Talk:Sea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial Discussion

Shouldn't perhaps Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea becalled apart, and not in Atlantic Ocean? They are not landlocked, nor they are commonly considered part of the Ocean (in Europe, at least). How in this case could they be regrouped? Other seas that could eventually be distinguished this way? -- Gianfranco

Seas are either part of Oceans or large lakes. The Atlantic Ocean article claims the Mediterranean is part of it. Also see ocean.

Seaport also had this weird idea behind it. I split the Mediterranean ports out into their own area. -- Zoe

I've tried a compromize with nested lists, how's that? I used the same approach to a couple of other bodies of water that aren't directly connected to the ocean they're listed under. Bryan

Mentioning the "connected to an ocean" part seems really pointless, considering the sheer number of exceptions to this "rule." I think there just comes a point where one has to realize that seas just plain aren't necessary connected to an ocean. Anyway, I really think the whole "connected to an ocean" thing in fact should be removed. User:Edsanville

I think "connected to an ocean" is in fact quite relevant, since it shows that seas are not necessarily distinct bodies of water surrounded by a shore. Furthermore, take a look at the length of the list of seas in the article that are connected to oceans versus the landlocked seas list - there are 64 ocean-connected seas versus only 4 landlocked seas listed. If anything, it's the landlocked ones that are the rare exception. Bryan 07:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Make that 5, I just added the Salton Sea.Ed Sanville

Is there any sea with no shores? Sea with n o shores?? Ha ha--Johnhardcastle 11:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is, actually. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Sargasso_Sea Statalyzer (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sea vs Gulf

The article claims that the Persian Gulf is a sea and not a gulf. It never explains the difference though. Also, other bodies of water with "gulf" or "bay" in the name are listed under the seas. Are any of those actually NOT gulfs or bays, but actually seas as well? Statalyzer (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

List to integrate

From http://standards.sedris.org/18025/text/EEC_S.html, itself from International Hydrographic Organization (IHO), Limits of Oceans and Seas, Special publication S-23, Draft 4th ed., Monaco: IHO, 1986 ("LOS" below). This is the only on-line reference I could find that actually lists the S-23 (1986) contents. It should be noted the IHO abandoned the draft and started a new one in 1998 [1], although several data standards have nevertheless adopted it (e.g. EDCS, VMAP0 [2] 4.1.2, NATO...).

(in alphabetical order)

• ADRIATIC_SEA : Adriatic Sea as defined in [LOS, 3.1.2.1]. The Adriatic Sea is situated in the north-western part of the Mediterranean eastern basin, generally between the coasts of Italy, Yugoslavia and Albania.
• AEGEAN_SEA : Aegean Sea as defined in [LOS, 3.1.2.4]. The Aegean Sea is situated generally between the coasts of Greece and Turkey.
• ALBORAN_SEA : Alboran Sea as defined in [LOS, 3.1.1.2]. The Alboran Sea is situated generally between the southern coast of Spain and the coasts of Algeria and Morocco.
• AMUNDSEN_SEA : Amundsen Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.11]. The Amundsen Sea is situated generally off the coast of Marie Byrd Land and westward of Thurston Island.
• ANADYRSKIY_ZALIV : Anadyrskiy Zaliv as defined in [LOS, 7.9]. The Anadyrskiy Zaliv is situated generally north-westward and adjacent to the BERING_SEA and bounded by the Siberian coast.
• ANDAMAN_SEA : Andaman Sea as defined in [LOS, 5.13]. The Andaman Sea is situated generally between the Andaman and Nicobar Islands and the coasts of Myanmar and Thailand.
• ARABIAN_SEA : Arabian Sea as defined in [LOS, 5.8]. The Arabian Sea is situated generally in the northern part of the Indian Ocean.
• ARAFURA_SEA : Arafura Sea as defined in [LOS, 5.15]. The Arafura Sea is a component of the Indian Ocean generally lying between the south-western part of New Guinea and the northern coast of Australia.
• ARU_SEA : Aru Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.13]. The Aru Sea lies off the southern coast of Irian Jaya, and is generally bounded on the south by the ARAFURA_SEA and on the west by the BANDA_SEA and CERAM_SEAs.
• BAFFIN_BAY : Baffin Bay as defined in [LOS, 9.12]. The Baffin Bay is situated generally between the eastern coast of Ellesmere, Devon, Bylot and Baffin Islands on the west, and the western and north-western coasts of Greenland on the east.
• BALEAR_SEA : Balear Sea as defined in [LOS, 3.1.1.3]. The Balear Sea is situated generally between the eastern coast of Spain and the Islas Baleares.
• BALI_SEA : Bali Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.9]. The Bali Sea is situated generally southward and adjacent to the JAWA_SEA, between the eastern coast of Jawa and the western coast of Sumbawa.
• BALTIC_SEA : Baltic Sea as defined in [LOS, 2]. The Baltic Sea is an enclosed sea opening only to the SKAGERRAK, generally bounded by the coasts of Sweden, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany and Denmark.
• BANDA_SEA : Banda Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.14]. The Banda Sea is generally bounded on the north by Buru and Ceram, on the east by Nuhu Cut and Yamdena, on the south by Moa, Timor, Alor, Pantar and Kawula, and on the west by Sulawesi and the FLORES_SEA.
• BARENTS_SEA : Barents Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.4]. The Barents Sea is situated generally off the north-eastern coast of Norway and the north-western coast of Russia.
• BASS_STRAIT : Bass Strait as defined in [LOS, 8.4.1]. The Bass Strait is a component of the TASMAN_SEA and is situated generally between the south-eastern coast of Australia and Tasmania.
• BAY_OF_BENGAL : Bay of Bengal as defined in [LOS, 5.12]. The Bay of Bengal is situated in the northern part of the Indian Ocean, generally between the coasts of Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, Myanmar and the western side of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
• BAY_OF_BISCAY : Bay of Biscay (or Golfe de Gascogne) as defined in [LOS, 1.8]. The Bay of Biscay is situated generally between the western coast of France and the northern coast of Spain.
• BAY_OF_BOTHNIA : Bay of Bothnia as defined in [LOS, 2.2.2]. The Bay of Bothnia is the northern of the two basins comprising the GULF_OF_BOTHNIA, and is situated generally between the eastern coast of Sweden and the western coast of Finland.
• BAY_OF_FUNDY : Bay of Fundy as defined in [LOS, 1.12]. The Bay of Fundy is situated generally on the eastern coast of North America, bounded on the west, the north and the east by the coast of Maine, in the United States, and the coasts of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, in Canada.
• BEAUFORT_SEA : Beaufort Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.15]. The Beaufort Sea is situated generally off the northern coasts of Alaska and Canada, and bounded on the east by Prince Patrick and Banks Islands.
• BELLINGSHAUSEN_SEA : Bellingshausen Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.12]. The Bellingshausen Sea is generally located west of the Antarctic Peninsula and confined by Peter I Island and Thurston Island.
• BERING_SEA : Bering Sea as defined in [LOS, 7.8]. The Bering Sea is situated generally in the northern part of the North Pacific Ocean and bounded on the west by the coasts of Poluostrov Kamchatka and Siberia, on the east by the coast of Alaska, and on the south by the Aleutian Islands.
• BISMARCK_SEA : Bismarck Sea as defined in [LOS, 8.1]. The Bismarck Sea is situated generally off the north-eastern coast of Papua New Guinea and bounded by the Bismarck Archipelago.
• BLACK_SEA : Black Sea as defined in [LOS, 3.3]. The Black Sea is an enclosed sea situated in the north-eastern part of the Mediterranean region, generally bounded by the coasts of Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia and Turkey, connected through the Kerch Strait with the SEA_OF_AZOV on the north, and through the Bosporus with the SEA_OF_MARMARA on the south-west.
• BO_HAI : Bo Hai as defined in [LOS, 7.4.1]. The Bo Hai is situated in the north-west part of the YELLOW_SEA and is generally bounded by the coast of China.
• BOTHNIAN_SEA : Bothnian Sea as defined in [LOS, 2.2.1]. The Bothnian Sea is the southern of the two basins comprising the GULF_OF_BOTHNIA, and is situated generally between the eastern coast of Sweden and the western coast of Finland.
• BRANSFIELD_STRAIT : Bransfield Strait as defined in [LOS, 10.14]. The Bransfield Strait is situated generally between the South Shetland Islands and the northern part of the Antarctic Peninsula.
• BRISTOL_CHANNEL : Bristol Channel as defined in [LOS, 1.5]. The Bristol Channel is situated generally north-eastward and adjacent to the CELTIC_SEA and bounded on the north, the east, and the south by the coasts of Wales and England.
• CARIBBEAN_SEA : Caribbean Sea as defined in [LOS, 1.10]. The Caribbean Sea is situated generally between the northern coast of South America, the eastern coast of Central America and the islands of the West Indies.
• CASPIAN_SEA : Caspian Sea, situated in north-west Asia, landlocked by the coasts of Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan.
• CELEBES_SEA : Celebes Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.21]. The Celebes Sea is situated generally between the eastern coasts of Sabah (East Malaysia) and Kalimantan, the northern coast of Sulawesi and on the north by the coast of Mindanao.
• CELTIC_SEA : Celtic Sea as defined in [LOS, 1.6]. The Celtic Sea is situated generally between the southern coast of Ireland, the south-western coasts of Wales and England, the north-western coast of France and the Celtic shelf-edge.
• CENTRAL_BALTIC_SEA : Central Baltic Sea as defined in [LOS, 2.1]. The Central Baltic Sea is situated generally between the southeast coast of Sweden, the southwest extremity of Finland and the coast of Europe from Estonia, westward to Germany and Denmark.
• CERAM_SEA : Ceram Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.16]. The Ceram Sea is generally bounded on the north by Mangoli, Obi Mayor and Kofiau, on the east by the coast of Irian Jaya, on the south by Nuhu Cut, Ceram and Buru, and on the west by Sanana.
• CHUCKCHI_SEA : Chuckchi Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.16]. The Chuckchi Sea is situated generally between the north-eastern coast of Siberia and the north-western coast of Alaska.
• COASTAL_WATERS_SOUTHEAST_ALASKA_BRITISH_COLUMBIA : Coastal Waters of south-east Alaska and British Columbia as defined in [LOS, 7.11]. These coastal waters are situated generally in the north-eastern part of the North Pacific Ocean, between the coast of North America and the Alexander, Queen Charlotte and Vancouver Islands.
• CORAL_SEA : Coral Sea as defined in [LOS, 8.3]. The Coral Sea is situated generally between the eastern coast of Australia in the west, and the Santa Cruz Islands, Vanuatu and Norfolk Island in the east, and is bordered on the north by the SOLOMON_SEA and the southern coast of Papua New Guinea and on the south by the TASMAN_SEA.
• COSMONAUTS_SEA : Cosmonauts Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.4]. The Cosmonauts Sea is situated generally adjacent to the Antarctic coast of Dronning Maud Land and Enderby Land.
• DAVIS_SEA : Davis Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.6]. The Davis Sea is situated generally adjacent to the King Leopold and the Queen Astrid coasts, stretching eastward to the Shackleton Ice Shelf.
• DAVIS_STRAIT : Davis Strait as defined in [LOS, 9.9]. The Davis Sea is situated generally between Baffin Island and Greenland.
• DEAD_SEA : Dead Sea, situated in south-west Asia, landlocked by the coasts of Israel and Jordan.
• DOVER_STRAIT : Dover Strait (or Pas de Calais) as defined in [LOS, 1.7.1]. The Dover Strait is situated generally between the southern extremity of the British Isles and the northern extremity of France.
• DRAKE_PASSAGE : Drake Passage as defined in [LOS, 4.3 and 10.13]. The Drake Passage is situated generally between the southern and eastern extremities of South America and the South Shetland Islands, lying north of the Antarctic Peninsula.
• DUMONT_DURVILLE_SEA : Dumont d'Urville Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.8]. The Dumont d'Urville Sea is situated generally adjacent to the coasts of Terre Adelie and George V Land.
• EAST_CHINA_SEA : East China Sea as defined in [LOS, 7.3]. The East China Sea is situated generally between the coast of mainland China, the south-western part of Japan and the Nansei Shoto.
• EAST_SIBERIAN_SEA : East Siberian Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.1]. The East Siberian Sea is situated generally off the north-eastern coast of Russia.
• EASTERN_BASIN_MEDITERRANEAN_SEA : Mediterranean Sea, Eastern Basin as defined in [LOS, 3.1.2]. The Eastern Basin of the Mediterranean Sea is generally bounded by the coasts of Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.
• ENGLISH_CHANNEL : English Channel (or La Manche) as defined in [LOS, 1.7]. The English Channel is situated generally between the southern coast of England and the northern coast of France and links the NORTH_SEA and the CELTIC_SEA.
• FLORES_SEA : Flores Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.10]. The Flores Sea is situated generally between the JAWA_SEA and the BANDA_SEA, bounded on the north by the southern coast of Sulawesi and on the south by the northern coasts of Sumbawa and Flores.
• GREAT_AUSTRALIAN_BIGHT : Great Australian Bight as defined in [LOS, 5.16]. The Great Australian Bight is a component of the Indian Ocean and is situated generally on the southern coast of Australia.
• GREAT_BARRIER_REEF : Great Barrier Reef (coastal waters) as defined in [LOS, 8.3.2]. The Great Barrier Reef is situated in the CORAL_SEA generally off the north-eastern coast of Australia.
• GREENLAND_SEA : Greenland Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.6]. The Greenland Sea is situated off the north-eastern coast of Greenland and is generally bounded by the Svalbard on the north-east, and by Jan Mayen on the south.
• GULF_OF_ADEN : Gulf of Aden as defined in [LOS, 5.5]. The Gulf of Aden is a wide strait generally linking the RED_SEA and the ARABIAN_SEA.
• GULF_OF_ALASKA : Gulf of Alaska as defined in [LOS, 7.10]. The Gulf of Alaska is situated in the northern part of the North Pacific Ocean, generally bounded on the west by the coast of the Alaskan Peninsula, and on the north and the east by the coast of Alaska.
• GULF_OF_AQABA : Gulf of Aqaba as defined in [LOS, 5.3]. The Gulf of Aqaba is situated north-eastward and adjacent to the RED_SEA, generally bounded by the coasts of the Sinai Peninsula and the Arabian Peninsula.
• GULF_OF_BERAU : Gulf of Berau as defined in [LOS, 6.17]. The Gulf of Berau is situated eastward and adjacent to the CERAM_SEA and is generally bounded on the north, the east and the south by the western coast of Irian Jaya.
• GULF_OF_BONE : Gulf of Bone as defined in [LOS, 6.15]. The Gulf of Bone is situated westward and adjacent to the BANDA_SEA and is generally bounded on the west, the north and the east by the coast of Sulawesi.
• GULF_OF_BOTHNIA : Gulf of Bothnia as defined in [LOS, 2.2]. The Gulf of Bothnia is situated generally between the eastern coast of Sweden and the western coast of Finland.
• GULF_OF_CALIFORNIA : Gulf of California as defined in [LOS, 7.12]. The Gulf of California is situated in the eastern part of the North Pacific Ocean, generally between the eastern coast of the Peninsula of Baja California and the western coast of Mexico.
• GULF_OF_CARPENTARIA : Gulf of Carpentaria as defined in [LOS, 5.15.1]. The Gulf of Carpentaria is a large indentation of the ARAFURA_SEA into the northern coast of Australia.
• GULF_OF_FINLAND : Gulf of Finland as defined in [LOS, 2.3]. The Gulf of Finland is situated generally in the eastern part of the BALTIC_SEA and is bounded by the southern coast of Finland and the northern coast of Estonia.
• GULF_OF_GUINEA : Gulf of Guinea as defined in [LOS, 1.9]. The Gulf of Guinea is situated generally off the coasts of Liberia, Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, on the western coast of Africa.
• GULF_OF_MANNAR : Gulf of Mannar as defined in [LOS, 5.10]. The Gulf of Mannar is situated eastward and adjacent to the LAKSHADWEEP_SEA and is generally bounded by the coast of India on the north-west and by the coast of Sri Lanka on the east.
• GULF_OF_MEXICO : Gulf of Mexico as defined in [LOS, 1.11]. The Gulf of Mexico is an almost enclosed sea situated in the western extremity of the North Atlantic Ocean and is generally bounded by the eastern coast of Mexico, the Gulf coast of the United States of America and the north-western coast of Cuba, connected through the Straits of Florida with the North Atlantic Ocean in the east, and through the Yucatan Channel with the CARIBBEAN_SEA in the south-east.
• GULF_OF_OMAN : Gulf of Oman as defined in [LOS, 5.7]. The Gulf of Oman is a wide strait linking the PERSIAN_GULF and the ARABIAN_SEA.
• GULF_OF_PANAMA : Gulf of Panama as defined in [LOS, 7.13]. The Gulf of Panama is situated in the south-eastern part of the North Pacific Ocean, generally bounded on the west, the north and the east by the Pacific coast of Panama.
• GULF_OF_PAPUA : Gulf of Papua as defined in [LOS, 8.3.3]. The Gulf of Papua is generally the northern part of the CORAL_SEA.
• GULF_OF_RIGA : Gulf of Riga as defined in [LOS, 2.5]. The Gulf of Riga is situated in the eastern part of the BALTIC_SEA, partially surrounded by Latvia.
• GULF_OF_ST_LAWRENCE : Gulf of St. Lawrence as defined in [LOS, 1.13]. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is situated in Canada, generally between the coasts of Quebec, Labrador, Island of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
• GULF_OF_SUEZ : Gulf of Suez as defined in [LOS, 5.2]. The Gulf of Suez is situated north-westward and adjacent to the RED_SEA, generally bounded by the coasts of Africa and the Sinai Peninsula.
• GULF_OF_THAILAND : Gulf of Thailand as defined in [LOS, 6.3]. The Gulf of Thailand is situated south-westward and adjacent to the SOUTH_CHINA_SEA, generally bounded by the coasts of West Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia and Viet Nam.
• GULF_OF_TOMINI : Gulf of Tomini as defined in [LOS, 6.20]. The Gulf of Tomini is situated westward and adjacent to the MALUKU_SEA, generally bounded on the north, the west and the south by the north-eastern coast of Sulawesi.
• GULF_OF_TONKIN : Gulf of Tonkin as defined in [LOS, 6.2]. The Gulf of AlasTonkinka is situated north-westward and adjacent to the SOUTH_CHINA_SEA, generally bounded by the coasts of Viet Nam and China, and the western coast of Hai-nan Tao (China).
• HALMAHERA_SEA : Halmahera Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.18]. The Halmahera Sea is situated generally between Halmahera and Irian Jaya, bounded by the North Pacific Ocean on the east and by the CERAM_SEA on the south.
• HUDSON_BAY : Hudson Bay as defined in [LOS, 9.11]. The Hudson Bay is situated off the north-eastern part of the North American continent and is generally bounded on the east, the south and the west by the northern coast of Canada, and connected on the north with the NORTHWESTERN_PASSAGES and the HUDSON_STRAIT.
• HUDSON_STRAIT : Hudson Strait as defined in [LOS, 9.10]. The Hudson Strait is situated between the northern coast of Quebec and the southern coast of Baffin Island, and generally links HUDSON_BAY with DAVIS_STRAIT.
• ICELAND_SEA : Iceland Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.8]. The Iceland Sea is generally limited by the GREENLAND_SEA to the north, the NORWEGIAN_SEA to the east, the Atlantic Ocean to the west and the coast of northern and eastern Iceland and further east by the Atlantic Ocean.
• INNER_SEAS : Inner Seas off the west coast of Scotland as defined in [LOS, 1.3]. The Inner Seas are situated generally between the western coast of Scotland, the eastern coasts of the Outer Hebrides Islands, and the northern coast of Ireland.
• IONIAN_SEA : Ionian Sea as defined in [LOS, 3.1.2.3]. The Ionian Sea is situated generally between the eastern coast of Sicilia and the southern coast of Italy on the west, and the western coast of Greece on the east.
• IRISH_SEA_AND_ST_GEORGES_CHANNEL : Irish Sea and St. George's Channel as defined in [LOS, 1.4]. The Irish Sea and St. George's Channel are situated generally between the eastern coast of Ireland and the western coasts of Scotland, England and Wales.
• JAWA_SEA : Jawa Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.7]. The Jawa Sea is situated generally between the southern coast of Kalimantan and the northern coast of Jawa.
• JOSEPH_BONAPARTE_GULF : Joseph Bonaparte Gulf as defined in [LOS, 5.14.1]. The Joseph Bonaparte Gulf is generally an indentation of the TIMOR_SEA into the north-western coast of Australia.
• KARA_SEA : Kara Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.3]. The Kara Sea is situated generally off the northern coast of Russia.
• KATTEGAT : Kattegat as defined in [LOS, 2.9]. The Kattegat is a wide strait situated in the north-western part of the BALTIC_SEA, generally between the SKAGERRAK and THE_SOUND, STOREBAELT and LILLEBAELT and between the eastern coast of Denmark and the south-western coast of Sweden.
• LABRADOR_SEA : Labrador Sea as defined in [LOS, 1.14]. The Labrador Sea is situated in the north-western part of the North Atlantic Ocean, generally between the eastern coasts of Labrador and the Island of Newfoundland (Canada) and the southern extremity of Greenland.
• LAKSHADWEEP_SEA : Lakshadweep Sea as defined in [LOS, 5.9]. The Lakshadweep Sea is generally bounded by the Lakshadweep and Maldives Islands on the west, and by the south-western coasts of India and Sri Lanka on the east.
• LAPTEV_SEA : Laptev Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.2]. The Laptev Sea is situated generally off the northern coast of Russia.
• LAZAREV_SEA : Lazarev Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.2]. The Lazarev Sea is situated generally adjacent to the Prinsesse Astrid Coast of Dronning Maud Land.
• LIAODONG_WAN : Liaodong Wan as defined in [LOS, 7.4.2]. The Liaodong Wan is situated in the YELLOW_SEA, generally north-east of and adjacent to the BO_HAI and bounded by the coast of China.
• LIGURE_SEA : Ligure Sea as defined in [LOS, 3.1.1.4]. The Ligure Sea is situated generally between the north-western coast of Italy and the northern extremity of Corse.
• LILLEBAELT : Lillebaelt (The Little Belt) as defined in [LOS, 2.8]. The Lillebaelt is situated generally in the south-western part of the BALTIC_SEA, between the eastern coasts of Denmark and Germany and the Danish islands of Fyn, Langeland and Aero.
• LINCOLN_SEA : Lincoln Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.13]. The Lincoln Sea is situated generally between the northern coasts of Ellesmere Island and Greenland.
• MAKASSAR_STRAIT : Makassar Strait as defined in [LOS, 6.8]. The Makassar Sea is situated generally between the eastern coast of Kalimantan and the western coast of Sulawesi, and links the JAWA_SEA and the SULAWESI_SEA.
• MALACCA_STRAIT : Malacca Strait as defined in [LOS, 6.5]. The Malacca Sea is situated generally between the coasts of Thailand and West Malaysia on the north and the coast of Sumatra on the south.
• MALUKU_SEA : Maluku Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.19]. The Maluku Sea is generally bounded on the north by Sangihe and Talaud, on the east by Halmahera, on the south by Obi Mayor, Mangoli and Taliabu, and on the west by the north-eastern coast of Sulawesi.
• MAWSON_SEA : Mawson Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.7]. The Mawson Sea is situated generally adjacent to the Knox Coast, off the Shackleton Ice Shelf and eastward of Cape Poinsett.
• MCMURDO_SOUND : McMurdo Sound as defined in [LOS, 10.10.1]. The McMurdo Sea is situated generally between Ross Island and the Antarctic mainland coast.
• MEDITERRANEAN_SEA : Mediterranean Sea as defined in [LOS, 3.1]. The Mediterranean Sea is generally bounded by the coasts of southern Europe, western Asia and north Africa, opening only, on the west, to the North Atlantic Ocean through the Strait of Gibraltar and, on the north-east, to the SEA_OF_MARMARA through the Dardanelles.
• MOZAMBIQUE_CHANNEL : Mozambique Channel as defined in [LOS, 5.1]. The Mozambique Channel is the wide passage situated on the eastern coast of Africa generally between the coasts of Mozambique and Madagascar.
• NATUNA_SEA : Natuna Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.4]. The Natuna Sea is situated generally between the north-eastern coast of Sumatra and the western coast of Kalimantan.
• NORTH_SEA : North Sea as defined in [LOS, 1.2]. The North Sea is situated generally between the eastern coasts of the British Isles and the western coast of Europe.
• NORTHWESTERN_PASSAGES : Northwestern Passages as defined in [LOS, 9.14]. The Northwestern Passages are situated generally between the northern coast of Canada and the off-lying islands of the Northwest Territories of Canada.
• NORWEGIAN_SEA : Norwegian Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.7]. The Norwegian Sea is situated off the western coast of Norway and is generally bounded by the southern extremity of the Svalbard on the north, by Jan Mayen on the west, and by Fugloy on the south-west.
• PALK_STRAIT_AND_BAY : Palk Strait and Palk Bay as defined in [LOS, 5.11]. The Palk Strait and Palk Bay are situated south-westward and adjacent to the BAY_OF_BENGAL and are generally bounded by the coast of India on the north-west and by the north-western coast of Sri Lanka on the south-east.
• PERSIAN_GULF : Persian Gulf, or Arabian Gulf, as defined in [LOS, 5.6]. The Persian Gulf is generally bounded by the coasts of Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran.
• PHILIPPINE_SEA : Philippine Sea as defined in [LOS, 7.1]. The Philippine Sea is situated in the south-western part of the North Pacific Ocean, and is generally bounded by the Philippine Islands and the eastern coast of T'ai-wan on the west, by the Nansei Shoto on the north-west, by the southern coast of Japan on the north, and by the Marianas on the east.
• RED_SEA : Red Sea as defined in [LOS, 5.4]. The Red Sea is situated generally between the coasts of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.
• RIISER_LARSEN_SEA : Riiser-Larsen Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.3]. The Riiser-Larsen Sea is situated generally adjacent to the Prinsesse Ragnhild Coast of Dronning Maud Land.
• RIO_DE_LA_PLATA : Rio de la Plata as defined in [LOS, 4.1]. The Rio de la Plata is the mouth of a large river between the coasts of Uruguay and Argentina, limited on the south-east by the South Atlantic Ocean.
• ROSS_SEA : Ross Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.10]. The Ross Sea is a major indentation on the eastern side of Antarctica, largely surrounded by the Antarctic shoreline, of which a major part is the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf.
• SAWU_SEA : Sawu Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.12]. The Sawu Sea is generally bounded on the north by Flores, Kawula, Pantar and Alor Islands, and on the south by Pulau Sumba, Dana, Roti and Timor.
• SCOTIA_SEA : Scotia Sea as defined in [LOS, 4.2]. The Scotia Sea is generally bounded by the south-eastern extremity of South America and the South Shetland Islands on the west and by South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to the north and east.
• SEA_OF_AZOV : Sea of Azov as defined in [LOS, 3.4]. The Sea of Azov is a shallow enclosed sea situated north-east of the BLACK_SEA and generally bounded by the coasts of Russia and Ukraine, connected only with the BLACK_SEA through the Kerch Strait on the south.
• SEA_OF_CRETE : Sea of Crete, the southern part of the AEGEAN_SEA, located between Crete to the south and the Cyclades to the north.
• SEA_OF_JAPAN : Sea of Japan as defined in [LOS, 7.6]. The Sea of Japan is situated generally between the Asian coast and the islands of Japan and Sakhalin.
• SEA_OF_MARMARA : Sea of Marmara as defined in [LOS, 3.2]. The Sea of Marmara is an enclosed sea situated generally in the north-western part of Turkey, connected through the Bosporus with the BLACK_SEA on the north-east, and through the Dardanelles with the AEGEAN_SEA on the south-west.
• SEA_OF_OKHOTSK : Sea of Okhotsk as defined in [LOS, 7.7]. The Sea of Okhotsk is situated in the north-western part of the North Pacific Ocean and is generally bounded by the coasts of Ostrov Sakhalin, mainland Russia, Kuril'skiye Ostrova and Hokkaido.
• SETO_NAIKAI : Seto Naikai as defined in [LOS, 7.5]. The Seto Naikai is a small enclosed sea situated in Japan and generally bounded on the north and the east by the southern coast of Honshu, and on the south by the northern coasts of Shikoku and Kyushu, connected through the Kanmon Kaikyo with the SEA_OF_JAPAN in the west, and through Bungo Suido and Kii Suido with the PHILIPPINE_SEA in the south.
• SINGAPORE_STRAIT : Singapore Strait as defined in [LOS, 6.5.1]. The Singapore Strait is generally bounded on the north by the southern coasts of the Malay Peninsula and Singapore Island, and on the south by the northern coasts of the islands of Karimun Kecil, Pemping Besar, Batam and Bintan.
• SKAGERRAK : Skagerrak as defined in [LOS, 1.1]. The Skagerrak is a wide strait linking the NORTH_SEA and the BALTIC_SEA.
• SODRUZHETSVA_SEA : Sodruzhetsva (Cooperation) Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.5]. The Sodruzhetsva is situated generally adjacent to the Antarctic Continent coast between Enderby Land and the West Ice Shelf.
• SOLOMON_SEA : Solomon Sea as defined in [LOS, 8.2]. The Solomon Sea is situated generally between the eastern coast of Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.
• SOMOV_SEA : Somov Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.9]. The Somov Sea is situated generally adjacent to George V Land and Oates Land and is partially encompassed by the Balleny Islands.
• SOUND_SEA : Sound Sea as defined in [LOS, 2.4]. The Sound Sea is situated generally in the eastern part of the Baltic Region, west of Estonia.
• SOUTH_CHINA_SEA : South China Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.1]. The South China Sea generally borders the coast of China.
• STOREBAELT : Storebaelt (The Great Belt) as defined in [LOS, 2.7]. The Storebaelt is situated in the south-western part of the BALTIC_SEA, generally between the Danish islands of Sjaelland and Lolland on the east, and Fyn and Langeland on the west.
• STRAIT_OF_GIBRALTAR : Strait of Gibraltar as defined in [LOS, 3.1.1.1]. The Strait of Gibraltar is situated between the southern coast of Spain and the northern coast of Morocco, linking the North Atlantic Ocean and the MEDITERRANEAN_SEA.
• STRAIT_OF_SICILIA : Strait of Sicilia as defined in [LOS, 3.1.2.2]. The Strait of Sicilia is situated generally between the southern coast of Sicilia and the eastern coast of Tunisia.
• SULAWESI_SEA : Sulawesi Sea, situated generally between the Sulu Archipelago and Mindinao to the north, Kalimantan to the west, the MAKASSAR_STRAIT and Sulawesi to the south, and the northern part of the MALUKU_SEA to the west.
• SULU_SEA : Sulu Sea as defined in [LOS, 6.22]. The Sulu Sea is generally bounded on the north by Mindoro, on the east by Panay, Negros and Mindanao on the south by the north-eastern coast of Sabah (East Malaysia), and on the west by Palawan.
• SUMBA_STRAIT : Sumba Strait as defined in [LOS, 6.11]. The Sumba Sea is generally bounded on the south by Sumba and on the north by Sumbawa and Flores, linking the Indian Ocean and the SAWU_SEA with the FLORES_SEA.
• SUNDA_STRAIT : Sunda Strait as defined in [LOS, 6.6]. The Sunda Sea is situated generally between the Sumatra and Jawa Islands, linking the Indian Ocean with the JAWA_SEA.
• TAI_WAN_STRAIT : T'ai-wan Strait as defined in [LOS, 7.2]. The T'ai-wan Strait is a wide passage situated between the coasts of mainland China and T'ai-wan, linking the EAST_CHINA_SEA and the SOUTH_CHINA_SEA.
• TASMAN_SEA : Tasman Sea as defined in [LOS, 8.4]. The Tasman Sea is situated generally between the south-eastern coast of Australia and New Zealand in the east and west, and between the CORAL_SEA and the Antarctic (or Southern) Ocean to the north and south.
• TATARSKIY_PROLIV : Tatarskiy Proliv as defined in [LOS, 7.6.1]. The Tatarskiy Proliv is situated at the northern end of the SEA_OF_JAPAN, generally between the coasts of mainland Russia and Ostrov Sakhalin, connected on the north and through the Proliv Nevel'skogo, with the SEA_OF_OKHOTSK.
• THE_SOUND : The Sound as defined in [LOS, 2.6]. The Sound is situated in the south-western part of the BALTIC_SEA, generally between the Danish island of Sjaelland and the south-western coast of Sweden.
• TIMOR_SEA : Timor Sea as defined in [LOS, 5.14]. The Timor Sea is a component of the Indian Ocean situated generally between the north-west coasts of Australia and Timor.
• TIRRENO_SEA : Tirreno Sea as defined in [LOS, 3.1.1.5]. The Tirreno Sea is situated in the MEDITERRANEAN_SEA generally between the western coast of Italy, the northern coast of Sicilia and the eastern coasts of Sardegna and Corse.
• TORRES_STRAIT : Torres Strait as defined in [LOS, 8.3.1]. The Torres Strait is situated in the CORAL_SEA generally between the southern coast of Papua New Guinea and north-eastern Australia.
• TRYOSHNIKOVA_GULF : Tryoshnikova Gulf as defined in [LOS, 10.6.1]. The Tryoshnikova Gulf is situated generally in the southern part of the DAVIS_SEA.
• TYRRHENIAN_SEA : Tyrrhenian Sea, situated in the MEDITERRANEAN_SEA off the western coast of Italy, generally bounded on the west by Corsica and Sardinia, on the north by Liguria, and on the east by Tuscany, Latium, Campania, and Calabria.
• WEDDELL_SEA : Weddell Sea as defined in [LOS, 10.1]. The Weddell Sea is a major indentation on the north-west coast of Antarctica generally between the Antarctic Peninsula on the west and the main body of Antarctica to the south.
• WESTERN_BASIN_MEDITERRANEAN_SEA : Mediterranean Sea, Western Basin as defined in [LOS, 3.1.1]. The Western Basin of the Mediterranean Sea is generally bounded by the coasts of Spain, France, Monaco and Italy on the north and the east, and by the coasts of Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco on the south.
• WHITE_SEA : White Sea as defined in [LOS, 9.5]. The White Sea is situated southward and adjacent to the BARENTS_SEA and is generally bounded by the north-western coast of Russia.
• YELLOW_SEA : Yellow Sea as defined in [LOS, 7.4]. The Yellow Sea is situated north-westward and adjacent to the EAST_CHINA_SEA, generally between the coast of China and the western coast of Korea and includes the BO_HAI and LIAODONG_WAN.

Urhixidur 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Gay?

I think this page may have been vandalised, one of the seas on the atlantic ocean section is GAY, and links to a page on homosexuality.

====yeah thats right,,this is not supposed to be allowed to edit by others..

Sea of Galilee

Apart from having the word "sea" in its English name, there doesn't seem to be any reason to list the Sea of Galilee in this article. It is a freshwater lake with a major river flowing into and out of it. It is no different from Lake St. Clair or any number of other lakes.Silverchemist (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a Sea

How come Cambridge Bay and Cold bay are on this page? I went to these sites and found that one was a hamlet while the other is a city.--Coin945 (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, why are the Great Lakes of North America, and Lake Tahoe, listed? They are all freshwater lakes. Acter (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

References

I would like to help with this article. There are no references for the information. I will start adding them if there are no objections. Thank you. The Langolier (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Bodies of water and their sizes

I removed the following table from the article. The "Rank" column seems to suggest that it is exhaustive, but it is not even close to complete.

Rank	Body of water	Square miles (square kilometres)
1	Pacific Ocean	64,196,000 sq mi (166,270,000 km2)
2	Atlantic Ocean	33,400,000 sq mi (87,000,000 km2)
3	Indian Ocean	28,400,000 sq mi (74,000,000 km2)
4	Southern Ocean	20,327,000 sq mi (52,650,000 km2)
5	Arctic Ocean	5,100,000 sq mi (13,000,000 km2)
6	Arabian Sea	1,491,000 sq mi (3,860,000 km2)
7	South China Sea	1,148,000 sq mi (2,970,000 km2)
8	Caribbean Sea	971,000 sq mi (2,510,000 km2)
9	Mediterranean Sea	969,000 sq mi (2,510,000 km2)
10	Bering Sea	873,000 sq mi (2,260,000 km2)
11	Bay of Bengal	838,612 sq mi (2,172,000 km2)
12	Gulf of Mexico	582,000 sq mi (1,510,000 km2)
13	Sea of Okhotsk	537,000 sq mi (1,390,000 km2)
14	Sea of Japan	391,000 sq mi (1,010,000 km2)
15	Hudson Bay	282,000 sq mi (730,000 km2)
16	East China Sea	257,000 sq mi (670,000 km2)
17	Andaman Sea	218,100 sq mi (565,000 km2)
18	Red Sea	175,000 sq mi (450,000 km2)
19	Black Sea	168,500 sq mi (436,000 km2)
20	North Sea	165,000 sq mi (430,000 km2)
21	Baltic Sea	147,000 sq mi (380,000 km2)
22	Yellow Sea	113,500 sq mi (294,000 km2)
23	Persian Gulf	88,800 sq mi (230,000 km2)
24	Adriatic Sea	60,000 sq mi (160,000 km2)
25	Gulf of California	59,000 sq mi (150,000 km2)

Bodies of water which are missing from this table, and their approximate areas, include:

• Philippine Sea (2,000,000 sq mi)
• Coral Sea (1,849,800 sq mi)
• Sargasso Sea (roughly 1,400,000 sq mi)
• Weddell Sea (1,080,000 sq mi)
• Tasman Sea (900,000 sq mi)
• Gulf of Alaska (592,000 sq mi)
• Barents Sea (542,000 sq mi)
• Greenland Sea (465,000 sq mi)
• Mozambique Channel (roughly 425,000 sq mi)
• Argentine Sea (386,000 sq mi)
• Ross Sea (370,000 sq mi)
• East Siberian Sea (361,000 sq mi)
• Scotia Sea (350,000 sq mi)
• Kara Sea (340,000 sq mi)
• Solomon Sea (280,000 sq mi)
• Laptev Sea (276,000 sq mi)
• Baffin Bay (266,000 sq mi)
• Arafura Sea (250,000 sq mi)
• Timor Sea (235,000 sq mi)
• Chukchi Sea (225,000 sq mi)
• Norwegian Sea (222,000 sq mi)
• Gulf of Aden (205,000 sq mi)
• Beaufort Sea (184,000 sq mi)
• Banda Sea (180,000 sq mi)
• Gulf of Thailand (roughly 146,000 sq mi)
• Caspian Sea (142,800 sq mi)
• Java Sea (124,000 sq mi)
• Gulf of Carpentaria (120,000 sq mi)
• Celebes Sea (110,000 sq mi)
• Sulu Sea (100,000 sq mi)
• Flores Sea (93,000 sq mi)
• Bay of Biscay (86,000 sq mi)
• Aegean Sea (83,000 sq mi)
• Molucca Sea (77,000 sq mi)
• Gulf of Saint Lawrence (60,000 sq mi)
• and probably others.

There are also some bodies of water (such as the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Gulf of Oman) for which I couldn't find areas. If we are going to have a ranking of the world's largest bodies of water, we need to have strict inclusion criteria for the list (I would suggest those bodies of water listed in Limits of Oceans and Seas, 3rd edition, published by the International Hydrographic Organization) and areas for them that we can link back to reliable sources. The table that was in the article had neither of these. —Bkell (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Just what constitutes a "sea" in your opinion? At least the list that existed before included the definition of a part-whole understanding. That is, if the Philippine Sea is counted as part of the Pacific Ocean, it cannot be counted as a separate body of water. Your new "seas" list fails to account for that distinction.Ryoung122 21:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you will search in vain for any firm definition for "sea". It is simply not a term used in a technical, or taxonomic sense by hydrographers. While I disagree with its removal from mainspace (nothing on Wikipedia can ever be considered complete or finished) it probably does not belong here due to its inclusion of oceans. A sea would generally be considered to be a lesser body than an ocean so oceans have no place in a list of seas. I suggest we start List of bodies of water by area using the information above. I am surprised it does not exist already, we have List of bodies of water by salinity. Or perhaps just List of bodies of water which currently (and inappropriately) redirects to here. SpinningSpark 08:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I think for accuracy's sake that table needs to be in there, so I'm probably going to put it back on the page later. Popping Corns 22:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This section makes no sense to the casual reader. It doesn't make sense why there are two partially redundant, differently formatted tables, followed by an extensive list of additional bodies of water, all with no explanation. What's the point?

I second the call for a separate page. An ad nauseum list of sea surface areas is excessive. Maybe the top 10 or 20 bodies of water can be left on this page in a table, with those classified as 'seas' listed in bold. It would be helpful to include oceans, for sake of comparison. A disclaimer can clarify that the area listed for Pacific Ocean would naturally include the area of the Philippine sea, etc. That would be more useful and less confusing to the casual reader. MrPMonday (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is likely that it is still a mess because nobody has been motivated to clean it up. We are all volunteers and you are welcome to volunteer yourself for the task if you wish. SpinningSpark 09:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

List of seas

A discussion about the inclusion criteria for the list of seas is taking place at Template talk:List of seas#Inclusion criteria. Bazonka (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone

I have undertaken an initial review (covering only the first section) of this article in relation to the the tone of the writing. I intend to revisit the page later, but I believe that the tone needs to be more formal. Other perspectives are welcome.--Soulparadox (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition of sea

I have removed the recent attempt at giving a technical definition for sea as "a subdivision of an ocean that is surrounded on all or most sides by land boundries". This is incorrect, it would exclude the Sargasso Sea for instance. Furthermore, the citation given for this definition does not support this definition. It actuall says

According to our encyclopedia the words [sea and ocean] are synonymous. In addition, the word "sea" can also be used to describe a subdivision of an ocean that is more or less marked off by land boundries.

In any case the source (Infoplease) cannot be considered a reliable source, it is something along the lines of Answers.com. I don't think there is any accepted technical definition of sea amongst oceanographers. It is poorly defined as a sub-division of an ocean, which at least means that it must have oceanic basin crust on its floor (this, by the way, lets in the Caspian Sea which was once part of an ancient ocean [3]). The closest I could find in a reliable source to the given definition was [4] but I don't think they really meant "land-locked", and the book is written by marine bioligists, not oceanographers. They do say that the name is only one of convenience. Another source [5] also says the boundaries are arbitrary.

The only discipline that actually tries to present a firm definition of sea is international law dealin with law of the sea. Basically, all the ocean is sea according to them, but the whole subject is machevellian complicated (by lawyers and politicians) and not of much use to an oceanographic article. See [6] for instance, and [7] for another comment on the arbitrariness of this. By the way, the Caspian would be excluded if a legal definition of sea was used. The Caspian is legally an "international lake" [8]. SpinningSpark 16:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about my attempt to add a definition of sea to the article. I actually took the definition from two sources, one of which I retrospectively decided was not reliable so excluded it from the references. However, as you said, it turns out the other one wasn't reliable either. That's why the source didn't match up to what I added to the article. Sea unlike ocean, is a rather strange beast, and while it is a level 2 vital article (which is why I nominated it for TAFI), it is very hard to define indeed. I did manage to find a few definitions here and there though. ""sea" is generally defined as a large lake that contains saltwater, or a specific portion of an ocean" or in other words "A very large lake that contains salt water, is known as a sea (except the Sea of Galilee, which is actually a freshwater lake). A sea can also be attached to, or even part of, an ocean. For example, the Caspian Sea is a large saline lake surrounded by land, the Mediterranean Sea is attached to the Atlantic Ocean, and the Sargasso Sea is a portion of the Atlantic Ocean, surrounded by water.". "It's smaller than an ocean, saltier than a lake, and not always confined by land". Seas are found on the margins of the ocean. Many people use the terms "ocean" and "sea" interchangeably when speaking about the ocean, but there is a difference between the two terms when speaking of geography (the study of the Earth's surface). Seas are smaller than oceans and are usually located where the land and ocean meet. Typically, seas are partially enclosed by land. A sea is defined as a large lake-type water body that has saltwater and is sometimes attached to an ocean. However, a sea does not have to be attached to an ocean outlet as the world has many inland seas such as the Caspian...Seas make up such a large proportion of the water on Earth". I think our best bet is to make the article about the term "sea", and how it has been applied to different bodies of water within different contexts, such as within the legal discourse (as you mention above), in the context of the Seven Seas, or even the lunar maria which are known as "seas". We could also talk about everything sea-related - animals with sea in their name, sea shanties, burial at sea, seamount, sea Change etc. And then we have the definitions that support the synonymous nature of sea/ocean. This dictionary.com page sums up some of the varying definitions of sea: [9]. The article Marginal sea may also be of use to us, especially considering how its been used in definitions [for sites http://geography.about.com/od/specificplacesofinterest/a/atlantic-ocean-seas.htm]. FYI, this is the Simple English page on sea.--Coin945 (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am ok with a broad description of what sea is using loose terminology such as "often bounded by coastline" as long as it is not sold as a "technical" or "official" definition and does not exclude boundaries that are not coastline such as chains of islands (such as South China Sea), vague regions of ocean (southern boundary of the Labrador Sea), some physical property (Archipelago Sea), or delimited entirely by oceanographic behaviour without reference to land at all (Sargasso Sea, Great Pacific Garbage Patch).

I think the article needs to remain clearly focused and not try and become an extended dicdef or dab page. Wikipedia articles are (or should be) focused on a single topic. Other meanings or aspects of a title can have their own articles if notable enough and are dealt with by disambiguation. SpinningSpark 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can somehow use those sources above and any that you've found to write a definition of sea, then go right ahead. I think you have a much better idea of what you're looking for than I. Also, totally understand that last point. When wondering what this article should actually about, when I ran out of ideas, those were the sorts of things that popped into my head, I mean, what can we really say about this article? What sorts of info should we be adding? Any particular sections in mind?--Coin945 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Formatting in list of seas

Right now, I see some rather odd wrap/spacing issues that cause the image under Baltic Sea to have a large area completely to itself, resulting in a huge "blank space". Does anyone else see this? It may just be me -- but if it's a wider replicated problem (i.e. with standard window sizes) then some sort of column size fixes might be in order. Theopolisme 02:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks ok to me in Firefox. Are you using Internet Explorer? If so, it should now be fixed. If it is another browser, you will have to say which one. SpinningSpark 11:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm using the latest dev build of Chromium - thanks. Theopolisme 14:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks ok to me on Chrome. The second image does not now have quite the same behaviour as the first when compressed into a very narrow window but I think we can live with that. SpinningSpark 15:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed Huh, odd: Appears it was a problem with the JavaScript Standard Library here on Wikipedia, which I believe I installed a while ago to work on a public computer... very interesting. In any case, disabled, and everything is fine now. Theopolisme 15:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition of sea (returned)

I am bringing back this section as it is vital for the new section I have added relating to definitions and terminology.--Coin945 (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the recent attempt at giving a technical definition for sea as "a subdivision of an ocean that is surrounded on all or most sides by land boundries". This is incorrect, it would exclude the Sargasso Sea for instance. Furthermore, the citation given for this definition does not support this definition. It actuall says

According to our encyclopedia the words [sea and ocean] are synonymous. In addition, the word "sea" can also be used to describe a subdivision of an ocean that is more or less marked off by land boundries.

In any case the source (Infoplease) cannot be considered a reliable source, it is something along the lines of Answers.com. I don't think there is any accepted technical definition of sea amongst oceanographers. It is poorly defined as a sub-division of an ocean, which at least means that it must have oceanic basin crust on its floor (this, by the way, lets in the Caspian Sea which was once part of an ancient ocean [10]). The closest I could find in a reliable source to the given definition was [11] but I don't think they really meant "land-locked", and the book is written by marine bioligists, not oceanographers. They do say that the name is only one of convenience. Another source [12] also says the boundaries are arbitrary.

The only discipline that actually tries to present a firm definition of sea is international law dealin with law of the sea. Basically, all the ocean is sea according to them, but the whole subject is machevellian complicated (by lawyers and politicians) and not of much use to an oceanographic article. See [13] for instance, and [14] for another comment on the arbitrariness of this. By the way, the Caspian would be excluded if a legal definition of sea was used. The Caspian is legally an "international lake" [15]. SpinningSpark 16:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about my attempt to add a definition of sea to the article. I actually took the definition from two sources, one of which I retrospectively decided was not reliable so excluded it from the references. However, as you said, it turns out the other one wasn't reliable either. That's why the source didn't match up to what I added to the article. Sea unlike ocean, is a rather strange beast, and while it is a level 2 vital article (which is why I nominated it for TAFI), it is very hard to define indeed. I did manage to find a few definitions here and there though. ""sea" is generally defined as a large lake that contains saltwater, or a specific portion of an ocean" or in other words "A very large lake that contains salt water, is known as a sea (except the Sea of Galilee, which is actually a freshwater lake). A sea can also be attached to, or even part of, an ocean. For example, the Caspian Sea is a large saline lake surrounded by land, the Mediterranean Sea is attached to the Atlantic Ocean, and the Sargasso Sea is a portion of the Atlantic Ocean, surrounded by water.". "It's smaller than an ocean, saltier than a lake, and not always confined by land". Seas are found on the margins of the ocean. Many people use the terms "ocean" and "sea" interchangeably when speaking about the ocean, but there is a difference between the two terms when speaking of geography (the study of the Earth's surface). Seas are smaller than oceans and are usually located where the land and ocean meet. Typically, seas are partially enclosed by land. A sea is defined as a large lake-type water body that has saltwater and is sometimes attached to an ocean. However, a sea does not have to be attached to an ocean outlet as the world has many inland seas such as the Caspian...Seas make up such a large proportion of the water on Earth". I think our best bet is to make the article about the term "sea", and how it has been applied to different bodies of water within different contexts, such as within the legal discourse (as you mention above), in the context of the Seven Seas, or even the lunar maria which are known as "seas". We could also talk about everything sea-related - animals with sea in their name, sea shanties, burial at sea, seamount, sea Change etc. And then we have the definitions that support the synonymous nature of sea/ocean. This dictionary.com page sums up some of the varying definitions of sea: [16]. The article Marginal sea may also be of use to us, especially considering how its been used in definitions [for sites http://geography.about.com/od/specificplacesofinterest/a/atlantic-ocean-seas.htm]. FYI, this is the Simple English page on sea.--Coin945 (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am ok with a broad description of what sea is using loose terminology such as "often bounded by coastline" as long as it is not sold as a "technical" or "official" definition and does not exclude boundaries that are not coastline such as chains of islands (such as South China Sea), vague regions of ocean (southern boundary of the Labrador Sea), some physical property (Archipelago Sea), or delimited entirely by oceanographic behaviour without reference to land at all (Sargasso Sea, Great Pacific Garbage Patch).

I think the article needs to remain clearly focused and not try and become an extended dicdef or dab page. Wikipedia articles are (or should be) focused on a single topic. Other meanings or aspects of a title can have their own articles if notable enough and are dealt with by disambiguation. SpinningSpark 15:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can somehow use those sources above and any that you've found to write a definition of sea, then go right ahead. I think you have a much better idea of what you're looking for than I. Also, totally understand that last point. When wondering what this article should actually about, when I ran out of ideas, those were the sorts of things that popped into my head, I mean, what can we really say about this article? What sorts of info should we be adding? Any particular sections in mind?--Coin945 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sections to add

History sections

I've added a section on the early history of oceanography, so I guess we ought to have similar-sized sections on:

• History of navigation (there is some material there, but needs refs at least)
• History of cartography (needs a nice map or two, text, refs)
• Maritime history / Ancient maritime history

... and what else?

Other sections

• Marine life
• Marine geology

• Zones and regions
  • Arctic?
  • Temperate?
  • Tropical?
  • Deep sea (vents, ...)?

* Human exploitation:

• • Trade?
  • Tourism?
  • Pollution?
  • Fishing?
  • Seabed mining, oil/gas drilling? (see 2nd attempt below)

• Human reactions:
  • In literature (how about Conrad?) and poetry
  • In art (Hokusai, ...)
  • In music (Debussy's La mer, ... )
  • ...

... well, what should we cover? Do we need to avoid ocean systems? 14:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• In the human exploitation bit I think we might have a "uses" subheading to include brief information on wave power and tidal power, the extraction of chemical constituents from sea water (particularly salt) and desalination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps the current "History" should be within that, as it's a human (not geological) history. So...

• Human uses
  • History
  • Exploitation
    • Trade
    • Fishing
    • Leisure
    • Power generation
    • Extraction (mining, drilling, desalination, manganese nodules)
    • Pollution

Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have rearranged the order of your proposed subsections putting Pollution last as it is, at least partly, the result of the other uses. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Good! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing pictures

Great expansion of this article guys, that is a massive improvement. However, I am not very happy with the disappearance of the images from list of seas. I chose them as eye catching quality images that displayed a range of different ocean environments. Can someone explain why they are no longer wanted in the article? SpinningSpark 16:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I did note in an edit comment that we needed to address the image question, but yes, here's a better place. Nobody has taken a decision on not wanting them; we should use them where they are appropriate to the article's contents, i.e. historical images in the history, maps in cartography, etc. We certainly shouldn't be using images just to brighten things up. As for the table of lists, the format does not suit images, so we should re-insert the images elsewhere in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

They were not there just to brighten things up (although I don't see that as a something to be avoided) but to present different views of seas, especially the more unusual environments. They are not really suitable for either the history or the cartography section. Perhaps they could go in some form of gallery? SpinningSpark 18:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but since we are in the process of adding new sections, I suspect it will be best to wait a moment: very likely we'll add something on types of sea (see question above), which will be a good fit to images of marine environments. All the best -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Gulf of Catalina

The reason that I removed Gulf of Catalina from the image caption is that it is not on our list of seas and in fact is not anywhere else in Wikipedia, and searching for it in Google doesn't produce much in the way of meaningful results. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have separated your comment from the thread above (where it was not particularly relevant besides also concerning me) so that I could clearly reply to it. Hope you don't mind.

Did you search Google books or Google scholar? I am pretty sure I could write a passable article on it if I had a mind to. SpinningSpark 19:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look too hard, but I don't like to see a red link in the lead image caption. It would be great if you were to write an article, even if it were only a stub. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say I was going to write anything. It takes several years for items to percolate to the top of my To Do list and I am currently trying to finish off this monster. But I'll see what I can do for you after that one hits mainspace. SpinningSpark 08:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

What was the redlink? I might create a new article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Will see now whether there is sufficient material to create an article--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

To some extent,  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pleased the red link has gone. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

In this section, there is a link to law of the sea which is in fact a dab page. I can not figure out which meaning should be here. Could someone pls have a look and insert a more specific reference.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I have linked it to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which seems to be the most appropriate possibility. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Sea, ocean, lake

I've thought long and hard about this section, and have come up with the following (well, you can see the section for yourself). I've created an "Overview" to give a big picture of the article, and in particular to talk about The Sea in general, moving the facts and figures which were a bit lonely in the lead, and adding some poetry to give the human reaction to the world ocean. The definitions have been shortened a little, though almost all the refs are still there, and two footnotey chunks are now in actual footnotes. I think it reads more naturally, stays on subject and is informative, but open to improvements of course. Hope you all like it. Work continues... Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that the new lead redefines the scope of the article in the completely opposite direction of what it was before, and that the new scope makes much of the article redundant to ocean, world ocean in particular, while at the same time conflicting with the sourced statement at the ocean article that defines "sea" as partioned by land. In short, I think your work is lovely, but completely in the wrong place. oknazevad (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Brilliant work, but I'd suggest transferring it over to world ocean and starting again. Seas and oceans are subsections of the world ocean, which is collectively colloquially known as the ocean or the sea.--Coin945 (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for these heartfelt thoughts. Several things in reply:

1) We already know that the Sargasso Sea is surrounded by ocean, not partitioned by land, so that won't work. On the contrary, we know that sea has an overlapping, er, sea of meanings centred around large amounts of water, but disagreeing in every other detail. That's just how sea is, I'm afraid.

2) Coin945 added "...went to sea in a beautiful pea-green boat", which certainly goes with the sea as, well, the sea, not landlocked lake.

3) The lead is just keeping up with the article: it doesn't define anything. I don't think any of the contents wrong for an article on the sea; I suggested a list of sections above exactly for this discussion. The lead will change as the article does, that's its job.

4) The subsections argument cannot be right, or we'd have exactly one article which explained everything, with all its subsections. We can't avoid some overlap with Ocean, or Wave, or World ocean, but none are identical with the sea. World ocean is about the interconnected system, perhaps with special reference to plate tectonics or the system of ocean currents. The sea, in contrast, is about the thing itself, its wateriness, its saltiness, its life, its moods, the human response to it, navigation, greed, piracy, warfare, pollution, fisheries ... which wouldn't fit at all in the "World ocean" envelope. Come on, let's try it:

Who hath desired the World Ocean?—the sight of salt water unbounded—

The heave and the halt and the hurl and the crash of the comber wind-hounded?

Nah, it sounds ridiculous. It's the World OceanSea, of course. There's no other word for it, and no other place in Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Excwpt we already have an article on the World Ocean, and more importantly the limitation of "sea" to the subset-type bodies is in line with current oceanographic use. (Note that the term for studying all of the world's interconnected water is indeed "oceanography"). That's what the article needs to reflect, current scientific usage. oknazevad (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The thing is... all those things you said (its wateriness, its saltiness, its life etc.) still apply to the sea - of course they do, as seas are just arbitrary divisions of the world ocean (just as oceans themselves are). (I guess an equivalent could be between the highly underdeveloped landmass and the articles supercontinent, continent, and island). But this article should be (imo) about he concept of seas themselves - why these arbitrary divisions have been made. Yes, we often use the terms sea or ocean as shortcuts to mean the world ocean, as we can discuss that all in the terminology section of world ocean. But I do think this article should focus on how and why this concept of sea (which in essence doesn't really *mean* anything; it is a completely man-made concept and is only distinguishable from the world ocean in regard to the cultural and geographical significance the portions of the world ocean have had to humans) came about. Interestingly the article on [[ocean]s is quite different to this one. I'm not sure why, as they are essentially differently sized versions of the same thing. Then again it comes down to how humans have invented and related to these arbitrary concepts throughout history. But when talking about the world's water system and the way it works, I think we should always go back to the world ocean article, rather than putting that sort of information in an article like this. Or if we do, to keep it highly summarised. When we talk about the "sea" or the "ocean", it is the "world ocean" that we are *actually* referring to. But, as I said, it is extremely fascinating to discover how these arbitrary divisions of the world ocean came about. Ehhhh... this is very messy and confusing, as although world ocean is the "proper" term, it is the less well known one. And it seems redundant to have 3 articles on essentially the same thing. If this article is on anything, it can't be on the world ocean just because it is sometimes referred to as "the sea". It must be about the *seas*, and how these subdivisions of the world ocean got made - and even their significance today. Like when a tragedy occurs, do the media choose to refer to the sea it occurred in? Or the entire ocean? Or say "off the coast of ___"? In fact, are seas still a useful concept? I'm very fascinated in the notion of "sea"'s potential obsolescence. All these sorts of issues should be flooding the article imho, rather than the boring physical properties of the water and surrounding ecosystems. It is not a natural concept so it shouldn't be filled with content related to the natural world. --Coin945 (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Oknazevad - I agree with Coin945 in part here, though the sea is certainly more than talking about "specific seas", we have the list of seas pointing to sub-articles for that. You are right, Sea does have AN oceanographic meaning - and an economic meaning, and many artistic meanings, and poetic meaning, and a military meaning, and a biological and ecological meaning, and so on and on. It is just fine to insist on oceanography in World Ocean, but absolutely terrible to do so here. Of course we welcome oceanographers and mariners and hydrographers and US marines and fishermen and all other seagoing types, but none of them can have the article to themselves, sorry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

@Coin945 - the literary, musical, artistic, poetic responses to the sea are definitely not about "arbitrary divisions of the world ocean". No, they are to the sea, pure and simple. I think you'll find that a lot of the other human interactions (the love of sailing, the desire to circumnavigate...) are of that same kind. The sea is more than and different from "a bunch of named seas", if you reflect on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

hmmmm.... yeah. I can deifnitely see what you're saying. It almost seems like there should be two sea articles - one about the arbitrary divisions of the world ocean, and the other about this poetic idea of "the sea". I totally get that this is different from the world ocean. It is not bounded by anything. Not clearly defined. It is the notion of the eternal, undiscovered, mysterious expanse. Like the watery version of the infinite universe (whereas the world ocean is like the observable universe, and seas & oceans are like galaxies/solar systems). One is an idea. The other is a scientific reality. And I see how different they are from each other. But I still see how different it is from the concept of "seas".--Coin945 (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's my plan:

• sea info --> world ocean
• ocean info --> hydrosphere & other similar _____spheres like lithosphere
• info in extraterrestrial seas/oceans can stay as they are size-specific
• sea and ocean are re-written to be about how and why these man made divisions of the world ocean came to be, and if/why the terms are necessary.
• a new article on the poetic idea of "sea" or "the sea" will be created, talking about the subjective "literary, musical, artistic, poetic responses to the sea", free than either the physical geography or the politics of definitions.

I'm pretty sure this susses out this one hell of a convoluted topic.--Coin945 (talk) 17:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What it comes down to is what is this article about, the poetic concept of "the sea", or the scientific/geographic concept. Until a couple of days ago, it was clearly a scientific/geographic article about seas-as-subdivisions. Unilaterally changing it is my issue. It's a huge change in scope for the article and should be more thoroughly discussed. Personally I like Coin's plan; the article on the peotic sea can be called The sea in culture or something like that.oknazevad (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Having arrived at this discussion a bit late in the day, I would point out that it is not actually correct to say that Chiswick Chap and I had changed the subject of this article, - we have just enlarged it. On April 18th, before we touched it, it looked like this, with a section on History, particularly navigation, and a list of seas. I see the article as being about the "sea" that I was taken to with a bucket and spade as a child, the "sea" we Brits have to cross to get to another country and the "sea" in which whales and starfish live. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What you are referring with the "bucket and spade" sea is the seaside/beach, is it not? Which is confusingly also sometimes referred to as "sea", such as in the Sweeney todd song "Down by the Sea". I'd say the second one is a channel/other stretch of water, and the third one is the ocean. I'd say in general we can use world ocean for all the earth's water and can use ocean to refer to just the deep parts of the world ocean where the whales and starfish live. I.e. rivers and lakes etc would count in world ocean but not in ocean. Nevertheless "sea" - a much more complicated and arbitrary word, should have its article dedicated to how this term came about etc. Or...... hmmm.... I guess since the word is used in so many different contexts, the article could be about all the different uses of the word "sea". Or that could just be a section in the article.--Coin945 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

[from Merriam-Webster] sea \ˈsē\: --Coin945 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

1. "a great body of salt water that covers much of the earth - world ocean
2. the waters of the earth as distinguished from the land and air" - all water on earth (see Hydrology and Water distribution on Earth. no article on Water on Earth interestingly enough... ...*Origin* of water on Earth doesn't count. :D)
3. a body of salt water of second rank more or less landlocked <the Mediterranean sea> - inland sea
4. ocean - ocean
5. an inland body of water —used especially for names of such bodies <the Caspian Sea> - "normal" seas. culturally and politically significant.
6. surface motion on a large body of water or its direction; also : a large swell or wave —often used in plural <heavy seas> - not sure... probably leaning towards the poetic use
7. the disturbance of the ocean or other body of water due to the wind - not sure... probably leaning towards the poetic use
8. something likened to the sea especially in vastness <a sea of faces> - metaphorical use
9. the seafaring life - poetic use
10. mare - lunar sea
11. As an adjective: at sea; on the sea; on a sea voyage; lost, bewildered; to sea; to or on the open waters of the sea - poetic use

--Coin945 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. First of all, dicdefs are against policy, it's a breach of WP:NOT. Secondly, trying to cover a multitude of meanings dilutes the focus of the article. That sort of task is the job of disambiguation pages. SpinningSpark 22:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Spinningspark is right, we can't make Sea into a WP:DICDEF, that would be crazy and against policy. An article on a huge subject like Sea must be broad, covering what the sea is, what humans do with it, human responses to it, science, and all the rest. It absolutely must not be a lexicographical huddle of terminological fuss-potting, at the expense of covering the subject. Sailors, oceanographers, writers, musicians, marine biologists, chartmakers, explorers — ALL are part of the story. Nothing else will do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sea is listed as a Core subject on the English Wikipedia and I endorse Chiswick Chap's comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Gahhh I wrote that at 4:00 in the morning and stuff got lost in translation. The whole dicdef thing was just a random throwaway suggestion at the end of a stream-of-consciousness comment. The analysis of the various dictionary meanings is the culmination of my real argument - that "sea" is used in a variety of different ways. Rather than having different articles for each one, at the moment our "sea" article tries (and IMO fails) to mesh them all into one. So I went through the definitions one at a time and tried to work our objectively the different contexts the word sea is used in. I came to the conclusion that we should end up distributing the information in this article with around 6/7 different articles: "the sea", "sea" (as in the list of seas), "ocean", "world ocean", "water on earth", "lunar mare" and perhaps also a "the sea in culture" (which would house all the artistic representations of "the sea"). The terminology section of each of those articles would them explain that they are sometimes referred to as "sea". While we have all been discussing "sea", we have each been referring to different concepts that happen to include the word "sea". This is very confusion and unhelpful. I have made a conscious effort to stop the arbitrariness of this word, so when we discuss "sea", we can clearly define what we mean. I hope that now we can clearly decide what parts of this article should be merged with which other articles. Just to reiterate, as it stands this article is a hodgepodge of all the different contexts the word "sea" is used in. If it's a dicdef article you're worried about, you've got one on your hands right now. We have to clearly define all the different ways the word sea is used, and distribute the info accordingly. The analysis of the various dictionary definitions above should help us out.--Coin945 (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgiven. But no, it's not a hodgepodge; all articles on complex subjects should address "the main aspects of the topic" even if they aren't attempting to be "comprehensive". For that, articles have to have sections on different aspects, which means documented points of view, of the subject. We haven't covered all of them yet, but we're on the way there, as we should be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

But the article isn't about the word "sea". (then i would agree with you that we need to address all the different ways the word is used). It is about "sea". And there are many different *subjects* that are named "sea". So each of the diffreent subjects must have a different article. What is confusing, is that they are all named "sea".--Coin945 (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

My course of action

The word "sea" is very confusing as it is used to refer to numerous concepts. I have decided that rather than trying to mesh them all into this article, we should clearly define each of the ways "sea" is used and distribute the information accordingly. This is what I propose, based on my analysis of the dictionary definitions of the word. "Sea" is used - mightily confusingly - in 6 diffreent ways. So we should distribute this info into these 6 articles. (the rest of the dicdefs that I attempted to analyse were mainly metaphorical uses). This essentially solves our problem, and gives us a list of terminology to use when trying to battle our way through this mess of a word.--Coin945 (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• "The sea" - (maybe also a split article "The sea in culture")
• "Sea" (as in inland seas etc. - arbitrary and culturally/politically significant. )
• "Ocean"
• "World ocean" (just the water inbetween the continents - "a great body of salt water that covers much of the earth")
• "Water on earth"/"Hydrosphere" ("the waters of the earth as distinguished from the land and air")
• "Lunar mare" (extraterrestrial seas)

Not really. Compare: the word "system" is used in over 20 ways; "nature" in at least 60. Despite that, it's right that we have just one article on each. Same for sea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

ehh.... i give up. you seem to know what you're doing... just make sure you give this article justice, and don't make it redundant with the related articles that have already mentioned in this thread. I see an FA flickering in the distance. I know you can grab it. Peace out. :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

At the very least

At the very least, can't we rename this article "The sea", and then let the article on "Sea" be about the arbitrary human-made subdivisions of the "world ocean"/"the sea"?--Coin945 (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I know this article is a part of the Core Contest now so ideally this move is made asap. It's confusing, i know, to have two very different concepts called the same thing, but it is true, so we must give them each a seperate article. Sea & The sea work fine! :)--Coin945 (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, but I really don't think that'd be a good idea. Generally the article ("The" or "A") is only used in titles of books and films (like "The Cruel Sea"), and never in articles on normal topics. So I expect if we tried it, it would get reverted. Your view of "Sea" does seem very close to what I'd think of as "List of seas", however, and I'd be happy to support you if you'd like to go in that direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My view of "sea" is that it essentially refers to man-made arbitrary divisions of "the sea", made due to cultural/political reasons. The "list of seas" section refers to a list of "sea", rather than a list of "the seas". Therefore it can't be in this article. It doesn't make sense. The rest of the article defines "sea' as a thing that covers 70% of the Earth's surface. Then there's a section called "list of seas" which implies a list of "the seas". Just *how many* 'things that cover 70% of the Earth's surface' are there?! See how that could cause confusion? There are a bunch of "seas" inside "the sea". Not a bunch of "the seas". Similarly, the "Sea, ocean, lake" section is referring to "seas" rather than "the sea" - it says the are smaller than oceans for example - even though even the section preceding it clearly describes the 1 sea that covers 70% of the earth's surface.--Coin945 (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and that was just a naming suggestion. Obviously we could go for something like Sea (for "the sea" and Sea (region) (for "sea) or something like that. Don't let the terminology trip you up. :)

Go ahead and create Sea (region), then, nobody is stopping you; move the List of seas there, or into a separate article, and explain the kinds of sea (landlocked, edge, and Sargasso-in-a-gyre, and perhaps freshwater...), and link back to Sea for The Sea stuff, and to the List for the many-small-ones stuff. We can add a link in the Sea, ocean, lake note too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering how involved you guys are, and due to you obviously having a very clear idea of where you want this (and I pressume related articles) to head, I think it would be best to leave you two to your own devices. I guess part of my problem with the improvements were that the scope of the article was already for [{Sea (region]], and the new content effectively hijacked it by turning it's scope into something completely different. It's almost like: "why not just make a new article and leave "sea" to its initial scope" rather than "turning" Sea from an article about "Seas" into "The sea", and then making a new article on "Seas" called Sea (region). Seems the long way around. And I'm not sure if that was intentional or not (cos as we've discussed, it is very easy to think both "the sea" and "seas" are the exact same topic)...but something about that just irked me. But whatever... at least it's clear that they refer to two very different things and can't coexist in the same article. --Coin945 (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Can't speak for anyone else, but FWIW I'd intended to cover all aspects. But since you prefer, will split off the regional seas when feeling strong. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the different meanings of the word "sea" that so concern you can be adequately dealt with by use of the Sea (disambiguation) page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree this is not a good idea, the distinction between "Sea" and "The Sea" not exactly being clear. World Ocean is a very short article using a term that is unfamiliar to most, if used by geographers, and should probably be merged here. Any geographic lists here should probably be kept pretty short. I hope all are aware of the slight WP:ENGVAR differences in the usages of "sea" and "ocean" - Americans go to a beach & look at the "ocean", while Brits & I think Australians see the "sea" (regardless of whether they are looking at an actual ocean or not). I think the article should try to cover all types of "marine stuff" in a concise fashion, with lots of links to other main articles, & not have major splitting. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

As long as it's made clear that the "sea" (as in world ocean), and the "sea" (as in things like the Mediterranean Sea) are two diffreent concepts that happen to be called the same thing. At the moment it looks like around 85% is talking about the former, and then you've got random leftover sections from before the improvement started that are talking about the latter. I hope I'm not coming across as anal or anything. It's just that it's rather hard to pick up on due to its subtlety (in fact i only realised the diffreence while pondering over this article's strangeness and incoherence). If you read the comments made under the "Sea" section of the Core Contest page, you'll see Caliber make some very similar comments to me, so it's clear this is a genuine problem, and not something I have fabricated just to be difficult. BTW initially I said we should merge "Sea" (as in the sea) content into World Ocean, but it makes perfect sense to merge it the other way, being the more common term and all. :)--Coin945 (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them "different concepts". The Med is a subset/example of the whole thing, and a geographical term, which the whole thing isn't exactly. But general stuff about currents, waves, sealife etc is applicable to both, when at a broad enough level. Or am I missing something? Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment from an uninvolved reader: I have no idea how the scope of this article compares to the scope of other related articles, e.g. World Ocean, from glancing over the article after seeing it at DYK. A lot more clarity is needed here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I argued that seas are arbitrary subsections of the sea, made by humans due to cultural and political reasons. So yes, I would say they are rather different. The article on seas would go into the specifics of why these devisions were even made in the first place, how they have influcned the course of history, and if they have any relevance anymore.--Coin945 (talk) 07:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• P.S. On the whole "we don't have articles starting with The" argument, we actually do when it is vital that we distinguish between two conceptually distinct but linguistically similar concepts: The arts and Art. This is no different to The sea and Sea--Coin945 (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The home for the list of named Seas here is plainly List of seas, which can and should have an introduction explaining what types of named Sea there are. By all means go ahead and arrange that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

But it's not a list of seas, is it? According to this article's definition of sea, the List of seas articles should be a list of "connected bod[ies] of salt water that cover...70 percent of the Earth's surface". But it's not. Because this definition of "sea" is different to the definition of "sea" in the Sea article. One definition of "sea" refers to a subsection of the other definition of "sea". And that's where the confusion lies.--Coin945 (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The article now begins "The sea is the connected body of salt water that covers 70 percent of the Earth's surface." which is clear enough. One might add "...also known as the World Ocean." - after, I suggest again, merging that short article here. One could add a sentence saying something like ""Sea" is also a geographical term for particular bodies of water (usually but not always of salt-water)." I think that should cover it. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Pre-review comment

Haven't decided yet if I've got the chutzpah to review this one for GA, but I wanted to make the initial comment that it seems a bit overcrowded with images. I understand the temptation, but MOS:IMAGELOCATION states "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar", which happens in several sections here. Is it possible to do a bit of cutting/rearranging to address the issue?

Thanks to everyone working on this corest of core articles--image quibble aside, it looks terrific. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I have moved a couple to ease overlaps. Our images guidance has never really worked out how to handle the vast range of screen sizes people now have, & on my wide screen, with a 300px default pic size, many if not most FAs show some "sandwich" overlap, which is not a big issue. On older shape screens, where it is ugly, the text lines increase & generally remove it. A couple of images (Columbus, the Greek army, The Tempest) are dispensible. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 13:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days.

Before we even begin, let me profoundly thank everyone who's working to improve this one. In a GA queue that's crowded with mostly trivial topics (and that includes most of my nominations), it's always a great surprise to see a core article show up. In readership terms, this article is being viewed an average of 2000 times a day, as much as forty or fifty typical GAs put together.

Since this is a topic of enormous scope, my plan is to attack this in three steps:

1. go through a standard checklist for prose/sources/format/etc.
2. compare the article to other reference works (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica) to see if we're missing any major aspect
3. hold the review open an additional week to solicit further suggestions from WikiProject Oceans and visitors to the page

If anybody happens to look in on this review in the meantime, your suggestions are very welcome. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking on this review. Expanding the article was a joint project between Chiswick Chap and myself. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Collapsing long discussion for readability; these points have been addressed

Here's some comments on initial sections. I'm not very far in yet, but hope to do more before the end of the day. Please note that I've made a few tweaks as I went, too. Feel free to revert any with which you disagree. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Lead "as well as where many of the major groups evolved" -- "groups" seems a bit informal and vague here. Is there a better word? I cannot think of a better one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC) This isn't a GA criterion, but as an aside, the lead seems rather overlinked. I'd suggest delinking basic terms or common geographical terms like fish, Arctic, moon, sun, etc. Removed some links Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC) "The sea provides substantial supplies of food, mainly fish, but also of other animals including whales and of seaweeds to people around the world, both of wild-caught fish and from aquaculture." -- this sentence gets very tangled. Also, should it be moved to the fourth paragraph (human uses)? Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC) "since Homer's Odyssey," -- the language in the article's body is "at least since", which makes a little more sense to me; surely the sea showed up in human story-telling before that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Overview "The science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke once suggested that "Earth" should have been named "Ocean" as the sea is its dominant feature, both critically important to life on earth, and recently strongly affected by human activities such as overfishing and pollution." -- It's not an issue for GA, but I wonder if the half of this sentence after "feature" could simply be cut; most readers will see the logic, and these facts are already well-established by the lead. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) "Earth's water is found in the seas" -- why use "the seas" here instead of "the sea"? Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) The paragraph on maritime law fits a bit awkwardly into this section--it's not clear to me how this fits into definitions of the sea, which this section otherwise focuses on. What would you think about moving it to be the second paragraph of the "Exploitation" section, which focuses on human uses of the sea? For the moment I have moved it lower in the combined section where I think it fits better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) "Next to its use in "the sea" as designating the totality of interconnected bodies of water also known as the World Ocean, " -- I'd suggest cutting this phrase; the word "also" makes it clear that we're now looking at a new definition. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I'd suggest cutting the subheader "Sea, ocean, lake" -- it sets off a one-paragraph section, which is discouraged by WP:LAYOUT, and the section could flow into this paragraph without disrupting the flow. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) This appears to have an original-research like tone: "A rather weak definition is that a sea is a sub-division of an ocean, which means that it must have oceanic basin crust on its floor. This definition for example accepts the Caspian, which was once part of an ancient ocean, as a sea.[9] The Introduction to Marine Biology defines a sea as a "land-locked" body of water, adding that the term "sea" is only one of convenience, but the book is written by marine biologists, not oceanographers". Does the source for the first definition describe it as a weak definition, or is that editorial interpretation? For the second, do the authors of that book point out that they are marine biologists rather than oceanograhpers in specific reference to this definition? -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Removed original research Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Seawater "cold, dense under layer" -- should underlayer be one word, or hyphenated? Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Is Marinebio.net a reliable source? It doesn't look likely to be from its about page. I'd suggest finding a higher quality source for these figures in any case, one is surely available somewhere. Its a "distance learning course", equivalent to a textbook I would have thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Interesting question. It has some authority on the one hand, but on the other, it's not clear what editorial oversight there would be. I'm honestly not sure, so I'll just ask at WP:RS/N about it and get back to you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "Seawater has a freezing point of about −1.8 °C (28.8 °F). " -- it seems a bit odd to suddenly link C and F here; I'd suggest doing this consistently or not at all (preferably not at all) Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) I'd suggest delinking more basic definitions like oxygen, fungi, viruses, etc. to reduce link density and better emphasize higher-value links. But this isn't a GA criterion, so feel free to ignore the suggestion. Done some Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "have raised this pH level to 8.1" -- perhaps I'm being silly, but wouldn't changing a pH from 8.2 to 8.1 be lowering instead of raising? Changed to lowered Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "as the sea becomes more acid" -- should this be "more acidic"? Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "This is likely to have profound effects ... will have significant consequences ... are likely to be severely affected". I think these projections belong in the article, but I'd suggest attributing them more clearly in-text. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "with knock-on effects" -- as an American, this isn't an expression I'm familiar with, though I can of course guess at it. Is there a more basic expression that could be used here? Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "In reality, " -- I'm not sure I understand this phrase here; was the previous sentence a theoretical construct that's never been done in reality? Or is "in reality" being used here for something like "Under standard conditions"? Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) "Red is selectively removed" -- the passive voice and the word "removed" here make this sound like a deliberate process; I wonder if this could be rephrased. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Rephrased Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the quick response to the above points. All looks good; my only remaining concern is the online course site, which I'll get a quick second opinion on. I hope to proceed through the rest of the article today. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Waves This section looks good. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Currents " or near a man-made structure such as a groin." -- It took me the better part of five minutes to figure out that we weren't talking about a human crotch here, which may mean that I'm embarrassingly underqualified to review this nomination. But I note that "groyne" is the more common spelling outside the US, at least according to Wikipedia; the article otherwise seems to use British English, such as "Harbour", so perhaps this could be changed as well. Either way I'd suggest it be linked, if I'm now properly understanding what's meant here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Tides not a GA issues, but probably no need to link moon and sun here Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) "the foreshore, which is known as the intertidal zone" -- how about "also known as" to make it clear that it's not just one part of the foreshore that's known this way? Also, both these links seem to go to the same place, so you probably only need one of them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Life in the sea Since meadow doesn't appear to discuss the kind of "meadows" you're referring to here, I wonder if it's wise to link it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Further comments

Collapsing for readability; these points have been addressed

Humans and the sea Again, not a GA issue, but consider delinking low-value links such as war, antiquity, Africa, Asia, China, South America, etc. unlinked several " using the stars, the direction of swells and other simple signs to find their way" -- "simple" carries a wee touch of condescension. I wonder if it could just be cut. removed "In the Dark Ages" -- my limited understanding is that "the Middle Ages" is preferred as a more neutral term these days, but I could be wrong. done "In the mediaeval to modern period, Western European mariners made voyages of exploration in search of trade starting in the fifteenth century." -- beginning and ending this sentence with time indicators seems a bit redundant. Could it just read, "Starting in the fifteenth century, Western European mariners made voyages of exploration in search of trade"? done "The Italian Amerigo Vespucci reached South America" -- since you gave a year for every other voyage, you might add a year to this one for consistency done "the seas along the Arctic and Pacific coasts of Russia had been discovered" -- was there no one living along the northern or eastern coasts of Russia at this point? The "discovered" here confuses me a bit. 'sailed'. The section already says "far from discovering empty lands...". Are we confident that [17] has permission to host an article from Arctic Voice (i.e., is it their inhouse magazine or something)? The Ria Novosti attribution at the bottom worries me, too. Just want to make sure we're not linking to a copyvio here. removed URL The chronology of the section gets a little confused with the Russian sentence, which takes us up to 1700, then 1910; then we appear to snap back to the 16th century. For that matter, is the discovery of Severnaya Zemlya a significant enough event to merit mention here? Severnaya Zemlya is significant for the late date of discovery, as stated; the point is that the age of discovery, mainly in earlier centuries, ended there. Rearranged and edited to clarify. "Scientific oceanography can be considered to have" -- the "can be" here seems to hedge a bit. Is it possible to say who considers it to begin at this point? -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC) removed Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Trade Is there a distinction between "commodities and merchandise" that requires using both words? (an honest, not sarcastic, question--tone's always tricky in these) They are different. Commodities are bulk cargoes such as iron ore of corn, merchandise is manufactured goods. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) I have mild reservations about using the World Shipping Council as a source for statistics; they're more an advocacy group than a secondary source. None of the information here seems particularly controversial, so I don't see it as an issue for GA, but if you come across a better source while we're working on this, let's put that in instead. As a broad note, I don't think this is a concern for GA level, but in terms of article balance, I feel like the "human and the sea" gets a disproportionate share of space. Comparing the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia articles (both of which have it under "ocean", btw), they weight the scientific aspects (tides, currents, marine life) much more heavily than the cultural and social (trade, power generation, etc.). "Animals" in particular seem to get a short shrift in the current draft compared to the later detail on wind farming, or how container ships work, for example. Again, I think all these aspects are covered well enough to meet the GA criteria, but I thought I'd put that out there if you were thinking of advancing to FA. OK. I'm always happy to expand on animals! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) On a related note, this isn't necessary for GA, but I'd suggest that the detail on container ship operations be trimmed down. Obviously the ships themselves are important and need to be mentioned, but the way the containers are stacked, loaded, unloaded, etc. seems excessive in an article of this scope. Not a GA note, though, so feel free to ignore. Noted Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) The Trade section might also take a more historical view of trade with some of the space currently devoted to present-day container ships. Briefly mentioning spice traders, the sugar trade, the Transatlantic slave trade, etc. wouldn't be completely out of place. Again, not necessary for GA, just a general suggestion for the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Noted Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Food production "direct caught fish" -- seems a little awkward, and Google suggests this article is the only place that uses the phrase. Is there another term that can be used here? [18] Reworded Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) "The north west Pacific " -- I'm always terrible with the British way of doing this, but should this be "north-west" or "northwest"? I think "north west" is correct British English.See here for example. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) "The north west Pacific is the most productive area while fish catches in most of the other ocean areas peaked several years ago" -- seems worth a citation. Also, "several years" is a short enough time that this could use a more fixed time reference per WP:REALTIME. I've rewritten parts of this paragraph Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) " The number of vessels employed in sea fishing is over 3 million." -- as a statistic, needs citation Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Again, not necessary for GA, but ideally this "food production" section would capture historical aspects as well as present-day methods: the European cod and herring trades, the various cultures that practice/practiced whaling, etc. Noted Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) "There are in contrast relatively few maritime flowering plants that are widely used for food" -- this could use citation, but it's probably not quite needed under the GA criteria. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Rephrased Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Leisure "Although not at home in the water in the same way as whales, seals or penguins, " -- is this necessary to point out? Normally I wouldn't flag it, but this is an article where every sentence needs to carry its weight. Removed. I have rewriting this bit, now two paragraphs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Okay, I'm going to put an arbitrary break here. Sorry I haven't gotten through as much as I hoped today; due to its density, this article's required more thought than a standard review. Though I continue to list quibbles, overall I'd say the quality so far is superb. This is clearly ripe for promotion. Anyway, I have a few other wikichores demanding my attention, but I hope to get through the rest tomorrow. This should give you plenty to chew on in the meantime. Thanks again, -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Power generation "is (in 2011) a more mature technology " -- should probably be either "was in 2011 a more mature" or "is, as of 2011, a more mature" done, and rearranged section to flow better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Extractive industries "There is a trend towards conducting more of the production operations on the seabed" -- this trend could use some kind of time frame This section seems very long compared to its relative importance in the article; much of it deals with failed or theoretical mechanisms that can't be said to have much significance yet, and therefore don't do much to earn their space in an article of this scale. For example, I'd suggest the sentences "Gold is present in seawater in concentrations of 0.000011 ppm and uranium 0.0033 ppm. The German chemist Fritz Haber tried extracting the gold in the 1920s but completely failed. Periodically, attempts to recover uranium are made, especially at times of world energy shortage. The accepted method of pumping water through a membrane uses so much energy that it is not a practical strategy for uranium extraction. An alternative mechanism would be dropping a membrane into the sea in an area in which strong currents cause water to flow past the adsorbing surface. However, the total expenditure of energy relative to the amount of uranium that could be recovered by these means, makes extracting the element from the sea not a practical possibility." be shortened to: "Gold is present in seawater in concentrations of 0.000011 ppm and uranium 0.0033 ppm, but attempts to retrieve them have proved unsuccessful or impractical." Again, I don't think this is necessary for GA, so feel free to put this one off if you like. But I thought I'd put it out there. done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Naval warfare Not necessary for GA, but consider adding Battle of Tsushima to have a less Western-centered example. The Battle of Lepanto might be worth mentioning here, too. added Tsushima ", though Nelson himself was killed in the battle" -- seems a little trivial for an article of this magnitude, but not an important point for GA -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC) removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Marine pollution While it's hard to imagine anyone being in favor of marine pollution, "fortunately" should probably be removed per WP:WTW. Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC) " that feed on them" -- unclear here if "them" refers to algal blooms or cyanobacteria Clarified Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Seaweb and Namanet both appear to be advocacy groups; I'm not sure their statements about scientific research would qualify as RSs. Is it possible to find secondary sources on this subject? I have replaced the latter Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC) "PCBs and heavy metals have been implicated in the diseased state of the bottlenose dolphin populations inhabiting the east coast of Florida. This ill health may be caused by the suppression of their immune systems by these contaminants leaving them open to opportunistic infections" -- to focus on a specific problem for a specific organism in one area seems like an excessive level of detail for this article; seems better to cut this and stay on an overview level. Removed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC) "marine invertebrates which have no metabolic pathways to deal with them" -- should this be "marine invertebrates that have no metabolic pathways to deal with them" (i.e., certain marine invertebrates) or "marine invertebrates, which have no..." (i.e., all marine invertebrates)? Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Again, not necessary for GA, but this section as a whole seems a bit overdetailed; there seems to be more on this than on tides or currents, which seems disproportionate. Yes, we will have to consider the balance of the article between the different sections and probably need to do some trimming. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

In culture

Collapsing for readability; these points have been addressed

I'd suggest cutting the Typhoon quotation; it doesn't have clear relevance beyond mentioning the word "sea", or at least not enough to earn its place rearranged. It accurately and sensitively describes an appearance of the sea. I hate to say it, but I think the new quotation compounds the problem rather than fixing it. First, a critical judgement should almost always be sourced in-text for reasons of NPOV, so I'd suggest rewriting this as something like "Royal Museums Greenwich described his works as..." More importantly, implying that a critical judgement of Conrad's work applies to a specific sentence, when the source doesn't mention the specific sentence, seems to me WP:SYNTH. Perhaps the colon could simply be changed to a period? Even better, what would you think about breaking this out of the text into a quote box, to sidestep the issue of properly weaving it into the prose? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Why not, good idea. "In modern European literature, the novelist Joseph Conrad stands out," -- as a judgement (admittedly a common one), this will need a page number from Najder as well as the citation. removed The literature section seems very Eurocentric, and though I personally like Wouk, he seems like a minorish figure to include here. (Maybe Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea instead? Seems like a much more celebrated book today, and more sea-focused.) Some possibilities for expansion might be the Ramayana, which involves the challenge of crossing the sea to Sri Lanka, oral traditions of various coastal cultures, and Mishima's The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea. These will be useful suggestions for further work. It's a little confusing to separate out "in poetry" from "in literature"--could these simply be combined? done " perhaps the best-known maritime work is Herman Melville's 1851 novel Moby-Dick" -- this seems borderline on needing a citation; I agree that it's common-sense but it also offers an opinion. Can one be found? reworded It's surprising how much discussion The Cruel Sea gets, too, for a movie that isn't widely remembered today. Seems like this could be cut, or this space spent enumerating more celebrated examples (maybe Mutiny on the Bounty (the good one), Captains Courageous, Das Boot, The Abyss, Jaws, Titanic). Relevant WikiProjects could suggest non-US/EU examples. The discussion indicates the film's significance. An article on Marine cinema would do well to expand upon these suggestions. The global issues will need further attention in this article in due course. The problem is that the discussion boils down to "this is an adaptation of a book Herman Wouk really likes"--the discussion of its source material, and Wouk's review of that source material, seems a level of detail that isn't needed for such a sweeping article. (Compare with the lack of discussion of The Perfect Storm's source book by Junger and its reviews, and the lack of mention of so many other major sea films.) As a compromise, perhaps it could be clarified that Wouk is reviewing the novel rather than the movie, and his comments could be moved to an explanatory footnote? -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Slimmed down discussion and Wouk; the remaining comment explicitly says "write" (and is in lit. section, not cinema) so should be clear now. "In cinema, the sea has played roles from central protagonist to villain from the earliest days of cinema" -- what would be an example of the sea being a protagonist of a movie? This seems like it could use citation. This introductory clause is supported and referenced by the rest of the paragraph (and the rest of the sentence). Sorry, I perhaps wasn't clear enough in my question. The protagonist is usually defined as "the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work" or "the main character (the central or primary personal figure) of a literary, theatrical, cinematic, or musical narrative, who ends up in conflict because of the antagonist. The audience is intended to most identify with the protagonist". Here you seem to be using "protagonist" in a weaker sense of "something that appears in a movie". I think you could just as easily argue that the children in "La Mer" are the protagonists, or that the film has no protagonist at all, since it lacks a classic narrative structure of conflict/resolution with a protagonist and an antagonist. So I'd be more comfortable with your providing a secondary source here indicating that critics consider the sea of La Mer both the protagonist and villain in the film. (I'm having trouble opening the link to the film in three different browsers, for some reason, but the link is to the film itself, right, not a secondary source about it?) I'm also not sure what you mean by saying this is referenced by the rest of the paragraph--the other examples all seem to be from 1953 or later, which is a stretch to call "the earliest days of cinema". -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) All that was intended was "the sea is mentioned in various ways as per the following", reworded to try to say that. La Mer is certainly an early film. Removed 'protagonist' etc. I wonder if "in theatre" should also be merged into "in literature"; both these examples are clearly literature. Perhaps theatre will be happier with cinema, let's try that for now. Good idea. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC) In "classical music", Elgar and Stanford need full names and wikilinks done " The English composer Frank Bridge, born in the coastal town of Brighton, wrote an orchestral suite called The Sea in 1911" -- given the scale of this article, is it worth including an example here that isn't significant enough to have its own article? removed This isn't an issue that needs to be solved to meet the GA criteria, but the cultural discussion seems to leave out most of the world. No mention is made of any American indigenous peoples, Africa, Polynesia, or Asia outside of Japan. I realize this is a very difficult problem to solve. If no source can be found giving a global overview, one possibility would be to simply ping WikiProjects for India, China, indigenous peoples, etc. and see if editors there can make suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC) We have had it in mind. Suggestions will surely be forthcoming. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Overall

Overall, this appears almost ready for GA. I still need to do some things like check image licenses and some spotchecks for copyright issues, but we're closing in. Let me know your thoughts on the above. I'll also ping one or two relevant wikiprojects for input at this point. Thanks again for taking on this planet-sized task! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A few sourcing points

• Sorry to reopen a point I thought was closed, but I got a belated response at WP:RS/N seconding my concerns about MarineBio.net as a source. This should be replaced in the three instances where it's used.

Replaced Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Another source that may need to be replaced, while I'm looking at sources, is http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/shakespeare/tempest.htm; this seems to be self-published material, even if it's sourcing a basic point.

Replaced with Royal Shakespeare Company, looks like a reliable outfit! Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've heard good things. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about http://marinebio.org/ as a source, either. They're an NGO without much of a reputation (only appearing in Google News twice, HighBeam not at all). One of the pages cited from them, [19], actually cites Wikipedia as one of its own sources. I think the material from them needs to be rewritten based on more reliable sources (or at least re-sourced from more reliable sources).

The author, Dr Paul Yancey is a biology professor who has written a book on deep sea biology. Nevertheless, I have replaced the information with similar from a new source (currently #85). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.carbontrust.com/ appears to be a company in the renewable energy business; a secondary source for this information should probably be used instead.

Replaced (currently #86) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/About-the-OEC/About-the-OEC.html appears to be an advocacy group; can this information be found in a secondary source? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Used the OES source to cover this too (currently #86) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

All right, I think this is close to ready to go, though as mentioned before, I'll hold this open for a bit for further outside comment. I'll fill out the checklist now to see if there's anything I've missed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, there's a few images that need tagged with their US status as well as EU or Japan tags, but that's all I see for now. One side note: an image of the water cycle has been added to the top of the article. Should the water cycle be discussed here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would deal with this because I hadn't a clue. I hope what I have done is OK. I have removed the water cycle image. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me. As for the water cycle image, it might be worth including something about this down the road. All that's left as far as I'm concerned is to give it another few days to see if others can point out a main aspect that we've missed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll consider the water cycle and the other points you have raised during the review (including its west-centricness and the balance between sections) after the review is finished. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you for your patience with this sprawling review. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable at this point to assume no further comment is coming from WP Oceans. Closing as Pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The extreme image density is an issue, but that part of the MOS isn't a GA criterion.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The closest thing to a main aspect that seems to be missing is a more global view of humanity and the sea; the section as written might be better titled "Westerners and the sea". But there's just enough here (a few references to Japan and Polynesia) IMO to scrape by on this.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Some sections seem a bit overweighted, as noted above, but nothing is excessively detailed.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Columbus Taking Possession.jpg, File:Rowe Tempest.JPG, File:Ehon Hyaku Monogatari Isonade.jpg and File:Mercator 1569 map small.jpg appear to need tagging with their US copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA

Comments by Snowmanradio

• Possible omission: origin of the water. Water from comets? Snowman (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We can think about adding this Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Possible omission: how unusual is it for a planet to have a sea? Snowman (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I will look into adding this information Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Re File:Tide overview.svg. The illustration has an arrow indicating a high tide on the upper side of the Earth (near the moon). I think that there should also be a high tide arrow pointing at the bottom of the Earth (furthest from the moon). This will therefore make "two tides per day" easier to understand. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the caption. Clearer? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• The caption is fine. My comment is about the svg illustration. On the illustration there is an arrow to the high tide near to the moon, but not to the high tide on the far side of the Earth.Snowman (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I altered the caption because that was something I was able to do. Adding an arrow is not so easy. Are you able to manipulate images? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I have not worked on svg images. Uses can get help to edit images. I would anticipate that adding another arrow to indicate the other high tide would be relatively easy for uses who can do that sort of thing. Snowman (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• What is the difference between this article and the article on Ocean? Snowman (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed in various places. In the UK (and in Australia according to Casliber), the word "sea" is used as a general term for the world's salt water. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a lot of overlap between this article and the article on Ocean. Snowman (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think there is surprisingly little overlap. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I meant when the articles are fully developed. I think that the topics have a lot of overlap. Snowman (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

What next?

The following suggestions were made during the GA review. I have just copied them verbatim below. Do we want to follow them up? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The World Shipping Council as a source for statistics
• ... in terms of article balance, I feel like the "human and the sea" gets a disproportionate share of space. Comparing the Encyclopedia Britannica and Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia articles (both of which have it under "ocean", btw), they weight the scientific aspects (tides, currents, marine life) much more heavily than the cultural and social (trade, power generation, etc.). "Animals" in particular seem to get a short shrift in the current draft compared to the later detail on wind farming, or how container ships work, for example. Again, I think all these aspects are covered well enough to meet the GA criteria, but I thought I'd put that out there if you were thinking of advancing to FA.

I've expanded the animals section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• the detail on container ship operations be trimmed down. Obviously the ships themselves are important and need to be mentioned, but the way the containers are stacked, loaded, unloaded, etc. seems excessive in an article of this scope.

slimmed down a little. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The Trade section might also take a more historical view of trade with some of the space currently devoted to present-day container ships. Briefly mentioning spice traders, the sugar trade, the Transatlantic slave trade, etc. wouldn't be completely out of place.
• ... but ideally this "food production" section would capture historical aspects as well as present-day methods: the European cod and herring trades, the various cultures that practice/practiced whaling, etc.
• (Marine pollution) ... this section as a whole seems a bit overdetailed; there seems to be more on this than on tides or currents, which seems disproportionate.

Fewer images and slightly less text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

• The literature section seems very Eurocentric, and though I personally like Wouk, he seems like a minorish figure to include here. (Maybe Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea instead? Seems like a much more celebrated book today, and more sea-focused.) Some possibilities for expansion might be the Ramayana, which involves the challenge of crossing the sea to Sri Lanka, oral traditions of various coastal cultures, and Mishima's The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea.
• ... the cultural discussion seems to leave out most of the world. No mention is made of any American indigenous peoples, Africa, Polynesia, or Asia outside of Japan. I realize this is a very difficult problem to solve. If no source can be found giving a global overview, one possibility would be to simply ping WikiProjects for India, China, indigenous peoples, etc. and see if editors there can make suggestions.
• The extreme image density is an issue, but that part of the MOS isn't a GA criterion.

A few sections did have up to 3 images - have slimmed 'em down.

• The closest thing to a main aspect that seems to be missing is a more global view of humanity and the sea; the section as written might be better titled "Westerners and the sea". But there's just enough here (a few references to Japan and Polynesia) IMO to scrape by on this.

This topic has been mentioned twice and intensively worked on, so help is clearly required.

• Should the water cycle be discussed here?

No, TWML. The cycle spans sea, atmosphere, mountains and rivers to name a few, so it's plainly out of scope as a topic, but deserves a link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

These comments are not only verbatim, they have in many cases been partly addressed during the review, so they are now out of context and not necessarily appropriate any more. I think we should check them again, make a best-effort to address them where we think it appropriate, and move on. The comparisons with other Encyclopedias may be useful as sanity checks but they are different animals and not necessarily useful as guidance. Other opinions and peer review will be appropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your proposals. I will slim down marine pollution and fatten up the fauna for a start. Other opinions may arrive after this posting. I'm not sure a peer review is necessary because the GA review seemed very thorough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It did indeed have a PR-ish quality to it. Still, anything to make the process smoother is a good thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sea vs. Ocean

It seems like a great deal of this article belongs in the Ocean article rather this one. A "sea" is a body of saline water (possibly a division of the World Ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land and so all of the copy that is really about the world's oceans should be moved over to that article. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This conversation has been had already, at length. You are writing about "a sea" rather than "the sea". The parallel would be not with "an ocean" (qua The Pacific Ocean, etc) but with the World ocean, which however is a much rarer and more specialised term than the widely used "the sea", the grey continuous briny. We could indeed redirect "World ocean" here - I would not oppose it - but that is a separate matter. There are plenty of examples in the cultural section in this article to show that people do indeed speak, write and think about the sea as used here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge with Ocean?

Should this article be merged with ocean? I thought ocean and sea were synonyms. At the very least, if there is redundant information in this article about 'sea' that also applies to the 'ocean' article, shouldn't one refer to the other rather than having two parallel articles? Marla the Mop (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hatnotes?

Regarding the hatnotes, I have to suggest that virtually everybody coming here will know what the 'sea' is and its primary meaning. If they don't, then the first sentence of the lead says practically the same thing. Restating it in the hatnotes doesn't seem particularly beneficial. Perhaps we could contract the hatnotes to say:

"Ocean Sea" redirects here. For the novel, see Ocean Sea (novel). For other uses of the article name, see Sea (disambiguation) and The Sea (disambiguation).

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Article size

The article is currently 68 kB of readable prose. See WP:SIZERULE and WP:Splitting. Should the article be divided? Should the long "Humans and the sea" section be split off into a separate article? Any comments? Snowman (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is a very condensed summary of a very large subject. It is reasonable for it to be longer than usual to make it reasonably inclusive as a summary. The association of humans with the sea is an important part of the general subject, so I don't think it should be split off. Some minor trimming may be possible, but preferably not at the expense of the generality that is the whole point of this article. I feel that it may even be necessary for it to get a bit larger before it exceeds the optimum content. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have read all of the article, how long did it take you to read it? Snowman (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

49 minutes. It is not an article that I would expect many people to read at a single sitting. If that is the intention, then a large amount of detail should be removed. Some of the technical information does not ring true, and to a large extent the prose does not flow. There are sections which contain large numbers of bald statements of fact, which do not form a satisfying general picture, as there are broad generalizations interspersed with highly specific details, with no obvious reason why those particular details are favoured. Having now read it all at a sitting, I would revise my initial comments to recommend that it should be trimmed further, with a particular aim of presenting a more generalized summary for each section, and to put the non-essential details in the hatlinked articles. This would allow for expansion to include currently missing aspects. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in your comment that "technical information does not ring true", because problems with anything to do with electricity, power, or physics have been some of my key concerns with this article. Specific comments including your observations on technical content may be useful at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sea/archive1, where this article is currently being reviewed with the aim of improving it. Discussion on article size can be continued here. Snowman (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that this article is not too long given the importance of the topic. The articles I have listed below are all FAs and considerably longer than Sea. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Manhattan Project (103 kB)
• Elvis Presley (95 kB)
• Military history of Puerto Rico (95 kB)
• Ketuanan Melayu (94 kB)
• Air raids on Japan (90 kB)
• Byzantine navy (89 kB)
• Finnish Civil War (88 kB)
• Nikita Khrushchev (87 kB)

It doesn't feel too long to me; it's a major topic, and, in my opinion, on reading it through it doesn't drag or go into excessive detail. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• The topic of the sea is considered a core topic that every encyclopaedia should have. Some of the core topics are listed at Wikipedia:Version_0.7/Core_supplement and "sea" is listed under the major heading "Technical topics", then subheading "Earth", then subheading "Water". I presume that it is considered a core topic owing to the importance of the sciences of the seas, but I am a somewhat puzzled, because "Ocean" and "Oceanography" are both also listed as core topics. To what extent are "Man and the sea" and "The sea in culture" within the technical bracket? Snowman (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Does being listed under technical topics preclude non-technical content? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Most technical subjects involve some form of human connection, most of the subsections in "Man and the sea" appear to be technical to a significant extent. "The sea in culture" perhaps less so. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I would think that non-technical content can be included; however, a longish Sea in culture section has been recently split off and a summary made for the "Sea" article. I would agree that much of "Humans and the sea" is technical. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think the length is fine. The issue is ensuring balanced and meaningful summaries and cross-references of sufficient comprehensiveness while still producing good-quality prose. I think discussion at the FAC is producing many fixes for these things. I agree with many of Snowman's suggestions there, though I have opposed a few. My feeling is that a high-quality article will get thrashed out by editors in the ball-park of its current length, and that this is appropriate to a subject of such importance. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I like the content and think the length is fine. Actually showing the various facets of the sea (especially its relevance to man) is what makes the article special. It's the distinctive thing the author has brought to the table and in the service of readers. I don't think a spinout of the human section would be helpful, since people are more likely to search on the subsections than the span-breaker. They would go to the articles on shipping, fishing, naval warfare, etc. [themselves already core topics].71.127.137.171 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The size seems fine to me. I remember a similar argument about the World War I article. Certain articles are always going to be a bit longer than guidelines suggest, which is why they are guidelines rather than firm rules. I, for one, am extremely impressed with this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Depth record

The world depth record in an atmospheric diving suit is not a leisure activity, but I don't see any of the current sections as a suitable place for the information. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Research and exploration

Should there not be a subsection of Humans and the sea on exploration and research? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think so, and I have already pointed this out at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sea/archive1. Snowman (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What sort of things would go in a "Research and exploration" section? Snowman (talk) 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ports and habours

Two concepts that crossed my mind as being oddly absent from the section on humans and the sea. Thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Quoting Rachel Carson - copyright issue?

In the "in culture" section, i recently included a short quote from Rachel Carson's The Sea Around Us. It is not in the section on the biology or history of the sea, but on its cultural dimensions, in this case in literature and thought. The quote read:

It is a curious situation that the sea, from which life first arose, should now be threatened by the activities of one form of that life. But the sea, though changed in a sinister way, will continue to exist: the threat is rather to life itself.

Another editor queried its copyright status. I drew attention to WP:QUOTE and Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. The other editor had cited Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources in support of removal, and I pointed out that that guideline includes the words ""For instance, we can quote a sentence or two from a movie review in an article on the movie" and I argued that that was exactly what the Carson quote was doing. The other editor reverted the quote's insertion, and when asked to further explain, provided two arguments: one to do with the science of the origins of life (which I am not seeking to raise in this discussion) and one regarding copyright. In this edit at the FAC talk page, the editor explained:

My removal of the 1951 quote was done primarily as an urgent matter in case the copyrighted quote does not have fair use and this obviously is the safest course of action for the Wiki. Of course, with the possibility that it may not have a fair use in the article, I am not minded to return it to the article. A think that a review for a film is not the same as a review for a core topic. I do not see any fair use justification for the quote in this article, since it is not necessary for the article, whereas a review of a film has an obvious relevance. Even if the quote could be used as fair use in the article, then I think that the quote is controversial and unsuitable, because it appears to say that life arose from the sea, which is only one of several hypotheses now; see Abiogenesis. I recall that a BBC television documentary broadcast within the last year did not have the sea as the most likely origin of life. The quote was not accompanied with its date in the prose of article and so it could be read out of context. The quote has no bearing on the article's FA status, so I think that returning the quote to the article and its copyright status could be discussed on the article's talk page

I do not agree with the editor, either on copyright, or on their actions in excluding it, but AGF am raising it here. My question is: do other editors believe this is a copyright violation? Unless other editors agree that it represents a copyright violation, I propose to reinstate it, and we can then have a discussion about other issues, if needed. I am supportive of the editor's suggestion that the date of the book be included. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding this (well-attributed) quote is neither a copyright violation nor an inappropriate use of quotes. I have no opinion on whether the quote is essential for the article though. Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Two sentences for a full work is not a violation of copyright and falls squarely in fair use allowances, and as long there's an immediate citation, it's good. (a full paragraph would start to trip the copyvio concerns). --MASEM (t) 00:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly fair use and also withing Wikipedia's more stringent rules. Hobit (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly not a copyright violation, clearly allowable. This is not even a close call. GregJackP Boomer! 02:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed the quote primarily because I thought that it may have been copyrighted; however, I am reassured that it is used with "fair use", so I have placed the 1951 quote back in the article; although, I do not fully understand the pertinence of this old quote to modern science. I would like to explain that I have seen a lot of quotes that are out of copyright, so I was surprised to see a copyrighted quote. Snowman (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Is the content of the quote suitable?

Now that I have put the quote back in the article, the discussion can advance to the suitability of the quote as used in the article. The 1951 quote states that life arose from the oceans (implying certainty), but this idea now considered only one of a number of hypotheses (see Origin of life). It seems to me that the old quote is not consistent with modern science. The general guidelines of using quotes says that "Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false" (see Wikipedia:Quotations and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). The quote may or may not have been consistent with the views on the origin of life in 1951, but I feel that it is used out-of-context in a core topic article that includes the modern sciences of the sea. Actually, the quote contradicts a science section and the introduction of the article which says that life may have started in the sea (implying uncertainty). Snowman (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as you have attributed the direct quote to the source, you are not saying "X is true" but that "Y has said X is true", taking any inaccuracies off WP's hands as to the truthfulness of "X". Now, if that quote is just being thrown in for color and no additional context, that's poor writing (but not against WP policy); there should be some context to argue that that might have been an outdated view, for example. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I think Carson's text is rhetorical in nature, and it is being read more literally than necessary. Yes, at her time, the prevailing theory (though still a theory) was that life arose from the sea; but in this passage she is using it as a literary device to talk about the threats to the sea and to life. That said, I have an alternative suggestion, which would be to remove the current quote, then revise the first part of the paragraph, to read:

As a symbol, the sea has for centuries played a role in literature, poetry and dreams. Writer Rachel Carson, in a preface to her award-winning book The Sea Around Us, wrote "The sea has always challenged the minds and imagination of men and even today it remains the last great frontier of Earth". Sometimes it is there just as a gentle background but often it introduces such themes as storm, shipwreck, battle, hardship, disaster, the dashing of hopes and death. [etc]

What do others think? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I note that this new quote refers only to men, which may because it is written in an outdated writing style of the 1950s. Is the sea seen as a great frontier now? What is the last great frontier now? Is it to explore the ancient lakes under the frozen Antarctic? Is it drilling through the crust? Is it the LHCs atom smashing? Is it to provide energy from atom fusion? I think that the quote sounds too melodramatic and subjective for the Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The quote is in a section on human culture, so the facts that modern science doesn't support it beyond doubt and that the (female) author uses "man" to refer to mankind are neither here nor there. There would be no harm adding a footnote reminding the reader that the theory that life came from the sea is only a theory, if you like. (Also, I agree with User:Hamiltonstone's view that the quote is rhetorical. To me, that makes it all the more interesting in the cultural context.) --Stfg (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Putting the explanation in a footnote is not consistent with the guidelines; see the general guidelines on quoting falsehoods on Wikipedia:Quotations#General guidelines, where it says "Never quote a false statement without immediately saying the statement is false. See this example ([1]) at Phoenix, Arizona. There is no difference between quoting a falsehood without saying it's false and inserting falsehoods into articles.". Snowman (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, Hamiltonstone's suggestion looks better, then. It doesn't have the questionable science, and it's actually more relevant to literature etc anyway. I don't see why subjectivity need be a problem in a section about literature, poetry and dreams. Melodramatic? -- the sea often has been used to symbolise the things she lists. Last frontier? -- there is and never was an objective last frontier; this is surely rhetorical (and was just as much so in 1951 as it is now). It might be best to retain the 1951 date, though. --Stfg (talk) 21:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have added a preliminary remark to the quote in the article in an effort to allay Snowman's concerns. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Like --Stfg (talk) 09:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I note that a preliminary remark on the controversy of the origin of life on Earth has been added to explain part of the presumptive quote, which seems to bring it into line with the wiki guidelines on introducing a point of view as being truth by the back door in quotes. The rest of the quote may provoke thought. The consensus seems to be that the first quote can remain in the article. Snowman (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the quote. It's thoughtful and grownup and not "breaking a rule". Let's work in the interest of the reader.71.127.137.171 (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Map needed

We should have a map showing all the seas of the world. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead image change

I personally think that one of the lead images (preferably the second) be replaced with an underwater one, perhaps with a school of fish. LittleJerry (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, much rather keep it! The world's busiest transshipment port and a mass of ships is a serious statement... and we already have an underwater image in the article. And we have been through quite a stiff review, you know. Let's stay as we are for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't like the second image. It is a cloudscape, rather than a seascape. The clouds are interesting. The flat sea with little boats is incidental because of the proportions of the picture. It would be better cropped, and used further down (because once it is cropped, the proportion will not look good with your lead image. The lead image is excellent because it shows such a range of relationships with the sea, including human use and wildlife, as well as the sea's "moods". Amandajm (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

It is wonderful to see a seriously major topic as the featured article!

I like the intro on the whole but just want to comment about the lack of a lead into the second paragraph. To the scientific mind "salty" indicates dissolved solids, and that is sufficient. For those who have never studied even the most basic Chemistry, you need to have a simple statement in the second paragraph that say that the saltiness of the sea is caused by dissolved solids, or some other way of explaining the next sentence. Amandajm (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The sea in literature. I notice that the sea in Music has been given some notable examples, but the sea in 19th century literature, (a major theme) is wanting. The great poet of the sea was John Masefield, "I must go down to the sea again, to the lonely sea and the sky. And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." And it is almost impossible to escape without Byron's stanzas from Childe Harold's Pilgrimage: "Roll on, thou deep and dark blue ocean, roll! Ten thousand fleets sweep over thee in vain...." etc etc It would be worth dropping the Masefield, or Tennyson's famous lines on the death of Arthur Hallam into a little quote box at the side, along with the illustrations. Amandajm (talk) 01:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Amanda. The section was pruned at FAC ... there's more at Sea in culture and we should certainly have a C19th section there. Much of the talk at the time was of balancing perceived western bias - but there's a lot of literature on these islands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Especially impressive since as recently as April 2013 it was a pitifully short article, and a few months prior to that it was barely more than a list. -OldManNeptune ⚓ 04:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and what an apposite username! We're greatly honoured. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the imbalance that mentions five Dutch sea painters, of whom perhaps two are truly famous, and omits to mention John Masefield, as probably the principal poet of the sea. How can Masefield be omitted, simply because he happened to write in the same language as the writers of the encyclopedia?

Amandajm (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you draft a paragraph on Masefield (and Byron, and Tennyson), with key works and quotes, suitably cited, in Sea in culture, where it will all be extremely welcome, and then we can consider how to summarize it briefly here? Consider this article an introduction and summary of all the other articles on the sea, Sea in culture included, so it will be far more comfortable to start there and work upwards. Feel free to ping me when ready. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sea and ocean

There's an article on sea and one on ocean. What's the diff? I see many repeated definitions and pictures. It becomes more confusing when the lead says "sea" can be simply called the "ocean". ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, see [Definition section] for an answer. This has been discussed extensively, see the archives and the FAC if interested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that answers Bonkers' question. This article contains a bolded link to ocean in the lead, and the Definition section does not explain what distinction this article is making between the two. We cannot expect our readers to even know where to find FAC pages or talk page archives or to have to go dig through those even if they know where to find them to attempt to understand why this article links them to another article, which appears to be the same, nor should we be relying on what passes FAC these days as reasoning for a non-sensical situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) It seems clear enough to me: "Sea" deals with the general phenomenon of bodies of salt water on earth, and "ocean" (much shorter) with specific very large ones, on this and other planets. The sea is typically called the ocean by Americans. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Then why is there a bolded link to ocean in the lead, which implies that they are synonyms, looking like a missed redirect. If seas and oceans are distinct (are they?), then why is ocean included as a synonym in the lead? If that isn't well explained in this article, the answer is not to expect readers to go dig through archives to figure out what's up. Also, the Definition section does not say that "The sea is typically called the ocean by Americans" (is that the case?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Ha, curiously, because of the confusion, I just ended up editing the wrong article (Ocean) for a typo, and did find that distinction included and cited there:

The word "sea" is often used interchangeably with "ocean" in American English but, strictly speaking, a sea is a body of saline water (generally a division of the World Ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land.[5] The general characteristics of seas and oceans are covered at sea.

which confirms my concern about the quality of review. Why do we have to click out to another article to understand this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

4 ecs - Sandy, please use preview! They could always try looking at the article(s), couldn't they? I think the problems are mainly at Ocean, & I have adjusted a little there (adding much of what you quote). It has stuff that duplicates Sea. In American English they are synonyms in normal use, no doubt because all (ok, most of) the seas that have US coasts are oceans. In British English the strict distinction is observed in informal usage, and no one drives to a beach to look at the "ocean", as Americans do. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Guilty as charged (after losing my previous edit to an ec after you did same :) My apologies for the ecs. Anyway, trying again ... our ships crossed in the night, as you added the text to the ocean article just as I ended up there by mistake. So, again and still, this is the article that passed FAC, this is the article that includes a link to ocean in the lead, implying synonyms, raising concern that it was a missed redirect, and not including the same description you just added and cited there. This article does not explain the distinction, and that is a fairly glaring oversight. This article needs fixing, and I don't believe the FAC was up to standard. I am also concerned about how the lead bounces all over the place, with no clear logic about paragraphs, and uneven flow (it's jarring), but perhaps that's just me. Or perhaps you can fix it :) What we shouldn't do is expect our readers to go figure it out by digging through archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do here. The geographical distinction as given at Ocean: "a sea is a body of saline water (generally a division of the World Ocean) partly or fully enclosed by land." works fine until you think about it. Then you wonder if the Atlantic Ocean isn't as much "enclosed by land" as the Irish Sea - any stretch of ocean goes on until it hits land, or another named part, and the distinctions between stretches are generally defined by land nearby, rather than lines drawn in the middle of the sea. The distinction between ocean, sea, and bay in the geographical senses is largely a matter of scale, it seems to me, or "convention" as one of the refs says in a note. But I agree something needs adding here, if only in a note. Johnbod (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've tweaked a bit to make things clearer [20], and put something in the lead, which seems to be needed. I'm not sure the American/British distinction needs mention, though I think it makes Americans more likely to find the lead confusing. It really only applies when talking about what you can see in front of you, or are floating on etc. Abstract usages are pretty much the same, and the adjectives marine and oceanic work the same in both types of English as far as I can see. Johnbod (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, Johnbod, and it's unfortunate that lead went on the mainpage-- glad it was over a busy weekend and perhaps not many saw it, but I am still concerned about this article overall. I'm unwatching now, off to tilt at medical windmills. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well only 28,000, up from 2,000 most days. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Good call

This American fully supports putting the article about the "world ocean" at sea. Well done. Yes, Americans will say that you drive to the beach to see "the ocean", but I like the idea of "the sea" as this great, big, mystic and awesome thing that God put on this earth for us. It's like going to the park to see "the forest" versus going to see "nature". "Sea" is such a broad, beautiful concept. I'm going to have a good day today. Thanks for making me smile by having such a good article here. Red Slash 16:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being such a nice and approachable person. So many viewers of the main page are not.

Written approximately 2500 years ago, Anabasis (Xenophon) was a literary work that documented the emotional response of a mass, largely disorganised, democractic republic of soldiers, on seeing, "the sea! the sea!" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Salinity Map Caption may be Confusing

I would like to suggest a change to the caption shown under the salinity image in the seawater section. The caption reads: "Colours represent salinity levels: red = 40 ‰ (maximum), violet = 30 ‰ (minimum)." The use of per mil is technically OK but it may be confusing. Per mil is relatively obscure and the image gives units as as g/kg. I think this may be a better caption: "Colours represent salinity levels: red = 40 g/kg (maximum), violet = 30 g/kg (minimum)." g/kg avoids the use of per mil, it indicates that the the number is a mass ratio, and it's identical to the units shown in the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.77.202.198 (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Tsunamis, hurricanes and other natural phenomena

Why does this article pay so much attention to tsunamis, neglecting other phenomena such as hurricanes (tropical cyclones) and storms at sea in general, which account for far more destruction and loss of life than tsunamis ever have? I suspect, though have not checked, that the tsunami section got added around the time of the 2004 tsunami, and never got removed in later editing. The whole subject of weather at sea does not seem to be covered at all in the article at present. It would also help to have a link to the discussion that took place at the Core Contest entry for this article - that was effectively part of the formal review process and an important part of the article history. Carcharoth (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Umm, the cyclone is above the sea and not made of sea water...so one could argue less integral..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but that is still no reason to have a relatively large section solely on tsunamis. That is about the same as on the oceanic carbon cycle, water cycle and sea level combined. The weighting seems wrong. The reason it is important to have something about the destructive power of the sea and its weather (such as fishing cultures and fishermen lost at sea) is that it is this that gives rise to large parts of the cultural responses. The subject of deaths at sea during recorded history has been written about. That is one starting point. Tsunamis are only a small part of that. Carcharoth (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looking at it I might have made it half the size or less, but I have not been involved much with this article for a while and it is a very big one and my feelings are not strong on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Cas, one of the real problems with managing an article of this scope is both including what needs to be included, excluding excessive detail that can appear in subsidiary articles, and getting the balance right. It is very difficult and your help would really be appreciated. I've raised tsunamis here, several other points have been raised on this talk page, including ocean acidification below. This is particularly tricky in the post-FAC stage of an article's editing history. If Wikipedia is going to be able to cover core topics like this adequately, and be responsive to suggestions for changes while still respecting the work done so far, we need people to engage and help sort these things out. Do you think you can help? Carcharoth (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is bigger than this one example, and I don't understand why a 12,000-word article got through FAC. On a topic this big, you just can't do it all, I can't find any logic to the flow of sentences or paras in the lead, nor logic to what was or wasn't included in the article, and a much tighter, focused article would have been better. IMO, a serious review would cut this article in half (it strays, and what is and isn't included and why makes little sense), and rely on more links and sub-articles, avoiding issues like this one. You cannot write a broad article on a topic of this scope without working through the sub-articles first; it looks to me like a short-cut was taken here, and then the article didn't get the working over at FAC that an article of this magnitude should have gotten. I do wish someone would at least fix the lead and the ocean issue discussed above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Comparing with other encyclopedias

I'm going to repeat here what I said back when this article was part of the Core Contest (in April 2013), see Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries/April2013 archive#Sea:

Briefly, after noticing this discussion (and the discussions on the talk page), I wondered how other encyclopedias tackle such topics. I looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica entries, and they seem to cover it with "ocean" and "seawater" (plus articles on individual seas and geographical entities). We have, um, slightly more articles than that. One of the weaknesses and strengths of Wikipedia is that the possibility is there for lots of different articles on slightly different topics, when it might be better to merge things and have tighter editorial control and less duplication across articles. I really would urge people to look at how other encyclopedias tackle this, and use that as a starting point, or at least to guide how the broadest, top-level articles here are written. Hopefully the judges will also be aware of how other encyclopedias write on these topics. Also, it is vital that articles like this co-ordinate well with surrounding articles. There is very little point having a really good article at sea if it largely duplicates (or contradicts!) what is in surrounding, closely-linked articles. Co-ordination between articles is something that encyclopedias with tighter editorial control do far better than Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The critique I raised back then still stands. My standard for broad articles like this is to look at something like the Britannica article, to compare it to the Wikipedia article, and try and get a feel for which one covers the topic area better. Carcharoth (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Sea is the special case of the collection of Earth oceans, while ocean is the general case. That distinction may not have been particularly worthy to make if we were in the early 20th century, but scientific knowledge has changed since that, and it's not surprising some encyclopedias may not have followed up. It's important to provide theoretical information on extraterrestrial oceans, even if we don't have observed one yet - see for example Mars ocean hypothesis (and it's only going to be more crucial in the future). So we need a more general article, since we can't discuss all that in an Earth-centric article. As a relevant comparison, we have Atmosphere and Atmosphere of Earth. Cenarium (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Carcharoth. I have no idea what the Core Contest was (nor interest in checking), but this article typifies the kind of problems furthered by the Reward Culture; it appears to have been too hurriedly put together and too quickly passed through content review processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll reply on your talk page, much of what I've typed is off topic here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Given its extreme scope and level of difficulty to produce an FA standard article for, I'm sure there are many parts of the article which could be improved. WikiCup or not, the editor has at least come up with a major expansion on one of the most important articles on here. They've obviously put considerable work into it when they didn't have to, and also seem to have a good grasp of issues to be discussed within the article. Personally I'd have expected to see a lot more book sources and scholarly JSTOR journal sort of sources in such an article though. Given the subject I think some of the sources could be improved. I think you really have to be super careful with such an article, and although I don't exactly see a brief 2005-esque FAC on this, I do think that more input should have been requested from anybody in the project who might be an expert on oceanography/marine science or science and some general great copyeditors to look over it to ensure that it is as good as it possibly can be. I'm of the opinion that to produce the best possible article for this more than just one or two editors really need to research it as hard as they possibly can, who have JSTOR access. I think there's scope for improvement given the complexity of the topic, but the author/s deserves credit for the work and effort they put into getting it here, as do the people who took the time to add constructive comments at the FAC and any possible editing they did on improving it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Early packet ships

Trying to find precisely which Batavia to link to in the first sentence of the "Travel" section: "Sailing ships or packets carried mail overseas, one of the earliest being the Dutch service to Batavia in the 1670s." (as well as question where the service was from) has led me to question its source:

• Public Record Office (1860). Calendar of state papers, domestic series, of the reign of Charles II: preserved in the state paper department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office, Volume 1. Longman, Green, Longman & Roberts.

No specific page is given, and I can't find any reference to Batavia, nor to non-British packet ships. It seems to be repeated in the Packet boat article (where I found at least one other mistake at the start). Is this a reliable secondary source? I normally wouldn't press the point if it clearly set out what the article claimed, but, since it doesn't, and as this is a featured article, surely there are better sources to use (not that I'd know where to start looking for them). --xensyria^T 15:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

With no response I've removed the reference (which doesn't mention the content of the previous section), replacing it with a citation needed tag. Before removing the tag (or trying to restore the old reference), please include a specific (page number would be ideal) reliable secondary source which mentions these early Dutch packet boats, or reword the start of the paragraph. ‑‑xensyria^T 20:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken it out for now, but since we have a source it should be possible to put something back when anyone has the energy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's try again. The VOC was certainly carrying passengers between ports in Holland and the Dutch East Indies, with their HQ in Batavia (Jakarta), Java. Their flagship named Batavia was carrying passengers when it was shipwrecked in 1629. And the Western Australian Museum is certainly a RS. I've drafted a mention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll follow your draft in the packet ship article. ‑‑xensyria^T 19:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ocean acidification

One of the changes made to the article in the days before and during the Main Page appearance was on ocean acidification. There is a discussion taking place at User talk:WolfmanSF#Sea that should be taking place here. I will ask the editors there to discuss here what proportion of the article on sea should be on this topic, both in the main body and in the lead section. Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Having helped to bring this to FA, I don't wish to say much more, other than that the current balance is a consensus which took many weeks of work from many editors. Perhaps I might just say that any text on Sea must balance physical science with biology, human history and culture, in which acidification clearly forms a subtopic with a Main link to a subsidiary article, like a number of other sections. That means it deserves a mention in the lead, which it has. It might be extended by a few words but the lead is long enough already, and the balance feels roughly right. It is up to the community to reach a consensus on the matter, if change is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

As it is, we only mention in the lead that acidification is occurring. I think it would be desirable to also mention that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is what's driving acidification, and that acidification and other carbon dioxide-associated changes (warmer water temperatures, lower oxygen levels) pose major threats to the health of marine ecosystems. Here's a possible way to do that that's shorter than my original attempt:

"The absorption of increasing amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is currently driving rapid change in seawater chemistry. pH is decreasing, a process known as ocean acidification. This and other shifts (declining O₂ levels, higher water temperatures) may significantly damage marine ecosystems in coming centuries."

Additionally, I think the serious problems caused by overharvesting of fish deserve mention in the lead, as well as more discussion farther on.WolfmanSF (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really convinced more needed in lead on CO2/acidification -- better to use the limited space to add a brief mention of overfishing as you suggest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

If space is the main constraint in the lead, perhaps my point can be made still more concisely. How about:

"Carbon dioxide from the air is currently being absorbed by the sea in increasing amounts, lowering seawater pH in a process known as ocean acidification, which is likely to damage marine ecosystems in the near future."

I do think that readers of just the introduction need to be informed of the cause of the problem (providing a clue as to what might be done to mitigate it) and the threat it poses. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, will make the shorter edit. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Image caption

A lead image depicts shipping in the sea in front of Singapore, which is the world's biggest transshipment port, certainly a relevant fact in this article. Given attempts to remove this information, I propose the following text: "Seas have always been essential for human development and trade, as at Singapore, the world's busiest transshipment port beside the important Malaccamax shipping lane." Since Singapore is the place shown in the image and has the status described, I hope this version will be found unexceptionable, and request that any proposed modification to the caption be discussed here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

'Malaccamax' is not a relevant article to link to, not for a lead image for Seas. I'm removing it, and suggest per WP:BRD, not to reinsert it without consensus. I see no reason for wanting this rather obscure term linked to from the lead image about the seas. This is an article about seas in general, not about shipping trade routes, and not about the Straits of Malacca in particular, where I can see that such a caption and link may be appropriate. LK (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for joining the discussion and seeking consensus. I carry no brief for the Malaccamax ship specification or any shipping route, port, or organisation. The article is about the sea, and shipping routes are directly relevant. The shipping route for which Malaccamax is named runs right through the straits in front of Singapore, bringing the enormous trade that we mention to Singapore. I suggest we state "beside a major shipping route" which is helpfully explanatory, and link the Strait of Malacca with the quoted words. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. What exactly is the proposed new caption? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, that'd give us something like "Seas have always been essential for human development and trade, as at Singapore, the world's busiest transshipment port beside a major shipping route." ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"Always been essential" is overstating it a bit. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Aha! (That was the part we thought was ok until this moment...). How about "The sea is important for human development and trade, as at Singapore, the world's busiest transshipment port beside a major shipping route." Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe it would be better as "... Singapore (the world's busiest transshipment port), which is located beside a major shipping route." LK (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, we've way-overdiscussed this tiny point. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2