Talk:Pacific Ocean
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] percipation
I removed a question from the article: "what's the percipation?" This might have been a serious request for information on precipitation, so if anyone knows about precipitation on the Pacific and finds it interesting, there might be someone else who's interested. —JerryFriedman 00:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Southwestern limit
What is the geographical coordinate of its southwestern limit with the Indian Ocean at the Strait of Malacca? (Please reply at talk:South China Sea. Thanks.) — Instantnood 19:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ocean depth
As far as I can tell, this article doesn't even list the average depth of the Pacific Ocean. What's going on here? Isn't that kind of important? The Atlantic Ocean one has it. We can't let them beat us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasjjonesIII (talk • contribs) on 1 March 2006
- I started a Geography section and added this. Still needs bounds and other material from the lead added to flesh it out. --GregU 06:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] vandalism
Like many other pages, this one has been the location of vandalism. I removed it, 3/29/06 (2:57pm CST)
[edit] Straits or Strait?
The introductory paragraph states that the "Straits of Mollucca links ..." and the "Straits of Magellan links ...". The actual entries for these straits are under "Strait of" (singlular). The links specifically override this. It seems more consistent to say "Strait" instead of "Straits". Barring that, shouldn't it be "link" and not "links", or is "Straits" grammatically singular?
[edit] Pictures
I realised both coastal pictures of this article were from the northeast Pacific (Western Coast of North America). I think it should be nice to include pictures of other locations, so I put a picture from Chile, to get the attention of the people who had this page onn their watchlists.
Anyone has pictures from the western side ?
(Maybe we should collect many pictures in the first place and then decide to put 4 o 5 considering the most representative views.) baloo_rch 02:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Picture of Currents
I would like to see a picture with arrows of the significant currents of the Pacific Ocean. The text description adequately describes it, but a picture is worth 1000 words.
[edit] Other Names
Please add a section on the names for the Pacific in other languages, and their English translations. Surely the Pacific Ocean had names before Magellan discovered it!--M@rēino 15:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone inserted the word "poopy" throughout the document, I tried to find all instances of it, and deleted them.
[edit] Pictures
I removed the picture of the Pacific Ocean from Oregeon, as it was the second pic of the ocean from North America. The removed link is shown below if anyone disagrees or can come up with a better way to display it that doesn't detract from the text. User:jayfogle 22:16 (UTC), 27 Aug 2006
[edit] East vs. Eastern
The main article claims that the portion of the Pacific with west longitude (i.e., the part closest to the Americas) is "correctly" the West Pacific, and likewise the part with east longitude is "correctly" the East Pacific. In other words, if you sail west from the Americas, you will start in the West Pacific, cross the 180 meridian and so enter the East Pacific, still sailing west.
By whose authority is this considered "correct"? Does anyone actually use this blatantly confusing designation? This seems like yet another case of latching on to one particular aspect of a term, arbitrarily deciding that this aspect trumps everything else and declaring a particular interpretation "correct" in the face of actual usage to the contrary. If common usage is "incorrect", it's time to re-visit the notion of "correctness".
Here are some top Google hits showing east to be east and west to be west, as one might expect:
- The home page for East Pacific Surf Camp in Mazatlan, Mexico
- Wikipedia's own article on the East Pacific Rise, which lies in the "Eastern Pacific" — I wonder if that originally said "East Pacific" and was later "corrected" [Apparently not. And to be clear, "eastern" is also good. The important point is that "East Pacific" and "eastern Pacific" mean the same thing -Dmh 16:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)].
- The UN Environment Programme's page on the North-East Pacific
- Soroptimist International of the South West Pacific
- The Friends World Committee for Consultation Asia West Pacific Section
- World Weather Info for the West Pacific
Here's a typical map from the US National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Other English-language weather services appear to use the same conventions:
In searching for this, I did not see a clear-cut single usage the other way. As far as I can tell, there is no real reason to designate the "east/west longitude" interpretation as "correct" in place of the intuitive one, which appears to be universally used. -Dmh
[edit] pandeism and hinduism
I don't think that the view you described on the Hinduism discussion page is a very conventional view. However, Hinduism is very liberal in allowing diverse ways of understanding God and other spiritual things, so your view would not necessarily conflict with core Hindu teachings. It would just be seen as one among many possible ways of understanding the Divine. HeBhagawan 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Melbourne
The images on this page and Indian Ocean show the boundary between the oceans around Tasmania, which would put Melbourne in the Indian Ocean, not the Pacific Ocean as stated in the text of this article. Either the text or the diagrams are wrong - does anyone have a definitive answer as to where the two oceans meet? Orpheus 16:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What Color is the are the Oceans
Oceans come in a variety of colors, so you should really tell what color they are and why just in case someone wants to know. And if it is in the article, just tell me.
[edit] Marine Pollution
I've removed the section on Marine pollution. It was general in nature and not specific to the Pacific ocean. - Ctbolt 08:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- To an extent yes, it was general, but the type of pollution noted was the type generally associated with waterways, including the Pacific. Further, the North Pacific Gyre, and the vortex of pollution are specific to the Pacific and therefore the section should remain. Sections should be improved, not removed as long as they're relevant to the article. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Integral map image necessary
Pertaining to map images of the pacific ocean.
Due to inaccurate canadian education there is an inconsistent perception of the relation in size of china to the united states.
They are obviously similar in size.
Canada has no relation to world book having managed to create this more accurate map image.
This following image from world book is more accurate.
http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/ExtMedia?id=ar410020&st=pacific+ocean&em=mp000979
http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/content/na/mp/lg/mp000979.gif
- hor 209.159.182.6 17:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] specific temperatures
If I could get specific temperatures and precipitation for the north and west pacific seperately that would be great.
[edit] Magellan
An anonymous user (82.154.195.194) recently changed Ferdinand Magellan to Fernando Magalhães. This then broke the link to the article on Ferdinand Magellan and it has been undone by Vsmith. However, if this user comes back and reads this, thank you for your contribution but it is important that there is consistency in the English language version of Wikipedia, hence the rendering of the name in its English version. Before making similar changes, it is best to look at the links and the title of any article and use that name. You will note that the Portuguese name is listed in that article. All the best. --CloudSurfer 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reinstate the Overview section (or expand the Lead section a bit)
A anonymous user vandalized this article on February 1 (see diff) removing the Overview section which contains some information not present in the current article. The vandalism was not corrected properly. Can somebody reinstate the Overview section? I'd do it but I'm not on a proper web browser right now to make the changes. Anyway, if no one does it before I get to use a proper browser, I'll reinstate it myself. --seav 10:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I reinstated the section. Hopefully someone can clean up. :-p --seav 14:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- So that's what was missing! Guess the stub Geography section I just added is now mostly redundant, though it does have a ref. --GregU 18:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, shame about that. I moved the ref and took out the redundant bits. Orpheus 19:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Vice Bune
The reference to this figure should probably be deleted until independent documentary evidence of his activities can be found. The only reference to Bune's being in the Pacific is other WP sites. See extensive discussion at [1]--Nickm57 (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Deleted part of sentence " in that century Ragusan traders prevailed in Melanesia", as this is also part of the same fringe theory that Croatians discovered and traded in the Pacific before the Spanish, also discovered America etc. See the writings of Dr. A.Z.Lorvic/Z.Yoshamya.--Nickm57 (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed oceans project
Anyone interested in joining a project to deal with the oceans is free to indicate their support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oceans. John Carter (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pacific Ocean
Good Afternoon, I would like to ask about the current pacific ocean and the effect on us for the years to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceasar maximus (talk • contribs) 06:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 169.2 or 179.7?
in the introduction, it's listed as 169.2 million square kilometers, where as in the overview it's listed as 179.7 million square kilometers. Which is it? -desk003 (talk) 07:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mariana Trench
I've heard many depths of the Mariana trench. Some say it is over 11,000 meteres deep other say it is much less. Is there a definitive answer or does no one know exactly? If there is a definitive answer, what is it!? AtheWeatherman (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)