Talk:West Philippine Basin

Tectonic plate

@Gorthian: I see in January 2016 history shows removal of verified content. Is there reliable source content that counteracts the book: Yildirim Dilek; Sally Newcomb (1 January 2003). Ophiolite Concept and the Evolution of Geological Thought. Geological Society of America. p. 118. ISBN 978-0-8137-2373-0. ? Even if it is no longer its own plate, if it was historically its own plate, shouldn't there be content stating such?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that the edit summary for the removing edit said, "Remove incorrect statement—this may have been a microplate at one time, but no one now considers it a tectonic plate. It is part of the Philippine Sea Plate.":This removal of content appears to be based on one editor's unsupported opinion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast and Wtmitchell: Hi. The cited reference does not support the statement that it was "its own plate". "West Philippine Sea Basin" is mentioned twice, both times in captions for illustrations, to explain labels for map locations. On page 118, the phrase is mentioned in the caption, but doesn't show anywhere on the diagram. On page 117, the basin ("WPSB") is shown on the map in the same font as "SCS" (South China Sea), labeling its location. Nowhere does it say anything about the basin itself. It's only being used to show where other features are located.

IIRC, at the time I made the edit, I searched online for the phrase "West Philippine Sea Basin" with little luck. Even the name "West Philippine Sea" is debatable. Most reliable sources in plate tectonics cite Peter Bird's map for the locations and names of plates. There is no mention of a "West Philippine Sea Basin" plate, or even a "West Philippine Sea" plate. — Gorthian (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Regardles of the West Philippine Sea/South China Sea naming thing, just cause one source does not include the West Philippine Sea Basin Tectonic plate, we have shown, verified even, that it exists or had once existed. What we can do is compromise and include something like "According to X ...; however according to Y ...", Thoughts?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The source does not say anything about a "West Philippine Sea Basin Tectonic Plate". There is no evidence for its existence anywhere I can find. If you find something in a reliable source, please do add it to the article with the citation. (I don't have much access to offline sources.) — Gorthian (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not competent to offer a technical opinion here but, from what I can see in that source and elsewhere online, I agree. If I understand section 15.3 here correctly, the WPSB is/was a basin located on one boundary of the Philippine Sea Plate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sort of thing I found, too. It's always referenced as a basin, not a plate. — Gorthian (talk) 06:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

But that ignores, the caption in the source linked in my initial post in this section, which referred to the plate having existed 50 Ma (but perhaps not into modern times).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This book refers to the region as a province of the Philippine Sea Tectonic plate, and refers to its spreading on its own in the time period where the initial reference at the beginning of this discussion refers to it as its own plate (at least at one time in the past).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Also see this statement:

... and the west Philippine Sea Basin represents an older ocean plate from which the Celebes may have been entrapped.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see it now. THE WPSB plate is a historic plate in the "pre-Miocene" time, see this source: Title. American Geophysical Union. p. 4. ISBN 978-978-087-590-9. Post-middle Eocene rotation of the PSP may be accomodated by an intervening New Guinea plate as proposed by Seno and Maruyama [1984] and Seno et al. [1993] spreading south from the Pacific plate and subducting beneath the WPSB plate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gorthian and Wtmitchell:So what say you both?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not competent to offer a technical opinion. This article ought to reflect what RSs have to say about this. If RSs disagree, it ought to represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by RSs, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published RSs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)