Talk:Refugio oil spill

Hatnote
and I are in disagreement on whether or not a Hatnote is needed/appropriate for this page. I'm curious what other users think? Initially the template was used. I believe that was the wrong Hatnote to use in retrospect. The two articles do not really need to be distinguished. But what about using ? In my opinion this would be helpful, see WP:RELATED. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * you have all edited the page as well. Would love any thoughts you have. --Zackmann08 (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Three possible hatnotes...






 * I like this one, fwiw. Maybe with even more content, along these lines: This would help to distinguish the '69 spill offshore of downtown SB, with this 2015 spill at Refugio in SB County 15 miles or so West ("North" on Hwy.101) of the SB city limits. Note added "the" at the beginning.Jw4nvc (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Support template. These two spills will end up being confused with each other in time as they both occurred in the same area. The about template seems to give the clearest wording explaining the difference between the two. Winner 42  Talk to me!  17:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just now got the change email notification and I don't know if anything's been implemented yet (very busy) but if not here's another suggestion.

Here in SB the spill had relatively minor effects (most impacted was Refugio and to a lesser extent the area between Ellwood and Gaviota, several miles to the West). We may actually be seeing more impact now in the SB metro area beaches from a dramatic increase in the natural seep rate due to increased pressure because the offshore platforms have stopped pumping. At any rate, it's important to distinguish the two spills ('69 vs '15), the quantities on the water (79m3 [cubic meters] vs 15,898m3, and the two locations. People elsewhere can easily get the mistaken impression that we saw similar effects at the SB Harbor and adjacent beaches, while nothing could be further from the truth.

The "Map of spill and marine protected areas." currently on the wiki does not distinguish between the degree of effect (horrific images like the one of oil surf at Refugio vs. the lack of images showing people walking and swimming at SB beaches noticing no oil). Nor does the map indicate how much the affected area changed by the hour due to winds and tides. There are many indications that the oil has spread far out into the Channel and probably at least to the ecologically sensitive Channel Islands, and onto LA area beaches far to the southeast. Instead that early spill map gives the mistaken impression that only the area shown was affected, and that a black tide covered all of it.

Flying the area beaches repeatedly since the spill has made these distinctions obvious to me, and local media coverage has also emphasized these differences between spills, quantities and locations (unlike non-local coverage). Anything such as an About tag that helps the 2015 article make these differentiations will be beneficial to Wikipedia readers, and welcomed by locals.

Further, this Wikipedia article can help to educate readers about the serious effects even this relatively small spill has had on the local environment, economy and citizenry. Many locals have become much more involved in efforts to ensure that oil companies maintain and extend work on prevention and cleanup, and on supporting all work on moving to alternative energy.Jw4nvc (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A few photos on Commons
I took some photos of the cleanup effort on May 22, so I added a couple photos to the article and left a few more on Commons in the Refugio State Beach category. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a photo I took in 2007 that may be helpful to illustrate the "Economic impact" section: an oil barge and Platform Holly off the shore of Ellwood Mesa in Goleta. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)