Talk:Ocean/Archive 2

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2022
Keyriverz (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC) let me editthis page
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed an image about air temperatures - unclear relevance
Hi User:Jturner20, I've removed the image on the right from the article as it wasn't clear to me how this is relevant (especially putting myself into the shoes of a lay person reader). Also, is this adding more to the US- and Europe-centric nature of Wikipedia? My suggestion is to either improve the caption to make it very clear what this is showing. Or to move this to a relevant sub-article - maybe the one on ocean currents. EMsmile (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds good!
 * - Jturner20 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Needs a bit of content on pH value and alkalinity
While looking at alkalinity, in particular the section on "ocean alkalinity" it occurred to me that this article is missing some short content (and links) about pH value and alkalinity. Content could be copied from ocean acidification for pH value and from alkalinity for the ocean alkalinity. I am undecided if this would fit better under physical properties or under chemical composition? Maybe it belongs better in the chemical composition section? EMsmile (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of ocean
changed in a recent edit some capitalization of "the ocean" that I had added. I am ok about the change, but a discussion is worth it in my opinion. I think I used the capitalized version because I had the Moon in my head and the change into capitalization there. But that case is somewhat different, since we know many moons and dont speak (yet) of other extraterrestrial oceans. That said, maybe it is worthwhile to underline the difference between the particular oceans of Earth and particularly the world-spaning nature of it. Nsae Comp (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Nsae Comp: I am not sure about this. For me it's just ocean with a small "o" all the time, except for names like "Antarctic Southern Ocean". Not sure where else you would want to capitalise the word ocean in this article? (the English language is funny how it gives so much freedom; in German - my native tongue - it's clearer: nouns (and names) have a capital letter, other words don't.) EMsmile (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I can relate to that, since my first language is also german. I wonder what native speakers say. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2023
Under Geography, Oceanic Divisions, #4 on the table says Antartic instead of Antarctic (missing the "c") CurlyHairPear (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote
Per a discussion at the Vital-2 Talk page, I added a hatnote here to match the one at Sea. Does everyone feel it is okay? Thanks :)

LightProof1995 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you send the link to the discussion at the Vital-2 Talk page (oh wait, I found it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/2)? I am curious. I am undecided if we really need a hatnote. The hatnote at Sea is more important and it says "This article focuses on human experience, history and culture of the collective seas of Earth. For natural science aspects, see more at Ocean. For individual seas, see List of seas. For other uses, see Sea (disambiguation) and The Sea (disambiguation).". I am saying "more important at Sea" because the "Sea" article has to justify its existence more than the "ocean" article does (I had once proposed to redirect and merge Sea to Ocean but was not successful with my proposal; that split into cultural (Sea) versus natural sciences (Ocean) kind of works, I guess).
 * If there is consensus to have a hatnote at Ocean, I would use the About template as follows: which would convert to This article is about natural science aspects of oceans. For more on human experience, history and culture of oceans, see Sea. For other uses see Ocean (disambiguation).
 * Compared with the current proposal of LightProof1995 which is This article focuses on the science aspects of oceans, both on Earth and on other planets. While it covers some historical and cultural aspects, more can be found at Sea. For other uses, see Ocean (disambiguation). EMsmile (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * LightProof1995's hatnote reflects the status quo, but the status quo is untenable. User:Oknazevad's comment at Talk:Sea is on point. Cobblet (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

How many oceans?
The content saying that there are five oceans (on earth), has two refs. I don't have access to the OED one, but the Webster's ref. does not name or give a number for the number. The simple English, Russian and German Wikipedia articles all agree; however, I have heard the number seven also given, with the Pacific and Atlantic both being divided into north and south. This pretty authoritative source gives one world ocean and five commonly accepted ones but notes that not all countries have moved beyond the traditional four: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/howmanyoceans.html. This site is pretty much consistent with the Encyclopedia Britannica, which says, "Functionally speaking, there is really only one ocean, since every demarcated ocean is connected to at least two others" after talking about the 4+1 that NOAA discusses. And https://encounteredu.com/cpd/subject-updates/learn-more-how-many-oceans-are-there says it depends, citing 1-, 3-, 4-, 5-, and 7-ocean interpretations. I think our article should present at least some of this. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:C86B:40D2:FD06:529A (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Protection - Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
Hi EMsmile,

I saw that you had deleted my little paragraph the "protection" section. I was talking about the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), the UN Decade of Marine Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030), the Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the GOOS and UNESCO Global Geoparks. I understand that it is important to get to the point, but I think it is also important and interesting for this article to mention at least the IOC and the Convention. The IOC is the UN body responsible for supporting oceanography and ocean services since 1960. The IOC is helping UN member states to achieve the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement on climate change. Would you agree that we should add it to the article?

Thank you very much, I am at your disposal for any discussion on this subject! E.poul (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi E.poul, that content is important but keep in mind that the ocean article is a very high level overview article, so we cannot dive into detail on every topic. That's what all the connected sub-articles are for. This was your text that I had deleted: Through the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), UNESCO is supporting global ocean sciences . The Organization is also leading the implementation of the United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021-2030) . The Convention on the protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage, the Global Ocean Observing System and UNESCO's Global Geoparks are also ways to protect the marine ecosystem. Consider adding it to Marine conservation rather? In general, rather look for the sub-articles if you want to add content that is related to UNESCO's work. EMsmile (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ocean and Oceanography" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ocean_and_Oceanography&redirect=no Ocean and Oceanography] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ocen" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ocen&redirect=no Ocen] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Ga is unclear
“By 3.5 Ga”, something something ocean started cooling. This is the only instance of Ga being used on page instead of billions of years. No nearby billions of years includes (Ga) for reference. Detspek (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. I've deleted that sentence now. I think we don't need it here. EMsmile (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Added more content about pH, temperature and stratification
I've just added some more content to explain how the whole pH and temperature issues is connected, how it varies over the depth, what "surface" means in this context, how it's related to stratification and so forth. I am not an expert though and have no professional background in this. I've been discussing this article with Tim Jickells and he's been helpful with suggesting suitable text and sentences (with reference to his textbook and other textbooks and publications). If you have additional ideas or suggestions for making this clearer and more succinct or for adding more accessible sources (not behind a paywall), I am all ears. I think pH is important to explain here (because of ocean acidification) but I am also mindful of not making the pH section too long in this kind of overview article. Perhaps what I have added could be condensed a bit. EMsmile (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox
Quite suprising I only realized now that the lesser oceans have infoboxes, but not the Ocean it self. So here I will put together based on the Atlantic Ocean infobox the appropriate data.

Nsae Comp (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Improving readability
Hello, I am currently editing this article to improve its readability. My work is part of a project focusing on improving the readability of climate change articles on Wikipedia. To learn more about the project, visit: Meetup/SDGs/Communication of environment SDGs. Bradextw (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Unclear term in introduction
I just edited a little in the second half of the second paragraph of the introduction, which I felt read unevenly. One additional thing I would like to rephrase is the "1% of the surface light depth" thing. However, I am not exactly sure what it means, which is why I think it should be clarified or rewritten.

Just reading what is says, my best guess is 1% of the total depth that light reaches. However, it continues to state that "1% of the surface light depth" is about 200m in the ocean. Now by my guess, that would mean that light reaches (200 * 100)m = 20000m, and there simply is not that much ocean. What seems more likely is that it is the depth at which only one 1% of light remains, which really is not obvious from the statement itself. So yeah.. could someone who knows clarify what it's supposed to mean? Ribidag (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that this is unclear. I'll check with Tim Jickells who has been helpful with this article in the past. EMsmile (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I got the following answer from Tim: "Sorry for any ambiguity over the 1% light thing. I quote below a sentence from Grant Bigg's book which I hope is unambiguous. "The euphotic zone is defined to be the depth at which light intensity is only 1% of the surface value" p36 The Oceans and Climate Grant R Bigg Cambridge University Press. I don't know if you want to actually use this reference or simply edit the existing text to be unambiguous, I'll leave that up to you. The basic concept is that with that little light photosynthesis is unlikely to achieve any net growth over respiration. The actual optics of light reflecting and penetrating at the ocean surface are complex, but I think this approach to the euphotic zone is pretty universal. " I'll try to improve the wording accordingly. EMsmile (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've made the edits to this statement now accordingly in two places: in the lead and also in the main text where the photic zone is explained. Is it OK like this now? Thanks Ribidag for pointing out this problematic sentence. EMsmile (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, clear like water now. Ribidag (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Photic zone ends at the depth at which the light intensity drops to 1% of surface intensity, which can vary a lot as the clarity of water can vary enormously. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter Southwood, I am a little bit unsure of this edit of yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ocean&diff=prev&oldid=1160773618 . As I had included the sentence in quotation marks, it's a direct quote from the book so we cannot change it in the way you have changed it. Maybe we leave the quoted sentence as is but we rather add your additional explanation after the quote (but maybe not in the lead but in the main text). The quoted sentence was: The photic zone starts at the surface and is defined to be "the depth at which light intensity is only 1% of the surface value". Your wording was ... is defined to be "the depth at which light intensity is at least 1% of the surface value". Or we drop the quotation marks and write it in a way that is not copyright violation, i.e. paraphrase (?). For it me would sound clearer as ... the depth at which light intensity is still at least 1% of the surface value". EMsmile (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * , ... the depth at which light intensity is still at least 1% of the surface value" is not actually correct. It is the depth range (i.e. a continuous region of all depths from the surface down to the bottom limit) at which light intensity is still at least 1% of the surface value, The depth at which light intensity is 1% of the surface value is the bottom limit of the photic zone, and is a dynamic 3-dimensionally curved surface. When I edited I didn't notice it was a quote, as it was not very well expressed and needed clarification, and why would we want to use a quote that does not make things clear? The important points are that the natural light level continuously decreases with increase of depth, depends on several variables, and it can fluctuate quite rapidly at times. Cheers &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We could say: The euphotic zone is the layer of water in which the natural light intensity is at least 1% of the surface value. (correct, but maybe not sufficiently clear to all readers) It extends continuously from the surface to the depth at which intensity has dropped to 1%, typically at about 200 m in the open ocean, and light intensity decreases continuously with increasing depth. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that sounds OK. So we leave off the quotation marks but keep the reference and page number? (some people would put the quote into the ref so that it appears in the ref list at the end) Perhaps it would also be good to state that photic zone and euphotic zone are the same thing (they are, aren't they?). - The reason why I had originally used quotation marks is because I was scared of either being hit with WP:close paraphrasing or that I would change the exact meaning by mistake... But I agree that quotation marks look inelegant here. - Make sure to change it not just in the lead but also in the main text. Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

More content on ocean density or even a separate article?
I'd like to bring to your attention a proposal by Peter Southwood to have a separate article on density of seawater, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ocean_stratification#Density_of_seawater. This makes me wonder if we need a bit more content on the density of ocean water also here. Density is mentioned 10 times but perhaps it needs its own dedicated section, like we have a section for pH? Or one could argue that it's only a sub-topic at seawater. I am not sure but am leaning towards a new (short) section about density which could then link out to another article where more detail is provided. EMsmile (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've asked Tim Jickells about that and here's his input: "Hi Elizabeth, I'm not quite sure what to say about the density questions. It's really an issue for physical oceanographers. Density is really fundamental to ocean circulation, it ultimately drives the whole thermohaline circulation. The section in "seawater" wiki is nice and short but doesn't really tell you much about how the density changes (with temperature and freshwater/salt mixing) which is really important. The section in the Ocean stratification wiki starts well in explaining density, why it matters and what drives changes in it. There are then that rather daunting set of equations. I assume these are correct but I'm not the person to ask that. However, I suspect they may frighten off many wiki readers. I think this is an editorial issue for you and your colleagues but personally I'd leave the "ocean circulation" section much as it is but perhaps just add a bit of text that says for those interested in the mathematical representation of this, here's the relevant equations but make clear that they don't need these to go on to the next section. Here speaks a chemist not a physicist or mathematician!" EMsmile (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Overly detailed info box?
Hi User:Nsae Comp, I think you made the info box overly detailed in the end. It was flagged up to me by the Ref 5 that you used which is flagged as unreliable (this one). I believe you have added it? I think we should remove these two sections from the info box as they are not that important and just clutter of this info box (if you think they are very important, they could be included in the main text maybe): ++++++++++++ Pole of inaccessibility:

Lowest point:
 * "Point Nemo", in a region known as spacecraft cemetery of the South Pacific Ocean, at 48°52.6′S 123°23.6′W, approximately 2,688 km (1,670 mi) from the nearest land

EMsmile (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Litke Deep, in the Arctic Ocean, at 6,351.704 km (3,947 mi) from Earth's centre, 5.449 km (3 mi) below sea level, 14.726 km (9 mi) closer to Earth's centre than the Challenger Deep


 * Hi. Well I do see the lengthyness of the infobox, but even more I have quite streched the understanding of the sections since e.g. one section of the infobox in question says "Max depth", so I concede that only "deepest point" and not also "lowest point" fits. Same with "coordinates" section.
 * Though since I find the information and differentation important Ill find a spot in the main body. Nsae Comp (talk) 20:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving it out of the infobox. However, if you want to use this content in the main text, can you please find a more reliable source for it? This one has been flagged as unreliable and I also find it odd that the link goes directly to a pdf file, not a journal location with a DOI: The deepest point of the Ocean though is not the lowest point of the ocean, or of Earth's crust. This would be the Litke Deep in the Arctic Ocean at 6,351.704 km from Earth's centre, 5.449 km below sea level, which makes it 14.726 km closer to Earth's centre than the Challenger Deep. The "unreliable" flagging is from this script by Headbomb.
 * I've removed that content for now as the source is rather poor and also it seems overly detailed to me - might be better suited for another Wikipedia article. EMsmile (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well you might be right that it is a bit trivial, but it might be still worthwhile to somehow mention that there is a deepest and lowest point and just refer to the article Extremes on Earth. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Content about Earth's outer core not needed here
I've removed this recently added content because it's outside of the scope of this article. Perhaps add it to another article. The scope of the article is clearly explained in the very first sentence. Already that section on "extraterrestrial oceans" doesn't really fit but serves to point readers to other interesting content (I wouldn't be opposed to removing the entire "extraterrestrial oceans" and rather put it under See also or in a hatnote.

+++++ Earth's outer core: The Earth's outer core is an ocean inside the planet Earth, composed mostly of liquid iron and nickel. Its depth is about 2260 km. It lies above the Earth's solid inner core and below the Earth's semisolid mantle. The outer core ocean begins approximately 2889 km beneath the Earth's surface at the outer core-mantle boundary and ends 5150 km beneath the Earth's surface at the outer core-inner core boundary. EMsmile (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Then, the name of this article should be "Ocean on Earth", if you would like to delete the section "Extraterrestrial oceans". Your arguments for deleting the sections I wrote ("Magma ocean" and "Earth's outer core") contradict to this very article because of the very existence of the "Extraterrestrial oceans" section in this very article, and that section you refused to delete, and thus discriminating me as an editor from editors who wrote the "Extraterrestrial oceans" section in this article, and discrimination on Wikipedia is unacceptable. If the "Extraterrestrial oceans" is in this article, then readers need to know about the existence of other oceans too, not only "the salty water on Earth", why geocentrism here?Bernardirfan (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

EMsmile (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Copied another, very similar comment by User:Bernardirfan from my talk page (this belongs on the article talk page not on the editor's talk page): "Hello! You deleted, pardon, removed two new sections I wrote ("Magma ocean" and "Earth's outer core") because you are "not convinced this content is needed here. We don't need to mention any kind of term that has the word "ocean" in it, when the core topic of this article is clearly spelled out in the first sentence: salty water on Earth.". Then, what the section "Extraterrestrial oceans", which are obviously not on Earth, is doing in this article? Will you delete that section as well? Your argument contradicts to this very article. "Extraterrestrial ocean" means "ocean that is not on Earth". And "two types of oceans" is not equal to "any kind of term that has the word "ocean" in it". You are not convinced, well, sorry, but I am convinced. There is a whole article about the magma ocean, and it needs to be mentioned here for readers, as a link to the "Magma ocean" article, so readers can get more info about the magma oceans by clicking the link in the "Magma ocean" section. And yes, a magma ocean is an ocean, read the "Magma ocean" article, readers must be informed that other types of oceans exist, not only those of "salty water on Earth", no matter of your personal opinion." EMsmile (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The hatnote and the first sentence of the article makes it very clear that his article is about water oceans on Earth. I agree the section "Extraterrestrial oceans" doesn't actually fit either. I suggest it's moved to a sub-article. That sub-article (depending on its scope) could then also contain your new content about magma ocean, or a link to that article as a sub-article. Same with the content about Earth's outer core. This is has nothing to do with "geo-centrism" but it has to do with WP:COMMONNAME, please review this policy and you'll see why this article is called ocean and not water ocean on Earth's surface. Note we already have Ocean (disambiguation). You could use that as a starting point to figure out where your proposed content would fit best. It doesn't fit at ocean and neither does the section on "Extraterrestrial oceans". Those kinds of things could be mentioned under "See also" if needed. - Let's see what other page watchers think about this? EMsmile (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The relevant article for extraterrestrial oceans is most likely Planetary oceanography. I think we simply move the section to there, and just leave a link behind. EMsmile (talk) 19:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then remove all sections about non-Earth oceans, and eventually rename the article to "Oceans on Earth" or similar.
 * OR
 * Do not delete my sections about non-water and non-earth oceans and the other editor's section named "Extraterrestrial oceans" in the article, and leave the title of this article as "Ocean", because the term "ocean" refers not only to the salty water oceans on Earth, but to magma oceans either on Earth or on another planets and natural satellites, water ocean on Europa, liquid hydrogen ocean on Jupiter, possible liquid carbon ocean on Uranus and Neptune, hydrocarbon oceans on the Saturn's moon Titan, etcetera. In the "Extraterrestrial oceans" section, I added a link to the main article "Magma ocean", for readers to click on it if they want to know more about magma oceans, and the editor EMsmile added the magma oceans paragraph at the end of the "Extraterrestrial oceans" section, so, thanks to that editor. Bernardirfan (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your first option is likely the way forward but we are for sure NOT going to rename this article. Please read WP:Commonname. It explains very clearly why "ocean" is exactly the right title for this article. If anyone gets to this page and is still confused because they wanted to read about oceans that are not water on Earth, they can easily click through to ocean (disambiguation) from the hatnote! EMsmile (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So as there has been no further objections, my plan is to move the section that is called "Extraterrestrial oceans" to Planetary oceanography in the next few days. I'll also move the section "Earth's outer core", probably to Earth's outer core if the content isn't there already. None of the 3 refs provided in that section use the phrase "an ocean of molten iron and nickel inside Earth" by the way. EMsmile (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've moved the content now. I don't know where to move this content to, should it go to Earth's outer core? But like I said: None of the 3 refs provided in that section use the phrase "an ocean of molten iron and nickel inside Earth". Earth's outer core is a liquid layer about 2260 km thick, composed mostly of molten iron and molten nickel that lies above Earth's solid inner core and below its mantle. This layer may be considered as an ocean of molten iron and nickel inside Earth. EMsmile (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved it to magma ocean. Nsae Comp (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you.Bernardirfan (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)