Template talk:List of seas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Oceans (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Scope of list[edit]

I don't think the most recent additions under the class 'Superoceans' belong here. They might work in a category, but this navbox seems appropriate for use with articles dealing with current geography. Opinions? -- BPMullins | Talk 18:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the entire super-oceans category doesn't belong here. This isn't the place for hypothesized past and future bodies of water. My suggestion would be to remove that the entirely. --NormanEinstein (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Landlocked seas[edit]

None of the bodies of water listed is a sea but instead they all are lakes. This group/section should be either deleted or renamed to something like "Lakes that are called 'seas'". Due to its size,Caspian Sea is the only one where application of the official scientific definition is gray. Still, "technically", even Caspian Sea is a lake. Your thoughts regarding this section of the template? Maksdo (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I started by removing the freshwater bodies; by no definition are they seas. The Great Lakes was an especially egregious error, as they are not landlocked. I guess the editor who included them has never heard of the St Lawrence River. As for the remaining endorheic bodies, that's a more open question, as their nature does make them salty. So I'm not likely to remove them. But the list doesn't include all endorheic bodies; the Great Salt Lake isn't there, probably because of the name. Think I'll add it. There does seem to be a need for a cutoff in size, but I'm not sure what to make it. oknazevad (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria[edit]

There are some things in this list that arguably shouldn't be here. I think we need a proper and robust inclusion criteria that defines what's appropriate and what's not.
I propose that we include any waterbody called "sea" or "ocean", regardless of size or salinity.
But what about all the bays and gulfs? Some of these are huge - larger than some of the "seas" - for example Gulf of Mexico and Baffin Bay. I think that these should stay. But smaller ones, e.g. Gulf of Fonseca, probably should go. What size should we use as the defining line between inclusion and removal?
One definition of "sea" is "a large lake or landlocked body of water". So should any large freshwater lakes be included, e.g. the Great Lakes?
Bazonka (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I oppose including freshwater lakes. The term sea inherently carries with it connotations of saltwater. As it is the template's list reflects the list at the sea article, which follows the technical definition of a sea as a portion of an ocean that is seperated by the main portion by some land, such as a peninsula or series of islands. Mention is made of inland bodies called seas which are salty, and those are included here. In short, the two should be in sync and mostly are. oknazevad (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you regarding lakes (actually I don't really care much either way). But there is no "technical definition of a sea" given in the sea article. Do you have a source for this? I still question the inclusion of some of the small gulfs, e.g. Fonseca, which I note is not in sea either. Bazonka (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You're right; I was thinking of the definition of Mediterranean sea (oceanography). That said, I also agree that some of the things listed at sea are out of place. The English Channel jumped out at me especially, as did the Chesapeake Bay. The former is a narrow passage between the North Sea and the main body of the Atlantic; it's not a sea itself. Straits such as those should be left out.
The Chesapeake, like any bay, is where a stream/river meets the ocean, and is considered an inlet and part of the ocean. Bays should also be removed. Gulfs are more difficult, because the bodies the term covers vary so widely. The Gulf of Mexico is an extension of he Carribean, and is quite large. The Persian Gulf is much smaller, but there's really litte different between it and the Red Sea. The Gulf of Maine, on the other hand, is usually just considered part of the ocean.
Definitely needs more consideration. oknazevad (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that all bays should be excluded. Baffin Bay, for example, is a sea in all but name - it's massive. And you could probably use the same argument for the Bay of Biscay. Size must be a deciding factor. Bazonka (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, after I posted that I though of Husdon's Bay as well (though that's apparently relatively shallow). One of the hard parts of drawing such a line based on size is that sea borders are hard to define, and what happens when a sea is a subset of another sea, like say the Agean to the Mediterranean. In such a case, would our stats for the Meditteranean include the portion that is the Agean? So I'm just wondering if it wouldn't be best to reduce this list, and the one at sea, to bodies of water that include the word "sea" in their name. The title of the navbox would have to reflect that (say "Bodies of water named seas"). It's just the most objective, I think. oknazevad (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this would be the simplest approach but I'm not sure if it's the most helpful. Many users would be looking for waterbodies that actually are seas, and not just ones that are called seas. I also question whether the list in Sea is necessary - it should just be replaced with this template. Bazonka (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The lack of a technical or official definition makes this really difficult. "Bodies named sea" is indeed objective but excludes too much. We should then also have "bodies of water named bay", bodies of water named lake, gulf etc. Possibly as separate articles with see alsos or possibly wrapped up in one article. perhaps set the cutoff for inclusion at 50 square miles, which will allow the Sea of Galilee but exclude my local park boating lake.
Alternatively, the list could be restricted to bodies possessing an oceanic basin. This would exclude most lakes and small coves, but would allow the Caspian Sea which was once contiguous with the world's oceans. However, this would not be a simple criterion to execute in practice as it requires some specialist knowledge. SpinningSpark 11:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the need for specialist knowledge should discourage us if the criteria is the most objective and clearest; my concerns about OR and such would make it difficult to decide an objective criteria no matter what, so using one that oceanographers and hydrologists would find suitable is a good choice. We just need to explain the criteria here on the talk page so those curious about it can see the decision. As for the lists at sea, the nature of navboxes as metacontent, and their placement as footers, means the list must stay, even of it needs to be edited to match the navbox. oknazevad (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)