Talk:Adriatic Sea

Measurements

The measurements all need to be checked, because it seems they're either plain wrong or miscalculated - land miles versus nautical miles! --Joy [shallot] 12:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I noticed this from the apparently underestimated width of the strait of Otranto. --Joy [shallot] 12:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

According to the first sentence, the "Adriatic Sea is a large body of water on the west side of the Mediterranean Sea". Isn't it on the east side or the north-east side of the Mediterranean Sea? --SK 12 October 2006

Surface area seems particularly off: the article lists the average breadth as 160 km, and the extreme length as 770 km. If we're very charitable and assume the average length equals extreme length, that's still only 123,200 sq. km, well short of the listed 160,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.58.127 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fishes and Marine Life

The Adriatic and Ionian Seas are renowned for a variety of Sea Bass that gets imported into the UK as a special delicacy. An article expansion to cover the varieties of this and other marine life in the area certainly wouldn't go missed ;) Uranometria (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"It is interesting to note the vast difference between the Italian and Croatian coasts on the Adriatic. Although only a small distance from each other, the Croatian Coast and beaches are generally many times clearer, cleaner and bluer than Italy's. Croatia is known for its Crystal clear water[5]." this sentence should be cut out,it sounds like a croatian advertisement (something like "come to croatia it is much more beautiful than italy"),i think it has anything to do with the correct language someone expects to find in an encyclopedia and it is really partial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.14.36.152 (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• In Croatia sea water is said to be cleaner than in Italy, but it should be added that hotel rates are cheaper and turists are welcome.--Deguef (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Flysch

Tomobe03 wrote: "There's nothing special about flysch on the Slovene coast - flysch is found virtually everywhere along the Adriatic and islands, slightly reword"[1] - I don't know where else does it occur, but if you have reliable sources, feel welcome to add a short paragraph about this, and also about alluvial plains, which do obviously not occur only in the Po Valley. Previously, there was not even a single link to flysch. Also, the reword made it appear like the Strunjan cliff is a karst phenomenon, as flysch was not mentioned, and the paragraph was discussing karst topography. From the geological point of view this is surely important. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Flysch occurs along the entire eastern coast[2] Alluvial nature of the western coast and movement is also mentioned. "Vruljas" are mentioned: submarine groundwater discharges are just that - adding a Croatian name is not really helping on English wiki!

Please note that the article covers a relatively large area and summary style must be maintained in order to prevent this article becoming too long. I don't think the flysch remark is incorrect to make about the Slovene coast - it's simply not too significant for the area as a whole given the present mention about karstification.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Welcome to add the information about flysch to the article.
2. Regarding the Croatian name, I think it actually does help, as it is a specific naming of the "cold springs in the Croatian part of the Adriatic Sea", and not of all SGDs, and also does not refer to the warm springs found in Slovenia.
3. Besides the contrast between the warm and cold springs, the paragraph included also the information about the chemical composition, which is an important characteristic of SGDs in the Adriatic Sea, and is not common to all SGDs.
4. Alluvial nature of the western coast was mentioned, but the alluvial nature of the eastern coast was not. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I propose to (1) add information that flysch is present throughout the eastern coast (or something along those lines) with a proper source; (2) research what "vrulja" exactly means in Croatian (cold, hot, regardless of temperature and other stuff) and add that to the SGD discussion. The thermal spring info is now there next to the SGDs, including its chemistry, precisely to contrast the two. Alluvial nature of the eastern coast is not emphasized because it is not prevalent or typical for the coast. Still, info on localized sedimentation is indeed there, specifically noting that Dragonja river contributes to that.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To move a discussion from another talk page here too - in line with (2-above) a mention of localized alluvial plains may be added to the coast/karst/flysch sentence-or-two on the eastern coast. Mind you, karst in itself does not equal limestone, so I'd package the flysch and limestone together (noting both) as sedimentary rocks, how about that?--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This would be ok. Another economic activity that should in my opinion be mentioned as it is inherently related to the sea is salt panning in the Adriatic. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of that too, but I'm still trying to compile a list of sources on sea salt production in Italy (its Adriatic coast, that is) and actual output in terms of tonnes and/or euros thereof. I think the salt production is relatively minor economic activity there (compared to fishing, tourism, ports and oil/gas), but yes, that would probably be of some interest.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be indeed. Did you know that in Antiquity "the Adriatic Sea, having a higher salinity due to its shallow depth, had more productive solar ponds compared with those of the Tyrrhenian Sea, much closer to Rome"? At least that's what History of salt says; see also Via Salaria. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Adriatic has lower average salinity than the Mediterranean, but maybe that had to do with increased evaporation in particularly shallow waters?--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Statistical tables

The time period should be explicitely stated (year/month/...) in the tables containing statistical data (overnight stays, transport volume etc.). I think data are available for the year 2010, but not yet for the year 2011. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 00:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be best achieved by putting the year number in brackets next to the source info in the note already found at the bottom of each table.--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest choosing the same time period (the year 2010) to make the data comparable, and putting it in parentheses in the table heading. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed that would be preferable - regardless of the year, but until such data is found the notes about the year will have to do - except in case of the ten largest cities, as censuses neatly coincide in 2011. Anyway I'll see if those can be found. What year do the Slovenian coastal municipalities' tourism data belong to? By the way, it's quite good to have the coast separate for Slovenia, since I imagine Slovenian accommodation facilities are far larger in the Alps and Ljubljana combined - on the other hand it would hardly be of any practical purpose to do a similar exercise for Montenegro since nearly all of its tourist facilities are in coastal region itself and the country is smaller than Veneto and Emilia-Romagna anyway.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Slovenian data refer to 2010 (it may be verified in the refs). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Indented coast

The Surić ref (page 7) specifically says that "The Eastern Adriatic (Croatian) coast is one of the most indented ones..." and since Croatian coast extends from the Gulf of Piran which is itself a part of the Gulf of Trieste to Prevlaka which is in turn at the entrance to the Bay of Kotor I don't think there's anything left uncovered by the reference. Why the fact tag?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the Croatian coast, but the problem is the source does not explain the topic in detail, and the most indented part of the Adriatic coast is the Bay of Kotor, belonging not to Croatia but to Montenegro. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The article on the Bay of Kotor should make a point about that... I don't see why should that source have to go in detail on indentation of the coast - the Adriatic Sea article should not itself go into great details on each particular bay or short stretch of coast per summary style. The edit summary removing a perfectly sourced sentence as WP:OR is quite odd to say the least. Did you find that problematic for any particular purpose? I would prefer to say that the coast from the Gulf of Trieste to the Bay of Kotor is (as sourced) indented rather than the Croatian coast is indented because the same coast was indented too when it was a part of other countries... --Tomobe03 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, there are other such small bays (Lim, Mirna etc) which are far more intended according to coastal front/coast length than the Bay of Kotor.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentence "The Croatian part of the eastern Adriatic coast is one of the most indented ones." is inherently biased. It would be also correct (but biased) to say "The Montenegrin part of the eastern Adriatic coast is one of the most indented ones". It would be most neutral to say that "the eastern Adriatic coast is one of the most indented ones".

The indentness of the Bay of Kotor deserves mention in the article, because it is unique in the entire Mediterranean,[3] and therefore a unique characteristic of the Adriatic Sea. As for other indented areas, a source for the claim that they're more indented than the Bay of Kotor would be certainly welcome. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Both would be biased if unsupported by reliable sources. OTOH if supported, there would be no bias. If a Russian writes that the Russia is the largest country in the world, that's statement of fact (hopefully supported by a RS). If there's a source claiming that the Bay of Kotor is the most indented coastal feature in the Adriatic it's quite welcome addition.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The sourcing is ok now. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Slovenian and Croatian protection zones

Overlapping of the two declared zones is directly supported by a cited source as: "In October 2005 Slovenia proclaimed its own protected ecological and continental shelf zone, which included international waterscorridor created by the Račan – Drnovšek agreement. In 2006 Slovenia also proclaimed a Decision on fishery zones, which established three zones (A, B, C). One of them (zone B) embraced part of the sea which Croatia considers as constituent part of its territorial sea, while another one (zone C) embraced sea Croatia claimed by its ZERP..." - ZERP being Croatia's protected zone, I don't see anything doubtful regarding the statement that the two zones partially overlap.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Croatia - Bosnia and Herzegovina dispute

There is also a cited source directly supporting that there are some "remaining" issues in this field. Specifically, the Klemenčić/Topalović article says that "Despite the fact that Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia concluded a boundary treaty in 1999 which included the delimitation of their maritime boundary, it appears that some problems related to this boundary remain." - so I'd say the fact tag was not justified.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

What bothered me was the past tense: remained. It seems you have fixed it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)