Talk:Labrador Sea

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


rqimg[edit]

Headline text[edit]

why dont you have a pictor? Kayleigh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.250.255.104 (talkcontribs)

Marginal?[edit]

If this is a marginal sea, it should be moved to Category:Marginal seas of the Atlantic Ocean. Bards 14:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

I have assessed this as a Stub, as it only provides the basic information on the topic, and of low importance, as it is a highly specific topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Canada has mouses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.146.26 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Marginal sea bit[edit]

The article states with a valid source that it is a marginal sea. If another source specifically states otherwise, then we need to resolve it here - and not with tags in the article. Vsmith (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed the contradict tag again, as I don't see where the article supposedly contradicts itself. I've changed the marginal sea phrase to avoid weasel word "some", as it is only one ref listed. Vsmith (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Labrador Sea does not meet the wikidefinition of a Marginal sea since it is not partialy enclosed, so the article contradicts itself, which is why I added Template:Contradict. Hike796 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC) (moved comment down to current discussion) Vsmith (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems the marginal sea article is currently being modified and is rather ambiguous about definition. The template you used is for self-contradictory articles and doesn't apply as the article does not contradict itself. As the definition seems rather vague, it doesn't contradict that either. So the tag doesn't belong. Vsmith (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Your last edit removed some intervening edits by others. Wictionary is not a WP:RS for a contradict tag. Also the ref existing in the article has been verified, if you want another ref to refute it then it is up to you to provide it. Vsmith (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
That the Labrador Sea is not partially enclosed is your opinion. My opinion is that the sea is every bit as enclosed as the Norwegian Sea, Barents Sea, Chukchi Sea, Laptev Sea, East China Sea, Coral Sea and so on. However, Wikipedia does not care about our opinions but the opinions of reliable sources and we have two references that say it is a marginal sea. Also your edit is messing up other parts of the page. The named reference in the history section and the MOS   and see also template. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 21:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume that a marginal sea being partially enclosed the emphasis is on the partiallyness, not the encolsingness. FWIW, compare Labrador Sea to Irish Sea or English Channel, both marginal seas. All three have the trait of essentially being a blob of ocean with some land mass on either side, but being pretty open on two sides. For a contrast consider the Black Sea or Medditeranean Sea or the like, where there is a very extreme amount of enclosure and a tiny opening.TCO (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Labrador Sea. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)