Talk:Marine biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Postynote (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gillian Setiawan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Some Sources

Hello, here are some sources I have found and will be using to update part of this page!

Bibliography

Cousteau, Jacques, and Philippe Diole. Three adventures: Galapagos, Titicaca, the Blue Holes. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1973.

Gage, John D., and Paul A. Tyler. Deep-sea biology: a natural history of organisms at the deep-sea floor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Hoffman, Dan. That summer of 1964 on the island: stories from the log of a marine biologist. Baltimore: PublishAmerica, 2008.

Levinton, Jeffrey S.. Marine biology: function, biodiversity, ecology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Maienschein, Jane. 100 years exploring life, 1888-1988: the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1989.

Mills, Eric L.. Biological oceanography: an early history, 1870-1960. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989.

Rozwadowski, Helen M.. Fathoming the ocean the discovery and exploration of the deep sea. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, 2005.

Ward, Ritchie R.. Into the ocean world; the biology of the sea. 1st ed. New York: Knopf; [distributed by Random House], 1974.

Article title

this Marine Ecology or Marine Biology. Not sure what would be more appropriate.? Any thoughts? sunja 02:14, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• deffinitely Biology because Ecology is based more on orgainisms interacting with their environment and biology is about everything living. ==

KIKOMAN

Your definition of biology is wrong, biology is study of one animal where ecology is the study of how an organism interacts with the biotic and abiotic environment. Mbaha (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. "Biology is the study of living things—the science of life." (from Biology, Raven et al., 2005, 7th edition). Jvalph (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

True but that is the original question, is the article about the living beings of the marine ecosystem, or about the ecosystem as a whole... though to be real it doesn't seem to matter too much. sunja (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does matter and I am right Mbaha (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Clownfish? Is it a joke?

Of all the fish species in the world, why selecting clownfish? This is about Marine biology and should be more generic, not simply reflecting personal interests. Don't you agree? --Arnejohs 18:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

- Yes this was very inapproriate, i suspect a joke. More info on fishes is needed though. - sunja 11:02, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Famous marine biologists

How about famous marine Biologists?! Would be nice to note a few. And i don't like that fish page link where it is. ;/ sunja 04:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Added the famous marine biologists. Don't think i gots them all. The sites for the list of biologists doesn't mentions which biologists is an marine biologist.

Shreshth91 21:00 29 Jun

Read the list of biologists again. It mentions quite a few.

Jakob Johan Adolf Appellöf (1857-1921), Swedish marine zoologist.

Joseph Ayers, marine neurophysiologist and biomimetic researcher

Samuel Stillman Berry (1887-1984), U.S. marine zoologist

Carl Chun (1852-1914), German marine biologist

Jacques Cousteau (1910-1997), French marine biologist and explorer

Anton Dohrn (1840-1909), German marine biologist

Sylvia Earle (1935), American oceanographer

Bruno Hofer (1861-1916), German fisheries scientist

William Elford Leach (1790-1836) English zoologist and marine biologist

Nicholai Miklukho-Maklai (1846-1888), Russian marine biologist and anthropologist

John Murray (1841-1914) Scots-Canadian Marine Biologist

Harald Rosenthal (1937) German hydrobiologist known for his work in fish farming and ecology

Georg Sars (1837-1927) Norwegian marine biologist

Ruth Turner (1915-2000), marine biologist

Charles Wyville Thompson, (1832-1882) Scottish marine biologist

Jotaro Kujo, (1970-2011) Japanese American biologist, was able to stop time with his stand Star Platinum, got famous after writing a thesis on starfish on the shore of a small town called Morioh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.52.226.206 (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It's probably not an exhaustive collection but it's a start. Are there others in the 'list of biologists' who you think should be designated as marine biologists? David D. 29 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)

Picture caption?

"This is how marine life is"? Is that the best caption we can find? Not to mention I doubt that's REALLY how marine life is.

Hayleigh Alexis

Fish in the Challenger Deep?

From the Wiki: "flounder (family Soleidae) fish and shrimp were seen by the American crew of the bathyscaphe Trieste when it dove to the bottom in 1960.". In 'Mapping The Deep. The Extraordinary Story of Ocean Science' (2000) suggests that the crew of the Trieste, neither of whom were biologists, could have mis-identified a Holothurian (sea cucumber) - a group that are common in the deep. --Liam Mason 12:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC) 02:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

0.02 micrometer?

Plankton cannot possible be that smal - the smallest known cells are 0.2 um acrosss; 0.02 um would be two small to holds a genome. Somebodys fix it! Capybara 20:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

--The definition of Femtoplankton is any plankton between 0.02um and 0.2um. This is because bacteria and viruses are also defined as plankton. --Liam Mason 12:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

deletion

I deleted * Rosie Alling (1992- )- Marine researcher and atmospheric-oceanic journalist* from Famous Marine Biologists. I believe this is a little girl posting her name on Wikipedia.

Reorganize Lifeforms section?

The Lifeforms section is currently broken into: Microscopic life, Plant life, Other marine invertebrates, Fish, and Marine mammals. That seems cumbersome... There is a great deal of overlap between microscopic life and invertebrates (plus zooplankton are currently described under microscopic??) and between microscopic life and algae. The plants section is (or should be) mostly about algae, so why call it "plant life?" And overall, invertebrates make up most of the animal life on the planet, but seem to get very relatively short mention here. Anyone have a better idea for dividing these? Also, under Fish, what does this sentence mean? "Fishes inhabit the largest (by volume) biome on Earth." Isn't that just saying fish inhabit the ocean? I don't get it. — Epastore 20:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well i agree article could use some more restructuring and specifiying... - Algae are plants in the broader spectrum of things, and are commonly considered such by peoples. - The sentence you ask about says basically, 'the ocean is the biggest single type of habitat on earth, and fish are the main lifeform there'... :) sunja

New picture for overview ?

I do not like the new picture for the overview, I think the Lionfish was more dramatic. First, the thumbnail of the new picture is not very clear (the picture itself is OK). Second, it comes from an aquarium and it should be better to only put "real" marine life there...--Daniel Vaulot 07:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

- I don't see how the picture has "more drama" than that of the Lionfish. Surely better pictures out there. --Liam Mason 16:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Plant / Animal Distinction Page?

does this exist at the moment? there is no coherent page specifically explaining distinctions between plants and animals Charlieb63 14:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Does "Aquatic Biology" no longer exist?

I noticed that the more general subject "aquatic biology" is not found here. This, of course, covers the gamut of "marine", "freshwater", and the continuum in between (like estuarine). Being a former biologist (marine mostly, I guess) and practitioner in the area, I noticed in my son's high school tour yesterday that they go from environmental science -> biology -> "marine" biology. When asked about field work, the teacher pointed out how hard it was for the students to make it out to full day field trips to the coast (nearby, actually). Then when walking out and explaining to my son that they should teach "aquatic biology", not "marine biology", I passed over a bridge above a flowing, freshwater stream, remembering my days at UCSB field ecology lab setting up little experiments in the streams above Santa Barbara. Alas, the marketers have gotten ahold of biology too. ;-). Interesting fun facts sheet on FW from Canada, BTW: http://www.ec.gc.ca/WATER/en/info/facts/e_quantity.htm. ~~extremetray~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extremetray (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

• yeaa i think there needs to be a fresh-water biology page... care to start it? ;) sunja 09:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Birds

This is a spillover from a can of worms I opened up on the Seabirds page. I pointed out the inconsistency between the first line of that page and the first line of this page - They say seabirds are adapted to live in a marine environment (with "marine" pointing here). Here, it says (paraphrasing) marine biology is the study of life in the ocean. Looking down further in this article, I see it mentions birds. I don't know whether it's this article or "seabirds" that needs fixing - does marine biology study birds? Do birds live "in the ocean"? Some birds are close - penguins, auks, etc. But most (seagulls, albatross, terns, etc.) don't spend the majority of time "in" the ocean. The problem I see is that someone clicking on "marine" in the seabird page comes here, sees the pic of a school of fish, reads that this article is about creatures that live in the ocean, and thinks that "seabird" refers only to birds that spend the majority of their time swimming underwater. Ideas? Applejuicefool 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a marine bio major, and marine biology is the study of the ocean and things that live in it. Sea Birds is a completely different study. Even being seabirds, it's still considered Ornithology. With seabirds, they still live on land since they don't have gills (not to say all marine organisms have gills because they don't), and are just adapted to live by or on the ocean/water. Then again marine mammals are also considered under marine biology, but most of them live under or in the water all the time. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 14:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I changed the link on Seabirds from marine biology to marine (ocean). I think it makes more sense that way. There is a link from marine (ocean) to marine biology. Applejuicefool 17:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

But that also begs the question, if what you say is true, Darth, why does this page have the section on birds? What about penguins and auks? Wouldn't they be in the same boat (no pun) as marine mammals? Applejuicefool 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what I've been looking up, I've been going through Google to try and see if they are included at all under marine biology or if they are under a different field. Technically, marine biology itself is the study of salt water organisms. I'll keep looking up sources though. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 17:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got a UK Master's degree in Marine Biology - seabirds, marine mammals and reptiles were all covered at one stage or another in the course. They are also covered in a few Marine Biology textbooks including "Introduction to Marine Biology" by George Karleskint.--Liam Mason 07:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who added birds and reptiles, and I don't have a degree in Marine Biology. Did I get the reptiles right? And the statement about amphibians? — Epastore 18:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Seabirds definitely belong here; the movement of productivity from marine photosynthesis is probably the most visible biological process in the marine environment (ever visited an estuary when birds are feeding?). Next point, you dont have to be able to swim to be adapted to the marine environment, waders are extremely well adapted without swimming ability (this also applies to other marine organisms). I think some of the problems highlighted in this seabird discussion, stem from some more fundamental problems with the article. I have had a quick read just now (first time I have read the article) and can see quite a few confusing statements (some of which dont actually make any sense). I will try to clean some up when time permits. Celticbattlepants (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

References

Suggest references be given Osborne 12:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• i just thought u all should know there is a lot more info on marine biology. u just need to know where to find it. i recommend u go to a ecotarium, or a place that helps or studies marine life.

                    yours truly,
                         Prof. Alisha

dophins

--204.100.182.77 20:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC) did you know that dolphins are actually toothed whales? They are! Believe me. When I went to a whale festival they told me that. It is really quite interesting I thought. marine biologyBold text

Rilee Simpson Murrieta, California age 14

• sigh* your 14 and you believed them? Thats pretty sad...Dolphina and Whales are completely seperate, and most easily distinguished. Better smarten up, high school is just around the corner.

• Actually, Rilee is correct. Dolphins are in the family Delphinidae, which is in the Suborder odonticeti, the toothed whales. Please do a little research before you blindly dismiss someone.

• I agree know what you are talking about before you embarrass yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.15.125 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Biology

How does Marine Biology relate to Biology itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.69.203 (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing Habitat?

I noticed kelp forests are not included in the Oceanic Habitats section. I'm of the opinion that they merit inclusion; they are certainly noteworthy. Any objections? Sgt.widget (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

History Section

Hello! I will be adding to the History section of the Marine Biology Wikipedia page. Here is a little taste of what I am going to be talking about:

The earliest instances of the study of Marine Biology can be traced back to Aristotle who made several contributions which laid the foundation for many future discoveries and were the first big steps in the early exploration period of the ocean and marine life. British naturalist, Edward Forbes was also a key player in the history of marine biology and is considered by many as the founder of the science of oceanography and marine biology. Overall, the pace of oceanographic and marine biology studies quickly accelerated during the course of the 19th century.

The observations made in the first studies of marine biology fueled the age of discovery and exploration that followed. During this time, a vast amount of knowledge was gained about the life that exists in the oceans of the world. Many voyages contributed significantly to this pool of knowledge. Among some of the most significant are the H.M.S Beagle and the H.M.S Challenger. This era was extremely important for the history of marine biology but naturalists were still limited in their studies simply because they lacked certain technology that would allow them to accurately examine the species that lurked the deep parts of the oceans.

The creation of marine labs was important because marine scientists had places to conduct research and process their specimens from expeditions. One of the most important marine labs are Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute where scientists stayed and conducted years of significant research and made many important findings. There were also many technological advances that further enhanced the study of marine biology. For example, sound navigation ranging, scuba diving gear, submersibles and remotely operated vehicles, to name a few, are some of the more significant technologies in marine biology which allowed naturalists to explore depths of the oceans that people once thought never existed. Sarakpal (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks OK, the section could use some decent content. I trust you will cite appropriately. Have fun. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

300 times?

There's no foundation for the number 300 that appears in the introduction. The source says, "published estimates of the relative habitable volume of the marine realm range from ~10 to 300 times the habitable volume of the land." And the author's own estimate is 1367*10^6 km^3 / 2.0*10^6 km^3 = 680 times, which is very different from both 300 and the published estimates (http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/30m4r519#page-6). Therefore I am removing the statement again. Gdfusion (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggested edits

There are a couple of changes that I think would benefit this page: 1. There should be an added section about how there has been a decline in overall marine life and the efforts to rebuild the ocean population. 2. “Open Ocean” section is a bit weak. I think that it needs to maybe say what kinds of animals dwell in that area. Also think that that section could use a bit of information about ocean currents because they are a very relevant topic when discussing marine biology and how animals migrate. 3. “Marine Habitats” section introduction is a bit distracting. I would maybe list the types of habitats first and then put all of the other, extra information into their appropriate categories. Lambe181 (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Come up with a better image for the lead?

I would like to replace the image in the lead with something that more clearly distinguishes this article from marine life. The current image, in its caption, talks about "marine life" but not about "marine biology". An image that includes a schematic or something a bit academic looking might be better. Perhaps some researchers, such as scuba divers, conducting research under water? Or some university course pictures (but if so then ideally not a university in the US or Europe to be mindful of being more inclusive with a global world view, not just Europe and the US, like it currently is for many articles). Unless perhaps "the oldest/best university teaching about marine biology" if that exists. Just brainstorming here. What do others think? @User:Epipelagic EMsmile (talk) 14:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally I like the existing image, which I think is about as it should be. Marine biology is the biology of life in the ocean. The tendency of humans to think everything is about humans can get in the way of understanding what goes on in the ocean. The current image shifts the perspective to the ocean, where it should be. I would definitely not want to see an image yet again elevating some human institution in the lead, as though marine biology is to be thought of as a mere appendage that furthers human self-absorption. You do not mention the section which I recently added straight after the lead clarifying what marine biology was, and contrasting it with marine oceanography. If you like, that section could be enlarged and offer further clarification, and might be a good place for you to place the image you want centred on what humans do. Both these areas are involved with marine life, but each in its own characteristic ways, often with quite different emphasis and approaches, but also with a lot of overlap. Each area has its own historical record of human endeavours. This historic record does not really belong to the article on marine life as such, which is why I removed it from that article. — Epipelagic (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The current image shows the planet earth as viewed from outer space, and it shows continents and clouds. That's what I see when I look at it, not "oceans". Also the caption says nothing whatsoever about marine biology. At the very least the caption ought to be changed. It currently says "71 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by ocean, the home to marine life. Oceans average nearly four kilometers in-depth and are fringed with coastlines that run for 360,000 kilometres." If marine biology is an academic field of study then this should be reflected in the image, or at the very least in the image's caption. EMsmile (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've tweaked the caption with material from elsewhere in the article. Perhaps because my expectations may differ from yours, when I look at the image the foreground is the blue ocean. The continents define the marine coastline, the ocean boundaries. The clouds in the atmosphere are water cycling back to the ocean. The atmosphere itself is another important interface exchanging gases with the ocean. Readers whose awareness is not oriented to marine life will simply see things another way. Perhaps if you zoom in to the image and relax a little, the foreground and background might switch for you also. If you do get the switch, then the image defines a powerful overview of the home inhabited by the marine organisms that are the focus of enquiry for marine biology. This is truly an appropriate image for the lead. — Epipelagic (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the caption is better now, although why would we list in the caption how many kilometres of coast line there are? To me that's irrelevant. Also, this wording sounds strange in my ears: "Marine biology views species". I would prefer maybe something like this: "Marine biology is a field of study which..." I am still not a fan of the image because the same image can be used, and is used, to illustrate so many similar concepts. Looking at the file here, I see that the image is used in these articles as well:

• Environmental movement
• Environmental science
• Twin Earth thought experiment
• Underwater environment
• The Blue Marble
• Ecosystem diversity
• Circumstellar habitable zone
• Environmental history
• Origin of water on Earth
• Portal:Environment
• Portal:Environment/Selected article
• Portal:Environment/Selected article/14
• Sea
• Marine habitats

I therefore find it a bit cliché and not very suitable/memorable/specific for marine biology, at all. - Wondering if any of the other page watchers have an opinion about this? EMsmile (talk) 06:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You see it as cliche, unrelated to marine biology. I see it as one of the more powerful images of our times, directly speaking to the existence of marine life. That you think providing a graphic representation of the marine coastline and mentioning its extent is "irrelevant" suggests you see marine life as bit of a yawn. — Epipelagic (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand how you have formed such a negative opinion about me, Epipelagic. If I didn't care about marine life then why would I want to improve the article? You and I have different views about this image. For me it's an image of the planet earth, viewed from outer space. It is not an image that clearly shows marine biology (= the topic of the article). I am pretty sure we can find a better image. Does anyone else who is watching this page have an opinion? EMsmile (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

And I have moved that sentence about ocean depth and coastline length to ocean now. This to me was additional info about oceans, not about marine biology. One could have equally added that there are 5 oceans, that ocean acidification is a problem etc. The lead image is meant to be about marine biology, not given more and more information about ocean geography aspects. EMsmile (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't start dumbing down the article just so you can mark it with your unconsidered preferences. You just removed what was a very clear demarcation of the boundaries to the marine habitats. You do not seem to have grasped yet that marine life is defined by its habitat, so the first thing is to clearly establish what that habitat is. — Epipelagic (talk) 03:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't make any judgmental statements about my editing work. What is "so you can mark it with your unconsidered preferences" meant to mean? Why do you think I am planning to dumb down the article? My intention is to help people find the information in the right places: The lead is meant to give a summary of the article, and the image in the lead is meant to give a clear visual impression which this image doesn't. I won't argue anymore with you about the image. Clearly you won't change your mind about it. I'll wait to see if anyone else comes to this talk page one day in the future. However, please enlighten me why you insist on specifying the depth and the length of coastline in the lead image caption? Why is that so important when people come to the "marine biology" article that they immediately see that the coastline is 360,000 km long? For the benefit of others who'll come to this talk page later: This is the sentence that User:Epipelagic insists needs to be in the caption of the lead image which I had deleted: "Oceans average nearly four kilometers in-depth and are fringed with coastlines that run for 360,000 kilometres.". FYI on this page, the figure quoted is 377,412 km. Obviously, it's hard to measure the length exactly (Coastline paradox). Which is another reason why I think it's pointless to put this information here in the lead of "marine biology". - And as a closing statement: Can we all please be nice(r) to each other? I've really had enough of aggressive behaviour towards me by all sorts of people recently (please see my talk page and you'll see what I mean). EMsmile (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You say other editors have been aggressive to you. These are highly experienced editors. One editor was frank and direct with you, perhaps a bit aggressive. Other editors were expressing fear, and frustration resulting from that fear [1]. They were responding more from a place where they were trying to protect areas they had already put a lot of work and love into [2]. I share their fear and frustration. I appreciate you have a very robust sense of the rightness with which you view things, but I do not see that always playing out well when you boldly edit articles outside areas where you seem to have a lot of experience [3]. You want to know why the coastline is important. I've already explained it at length, and I just don't know how to bring more clarity. The central issue is that marine biology is about species that live in marine habits. The coastline is a key part of marine habitats. Perhaps this might become clearer if you read the article. The lead talks about habitats like estuaries, coral reefs, kelp forests, seagrass meadows, tidepools, and muddy, sandy and rocky bottoms. These are all coastal habitats. The first half of the body of the article is about the marine habitats, and the larger part of those are coastal habitats. You also want to know why depth is important. It is important because away from the coast most of the ocean is deep, creating a huge three-dimensional habitat that is not visible to the human eye. It is important to mention depth because so much of what happens in the oceans happens at great depths. It is a good start to marine biology to appreciate that it is something that happens mainly along coastlines, or away from coastlines but at different depths. The lead image captures these issues as well as could be hoped for in just one image together with a relatively short caption. And that is the image and the caption that you are trying (aggressively) to throw out... — Epipelagic (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

You call my editing work "aggressive". I call it WP:BEBOLD. My edits very rarely get reverted (and I get a lot of "thank you" notes so I guess they can't be so bad! I think the real problem is this one which you stated yourself "they were trying to protect areas they had already put a lot of work and love into". This reminds me of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. The end result is what another editor has described well here as: "The sea/ocean/world ocean/etc. debacle is a mess and has long been a mess. " Also, I don't doubt that ocean depth and exact coast length is important. I just doubt that it needs to be in the caption of the lead image. Equally, one could say that ocean temperature and pH value (acidification) are important for marine biology. So let's mention them in the caption of the lead image as well, following your logic. Why single out depth and length over other important factors. I think for marine biology, the temperature and pH value of the water is actually even more important. Either put all or nothing on those important parameters into the caption of the lead image. - I suggest you and I now give our conversation a little pause as we're not seeing eye to eye. Let's give others room and time to come into this conversation and provide us with fresh inputs. So I'll move away from this talk page for a week or two. EMsmile (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Things like temperature and pH values are not used to define marine habitats. I don't know where you get those quaint ideas from. Discussing matters with you is like putting energy into a black hole. — Epipelagic (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

And another personal attack to put on the list of examples. Great. :-( EMsmile (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Not a personal attack – just factual observation. You don't take on board what is actually said. — Epipelagic (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question regarding the illustration in the lead for this article - The present image in the lead does not speak to the title of the article. One thinks of global or planetary questions - certainly not marine biology. Any marine biologist (including myself with 40 years of experience) will wonder what is going on with this article? – the image is simply way off base. We need an image that relates directly to marine biology. Biology refers to the study of life (BIOS). An image dealing with marine life is called for ie fauna, flora or both. ASRASR (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Some tag editing I see. I'll leave the article to the care of WikiProject Sanitation. — Epipelagic (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Epipelagic, can you please follow the guideline WP:FOC: "Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct". Writing statements like "Discussing matters with you is like putting energy into a black hole" or "discussing matters with you leads nowhere" is NOT focusing on content. FYI, things like ocean temperature and pH value are changing due to climate change which will affect ecosystems and biodiversity in oceans, e.g. reefs, which is why I mentioned it - you straight away dismissed is as "quaint ideas". - Also, User:ASRASR is entitled to voicing his opinion on the talk page here, whether we collaborate on another WikiProjects or not is irrelevant. EMsmile (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. if you want to bow out of this article that's your choice, of course. EMsmile (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering why you were so confident someone was about about to turn up and champion your position (that it is not important to position marine biology as the study of life that lives in marine habitats). Now, as though on cue, an editor with little background on Wikipedia has arrived, grandly echoing your position and authoritatively claiming they speak for all marine biologists. Further, a steadily increasing level of wikilawering is being used here to obscure the content issues. This, together with the misrepresentation of what has been said, is such that rational discussion on content issues doesn't seem possible. So no, I'm not bowing out of this article as a choice, I'm just bowing out of a situation where no reasonable outcome is likely. — Epipelagic (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I went to the Marine Biology page from the Wikipedia App on my phone. When two photos of planet earth came up first I thought I had mistyped in the search bar. I'm not a Marine Biologist. I'm an average person offering my experience as input. The photo is misleading.45.235.252.94 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies that the above was not signed PlanetCare (me). I waso n the Wikipedia App and didn't realize that four tildas would not result in my PlantCare signature. I follow articles that relate to the environment and did some readability edits to this page back in 2018. I take a strong interest in the "first impression read" because decision-makers looking for factual information may not get past the first paragraph and the photo. I added my unsolicited comment and hope that won't result in anyone backing out of the discussion.PlanetCare (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You say you are an associate and admirer of EMsmile [4], yet you claim your comment was unsolicited. Your story, that your comment was unsolicited, is backed by EMsmile below, who however also contradicts you and indicates you are not friends. Did you just chance to come to the Marine Biology page again after three years, at this precise and propitious moment? Remarkable. Then you say you were so surprised to see the photo you thought you had mistyped. But you previously edited the page when the photo didn't seem to bother you. The photo has been viewed by way over one million previous readers, and none of these have suggested it was inappropriate. So there we are. Either we are in the presence of grace and miraculous happenings, or in the presence of machinations. — Epipelagic (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

On the charge of previous collaboration: Guilty. EMSmile and PlanetCare sometimes work on similar pages related to sanitation or climate change: that is well-documented on Wikipedia. On the charge of collusion, and lying about collusion: Not guilty. User:Epipelagic Would you be willing to put a pause on the question of images, as User:Mark Noyes recommends, and see if we can make some of the other improvements he mentioned?PlanetCare (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, impressive... truly a serendipitous coincidence, a precisely-timed IP intervention exquitiously tuned to EMsmile's position. And just at the time you wake up! — Epipelagic (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the comment from the IP address was not from me. Sorry to debunk your conspiracy theory here. But probably every future post here will be rejected by you based on the claim that it's either me posting with another login, or someone else who is only posting because they like me. I think we need to take this to another place, like WP:RfC. I'll look into that now. EMsmile (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you are saying you intend these happy, near-miraculous interventions to be regular events? Anyway, as I said, you and your Stockholm collaborators are leaving no place for me here, so I'm bowing out (from editing). — Epipelagic (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I'm a bit saddened to see the descent into bickering here folks. Lets stick to content not character attacks. My 2 cents worth is that it's always hard to find one single image that sums up a vast subject, and you (both) raise valid concerns. So, I'd stick with the current image until such time as someone posts some alternatives to look at. Maybe an approach similar to that taken at Ecology might be one possibility? I'm unable to quickly find a better single image to introduce this subjects - but I'd have liked to have seen some offered for consideration. Either way, I find the current caption version a bit clumsy (and with a duff link) and the lead paragraph is of similar quality, and fails to capture the essence of the subject, and just leaves me bemused. I'm sure you're both up to working together with other editors to improve them. (There are far better explanations of marine biology out there if one wants to look, and I'd suggest focussing on these improvements, rather than purely worrying about images at this stage. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nick. Yes, of course the article can be improved. I'll leave you to experiencing the joys of a Wikiproject Sanitation and Stockholm Institute collaboration. In my experience you will not get constructive alternatives – just criticism, wikilawyering, and virtue signalling. If you are non-male newbie from a developing country, you might survive. — Epipelagic (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

For what its is worth, I think your suggestion concerning the lead image is an excellent one. However you seem to be an experienced editor, so your suggestion is unlikely to be acceptable to the current regime. — Epipelagic (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes, thank you! So glad to hear from a new person here. I've added an "arbitrary break" section line just before your post to indicate a "fresh start". Hope that is agreeable. I like the example at Ecology in the sense that it is a collage of images. I think a collage could work well here, too. Before proposing actual images, I would like to know if people think that the lead image of marine biology should be somewhat different to the one used at marine life so that the reader can immediately grasp the difference between the two articles? I had mentioned it above - if marine biology is "the study of..." then should this be indicated in the image, somehow? I.e. a focus on the aspect "the study of"? Compare with the lead image used at oceanography (a schematic). Some articles about fields of study use an info box, such as Paleolimnology. Or would we say it doesn't matter, and we simply use another lead image (or a collage of) "marine life" topics? EMsmile (talk) 02:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. and I agree with you that other aspects of the article also need improvement. For example, I am wondering if the sections on "marine habitats" and "marine life" could be condensed, given that there are sub-articles about that. I am not saying it has to be done, I am just making a suggestion. EMsmile (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if User:Epipelagic could stop with those snipes and we could just return to finding good images for the proposed collage. Comments such as "you seem to be an experienced editor, so your suggestion is unlikely to be acceptable to the current regime", and the earlier ones from 1 April are really getting to me. Oh wait, perhaps they are meant to funny and I don't have the right sense of humour? Hmmmm. It just makes me sad. However, I like that the new code of conduct states: "Prolific contributions and technical expertise are not a justification for lower standards of behavior.". Anyway, I'll try hard to simply ignore such snipes in future and focus on the task at hand which is to find suitable images for the lead. If we are talking about a collage like at Ecology as per the suggestion of Nick Moyes we could discuss beforehand which 4 types of images we are after. I am currently involved in a similar, very constructive conversation here for sustainable energy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_energy#Swap_images_in_the_lead? . EMsmile (talk) 03:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for a collage

Marine biology studies species that live in marine habitats. The ocean is the home to marine life.

So here is my proposal for a collage of 4 images which could go into the lead. See on the right. I have used the format of an infobox because it made it easier to format the images. (same as for ecology). The image of the turtle is from the article itself. I purposefully picked an image of that museum of marine biology because it might help to set this article apart from marine life, i.e. this article is about "the study of..." which can be done in museums and aquariums as well. Looking forward to a constructive process regarding finding a collage that works well for this article. My suggestion is just a first attempt. We could also pick further images of the article itself. I searched in Wikimedia Commons with the search term "marine biology". EMsmile (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

EMsmile I like the approach you have taken, and would support it, subject to further consideration of the precise images and the caption text. I do appreciate it is extremely difficult to find a lead image(s) which both perfectly sums up the subject of the article and meets approval of all the active editors. Every one of us is a pedant in their own way, and that's where consensus comes in. Personally, I would wish to avoid the collage images using the same photos as are used within the article. I haven't looked for a WP:MOSIMAGES ruling on this, but it would make sense to me. I particularly welcome one image closely relating to a marine biological institute or other obvious reflection of the word study. Small quarter-images need to clearly indicate their subject. I also wondered about these which I quickly stumbled across:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fan_mussel_(Pinna_nobilis).jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coral_planting_on_Pom_Pom_Island.JPG
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chevron_Baracuda.JPG
• Also happy to see just the one quadrant image of the blue planet, such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_Eastern_Hemisphere.jpg

I'd note that the article textual content is probably of greater import. For example, I find the copy-pasted explanation of the difference of MB compared with Biological oceanography (taken from the latter article) a bit hard to follow, and the History section could do with a little more content on the modern academic study or marine biology, without overlapping too much with the full article. Hope this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Great suggestions, thanks Nick Moyes. I liked the turtle image but it makes sense to not repeat images from the main text, I guess. I am going to try out a few options. I like the image of the two divers but I think all 4 photos should be landscape or portrait but not a mixture (?). How about like this?:

Marine biology studies species (marine life) that live in marine habitats (coastal and open ocean habitats). Clockwise from top left: Tide pool in Santa Cruz, United States; School of Baracuda at Pom Pom Island, Malaysia; Fan mussel in a Mediterranean seagrass meadow; The Centre of Oceanography and Marine Biology in Moscow, Russia.

EMsmile (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick Moyes, from your perspective, does anything speak against me replacing the current image with the collage on the right now? And yes, I agree with you that improving the text content is equally important or even more important. But it always depends on where the volunteer editors have their energy levels or interest. So I think everything can be tackled in parallel, i.e. we don't need to have a hierarchical ordering which improvements are tackled first and which later. Having said that, I'll look at the two problem areas that you have highlighted shortly and see if I can make any meaningful improvements there. EMsmile (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I've refined the caption for the image now. If we have concluded the discussion, and there are no further objections, I will replace the current image and caption of the lead with this one in the next few days. EMsmile (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The collage is bit bland in comparison to the two blue marbles, which is an inspiring image, though I can also see why some might consider it a bit tangential to the topic. My biggest concern is that there is no visually obvious connection between the building and the topic. I suggest something more obviously associated with research and the sea. Perhaps a research submersible or something similar. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, how about one of these to replace the picture of the research centre in Moscow (I personally quite like that image)? (oh actually, I think only a picture in landscape format would work for the collage):

Expl1930 - Flickr - NOAA Photo Library

Fis00438 19778603445 o

HCMR submarine

EMsmile (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The collage could then look like this:

Marine biology studies species (marine life) that live in marine habitats (coastal and open ocean habitats). Clockwise from top left: Tide pool in Santa Cruz, United States; School of Baracuda at Pom Pom Island, Malaysia; Research submarine for marine research; Fan mussel in a Mediterranean seagrass meadow.

EMsmile (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have now changed the image in the lead. I have moved the current image of the lead further down (but not sure if it fits well where I have now put it); maybe even further down or not at all. EMsmile (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Better. Not perfect, but good enough for now. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't need a hatnote for Seinfeld episode from 1994?

Hi, User:Nick Moyes I thought I'd take this to the talk page to gain clarity and consensus. I had deleted the hatnote about that particular Seinfeld episode and had put it under See Also instead. The pageviews for Seinfeld might be high but the pageviews for that particular episode are low (about 90 per day), see here. If someone is searching for that episode they can find it via the Seinfeld page. Having that hatnote about an American sitcom episode from decades ago in such a prominent spot is strange in my opinion. Isn't it yet another example how Wikipedia is North America centric and Europe centric? I bet if there was a "famous" sitcom from Nigeria and India with that title we wouldn't be mentioning it in the hatnote. Somehow, what is or was on TV in the United States is regarded as so important? EMsmile (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile: A hatnote is to differentiate between two completely different articles with similar names. A 'See also' section is to link to related pages. I don't agree with your edit for that reason, so please would you mind putting the hatnote back in? Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

You've already put the hatnote back in. I am asking to take it out, for the reasons mentioned above. As per WP:HATCHEAP: "Hatnotes take up minimal space on articles, but they do consume a prominent position. They are helpful when it's one of the first things a reader should know.". Is a 1994 episode of an American sitcom really so important that it deserves a hatnote? Would those people searching for it not find it via the Seinfeld article anyway? EMsmile (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

What Nick Moyes said. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Apparently my comment directly above is not clear to all. My intended meaning is agreement with the preceding statement by Nick Moyes at 00:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC). · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• (I should disclose, I'm coming here from this thread at the Teahouse.) Since the episode title is "The Marine Biologist" (with a "the" and capitalization), I'm not sure disambiguation is needed; I don't think it'd likely that someone searching for "Marine biologist" would want the episode. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I really don't see a problem with the hatnote. It's perfectly plausible that some readers looking for The Marine Biologist will type in Marine biologist. Even if it helps just a small number of people, it outweighs the purely aestethic objection that it takes up some space at the top of the article. Also, no, this has nothing to do with Wikipedia being US-centric; if there were articles about other things, other sitcom episodes even, no matter from which country, titled The Marine Biologist, they would be in the hatnote as well. But there aren't.

(I've moved this discussion down a bit, by the way, because it was being sandwiched between images, which was making it hard to read. I hope no one minds.) Lennart97 (talk) 13:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree there is no problem with the hatnote per Lennart97. It conforms with WP:HATNOTE - the primary purpose is to aid in navigation. It may look "strange" to a reader only interested in biology, but it is clearly helpful to someone looking for the TV episode. MB 14:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Article title (marine science)

I personally might be biased in thinking it should possibly be Marine Science since that is my major, but this would be a more encompassing term for what this article discusses. Mentions of weather patterns like El Nino, bioerosion, and excess coastal nutrients lead me to believe this article isn't just about marine biology. Although it would need more information, possibly about marine sciences origins, bathometry, or tectonic activities and ideas to feel encompassing enough to be considered marine science. --MaddiLeighA (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi MaddiLeighA, welcome to Wikipedia! There is already an article on marine science in Wikipedia - the term redirects to oceanography. So that means this article should be seen as a sub-article to marine science, right?

Founded 1859 or 1872?

The article claims that Station biologique de Roscoff was established in 1859, though it's own article says 1872. One might be wrong... Finn Bjørklid (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

technology commonly used

Would it be smart to add the technologies currently used in this field? I feel it could be helpful and give more of a grasp and helpful to adding more material to this page. Topazflute (talk) 03:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)