Talk:Sneaker wave

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wondering if sneaker waves are more likely to occur as a tide is going out or when the tide is going out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.124.33 (talkcontribs) 00:53, 26 November 2006

Merge Sneaker wave into Rogue wave[edit]

Since sneaker wave seems to be more about folklore than scientifically established, or otherwise well-defined -- no significant hits on Google Scholar, mainly (local) newspaper and yachtsmen stories -- I propose to redirect it here. The article itself does not contain much either, only the folklore regarding that every seventh wave is a high wave (which is in fact about surfbeat and wave groups, not about rogue waves). And it contains no (reliable) references. -- Crowsnest (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The most important difference I see is that the article on sneaker waves seems to refer to coastal waves only, whereas rogue waves only occur in the middle of the ocean. How do you propose to deal with this? Oliphaunt (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
You are right. There is no indication that sneaker waves are exceptional, in the sense as rogue waves are, with respect to the sea state in which they occur (in fact, nothing is known). What do you think about a merger into ocean surface wave, since there is no article on surf beat? The alternative is to start an article on surf beat and merge into there. -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Is your proposal to merge rogue and sneaker into ocean surface wave? Frankly, I think the rogue wave article is fine as it is... It's a completely separate phenomenon from the sneaker wave. I'd never heard of the term surf beat, but from a quick google search I suppose it may be related to the sneaker wave phenomenon, so an article on surf beat + sneaker wave may be a good idea. Oliphaunt (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "rogue wave" is fine as it is, so I do not propose to merge it anywhere. "Surf beat" is a common name, and is at least a scientific term since Walter Munk published about it in 1949. So I will start a stub on that and propose to merge "sneaker wave" into there. I will remove the merge tags. Thanks for your help. -- Crowsnest (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
There's no justification for merging sneaker wave into anything. It's a phenomenon significant enough to have dedicated webpages about it on the official websites of the state governments of Washington and Oregon, so it's certainly significant enough to have a dedicated article about it in WP. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
(The above discussion is copied from Talk:Rogue wave, for further discussion here) -- Crowsnest (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no objective evidence, see WP:NOBJ, for the phenomenon. It is not covered by reliable sources in the scientific literature, which is what I would expect for an important natural phenomenon. Like rogue waves (formerly freak waves) which are covered for at least over thirty years in the scientific literature. Or rip currents.
I do not question the occurrence of large waves, otherwise these US state web-sites would not mention it. But there is no clear description, otherwise than that they are high and unexpected.
The description in the article on the phenomenon -- constructive interference and every 7th wave is a high wave -- is just the description of wave groups, which result in surf beat. Which are quite well understood phenomena and quite predictable.
Sneaker wave seems to be a loose term in popular culture used for what people experience as an unexpected high wave. The whole terminology is pointing towards a wave by which people are surprised. That is also what I find looking with Google through web-pages containing "sneaker wave": all kinds of waves are classified as sneaker wave because people are surprised, even without any evidence of the wave being exceptional.
As it is now -- only being described as a high and unexpected wave, appearing without warning -- it looks more like a dictionary term than an encyclopedic subject.
So, to my opinion, the best way to proceed is to create an article on surf beat, expanding on the material on constructive interference and wave groups (high 7th wave), and their effects on the coast, and redirecting sneaker wave in an appropriate way to there. -- Crowsnest (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the term "sneaker wave" is a scientific term or not is totally irrelevant. It is a term that is obviously in very wide usage, and therefore is a subject which WP should document, fully and properly. "Surf beat" appears to be a rather obscure scientific terminology with extremely limited currency - certainly much less so than "sneaker wave" - and, moreover, a rather tenuous, tangential relationship to this subject. By all means, create a separate article on "surf beat" - but separate is and should be the operative word. --Gene_poole (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Then please provide evidence that sneaker wave is worth a separate article, see WP:PROVEIT and WP:GNG. The description as it is -- constructive interference and high 7th wave -- describes wave groups (which are predictable), resulting in surf beat at the coast. So if the relationship is tenuous and tangential, it is introduced by the article itself.
Then, if the connection with wave groups and surf beat is left out (which appears to be required since there are no reliable sources for this connection), what remains is a dictionary description of a not well-defined phenomenon, not deserving an article, see WP:NOTDICDEF. The linked web sites just prove that governmental agencies also use this term, but it is not a reliable source on the phenomenon itself. -- Crowsnest (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You don't appear to be following either this discussion, or WP content policies with sufficient attention to detail. The term "sneaker wave" is a commonly-used terminology - including by multiple major state and federal government agencies, and multiple reliable third party print media sources. Both verifiability and notability are abundantly established. There is nothing further to discuss. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

For the moment I removed the unverifiable claims on the relation with constructive interference and rogue waves. -- Crowsnest (talk) 12:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific evidence[edit]

I have changed the text regarding "every seventh wave" to reflect that of the cited document. I also tidied up the paragraph a little as it didn't read very well. -- Clc38 (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The cited text discusses the occurrence of wave groups: on average, sequences of higher waves are alternated in a correlated fashion with sequences of lower waves. The cited text only says that not "every" seventh wave is a high wave. And also the number 7 depends on the spectral bandwidth of the waves. So I disagree with your changes, suggesting now that there is no evidence for high waves occurring in wave groups. The given reference is only one of many discussing this phenomenon – that is why there was "for example" at the beginning of the (now changed) citation. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)