Talk:Impact of the sea

Hi! You a great topic that I should have thought of. You have covered at its essence how the sea is a key for sailers, how some of them are shaped. You should consider adding examples of how it affects some of those travelers, add to the positive and negative sections. You should also mention how the sea polished one's faith for example how they turn to God for help over troubled waters. Overall, it is a nice topic, the work itself needs all the citations you could get –so does my article. There are minor grammar, and I'm afraid mentioning so would make you spot on my review, but I thought you should know as we are both trying to accomplish something here. I think you should also mention how the sea connected the continents, with the discovery of the New World, that would give you some work there. I think this is all I have to say in regards. Best of luck! --Dcruz34 (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, this is my first page on Wikipedia I have contributed as part of a semester project for school. I noticed that my reference page is having a problem but I was not sure how to correct it to clean the page up. Any suggestions would be helpful. Thank you. --IsaiahSmith12. —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Title
I suggest a move to Cultural impact of the sea or something similar that desribes the content more accurately. Current title seems a bit vague. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * See merge suggestion below. If there is sufficient difference not to merge, the article will need a new title to express that distinction. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 20:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Multiple tagging with no discussion
Hi. It appears that you added multiple maintenance tags to this article, but it is not clear what you consider the actual problems to be. Could you please clarify on this talk page,?

Specifically:
 * What do you suspect of being originl research?
 * Which parts do you consider to be personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay?
 * Why do you consider it to not be notable?

If you can provide more specific cricism, it will make it possible to take action to fix the problems. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 19:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - My concerns actually correspond pretty well with what you have stated elsewhere on this page. The article title may not reflect the content, or it could be merged with an established article. In general, my basic question is about whether "Impact of the sea" is even a term that experts use, such as Maritime history or Sea in culture, or did the article's creator simply do some research on cultural and historical events and invent a new term to describe it?
 * Therefore the topic "Impact of the sea" strikes me as the outcome of some personal research in which a non-notable new term was created. This is reflected in my multiple edit tags but I willfully admit that they overlap. I will remove some but the original research rule still concerns me greatly. And now that you've proposed it, I think merging to Sea in culture is a good idea. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for replying. Impact of the sea is a sub-optimal topic name, but does not appear at face value to be a sufficient reason for considering the content of the article to be original research. If the statements are supported by the references it would not be original research, even if not very relevant to the topic as implied by the title. Are there any statements which you found to be unsupported by the next reference cited? (I have not checked any, but have also made no claims about them as they seem generally plausible). On the other hand, your hypothesis on the origin of the article title does seem plausible, and is why I think it probably should be merged. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 08:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - I was working under a different conception of "original research", in that the researcher has individual results that are solid in themselves, but applied them to the creation of a new "original" scientific term. It would be like if I found reliable evidence of people playing flutes in moving vehicles and made up the term "Automotive Flautist" as a subject of study. In short, this article acts as if "Impact of the sea" is really a thing. (See Reification (fallacy)). This all might be a moot point if you decide to go through with a merge. I can help with that if need be. In any case, thanks for the work you're doing here. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 14:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible merge into Sea in culture
Sea in culture has a significant topic match with this article. Unless the topics can be dinstinguished as separate, they should be merged with a redirect. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 20:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this proposal; see above. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 20:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * - FYI: I forgot about this for a while, but started thinking about performing the merge. Given the discussion over at Talk:Sea in culture about how this article is vague and essay-like, and overlaps several pre-existing articles, I will do a simple redirect as recommend by Chiswick Chap. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 15:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , If you are satisfied that there will be no loss of encyclopaedic information, go ahead. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)