Talk:Pacific Ocean: Difference between revisions
m Reverted 1 edit by 99.61.21.76 (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by Bazonka. (TW) |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Pacific Ocean/Archive 1. |
||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
If I could get specific temperatures and precipitation for the north and west pacific seperately that would be great. |
If I could get specific temperatures and precipitation for the north and west pacific seperately that would be great. |
||
== Specification of Area. == |
|||
The second paragraph opens with ..."At 169.2 million square kilometres (65.3 million square miles) in area," |
|||
and then the first paragraph of the "Overview" section says "...having an area of 179.7 million square kilometres (69.4 million sq mi ..." |
|||
they are both defining the area of the ocean, is there a border dispute, or are there two cited figures, and if so, shouldn't we state that fact ? |
|||
:It makes me wonder, too. And, most of all, there are no sources in both cases. [[User:Wizardist|Wizardist]] ([[User talk:Wizardist|talk]]) 23:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Dubious: 25,000 islands more than the rest of the world combined== |
|||
It is dubious that the Pacific contains more islands than other oceans. Archipelago Sea in Finland contains 50,000 and Canadian Arctic Archipelago has 36,000. [[User:Ufwuct|Ufwuct]] ([[User talk:Ufwuct|talk]]) 19:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== "Tepre pacificum" hoax == |
== "Tepre pacificum" hoax == |
||
Revision as of 12:41, 7 June 2011
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pacific Ocean article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vandalism
Like many other pages, this one has been the location of vandalism. I removed it, 3/29/06 (2:57pm CST)
Straits or Strait?
The introductory paragraph states that the "Straits of Mollucca links ..." and the "Straits of Magellan links ...". The actual entries for these straits are under "Strait of" (singlular). The links specifically override this. It seems more consistent to say "Strait" instead of "Straits". Barring that, shouldn't it be "link" and not "links", or is "Straits" grammatically singular?
Picture of Currents
I would like to see a picture with arrows of the significant currents of the Pacific Ocean. The text description adequately describes it, but a picture is worth 1000 words.
Pictures
I removed the picture of the Pacific Ocean from Oregeon, as it was the second pic of the ocean from North America. The removed link is shown below if anyone disagrees or can come up with a better way to display it that doesn't detract from the text. User:jayfogle 22:16 (UTC), 27 Aug 2006
What Color is the are the Oceans
Oceans come in a variety of colors, so you should really tell what color they are and why just in case someone wants to know. And if it is in the article, just tell me.
specific temperatures
If I could get specific temperatures and precipitation for the north and west pacific seperately that would be great.
"Tepre pacificum" hoax
I've never heard of a Latin word tepre before, so this part made me curious. The citation given says nothing of the sort, so I figured that there had been some sort of vandalism in the past, presumably changing Mare pacificum into Tepre pacificum. Sure enough, this is exactly what I found, and is the source of the whole confusion: Voilà, the vandal edit. From September 2009! The shocking thing is that this nonsense has been allowed to stay for so long. Apparently Wikipedians who are competent in Latin or Portuguese rarely read such articles. No-one became suspicious – until now. What did happen in the meanwhile was that an IP decided that because tepre isn't Latin, it has to be Portuguese. So the anonymous contributor made something up about a "Luso-Latin" macaronic expression, in this edit. The next edit was another editor slapping a "citation needed" on the sentence, sensible enough, for somebody with no clue about Latin or Portuguese at least, who would otherwise have got rid of the whole mess long ago. The next step was another IP adding a reference instead, a Catholic Encyclopaedia article about Magellan, while conveniently overlooking the fact that it does not say what the article says. Eventually, someone decided to get rid of the "macaronic" nonsense and this is how we got to the version I got to see.
Sadly, during my searching the web just to make sure that there wasn't really some word tepre I was simply ignorant of (before I discovered the origin of this poppycock), I discovered that the hoax had spread over countless websites already, while predictably, there was no indepedent confirmation of the word to be found. All hits were either something totally different or clearly derived from Wikipedia (the vast majority, as apparently tepre isn't even a word or name in any major language, or at best something utterly obscure). This shows the power of Wikipedia to spread bullshit and misinformation, and the special responsibility we Wikipedians have. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well done. Bazonka (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)