammaker182 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreammaker182 (talk • contribs)  deleted the link since Light House Reef is actually apart of the greater Reef system and is not the actual Belize Barrier Reef.Dreammaker182 04:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Discovery?
About the "Discovery and Exploration" section -- I think the term "discovery" is incorrect and should be removed. The section discusses Cousteau's exploration of the hole, but does not state that he "discovered" it. Moreover, I think it's self-evident that the feature was known to local inhabits, if not earlier explorers. I propose changing the section to "Exploration" or "Exploration by Cousteau". Comments? Karl gregory jones (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the section does seem to only contain information on the exploration of the feature and says nothing about its discovery. The header should be updated. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 15:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS It seems like it would be a fairly uncontroversial move, so I've gone ahead and updated it. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work. Karl gregory jones (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I see no reason to merge Blue hole and Great Blue Hole as is currently proposed. "Blue hole" is an overview article on the geographic phenomenon and "Great Blue Hole" is a fully formed and referenced stand-alone article on a specific blue hole (as is Dean's Blue Hole and Blue Hole (Red Sea)). It would be akin to merging every significant mountain into a single Mountain article. (Cross-posted to Talk:Blue hole) Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. I agree, it appears to pass the notability test and should therefore remain a standalone article. --Drm310 (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As the individual who tagged the articles has not put forth any reason why the merge would be necessary or helpful, and since the only talk page discussion has been in favour of keeping the status quo, I've removed the suggested merge tags. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 14:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reference links are swapped
The Nasa and Nat Geo links are reversed.

Attempted edit but failed.

203.44.180.195 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Jason


 * Good catch! I've fixed them. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Exploration" section is repeated
There is two sections with the same information and title. I have tried to remove one of them but the change was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.121.45 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True. Thank you for the clarification. I reverted my reversion. Dr.K. λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Volume?
Is it interesting to mention volume? I calculated it to 100M liters. Beatitudinem (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Verify Main Image
I was looking at images of the Great Blue Hole on Google images, as well as the Samaesan Hole in Thailand and it seems like they are the same images. Can we verify that this is the Great Blue Hole (which honestly seems more likely, as the other seems less notable)?Sheriffjt (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Sheriffjt,
 * original research (I’ve been there) but I can confirm that the image is correct. The Samaesan Hole is a nasty beast and not visible from the surface. When you search for Samaesan Hole on Goggle images: All similar to the one of the article are misclassified. A case of artificial unintelligence. -- Alfie  ↑↓ © 15:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Rights of cross-section image
Despite the license of the cross-section image itself, it appears to simply be a trace of a copyrighted image on the article that it cites as its source. I'm unsure if the source image allows derivative works.

NexusXe (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Correct. I removed it. Alfie  ↑↓ © 20:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Image of "Layout"
This image does not represent its structure and offers no additional value at all. On the contrary, it is extremely misleading. I will not start an edit war. If it is not removed in due time, I will take it to Arbitration. Alfie ↑↓ © 11:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How is it not the shape of its structure when the article itself say "The hole is circular in shape, 318 m across and 124 m deep"? It's not misleading, and it's helpful to grasp how the Great Blue Hole is : way more wide than deep, when the picture alone make it feel like a bottomless pit.--Aréat (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This source of the 3D mapping show it is indeed this circular shape.--Aréat (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, I was convinced to make the graph from experience. When you hear about it and make a few search, you find images of very dark water and  actually misleading graph like this one, giving the fake impression of a bottomless pit. But when searching further, you discover it's actually a flat cylinder only one third as deep as large. Hence the need for a diagram rapidly giving this information in a visual way. There's the benefit. While, again, I don't see the problem about it.--Aréat (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which experience? I’m a cave diver and was there. But personal experiences don’t count in WP. Of course, the right image there is plain nonsense. However, I still don’t think that your graph improves the article. As an alternative give the source of the 3D mapping as a reference after the second sentence in the introduction. Alfie  ↑↓ © 06:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The experience of being misled by how the hole look from the surface, and misleading diagram used on the internet. Hence the need for the faithful one I did for the page. Why do you think it doesn't improve the article? I already added that source to the file page.--Aréat (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)