Talk:North Sea/Archive 3

Geology section

Hi, there were requests for help with the geological section in this article on different pages. As a geologist, I would like to help, but when I read the section it is incomprehensible for me. I just don't know how to start. So I will just tell here where the current text puzzles me:

The bed of the North Sea forms two basins. -> does it mean a sedimentary/geologic basin? The definition of that is an area where nett sedimentation takes place. The entire North Sea plus some of its surroundings is one large sedimentary/geologic basin. There can't be two separate basins there. I guess the text means there are two old basins in the subsurface of the North Sea?

I think that this sentence refers to the Cretaceous era as this is the citation used Review of North Sea Basin development abstract. SriMesh | talk 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done removed from the article on the North Sea and left in the Cretaceous era of the North Sea Geological History

The larger, northern one lies to the north of a ridge between Norfolk and Frisia, and had its origin in the Devonian Period. The southern basin, if not flooded, would drain towards the Strait of Dover and thence to the English Channel. This basin dates from the Carboniferous Period. -> there must be an anachronism here since the English Channel, Strait of Dover, Norfolk and Frisia are all recent entities, formed in the last 10.000 years. The Carboniferous was 300.000.000 years ago and has nothing to do with those features. How a Devonian basin can drain into a present day sea is a mystery, geologically spoken, this is nonsense.

I cannot find the citation in the article for this, nor anything also in any sources I read. This will have to be adjusted.SriMesh | talk 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done removed entirely.

Imaging and analysis have suggested that this southern basin has several times been a lake bed hemmed in by glaciers in the north and a land bridge between Britain and France at Dover in the southwest. Around 400,000 years ago, the chalk barrier holding the large lake back from the land bridge was breached and the water swiftly eroded huge swaths of the land bridge. -> hmmm, now this must be about fairly recent (Quarternary) events again, yet they can't be about the old subsurfacial basins. Is the current North Sea Basin meant?

Here I believe you are right, but the North Sea article is not well worded. It is I am assuming summarizing this article Strait of Dover formationSriMesh | talk 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Removed entirely and referred to the Strait of Dover

The process repeated itself during a later ice age about 180,000 years ago, permanently connecting the North Sea with the Atlantic in the south. -> as far as I know, Great Britain was again connected with continental Europe during the last glacials (Weichselian/Devensian and Saalian/Wolstonian). The website of the Guardian is not really a very trustworthy source for this type of information so I presume this view isn't the scientific consensus on the subject.

Again, it is I am assuming summarizing this article Strait of Dover formationSriMesh | talk 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done as per above

The second line (of the first paragraph/section) is okay as a general introduction to the first, but here it is out of place.

I understand, this belongs to the information above.SriMesh | talk 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The third alinea is an anecdote, it should be fitted into a yet non-existing general line on the sea's development during the late Holocene.

This comment was made to try to add coastal changes of the North Sea as per GA review. This may indeed be modified as per comments replied to on user talk page.SriMesh | talk 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph is rubbish I'm afraid. Unrelated facts are summarized in one alinea. Why is it called plate tectonics when it is on tectonics? As a geologist I would expect something on the structure and infill/stratigraphy of the Triassic/Jurassic grabens, Cretaceous inversion, and Tertiary reactivation. Which structures are currently active? I'm not sure if Avalonia belongs here at all. What are the recent quakes doing here?

Thank you, this paragraph does not really summarise the allness of the history of the North Sea geology. Could you also look over North Sea Geological History so it can be properly summarised into the article as I am not sure if the above three items (infill/stratigraphy of the Triassic/Jurassic grabens, Cretaceous inversion, and Tertiary reactivation) which you have mentioned are introduced properly in the supposed fuller, more developed article which I attempted at North Sea Geological History.SriMesh | talk 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at user talk page to see if the article North Sea Geological History should be summarised here or notSriMesh | talk 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 DoneThis point has been done....Moved the recent earthquakes to storm surges.SriMesh | talk

The third paragraph seems to be on submarine topography, this has not a lot to do with geology proper. It could better be incorporated elswhere.

Will move to geography above.SriMesh | talk 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done moved to geography.SriMesh | talk 04:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't be very positive... Regards, Woodwalker (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are very much appreciated! SriMesh | talk 03:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am not an expert on the geology of the North Sea or Quarternary geology, but I think the following structure would work:

1. Subsurface geology (including sections on the tectonic situation, the stratigraphy and the geological history)
2. Oil & gas reservoirs (exploration and locations)
3. Quarternary formation of the current coastlines

This structure could be used both here and in the subarticle. The title of the subarticle could perhaps better be geology of the North Sea, so that it also includes other subjects than geologic/natural history. You can ask me when you require help or have questions/problems. Woodwalker (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Useless level of detail

In most contexts, it makes no sense to use coordinates like "roughly between 53°30′00″N 0°3′0″E and 52°30′00″N 4°30′0″E" or such. That level of detail is distracting and totally useless. Unfortunately, there are quite a few on Wikipedia who don't agree and insist on measuring mountain ranges, shoals, deserts etc by the metre, which is physically impossible and can be read as a demonstration of ignorance on the part of the author. Please let us avoid this.

Similarly, conversions of units like "50,000 square kilometres (289,576.62 sq mi)[1] with a volume of around 94,000 cubic kilometres (22,553.65 cu mi)" are useless. A converted measurement can never be more accurate that the original. Thanks, Kosebamse (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree 99.9354692%. Unfortunately this is just one instance of a general problem that is not yet being generally discussed (that I am aware of). Our sources are often not prepared by scientists and make implicit claims of absurd precision, such as determining the population of a country in a given year up to a a single person, often even without basing this on a census. Some editors think that rounding such numbers sensibly is "original research" and therefore not allowed. The conversions are a slightly different problem, because they are normally done automatically. I believe with the current software it is not possible to ensure that the conversion templates do sensible rounding. By the way, Wikipedia is at least not the only reference work that suffers from such problems. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There must be a convention or policy somewhere to regulate use of measurements. There can be no doubt about the factual side of it (highschool level science), but alas, generally agreed-on fundamentals of science are often not good enough for Wikipedia, so we'll need to find the appropriate place to point to. Any idea? Kosebamse (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The third item in WP:MOSNUM#Large numbers is relevant. I think one of the reasons why this is not generally observed is that it can easily lead to absurd conflicts that are hard to resolve. "The population of Foobarrington is 192,523" is a no-brainer if that's what the source says. And it avoids edit wars between the inhabitants of Foobarrington ("The population of Foobarrington is 200,000") and their jealous neighbours ("The population of Foobarrington is 190,000"). Don't laugh. I have seen the edit wars about the population of Leeds. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 DoneConversion templates changed to a different formatting. These were excellent points raised above. The Convert template allows significant figures or rounding to be used to match the given precision of the first quantity. Template:Convert so I abandoned the first template used which was at Conversion templates. Any measurements added by myself were those which were cited in the reference or source found for the fact. Coordinates in the middle of prose have also been removed and added to the coordinate listing at Geography of the North Sea]. SriMesh | talk 00:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

References

The "Encyclopedia of European and Asian Regional Geology" URL is incorrect. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The first citation was very good, but I cannot re-find for some reason... however... this one also is OK On the 'morrow, will replace with Geology of Siliciclastic Shelf Seas By M. De Batist, P. Jacobs as it also supports the facts about the Norwegian trench. SriMesh | talk 03:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done reference has been changed

I found an interesting historical paper about the North Sea. Perhaps it can be used for some historical remarks: Murray, John (1861), "On the North Sea; with remarks on some of its Friths and Estuaries", Minutes of Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 20, London, pp. 314–374

 Done Added citation to coasts. It also supports waves and tides with early terminology not current usage. SriMesh | talk 03:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

History subheaders

The change I made from "20th century" to "Modern era" was done in order to include the 21st century. The change from "Early modern history" to "Early modern period" both reduces redundancy of the word "history" in header/subheaders, and correlates with the classification of early modern period. However, early modern period commonly ends around 1800, while this section currently covers the period ending with the start of WWI. I don't know that this is a problem, but it needs a second look. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As the Name section appears to be historical context of the name, I moved it into History. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As the the Political Status subsection appears to be more pertinent to Economy than History, I moved it. I think this subsection could use a more descriptive name. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

How about Age of Sail as a sub header for the 1600 to the mid 1900 era? ...rather than "Early modern history" to "Early modern period"SriMesh | talk 01:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in map

The map in history section showing viking age expansion is wrong. The norse settlement, which from the iron age developed to the viking age, was well established further north along the Norwegian coast well before the 8th century. See this article about several iron age farms on Andøya in Vesterålen There are lots of iron age archeological evidence from Lofoten, see Lofotr viking museum, where a continous development from iron age to viking age is evident. There is even some evidence of bronze age agricultural society north of the arctic circle, as in Steigen.Orcaborealis (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you suggest a better Viking age image?SriMesh | talk 07:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No map seems to be perfect, but this is somewhat closer for Norway viking settlement. I don't know how accurate it is for Sweden. Orcaborealis (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Layout

There is a problem with the layout that needs addressing. The map at the start of the Geography section ends up sandwiched between the "Submarine topography" Dogger bank image and the co-ordinate list/image when the contents are hidden. Probably the co-ordinates & image need moving down the article somewhere to avoid problems when the TOC is collapsed. Keith D (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Added a section clear if the TOC is collapsed, it helps somewhat. Thank you for the comment. SriMesh | talk 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that looks better, also keeps the map in the right section. Keith D (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

Does Ziegler's 1990 Geological atlas of Western and Central Europe need to be a Footnote when it's also fully Referenced? --Rosiestep (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No this shouldn't be in two places. the reference area would be better for it than footnotes IMHO. SriMesh | talk 03:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Geirangerfjord - is it the North Sea or Norwegian Sea?

According to the map used for illustrating exclusive economic zones, Geirangerfjord is too far north for being in the North Sea. Orcaborealis (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Searching google also for citations regarding the above note the Geirangerfjord is part of the Norwegian Sea... West Norwegian Fjords – Geirangerfjord and Nærøyfjord - UNESCO World Heritage CentreSriMesh | talk 03:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have exchanged the picture for a more southern fjord, the Lysefjord. Inwind (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the text had changed, thanks for also changing the image. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 05:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Kiel Canal

There is some ambiguity on [1]. The page distance savings as well as the German version clearly show the way around Skagen (which seems to be translated into skaw). Inwind (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Will look for another link that is more reliable, perhaps google books will have one. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 05:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Replaced the link with another link which also provides some history about the Kiel Canal construction, and it doesn't have the weird translation glitch, but it also mentions the 250 NM savings around the Jutland peninsula. SriMesh | talk 20:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations and references

Hello there. Please if you are helping and editing the North Sea article, leave existing references in the text, or add references to support the text. This note is added, as the "Name" section was entirely referenced, and now all the citations are mysteriously gone. So this section needs to be re-done with referential look ups and citation templates all over again. Only the lead can be without references because the lead just repeats the facts and info from all sections of the article, and the citations, therefore are in the article, and not needed two times in the article for the same fact. Thank you very much for your cooperation, and for any and all help in this regards. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Found lost citations, they were moved to a different article on History, and now the citations are in both articles. Whew! Thank you. SriMesh | talk 06:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For a discussion on references for North sea see also Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#North_Sea_references. Inwind (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I will read over the pages cited in that discussion, but will continue citing this North Sea article as many sections are now complete, and the unverifiable content is being removed, and refs are given for whatever content I can make stay. I will remove the inline quotes from refs as well to help the article size go down. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 05:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Name section

Some time ago the name section was a little more comprehenensive. I think keeping a little explanation on mare germanicum and the current name would be ideal. The details could be expanded at the article on history. Inwind (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to keep the original text as much as possible. Articles on wikipedia need to be verified via citations and references. I looked and looked for more information about some of the naming items, and the references were limited. I will continue personally referencing the remainder of the North Sea article for the GA criteria, and return again to the name section. If you can find a reliable citation or reference to expand the name section, that would be simply awesome. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 05:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

New map

I have tried to label new map/s. File:North-Sea-Labels-3.jpg File:North-Sea-Labels.jpg File:North-Sea-Labels5.jpg Do any of these work for the article in anyone else's opinion? SriMesh | talk 20:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Resolved

• Surprisingly, the lead section lacks any references.Smallman12q (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The lead sections of articles do not usually contain references as per manual of style Someone put a fact needed tag here. Lead paragraphs usually paraphrase information placed in the prose elsewhere in the article, and it is redundant to reference the same info twice. The lead is just an intro to information contained elsewhere, and has no new content in it. SriMesh | talk 03:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• Perhaps this should be added to the Wikiproject Europe?Smallman12q (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, add the banner if you wish.SriMesh | talk

• There should be a picture for the birds and biodiversity section. (Its great that there is an image for nearly every section.)

If there is an available wikicommons picture of a bird at the North Sea please add it. SriMesh | talk 03:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• This article needs some copy edit...for example... civilisation should be civilization. (Wikipedia follows the american standard).
  • No. Articles must follow a pattern again as per wikipedia M of S. This article was initally written in British English syle, and all American spellings removed. It must be one or the other but not both. This already has been corrected to be only one style, do not mix up again.
• A link for an image gallery of the North Sea.

NO. Adding a commons category link is OK, and already is used. Usually galleries aare only used in articles about visual themes such as the art of somebody...and they get tagged if they have a gallery in them if they are nnot that type of article.SriMesh | talk 03:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The default for leads is no refs - the lead should sumarise the main text, which should contain the refs. Very occasionally the lead may containa ref for a point that is surpising or may be thought controversial.

WP allows both American and Britsh usage (tho not in the same article) and recommends the variant that is most appropriate to the nationality of the subject. AFAIK the N Sea is not currently part of the USA. --Philcha (talk)

I think perhaps we could double reference the numbers for the size of the North Sea in the lead, but it doesn't need too much repeat referencing. As for the spelling, Philcha is right; this article should use British English. Wikipedia does not have a preference for American English, and in fact according to the subsection of Wikipedia:ENGVAR titled Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic, uses a variety of English appropriate for the article with consistency and consensus in mind. Geographically and politically speaking, the North Sea is not a part of the United States and using American English would not be appropriate (except for official titles like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization). I think a picture of a representative endangered species would be nice in the Biodiversity and conservation as suggested --Jh12 (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well if British English should be used, then the article should be converted to that. Currently there seems to be a mix.Smallman12q (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you find mismatches, please point them out or correct them. Finally, I think the need for citations should be reviewed on a case by case basis, or the lead rewritten. There should not be a lot of excess citations in the lead; it is designed to be a general overview per Wikipedia:Lead#Citations. Look at the last three WP:Featured articles, Wikipedia's best work: 300 (film), Buildings and architecture of Bristol, Toa Payoh ritual murders. None of them have citations in the lead and only one has footnotes. --Jh12 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

English - American spelling, again I put the article through the automatic peer reviewer robot which catches many of the discrepancies in spelling and none came up...it was all done in one one style. I also put the article in an outside word processing program spellcheck, and all came through again in one style- UK English.SriMesh | talk 03:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

References should be in the lead paragraph per Wikipedia:Verifiability. As for no citations...the WP policy reads ". Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. " This is a fairly complex topic and hence it is better to cite than to leave doubt.Smallman12q (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, this isn't about WP:VER; this is about the lead section. Today's featured article Romeo and Juliet again contains only a single footnote. I don't have any problems with adding a reference or two, but it should be limited. Ideally, the lead would contain enough general statements to avoid exceptional claims and of course, if there is content in the lead that is not sourced in the body of the article, the material needs to be removed or modified. --Jh12 (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is about both the lead section and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The number of references in the lead section depends on the type of article. If you look at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Geography and places, you will see they have numerous citations in the lead paragraph. See Ahmedabad...it has 5 citations in the lead.Smallman12q (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that WP:VER is important, but I think the main point is that the lead should correctly reflect material that is completely referenced in the body of the article. Whether or not that material happens to be double-referenced in the lead is, in my opinion, of secondary importance, particularly for general statements that are not direct quotations or cited numbers. --Jh12 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The policy you linked to states there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. How am I supposed to interpret that?Smallman12q (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well lets do an example then...should this be referenced in the lead? It is more than 970 kilometres (600 mi) long and 560 kilometres (350 mi) wide, with an area of around 750,000 square kilometres (290,000 sq mi) If so, why so. If not, why not?Smallman12q (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because as I mentioned in my first response it's describing the specific numerical size of the North Sea. --Jh12 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

So you do support citations in the lead paragraph? Then what are we debating about?Smallman12q (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I made sure this sentence in the lead was exactly worded in the body of the article with a citation, therefore the lead does not need a citation...as it would be redundant. If there are more facts missing in the lead...make sure the prose part of the article does indeed say the same stuff as the lead. Then check if the prosy part has a citation, then the lead is OK dokey. If the lead has facts and the prose body of the article missed those facts, then add those facts to the body of the article in the right section, and cite the facts there. ....Ss new no new content should ever be written firstly in the lead. And then also all the citations are in the body or prose part of the article proper, and again the lead goes back to introducing the article as it should. Then no problems  :-) SriMesh | talk 03:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that makes sense.=D Perhaps you should modify the Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations to reflect that if content in the lead is cited in the body, then there is no need to cite in the lead.Smallman12q (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Width of North Sea

This website [2] states that the width is 580km. Other websites say its 560km. Which is it?Smallman12q (talk) 02:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello there, you raise a valid point about applying references and putting facts into articles. As I, personally, have not measured the North Sea, I must rely on a source. When I find a difference in between sources, I sometimes quote both in text, such as Jones says this and Smith says this with both citations following. Sometimes, I check to see which article seems more reliable in authors or their sources. In this case, I have used the MUMM article [3] other places in the text of the article myself. You may place several sources and their findings here on the talk page of the North Sea article and then perhaps from this a consensus can be reached on the width. If there can be no consensus amidst articles the width measurement can be removed.SriMesh | talk 03:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If a consensus isn't reached, we could request review from an expert, or simply put both widths. I'm not sure whether no width is appropriate.Smallman12q (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple English North Sea

After this article is expanded, perhaps the simple English one could be too?See North Sea in simple english.

No mention of haar

This article doesn't mention anything about haar also known as north sea fog. See BBC haar and BBC scotland.Smallman12q (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)