Talk:Sea: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sea article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 180 days

	Sea is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 2, 2013.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 25, 2013 Peer review Reviewed July 9, 2013 Good article nominee Listed October 5, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 29, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the sea (wave pictured) contains over 97% of Earth's water? Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Vital article Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Geography FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Geography To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles. Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes Map : See Wikipedia requested maps Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places Stubs : See Geography stubs Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Limnology and Oceanography FA‑class Top‑importance This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Oceans FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Oceans To-do List: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : List of oceanographers, create a comprehensive article on Concentrations of marine debris out of all the gyre and "garbage patch" articles Copyedit : Draft:Terrance (octopus) Expand : Coral Sea, Endeavour Strait, Greenland Sea, Solomon Sea Photo : find images for Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in the oceans Stubs : Oceanography stub articles, Marine geography stub articles, Aleutian Trench, Bellingshausen Sea, Caernarfon Bay, Gerlache Strait, Gulf of Oman, Iceland Sea, Draft:Terrance (octopus) Update : Botany Bay, Wilkins Sound, Mariana Trench, Challenger Deep Verify : Antarctic Circumpolar Current, Bering Sea, Gulf of Aden, Iceberg B-15, Ionian Sea, Japan Trench, Moreton Bay, Sound (geography), Timor Sea Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia Template:WP1.0

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Section sizes Section size for Sea (45 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 4,379 4,379 Definition 5,818 6,443 Legal definition 625 625 Physical science 7,651 59,688 Seawater 288 15,126 Salinity 5,016 5,016 Temperature 2,956 2,956 pH value 4,107 4,107 Oxygen concentration 2,124 2,124 Light 635 635 Sea level 2,653 2,653 Waves 5,925 5,925 Tsunami 3,652 3,652 Currents 7,205 7,205 Tides 3,519 3,519 Ocean basins 3,710 3,710 Coasts 3,870 3,870 Water cycle 2,664 2,664 Carbon cycle 3,713 3,713 Life in the sea 2,991 18,542 Marine habitats 1,880 1,880 Algae and plants 5,879 5,879 Animals and other marine life 7,792 7,792 Humans and the sea 26 78,964 History of navigation and exploration 11,385 11,385 History of oceanography and deep sea exploration 8,185 8,185 Law 2,953 2,953 War 7,341 7,341 Travel 3,187 3,187 Trade 7,578 7,578 Food 4,984 9,553 Aquaculture 4,569 4,569 Leisure 6,174 6,174 Industry 18 11,298 Power generation 4,376 4,376 Extractive industries 6,904 6,904 Fresh water production 856 856 Indigenous sea peoples 2,993 2,993 In culture 7,435 7,435 Environmental issues 2,939 12,856 Marine pollution 9,917 9,917 See also 152 152 Notes 26 26 References 30 30 External links 577 577 Total 181,657 181,657

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll try to close some discussions and point to one central location, and structure the long discussion but I am struggeling. As others have pointed out before, I don't have experience with complicated mergers, splits or re-writes, so I am finding it quite a challenge... EMsmile (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article "world ocean" has now been merged into "ocean" and a redirect has been put in place. This means that the remaining two articles out of the group of formerly three interrelated articles are now sea and ocean. I am still pondering over how and where the discussion about sea and ocean overlap should best take place and how I can help to structure it. Any advice? EMsmile (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EMsmile: thank you for your work and sorry for not replying at World Ocean (my outside world was demanding). As far as I can see I am fine with what changed. Regarding Sea I am for merging more into Ocean, because there is considerable duplication and fragmantation of issues that should be at Ocean. Sorry that I cant participate much at the moment, but the ouside world is still keeping me busy (glad that I could drop by and answer a bit though).Nsae Comp (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed and re-arranged the first paragraph a bit using the definitions found in Merriam Webster which I find quite useful here. I have done an equivalent edit at ocean. So it's clear that "ocean" and "sea" can be synonymous, and that "sea" can also denote smaller bodies of water than the word "ocean" does. EMsmile (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all knew that (native-speakers over the age of 10 anyway). This is the sort of remark that worries me about the editing going on here. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you have improved the article. Please look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section where you will see that the lead is not a place for such definitions, but is for summarising the main body of text. Instead, you could put the information in the section handily entitled "Definition", and summarise it in the lead, which will then not need the citations you have added. And when adding citations to an article, please match the citation style to that of the citations already used in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence is suboptimal prose now; I don't know what it means even with a degree in physical oceanography / meteorology. I prefer the old version. Before tweaking those initial sentences, we should get a structured discussion on what should be in either article. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Femkemilene, the "old version" had the same sentence in the first paragraph: it was the last sentence of the first paragraph which read: "The word sea is also used to denote second-order sections of the sea, such as the Mediterranean Sea, as well as certain large, entirely landlocked, saltwater lakes, such as the Caspian Sea.". The only thing I have done is to move that information to be the second sentence and split the long sentence in two. My proposal says "It can also be a "body of salt water of second rank more or less landlocked", such as the Mediterranean Sea. The word "sea" is also used for certain large, entirely landlocked, saltwater lakes, such as the Caspian Sea." The only difference is that the new version uses "second-order", wheras the first version used "second rank" (I don't mind if you want to change that back; either of them is a bit vague). I think it's helpful to have such kind of sentence at the very start because it shows how "sea" can be different to "ocean". And yes, of course User:Cwmhiraeth, the lead should be a summary of the article. But having two sentences about the definition would not be too much (like I said, it already had those two statements even before I made the change; just not right after each other). References in the lead are "allowed" and this can be personal preference whether to include them or not. I usually prefer the "better be safe than sorry" and include references, particularly for key statements. I don't understand your comment about citation style - what did I do wrong there? EMsmile (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Femkemilene: Regarding that "structured discussion", I have tried to initiate this (see above on the talk page) but the responses are only trickling in and it feels the process gets stalled very quickly (since many people prefer keeping the status quo). If you have ideas on how to do this better, please help (you were amazing in getting the very difficult task done of renaming "global warming" to climate change, something which many others tried but failed to do! So I know you have great skills for this). In the meantime, I am taking a two pronged approach: trying to lead the structured discussion to a consensus, and in parallel making careful, slow changes to the article which everyone can follow and agree to or not, and build on or not. I don't believe in "leaving the lead to last" because every day while we keep discussing this, there are 1200 page views. These people deserve to read stuff that is good, and often they don't read past the lead. So it's important that the lead is as good as possible already now and not just in a few weeks... EMsmile (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: the same could by said about a lot of content on Wikipedia (I refer to your statement of "I think we all knew that (native-speakers over the age of 10 anyway)"), so what's the point in saying this? Also, keep in mind that many non native speakers also read on the English Wikipedia, and we have a duty to them as well. What kind of worries exactly do you have? You worry that we are going to make the article worse? Well, the opposite is my intention. I am trying to make it better. And I am trying to make the article ocean better. Both articles should go hand in hand; fit together like a puzzle. So far they don't. EMsmile (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are trying to, but are you succeeding? You've been at these articles for some time now, before concluding "So it's clear that "ocean" and "sea" can be synonymous, and that "sea" can also denote smaller bodies of water than the word "ocean" does". I've said several times (in the several discussions you've started) the sort of process that is needed to get big changes made to big articles. So far we just have more confusion, with multiple suggestions all over the place(s). I agree with the others that we don't want much on terminology at the start. The definition as "a body of salt water of second rank more or less landlocked" is also a really poor one, and should be removed. How landlocked are the North Sea, South China Sea, Irish Sea, Aegean Sea and so on? It's just nonsense. Also, if the entire lead has a link to ocean I can't see it. One is needed. Meanwhile, the fiirst sentence at ocean is now "An ocean (or sea) is the body of salt water which covers approximately 71% of the surface of the Earth." There's soooo much wrong with this. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion worries me a great deal. Questions such as "Are you succeeding..." personalises this debate to a great degree. The question should be "are we, as experienced and talented Wikipedia editors, improving things?." For my part I believe that EMsmile is making a truly valiant effort to make rational sense of the three articles under discussion, and commenting that there is "'soooo' much wrong with this" is neither helpful nor constructive. Can we actually agree to make progress. What we had was most unsatisfactory. We need something a great deal better. It can hardly be beyond our whit to make that happen.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Velella:, @EMsmile: has taken up a hard task, these terms are so intertwined. PS: I find it interesting that back in the 2000s all three articles seem to be clear. Sea = sub-sub (optional: all); ocean = sub (optional: all); world ocean = all. I seconed now EMsmiles edit to move the para up after the introduction sentance about the sea, since its second order understanding was hidden in its main description, which is now also not interruped by the second order definition.

I have now proposed and added mentions and links to all three article's introduction, to possibly bring in more discussion and hopefully clarification about the differences. Besides its weird to have those three similar articles and not reference each other.Nsae Comp (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nsae Comp: I like the recordering of sentences you have done for the first paragraph in the lead. However, we are not meant to put a wikilink together with the bold terms of the first sentence. So I think they ought to be removed again. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Avoid_these_common_mistakes The fact that there is a desire to have those terms provided as "synonyms" and also as wikilinked terms to other articles shows the full dilemma we face here... Something can't be a synonym and at the same time have a separate article on it!? We'll get to the bottom of it eventually but the process won't be easy. EMsmile (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @User:Femkemilene I noticed that you reverted my edit in the lead but didn't react to the question I had asked above on the talk page. So I would like to ask again just to understand your reasoning for reverting. The only difference I can see is that I had suggested to put the sentence that is now last in the lead as the second sentence. The reason being as it differentiates sea from ocean and is the only differentiation. Secondly, my version had called it "second rank" whereas your version calls it "second order". I don't mind either wording, it's the same thing, isn't it? So I'd like to know why this sentence couldn't be the second sentence of the lead: "The word sea is also used to denote second-order sections of the sea, such as the Mediterranean Sea, as well as certain large, entirely landlocked, saltwater lakes, such as the Caspian Sea.". My second question is: should we wikilink the word "ocean" in the first sentence, since we have a separate article about it? It feels a bit odd to wikilink a word in bold - which is supposed to be a synonym - but then again if we have an article for it then why not wikilink it? Same question about "world ocean" in the first sentence - wikilink or not? Please also head to the talk page of "world ocean" and leave a comment there to indicate your opinion about whether a rough consensus about merging has been achieved or not (here). EMsmile (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed this before..

The old version to which I reverted called it second order later in the first paragraph, which is a better location for something jargonny, but should ideally also be reworded. Second order sounds more general to me than second rank. I think the exact wording of the first paragraph really depends on how we want to divide the material between sea/ocean or whether we want to merge.

Per somewhere in the manual of style we shouldn't wikilink it. When there is a clear distinction made between sea and ocean, we should wikilink it when it first appears in the meaning of the other article. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object if I reduced some of the text and details currently provided in the sections "History of navigation and exploration" and "History of oceanography and deep sea exploration" and moving such content to the relevant sub-articles? To me it seems that the level of detail given here is a bit excessive for this kind of overview article. By moving some of it we can also reduce the degree of Europe-focus a bit, which is important given that "sea" should be a global topic and not just viewed from the lense of European explorations etc. Same applies to the section on naval warfare, by the way. Some of that could also be moved. EMsmile (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would. I think these sections are about right in terms of length, though perhaps the Eurocentricity could be addressed by additions. They may not interest you much, but I suspect they are popular with readers, more so than much of the stuff higher up. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me provide one example. Why do we need all this content? I think it's excessive detail that can be moved to naval warfare and a condensed, shorter version left here (if at all): "Submarines became important in naval warfare in World War I, when German submarines, known as U-boats, sank nearly 5,000 Allied merchant ships,^[1] including however the RMS Lusitania, so helping to bring the United States into the war.^[2] In World War II, almost 3,000 Allied ships were sunk by U-boats attempting to block the flow of supplies to Britain,^[3] but the Allies broke the blockade in the Battle of the Atlantic, which lasted the whole length of the war, sinking 783 U-boats.^[4] Since 1960, several nations have maintained fleets of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, vessels equipped to launch ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads from under the sea. Some of these are kept permanently on patrol.^[5][6]" And I don't think there is a need to add even more information on naval warfare here, given that a sub-article exists. So to reduce the Eurocentricity, some of the details about the two World Wars could be taken out, and moved to the sub-article. EMsmile (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the article is 70 kB readable prose which is regarded to be on the high side.EMsmile (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example of excessive detail that could happily be moved to the relevant sub-article "Furthermore, in 1921, the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) was set up, and it constitutes the authority on hydrographic surveying and nautical charting,^[7] and is therefore the world authority when it comes to defining seas. The current defining document is the Special publication S-23, Limits of Oceans and Seas, 3rd edition, 1953. The second edition dated back to 1937, and the first to 1928. A fourth edition draft was published in 1986 but so far several naming disputes (such as the one over the Sea of Japan) have prevented its ratification." EMsmile (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone would expect an article on such a huge subject "to be on the high side". The last two sentences you quote could be condensed. I don't agree about the WW stuff. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For huge topics, staying below, say, 10,000 words helps focus, and is beneficial for readers and editors. My experience is that broad articles typically improve when you try to bring it down, even if you never reach your 'goal'.

I don't think exact numbers are necessary in this article for wars, and agree with both of you that the Limits of Oceans and Seas sentence can be condensed. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some smaller edits to condense. Please feel free to revert. I will update the energy section further tomorrow. I think the overall proportions of sections is fine, so if we want to condense it'll be a slow and careful process. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FemkeMilene. Current word count is 11,634, so definitely on the high side. To Johnbod: I am not sure if this is true "Anyone would expect an article on such a huge subject to be on the high side". In my opinion, it's the overview articles that can actually be shorter, just giving an overview and leaving all the details (especially those that are region-specific) for the relevant sub-articles. Compare e.g. with Earth which has only 49 kB (7823 words) of readable prose size - for a "huge" topic. EMsmile (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another aspect to consider is the Eurocentric nature of this article. One wonders whether some detail would not be more appropriate for an article of "history of European seafarers" rather than a global article called "sea". So this is just something to keep in mind when/if we do any condensing work. Something like "but the Allies broke the blockade in the Battle of the Atlantic, which lasted the whole length of the war, sinking 783 U-boats." might be very relevant from a Eurocentric viewpoint but could probably condensed when trying to give this article more of a global, overarching, overview character. EMsmile (talk) 04:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: regarding the example that I mentioned above, I have now shortened it to this: Furthermore, in 1921, the International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) was set up, and it constitutes the world authority on hydrographic surveying and nautical charting.^[8] A fourth edition draft was published in 1986 but so far several naming disputes (such as the one over the Sea of Japan) have prevented its ratification.. (I am not sure if the reference given - IHO's website - is suitable as a source to say that IHO is the world authority? Maybe it is, just wondering if a neutral reference wouldn't be better). I have moved the deleted sentences to history of cartography EMsmile (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In March this year I had started a discussion called "How to reduce overlap with ocean?" (please scroll up). I'd like to revisit this today and provide an update. Last month, I spent a lot of time together with an external expert to rework the ocean article. I think it's a lot better now, more comprehensive and quite up to date regarding the topic of oceans and climate. During the process we did copy (and adapt) some content from the "Sea" article and this is all documented in the edit summaries (I normally prefer moving content from one Wikipedia article to another, not copying; in this case, the copying was the more prudent approach; it wasn't very much anyhow). I've also set up a discussion about the overlapping content of the two articles and possible options to reduce overlap; this is available in user space here. EMsmile (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After doing this work, my preferred option would be Option 3 which I have named "Build up the article "Ocean" and refocusing the "Sea" more on human aspects". Right now the implemented option is Option 4 which I called "Build up the article "Ocean" and not modifying the Sea article at all". The path of least resistance would be to just leave it as Option 4, i.e. the new status quo. The disadvantage I see with that option is: readers might come to the "sea" article and not realise that similar/better/more up to date content is available at Ocean. Also future editors might start to rework, add and update some content of the Sea article which is actually already covered in the Ocean article, which is potentially inefficient and not optimal use of our time. Are there ways to avoid these risks? - I am pinging a few people who might have an interest in this conversation: Nsae Comp, Johnbod, Femkemilene, Pbsouthwood, Pyrrho the Skeptic, Cwmhiraeth. EMsmile (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EMsmile, after reviewing the discussion and analysis, option 3 seems best to me, too. The overlap was always strange to me, and the most useful distinction in my mind is the sea as it relates to human experience, history, and culture. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pyrrho the Skeptic. I am wondering if - as a starting point - folks would agree to modify the article's hatnote? Currently at sea we have this hatnote: "This article focuses on the collective seas of Earth. For individual seas, see List of seas." We could maybe change it to "This article is about the collective seas of Earth, in particular the human experience, history and culture. For natural science aspects, see also Ocean. For individual seas, see List of seas." EMsmile (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, for what it's worth. Hopefully others will chime in, too Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and awesome work!♡ ... Regarding the Sea article I have allways liked the approach to focus Sea on the understanding of humans as large open (salty) bodies of water. So yes I find that solution of yours good and your work has been great afterall. I would though go even further and broaden that framing by including the list of Seas in this understanding of any large open salty bodies of water. I hope that makes sense. But that might be too much for now anyway. Keep being awesome! Nsae Comp (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nsae Comp, thanks for your friendly words, much appreciated!! :-) Very kind of you. - I don't understand what you meant with "broaden that framing by including the list of Seas in this understanding of any large open salty bodies of water"? EMsmile (talk) 23:45, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, its a very unrefined thought of mine, thus a bit convoluted. Basically I wanted to say that Sea as in Ocean shares with the listed particular Seas that they are both more particular understandings of the Ocean on a more human scale. I hope that makes now more sense. But thats a refinement that might come anyway with focusing the article in the way you proposed, at least as far as I understood your proposal. Nsae Comp (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand your point, User:Nsae Comp. What's the specific change that you are suggesting for the Sea article? EMsmile (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just changed the hatnote of the article as per my proposal above on 3 August. It now reads

The purpose of this is, like I said above, to guide future editors to know what the difference is between the ocean and sea article, and therefore to avoid that people think they need to add the same content in both places, e.g. content about how climate change and oceans, or how marine pollution affects the ocean (this should in future go primarily into the ocean article, not the sea article). EMsmile (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a lot of edits since the beginning of the year that had to be reverted. Should we apply to increase the protection level for this article? Just wondering. EMsmile (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article be merged with ocean? See also prior discussion: § How to reduce overlap with ocean? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pbsouthwood above in 2021 stated, it would help to try to define the logical scope of each of these articles before attempting any major changes. I think it's impossible to determine if they should be merged without first outlining this. As they stand now, the articles appear to contain significant duplication. The English language further complicates things, as sea and ocean are frequently used interchangeably in conversation. BeReasonabl (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to the International Hydrographic Organization, an ocean is continental-sized body of water, while a sea is smaller than that. Even in our definition, there are 5 oceans on Earth while there is countless number of seas. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They should not be merged. The Sea and the Ocean are not the same, the terms are just often incorrectly interchanged. (See source here) Dobblestein 🎲 🎲 talk 16:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge. (invited by the bot) Per rationales described by CactiStaccingCrane the are not synonyms. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]