Talk:Pacific Ocean/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

size

Which is it, 65 mln sq mi or 69? Intro or overview is correct? PLease fix 218.208.216.242 (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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:

• A map from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Good point also just saw that there is a discrepancy. Frist thought that in the larger value maybe there are all islands included (new zealand, japan, parts of indonesia, etc). But this would not explan this great difference ! I will work on this !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.193.137.59 (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

History and economy

This section is poor. What is the meaning of "independent states" and "Pacific"? Why are some countries arbitrarily excluded/included? Including the PRoC but excluding the RoC makes no sense; including Australia seems ridiculous as it borders the Indian, Pacific and Southern oceans; if PNG is in the Pacific, why is Indonesia not, nor Brunei or Malaysia? There are three sensible options: (a) to list every country wholly contained within the Pacific Ocean; (b) to list those countries within and bordering the Pacific Ocean; or (c) to scrap this list altogether. 125.238.28.190 (talk) 11:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I chose to scrap the list and have revised this section to make it acceptable, however, I believe it is still incomplete and needs some expansion; I have marked it with the corresponding template message. – Dskluz (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Volume

What is the volume of the Pacific Ocean? Data about area is almost worthless. Anwar (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Surface area of a body of water is not "worhtless", as it impacts both the rate of evaporation and the Earth's albedo. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also considerably easier to measure accurately than volume. Orpheus (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

East, West and Central Pacific?

I wonder whether or not these should be inplemented into the article. They co-exist in the expansion of the Great Pacific as there is a South and North Pacific, that is mentioned in the article. The sub-categories of East, Central and West are utilized in geographical format, especially when referring to the hundreds of islands spread throughout the Pacific. Would anyone else feel that this is important enough to be added?
--User:RekonDog 11:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tides?

The word tide isnt even mentioned once in the article...might it not be a good idea to at least link it somewhere? or even have a section for the tides in the pacific ocean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.164 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

This has me scratching my head: "The equator subdivides [the ocean] into the North Pacific Ocean and South Pacific Ocean, with two exceptions: the Galápagos and Gilbert Islands are deemed wholly within the South Pacific." 203.213.20.103 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed it myself. 203.213.20.103 (talk) 06:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Surface Area Inconsistent

The surface area of the Pacific is mentioned twice, in two places, and it's not exactly the same number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.132.2.244 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Original Name isn't Latin

Tepre Pacificum isn't Latin, but a macaronic of Latin and Portuguese. -114.91.70.153 (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On the subject, article could use discussion of original naming. Official documents used "Southern Ocean" well into 19th century, although Wiki doesn't note that and instead has an article devoted to an imaginary Southern Ocean instead. Can anyone find a source on the various names in Spanish, English, & French (maybe also Chinese, though they might not have known of it as an ocean before getting Western maps) for the Pacific? -114.91.70.153 (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

enviromental features

there are lods of them 3

of the enviromentyal features 1)biggest 2)deppest 3)most watter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.127.171 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is is worthwhile to mention also that the Pacific Ocean is also a regular dumping spot for lower stages of rockets, expendable experimental hypersonic vehicles, and deorbited sattelites, and other space vehicles? What about the potential impact of possible toxicity of certain components of those crafts to the marine environment? Life is short, but the years are long! (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Specification of Area.

The second paragraph opens with ..."At 169.2 million square kilometres (65.3 million square miles) in area," and then the first paragraph of the "Overview" section says "...having an area of 179.7 million square kilometres (69.4 million sq mi ..." they are both defining the area of the ocean, is there a border dispute, or are there two cited figures, and if so, shouldn't we state that fact ?

It makes me wonder, too. And, most of all, there are no sources in both cases. Wizardist (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubious: 25,000 islands more than the rest of the world combined

It is dubious that the Pacific contains more islands than other oceans. Archipelago Sea in Finland contains 50,000 and Canadian Arctic Archipelago has 36,000. Ufwuct (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

vandalism

Like many other pages, this one has been the location of vandalism. I removed it, 3/29/06 (2:57pm CST)

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?

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.

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

View of the Pacific Ocean from Oregon

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.

specific temperatures

If I could get specific temperatures and precipitation for the north and west pacific seperately that would be great.

"Tepre pacificum" hoax

I've never heard of a Latin word tepre before, so this part made me curious. The citation given says nothing of the sort, so I figured that there had been some sort of vandalism in the past, presumably changing Mare pacificum into Tepre pacificum. Sure enough, this is exactly what I found, and is the source of the whole confusion: Voilà, the vandal edit. From September 2009! The shocking thing is that this nonsense has been allowed to stay for so long. Apparently Wikipedians who are competent in Latin or Portuguese rarely read such articles. No-one became suspicious – until now. What did happen in the meanwhile was that an IP decided that because tepre isn't Latin, it has to be Portuguese. So the anonymous contributor made something up about a "Luso-Latin" macaronic expression, in this edit. The next edit was another editor slapping a "citation needed" on the sentence, sensible enough, for somebody with no clue about Latin or Portuguese at least, who would otherwise have got rid of the whole mess long ago. The next step was another IP adding a reference instead, a Catholic Encyclopaedia article about Magellan, while conveniently overlooking the fact that it does not say what the article says. Eventually, someone decided to get rid of the "macaronic" nonsense and this is how we got to the version I got to see.

Sadly, during my searching the web just to make sure that there wasn't really some word tepre I was simply ignorant of (before I discovered the origin of this poppycock), I discovered that the hoax had spread over countless websites already, while predictably, there was no indepedent confirmation of the word to be found. All hits were either something totally different or clearly derived from Wikipedia (the vast majority, as apparently tepre isn't even a word or name in any major language, or at best something utterly obscure). This shows the power of Wikipedia to spread bullshit and misinformation, and the special responsibility we Wikipedians have. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well done. Bazonka (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

First European to sight the Pacific ocean ??

Surely European visitors to china in the 12th or 13 centuries sighted the pacific, ocean. Maps of Marco polo's journeys have him traversing pacific waters. The Wikipedia( as of 23/1/2012) article on marco polo even shows this on a map on that page.

Paul G garpg001@bigpond.net.au — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.41.10.1 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I've amended the article to show that the east of the ocean was discovered in the 16th century, not the whole ocean. Bazonka (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

--- why am I sseing "If you go to the bottom you will find a graveyard of fat people." at the top of the page. I tried to delete it but it didnt appear in the edit box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.176.73 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Chinese of course maped the whole sea and gave the appropriate names as : the blue and vast sea, the peaceful sea. see the map "Shanhai Yudi quantu " in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.152.189 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014

68.33.236.141 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)jbvjkuvgiguovjdbvJIVBFVLKJFGVBF ;JVKHV;JKNVLGVAF BFF JAFD\

• Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox body of water

any reason that this article doesn't use Template:Infobox body of water ?? EdwardLane (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Center of Water Hemisphere?

The statement "Both the center of the Water Hemisphere and the Western Hemisphere are in the Pacific Ocean" appears to be inaccurate. From my knowledge, the center of the water hemisphere is located somewhere in Antarctica or the Southern Ocean. And, even if I'm wrong there, the information doesn't seem particularly necessary. Quizzical Waffle Ninja (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pacific Ocean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512140621/http://www.centerforoceansolutions.org/?q=projects%2Fpacific-ocean-initiative%2Fmajor-threats-pacific-ocean%2Foverfishing-and-exploitation to http://centerforoceansolutions.org/?q=projects%2Fpacific-ocean-initiative%2Fmajor-threats-pacific-ocean%2Foverfishing-and-exploitation

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pacific Ocean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421015555/http://www.pwlf.org/pacific.htm to http://www.pwlf.org/pacific.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080322122025/http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?p=1&query=monsoon&submit=Search to http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?p=1&query=monsoon&submit=Search

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pacific Ocean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160923134705/https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/PacificStudies/article/viewFile/9369/9018 to https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/PacificStudies/article/viewFile/9369/9018

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

EEZ map request

This article could use a map that actually visualizes all the places that there are and aren't islands, and which countries they belong to. This is hard to do because the ocean is so big and the islands are so small, but plotting EEZs might help (and would be informative anyway), like File:Territorial waters - World.svg but with labels like [2] and focused on the Pacific like [3]. -- Beland (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Map Projection

What projection does the map in the infobox (File:Pacific Ocean - en.png, right) use, in order to show both poles? Should this be included in the image caption? ‑‑Yodin^T 10:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—183.20.190.31 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

You haven't said what fixes are needed. If you think that the coordinates in the article are incorrect (which they don't appear to be), please supply a clear explanation of the problem. Deor (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

not neutral etymology

I find this sentence West-centered:

Though the peoples of Asia and Oceania have traveled the Pacific Ocean since prehistoric times, the eastern Pacific was first sighted by Europeans in the early 16th century when Spanish explorer...

The sentence should not be in the form of: "Though <people from other cultures done something in the X century>, <Europeans done it in Y century>..." as if the exploration before Europeans was less significant, like it was some sort of preludium to the European explorations. Instead, there should be: "<people from other cultures done something in the X century>. <Europeans done it in Y century>." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.95.100.18 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Pacific Ocean

There is a ocean which is not mix by Pacific Ocean but is next to it. It is Atlantic Ocean 157.119.47.100 (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Well done. Bazonka (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of cities from Infobox

Recent IP edits by User:125.160.117.163 and User:180.252.123.241 have removed numerous large cities from the "cities" field of the article's Infobox, including Hong Kong and Shanghai. Only one edit provided a summary: "Removed because far from the Pacific Ocean". Being two very large ports on the Pacific, they would appear to be top candidates for inclusion. But perhaps there is some other protocol regarding inclusion in the Infobox:cities list that I am missing. Wondering what others think. Thanks, Declangi (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I would advocate for the inclusion of those cities, considering they are definitely active port cities on the Pacific. I understand we can’t include every coastal city, but those are both well-known and relevant, so their removal strikes me as odd, especially for the reason given for one. Bookbarnacle (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bookbarnacle: many thanks for your comment. Now being a while since I opened this discussion, I've restored Hong Kong, Shanghai and Vladivostok to the list. Declangi (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 7 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vallion04. Peer reviewers: Elyybeth.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)