I vote Yes, merge. Each of the detailed layers as they currecntly stand is more of a definition than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia would be better served to compress all four articles into just one. N2e 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No. While N2e's point may be true 'as they currently stand' one of the fundamental features of Wikipedia is that short articles are invitations to expand them. Further, If an editor of another article wishes to link for example, the word epilimnion to a clarification of its meaning, a clarification of its meaning is what he needs. This may be found by digging around in a catch-all article but that would tend to overload the reader with superfluous information. It is shaping up well. Leave well alone and let us devote our energies to seeing that articles, short or long are well-written and informative ones. (RJPe (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
Merge. The individual articles are dictdefs and poorly referenced (if at all). The "invitation" has been open for a long time, but nobody is taking it. It'll take a lot of work to make these articles into those that deserve to stand alone, and at the current work rate, that'll take a very long time. Merging doesn't preclude work on the individual terms. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The stratification of oceans and lakes has a lot of wrinkles to it. Apart from the terms used here, the terms applied to oceans (pelagic, benthic etc) are also applied to lakes. There is now a new navigation panel which connects these terms and makes the relationships more apparent. In time most of these articles will be fleshed out more. --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Time to close discussion. No consensus: no merge. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.