PLEASE ADD ANY COMMENTS AT THE END OF THIS PAGE, e.g. by pressing the "New section" tab above.

16 May 2024
News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators? Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24 In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure Comix: Generations Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

2011 2012 2013

TALK AFTER ANY EXISTING TALK

My primary objective at the Sea FAC is for the process to be successful. There is currently a suggestion that "Sea" should be moved to "The sea" to which I have no objection. However the latest comment is that "Sea" should not then redirect to "The sea" whereas I had assumed it would. It seems to me that most people looking for an article on the sea are looking for our type of article rather than the "surrounded by land" sort of article. Nevertheless, I would rather others got their way about the article's name and that we get our FA rather than having an interminable, inconclusive discussion that robs our article of FA for a lack of consensus. I think that the decision as to whether "Sea" should redirect to "The sea" or not could wait until after the FA process is concluded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely, it's extremely delicate. I'll do whatever I can to support you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is any editing of the article needed given the suggested merging of sections? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of this suggestion. Do you mean merging articles? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a suggestion of Cobblet 11:47, 2 September. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of this issue has died down. Do you think we have a consensus for removing those two sections from Ocean and adding them to our article? - I guess the answer is Yes.

Do we have a consensus for renaming the article "The sea"? - Probably.

Do we have a consensus for what to do with "Sea" afterwards? - I think not, but we could try making it a disambiguation page and see what happens. Or a redirect. Or something else. If you agree with me on these points, you are welcome to do a bit of merging! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given this summary, I feel uncertain about what has been agreed. The key consensus is whether the article can be promoted as it is - if that's yes, then we need to avoid disturbing it with any change that isn't mandated; which may or may not include the two sections. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal on the FAC page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, nice work. Let's hope that's broken the logjam. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky is now supporting the FAC which is a good start. Hchc2009 made a comment on 17th August that I see I have not responded to. Do you know anything about ocean modelling or Geophysical fluid dynamics? I don't. I have left a few messages on other users' talk pages requesting them to contribute to the review, but hopefully not to the "name" discussion! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. No, nothing substantial. I think these are basically rather abstruse topics as far as a general article on Sea is concerned - they cannot demand more than a sentence or two in this context. However, providing such a brief mention is a good way for us to be able to return to the discussion with "and we've done that too" to keep things moving along. I've had a go at it, see what you think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to do about Nikkimaria's comments on references? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to work through them. Would you like to deal with the points SnowmanRadio raises? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll do that. Should I add back the bit about Jung and the collective unconscious, or delete all mention? (seems a shame to lose it). P.S. I think Nikkimaria's "stopping" implies there would be more if she had checked further... she may be willing to help with some of it, btw. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am looking critically at every reference, and finding plenty of errors, some of which she did not mention. Do you have page numbers for current refs 29 and 42? (42 could be deleted as there is another reference.) I'll continue through the references tomorrow. I'll leave you to decide about Jung. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ref 29 is for the whole book! on the whole topic of geophysical fluid dynamics. Not sure how we indicate this isn't a mistake.

ref 42 moved to show fisheries/food only, and added Ch 18 title.

ok, Jung is back, very briefly, with quote in the ref for those interested.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current ref 173 has a tag that you can probably resolve better than me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. The ref was correct for the date but had been copied for the plot summary. I've found an academic's plot summary instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the short refs, pace Nikkimaria, I've used them to Stow as we've named it in the bibliography. Maybe some other books -- Cotterell, Slive -- should go there too? I've spent much of the day on other comments, they seem to pop up as fast as I do them! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On personal transport (i.e. ocean liners) I can't find a decent ref - the WP article is poorly cited and the stuff on the web is not RS. Ideas? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done Cotterell and combined Slive and been all through the references now. I might find a book ref for liner travel. I'll consider reliability of sources first thing in the morning. Its good to have more interest in the FAC even if it keeps us busy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super. I think the nice new Passenger transport section should end with a mention of the jet age. This is a possible ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a good source and I will add a bit. Meanwhile, I have asked Nikkimaria to have another look at the referencing. I've also asked her some questions here on sourcing on which I would like to know her views. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section per Snowman on Burial at sea - it's one of those topics that goes on and on (countries, religions, history), so I hope a brief mention will suffice. Have put it at the end of culture - seems quite a fitting place actually. Sorry to have to add yet more references for you to check and format ... I am working on something on the Water cycle and vegetation dependent on sea mist clouds - again, briefly, I hope, and Tide physics hasn't quite finished either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I have been through Nikkimarias further (much shorter) list and have dealt with all matters except the page number for #147, the question of whether military.com is a reliable source and her final point about primary sources. I have replaced a couple of sources on the way. I have to go out now and can't do anything more till this evening. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

#147, Sea of Thunder - the whole book is about the Battle of Leyte Gulf (only). There is however a summary of the book and the battle on pages 3-4 so I have added that as the page ref. That means ... that the other battles are currently unreferenced. Will see what I can do on that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've sorted the battles with new refs, and the Burial at sea section and the Water cycle section have been accepted. A new concern has arisen - the article could be too long, and the culture is proposed to be split off as a sub-article. I'm not going to argue, but what's the procedure - do we wait for agreement from other reviewers, or what? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do anything at the moment. I remember once mentioning to Casliber that some article was getting too long and he calculated its length in a completely different way. I will ask him to take a look at Sea. I am rather more hopeful of a favourable outcome now than I was a week ago. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]