Talk:Chemical oceanography

Merging

Wouldn't it be better for this page to be merged with ocean chemistry and marine chemist? The three pages are all stubs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apha (talk • contribs) 00:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Improving and Merging

I agree with merging and improving... how about something like:

1) Geochemical cycling 2) Global biogeochemical cycles 3) Biogeochemical cycling in the water column and in the sediments 4) Marine chemistry on other planets and their moons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65Eq (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge update: April 2021

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Ocean Chemistry and Marine Chemist into Chemical Oceanography. I have added merge from templates to the Ocean chemistry and Marine chemist articles, and a merge to template to Chemical Oceanography. I am in favor of this merger, which will improve the quality of information on Chemical Oceanography and Wikipedia as a whole. I recognize Wikiproject Limnology and Oceanography as the relevant Wikiproject for this subject, and I have proposed this merger on that page as well. The history of merge requests on the talk page of Chemical Oceanography indicates a consensus for this action, which I propose to be carried out by the WPL&O community pending further discussion. OHClNaMg (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose As a non oceanography person I would say that Marine chemistry would be a better target topic -- its what folks are more likely to search for -- its the thing that people are going to find. As for the distinction between profession and topic: I suggest trying to keep them separate, and rebuild the chemist or the field of study (this) article around the different parts of the profession distinct from the subject they explore. Sadads (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment Ocean chemistry and Chemical oceanography have roughly the same average daily pageviews (with Ocean chemistry slightly higher - see here). Marine chemistry redirects to Ocean chemistry and about 20% of traffic comes from Marine chemistry redirects (see here). Very few redirects for Chemical oceanography (see here). Jayzlimno (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment Seems a good idea to merge but as another non oceanography person I would say that "Chemical oceanography" seems slightly too technical as an article title. A title ending with "chemistry" might be better for, say, a high school student reader. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment These articles are individually such a mess that "merging" them would just mean creating one seriously big mess. I'm not sure that would be an improvement. People have been copying huge slabs from other articles that simply miss the mark. It would be great to have a competent chemical oceanographer around, even if only directing from the sideline. Oh well... There is a case for retaining both chemical oceanography and ocean chemistry providing the articles were to be written properly. Chemical oceanography is a significant professional field, and needs its own article. The article could talk about things like the paraphernalia of the chemical oceanographer, associated sampling techniques, remote sensing, and the use of oceanographic ships and ROV's. And it could talk about things that mark chemical oceanography apart from other fields of chemistry. For example, the discourse of the chemical oceanographer and it's grand obsessions with DOC, POC, DIC, PIC, DOM, POM, DIM and PIM. The article on ocean chemistry would then be freed up to be just that, an article focusing on what is actually known about ocean chemistry. Sorry. I don't seem to have anything practical to say here. — Epipelagic (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Support a merger of sorts - I would support a merger of Ocean chemistry to somewhere. This article is actually very short because the section on human impacts is just excerpts from elsewhere. The only "unique" section is this one: "Marine chemistry on earth". I am wondering if perhaps it should just be merged to ocean (perhaps some of it is already there anyhow)? EMsmile (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Chidgk1: How can I reopen this discussion? The fact remains that chemical oceanography studies marine chemistry, so it's hard to see how the articles can actually be improved without massive repetition. (I have started the process of fixing this one, but it seems like a waste of time when both articles exist unmerged.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)