Talk:List of reefs

Name and scope of this article

I started it as List of reefs because not all reefs are coral. It has since been moved to List of coral reefs and then back again. So, scope? Name? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• So far I am concerned there are reefs that are not made of coral. Sometimes "reef" is meant to imply "coral reef", but not always and in Wikipedia we need clarity. The list as it is now is about coral reefs, so it seems logical to name it with something in which "coral reef" is included in the name. To include all reefs whether coral or not in a list is an impossible task not suitable for Wikipedia.

I propose to move the article to list of coral reefs, but if coral reefs are too many (more than 200 or 1000?) then we would need to bring in some limiting title like naming it "list of protected coral reefs". Any ideas? Lappspira (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to call it List of coral reefs if it is likely that future additions will also be only coral. If items from Category:Reefs might be added, then best for it to stay named List of reefs. If regular reefs are added, I can add an extra column saying coral/not.

As for scope, sure there are many coral reefs and regular reefs. The criterion for inclusion could be that it has a Wikipedia article. That could be imposed now, or wait until/unless the page gets to big (which I doubt). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no position one way or the other about coral/non-coral, or even contiguous. However, as an interested amateur, I find it very confusing that both Apo and Belize (latter much larger) claim to be second largest in the world. Perhaps neither is, in light of this month's announcement of Amazon reef. It would help greatly to insert new columns for length and for area. If non-coral reefs are included, then some color designation or splitting table in two would be useful to make the distinction. Martindo (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)