Talk:Sea

Please see discussion at ocean talk page

There is a discussion going on at the ocean talk page about the three articles ocean, sea and world ocean. I know this has all been discussed before but a satisfying solution has never been found (the status quo is not satisfying). So I am making another attempt to reach consensus. See discussion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ocean#Improvements_to_headings_and_overlap_with_two_other_articles Basically, I think we are inching closer to merging "world ocean" into "ocean". Then the next step would be to either merge "sea" and "ocean" or to get it clear which content should be in "sea" and which in "ocean" so that we don't have two overlapping articles. Please contribute here so that we don't have two parallel discussions but just one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ocean#Improvements_to_headings_and_overlap_with_two_other_articles . Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

How to reduce overlap with ocean?

Please help me. I am currently improving the article ocean. I see a lot of overlap between ocean and sea. I see two options: either we merge the two, or we reduce the overlap (I am for merging but I might be in the minority; I might put up a merger proposal later). Let's assume we are not merging. Then let's understand which content should be in "sea" and which in "ocean" so that we don't have unnecessary duplication and extra work. These are the sections that are overlapping, for example: Currents, waves and swell, biology / life at sea, acidification. What is not overlapping is "human uses" (which is only at sea). So I could put a link across from ocean to sea under a section called human uses. Sea doesn't yet have a section on environmental issues and doesn't mention climate change yet (or only once). Do we perhaps want to set up the two articles so that sea is more about history and human uses whereas ocean is more about geography and current challenges with regards to pollution and climate change? What do you all think? This is a featured article so I hope there are lots of people watching this page. (does it actually still meat featured article criteria? Does it need a review?), FYI User:ASRASR EMsmile (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now made some small changes to sea and ocean. Linking from Ocean to sea with regards to the human uses. And linking from sea to ocean with regards to the environmental issues. So that delineation might be possible and logical. But how to deal with the sections on physical properties, saltwater content, currents etc.: which should be the "main" article for that content and which the sub-article? If e.g. "sea" is the main article for that, then the section on physical properties at ocean should be shortened and rather readers be pointed to the relevant section at sea. EMsmile (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

"does it actually still meat featured article criteria? Does it need a review?" Yes/No (I see no major problem, but FACs being reviewed thoroughly by the FAC team, so they will give their verdict eventually). What seems to be the problem is that this article is giving too much information about oceans because "There is no sharp distinction between seas and oceans". This could be easily solved if the article Sea discussed information exclusively related to Category:Seas—nothing about oceans, lakes, gulfs, etc.—, and if Ocean discussed exclusively the information about the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian, Southern, and Arctic Oceans. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Tbhotch you make it sound easy but it isn't. I think you are coming from a purely geography angle where such a division might work. But what about the topics related to the salty water itself, such as marine pollution? Sea level rise? Ocean adicification? Salinity in general? Waves, tides, tsunamis? Does this information belong with the article sea or with ocean? This is the question. Even content on navigation and exploration, is that a topic for sea or for ocean? Keeping in mind that this is an overarching article which should briefly introduce all the relevant sub-topics and sub-articles. EMsmile (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That information belongs to the respective articles. For example at basins, it says "The Earth's deepest trench is the Mariana Trench which extends for about 2,500 kilometres...", OK, but how is that relevant for seas; or the information about tsunamis, that subsection never explains how it affects seas. Most of it is information concerning Tsunami. This is what I mean that this article is unfocused and it's weird it passed the FAC in this condition. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is helpful to split this discussion away from the one at ocean. Personally, I don't see much merit in dividing these articles according to the somewhat arbitary distinction between oceans and seas in English. I would prefer a clearly explained division of the major topic areas between two articles: basic geography, science excluding biology, marine biology, and human interactions/history. Johnbod (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it would help to try to define the logical scope of each of these articles before attempting any major changes. I do not expect this to be easy, but it may be necessary. Some overlap may be inevitable, but it should be possible to restrict it to summary sections. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that we all have distinct and separate conceptions of what comprises a sea and what comprised an ocean. For me, as an island dweller, a sea is mostly about the coastal area, waves, sea-shore, cliffs, continental shelf fisheries. I.e small and relatively local. In contrast Ocean is distant, extensive, home to major cetaceans, sources of great currents and trade winds and including the great abyssal depths. Unfortunately arbitrary distinctions like that are very imprecise, individualistic (I suspect that everyone else will have their own distinctive take on the differences) and most significantly, very difficult to tease out into separate Wikipedia articles. I think that my solution would be two relatively short overview articles that set our the similarities and dissimilarities between the two topics with the major overlaps such as nerine biology, marine chemistry, Ocean currents, Trade winds etc all in distinct articles.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As I've said in at least one of the various discussions currently running, I don't think this approach is fruitful. Of course all the sub-articles already exist. We should try to define the scopes, but logic won't get us very far, nor do we want to spend much time in ocean explaining the differences to sea, and vice versa. I think we need to agree a largely arbitrary division between the two articles (I don't see why this can't be "easy", though getting agreement to it may not be), then rearrange the articles to suit, making sure it is explained what is covered in the other article. Johnbod (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think Velella and EMsmile have described a similar distinction of Sea (general) and Ocean (oceanographic). I think that sounds like a start.

PS: even though I think that there is still confusion of what the difference between the articles of Ocean and World Ocean is, at the moment it sounds like Ocean is refocused from an article about any ocean to what World Ocean tries to do. As stated elsewhere I am for keeping all three articles with one as the main and two as sub; or merging all three. But lets see where this duplication reduction takes us. Nsae Comp (talk) 07:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My impression of the distinction between ocean and sea is similar to Velella's: seas are small, ocean is vast. EMSmile; with such a difficult discussion, it's vital it takes place in one location. Could you coordinate that by closing some discussions and pointing to one central location? And is it possible to divide that long discussion up in concrete subquestions? FemkeMilene (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Reducing those sections where sub-articles exist

I have noticed that this article repeats a lot of content from sub-articles, rather than just leaving a summary and then pointing the reader to the sub-article. This contributes to the large overall large size of his article which is 74 kB (12296 words) "readable prose size" which is regarded as very long. Therefore, I propose to reduce these sections to just 1-2 paragraphs (and move content to the sub-article if it's not already there): seawater, waves, tsunamis, currents, tides. This will help to bring this article back to how it should be, i.e. a high level overview article. WP guidance says " if > 60 kB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)" EMsmile (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This should be a workable strategy. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll give that a go, slowly step by step. While making those changes (or afterwards), I think it will help us to get a grasp on the "overall content" question which you mentioned above and which has been kicking around for several years now, always ending in the "too hard" basket where the unsatisfactory status quo remains. I am thinking if we make these slow stepwise changes it will help us figuring out what is going on. So I will start over the next few days with reducing those sections where sub-articles exist and move what I would call "excessive detail" into the sub-articles. I think that is not controversial. EMsmile (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I have done the shortening now for the sections on "tides" and "tsunami". See what you think about this. Both text blocks I have moved to the talk pages of tide and tsunami so that the editors there can decide how they want to integrate it into those articles. I am looking at "seawater" now and think that it is also far too detailed and would benefit from shortening. EMsmile (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Great that your condensing the article ! Please do not use the existence of sub- articles as the criterion for condensing, per discussions elsewhere. (Featured) articles should stand on its own, and condensing should happen relative to its importance, not to whether people theoretically could click on another link to get more information. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

So what about the section "life in the sea"

I thought perhaps it helps if we look at specific sections. There is a section in this article called "life in the sea". It starts with "The oceans are home to a diverse collection of life forms that use it as a habitat." (note how it talks about oceans, not "the sea"). It also says: "Main article: Marine life" Now if we look at the article ocean it has a section called "Biology". It starts with "Oceans have a significant effect on the biosphere." It also says "Further information: Marine biology and Marine life". So when I try to improve both articles, I am wondering: do they each need to repeat the same thing? Or should one refer to the other? How would "life in the sea" ever be different for the article on "sea" compared to the article on "ocean"? It's simply the same thing, currently spread over two articles, isn't it? EMsmile (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree and I like your pragmatic section-approach. If we can find out which section belongs best to which article(Sea, Ocean and World Ocean) then we could get/provide also a clearer image on their difference. So they need to work together and link each other appropriatly. Nsae Comp (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, where are all the page watchers for this article? There are apparently 326 people watching this page. Please contribute to the discussion! My proposal now is to move the section called "life in the sea" to ocean and just leave a short summary here and the link across. This is in an effort to reduce duplication on the two pages. Reactions to this proposal? Equally, I would suggest to move the section "Environmental issues" to ocean and to just leave a short summary here. My justification is that we would move the natural sciences stuff to "ocean" and leave the cultural/history/human content at sea. EMsmile (talk) 02:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm ok with a consistent (and explained) division like that (see above), but yes we need more consensus on it. Most of those 326 people won't be editing any more, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As one of the page watchers still editing, I am also OK with that approach, but I am an engineer and it would probably be worth having some input from natural sciences and humanities specialists on the division. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I was one of the two editors (the other was @Chiswick Chap:) who created this article from nothing and brought it through FAC. I regard that achievement as the most important thing I have done on Wikipedia, and have been following these various discussions with some dismay. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The sections each provide a "Main" link to the principal article on that topic, and a short summary which should be one or two paragraphs. It makes no sense to start moving stuff about really; this was discussed extensively at the time and I certainly don't wish to go over it all again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Good to see some new people joining the conversation here. When you say: "At the time" that was by now 8 years ago (according to the milestone listing it was 8 years ago that the article achieved FA status). I think it's justified 8 years later to take another look, especially if other articles come up and the overlap is massive. See the section "Biology" at ocean. Just because something has been discussed 8 years ago doesn't mean new people are not allowed to take a new and fresh look. Nobody owns any of the articles. So I would be curious to hear your opinion on the question that I asked at the start of this section: "How would "life in the sea" ever be different for the article on "sea" compared to the article on "ocean"? It's simply the same thing, currently spread over two articles, isn't it?" Also, from what I can see, most of the sections have far more than 2 paragraphs, even if sub-articles exist. So there might have been some "content creep" over the years. EMsmile (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Major changes should improve the article. It is currently listed as FA, so any major changes must leave it as FA, or they would not be "improvements". If you are willing to take the article through an FA review it is quite a learning experience. As a level 2 vital article it should get some scrutiny. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Life in the sea has a hatnote link to the main article Marine life. This is not a problem per se, but maybe the summary could be condensed a bit more, and it might be appropriate to use a slightly different summary in different contexts in different articles. Other articles may also use summary sections on life in the sea if it is sufficiently relevant, and they may also be the same or tailored to fit. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the difference between Sea and Ocean is that Sea aims to be a balanced view of all aspects of things marine, a rounded whole, whereas Ocean is a number of marine-related sections with no basic plan. The Marine life article covers the living organisms well but lacks the habitat and ecological relationships with which Sea deals. The Biology section of Ocean is just a list. There is plenty of room for improvement in Ocean if EMsmile feels like getting down to work! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Cwmhiraeth, yes, I do feel like getting down to work. That's exactly the reason why I have been writing on the talk pages of ocean, sea, world ocean in the last two weeks to try and talk with other editors and to reach consensus about those three articles and that's why I have also made some non controversial edits in those three articles already (none of them have been reverted so far so they must have been OK). I have also read the previous discussions where people have talked about how the articles about ocean and sea overlap. With regards to the comment by Peter Southwood: yes, my aim is always to improve articles when I make edits. But I don't believe in "ring fencing" articles that have FA rating. It's great that they have FA ratings but that's not to say there is no room for improvement. I was recently involved in the FA review for menstrual cycle and the amount of work that went into that article in the last two weeks to ensure it passes its FA review was mind boggling. Just because an article has the FA stamp does not mean it's "perfect" forever on. This one got its FA stamp in 2013. I dug out the old version from 2013 where it got its FA stamp, it's this one. That version has hardly any information about environmental issues, and very little on climate change issues for seas/oceans, nor linking to the relevant related articles, apart from marine pollution. I am just saying this to show that articles do need to evolve and we cannot argue "once FA stamp, it's perfect forever". So with regards to those environmental issues, we can either build up the section in the article on sea. Or we could say this kind of information should rather be at ocean and we just link across. This is one of the things I have proposed above and I think could be workable. Overall, I am trying to look for solutions and make sure we best serve our clients (readers) with the content that we provide at sea and at ocean.EMsmile (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to do the sort of improvements you have suggested above, it is the proposal of mergers of Sea and Ocean, and the wholesale movement of information away from Sea into other articles that spooks me. I have no view on the merger of Ocean and World ocean, but large scale mergers are very difficult to do properly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)