Jump to content

Talk:Artificial reef

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Benthic

[edit]

"including structures purposely built for use as marine benthic habitat are used."

I looked at Benthic zone and I am confused. Aren't artifial reefs built above the benthic zone? --Gbleem 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, demersal would be a more correct term to use than benthic, you are correct. demersal refers to habitats/species which are integrally tied to the seafloor, but not directly on or in it- species like cod, and many coral reef fish. Hope that helps--Jkrumholz 18:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reef Balls

[edit]

Is it me, or is reefer turning into a bit of a PR piece for the Reef Balls and their foundation? --Badger151 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you. Unless a reliable source can be provided that shows
  1. Not only that this company has coverage but
  2. Also that they are important enough in the "artificial reef circle" do be mentioned by name (multiple times!) on this page,
Don't hesitate to scrub it off the article.
brenneman 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reef Balls play a pretty significant role among purpose built artificial reef technologies. I added a mention back into the article, but kept it low key. I hope you find this to be a reasonable compromise--Jkrumholz 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Designed reefs --> reduction in costs?

[edit]

How does a designed reef cost less than using materials of opportunity, if by their definition, materials of opportunity are available, while a designed reef must be sought and designed? --Badger151 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It cost over $3 million dollars to scuttle the USS Oriskany. Mostly because it costs tons of money to turn something that isn't supposed to be a reef into something that will work as a reef (removing oil and hazardous chemicals, towing, blasting etc...), compared to just building it as a reef in the first place --Jkrumholz 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think other better designed products should have a chance to be featured such as: EcoSystems www.reefmaker-ecosystems.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reefmaker (talk • contribs) 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Artificial Reefs

[edit]

A lot of this article has been pruned and some of the sections may well have needed to be cut, but I think the article has really been gouged without any opportunity for discussion. I think it would be worth adding back the notable artificial reef section to provide readers links to examples of what can constitute an artificial reef. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlroller (talk • contribs).

First, what exactly constitutes a "Notable" reef? Are you talking about external links? - brenneman 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. The one I was particularly thinking of was the link to the USS Oriskany article. The artificial reef portion of that article could certainly use further development, but it is also a great example of how some artificial reefs are formed. I think the multitude of links to these ReefBall thinks was worth cutting, but if there are any wiki articles on one or two of those they might be worth putting back in too. Would be better if they could be incorporated as part of the article rather than as a list, but I found the links helpful and was disappointed to see them cut.croll 23:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, /* Looks in page history */ I see the bit you mean now. I removed that bit becaue it was just a laundry-list jumble to my eyes. I'd have no objection to it being fleshed out as prose. - brenneman 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
K.  :) I put in back in as a paranthetical in the introduction. croll 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag

[edit]

This article needs some attention for structure. It lacks headings, the flow of information is poor- the same topic is discussed in several places with no rhyme or reason instead of under a heading. In general, this article seems poorly written, but no so poor as to need a rewrite. Phasmatisnox 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responding, I've done a copy edit without any particular meaning change. There was unnecessary qualification of numbers: When numbers in round figures, readers assume they are approximate, unless told otherwise. The external links were contrary to WP:ELNO -- Wikipedia is not a free promotional site for any organization related to the topic, nor is it a linkfarm.
Someone commented out a large section of informal Original Research, starting with "FIRST UNDERWATER SCULPTURE PARK". As it happens, I was just looking at this series of photos in the Atlantic.[1] The underwater sculpure is rather striking (alarming, perhaps, lol), but obviously Wiki can't use those photographs, and it might be appropriate to have a single brief sentence about it -- not the couple paragraps that are commented out. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problem regarding artificial surfing reefs

[edit]

This text which I removed is clearly NPOV and needs some fixing and references before it can be added to the article again: "The information evolving has been getting "censored" by commercial operators who wish to expand the patent ASR product to a world Market and are threatening acedemic research (for which one reef was approved for) which may show undesirable atributes to the overall project. Confidence has been shattered in the prospect of sustainable "perfect surf" in sand circumstances as sand particles will do as they will not what computer models wish then to do."63.197.134.209 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eco-coral

[edit]

I thought this text was suspicious and removed it from the page. Maybe someone can find some cites for it and achieve NPOV?

Or, then again, maybe not. cheers, Mote (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text is a copyright infringement of http://www.artificialcoral.org/reefproducts.html, so I have removed it from this page too. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


HMAS Adelaide

[edit]

I removed this from the article as this ships is currently being scuttled. 217.128.185.22 (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the ex HMAS Adelaide (FFG 01) has now been scuttled, I recently re-added this artificial reef along with a tidying up of the other 5 former RAN ships scuttled as dive wrecks including the addition of a sub-section for Australia.Cowdy001 (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Ship graveyard to 'See also'

[edit]

Hi, I have added Ship graveyard to the 'See also' sub-section, because where I live, the relevant government agency considers scuttled ships (including those deliberately sunk as artificial reefs)to be abandoned ships and their resting places to be ships' graveyards. I recently updated the Ship graveyard article to reflect changes to the government agency's website which contains details of all of these ships. Cowdy001 (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Artificial reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Artificial reef. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artificial reef. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 02:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Artificial reef. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 00:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FADs

[edit]

Why do fish prefer artificial reefs over natural ones? And if they leave another reef, doesn't that leave food for other fish?

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Artificial reef. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Artificial_reef&oldid=1205376757"