Talk:Hellenic Trench

Limnology and Oceanography Low‑importance

	Oceans portal This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Hellenic Trench is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Infobox fault

These trenches do not have boxes so I picked out the one I think is best. Trenches contain convergence boundaries which are faults. I considered infobox basin but it didn't seem as relevant. Some of these infoboxes aren't kept up and get out of order. On this one some of the parameters don't match the specifications where the pushpin maps are concerned. I don't like pushpin here anyway, so I'm commenting those specifications out. I can't get at the code anymore (I could long ago). I used to stick in box width parameters with a default of the fixed width it had. No one would notice the change. You have to be able to set width! Otherwise you can't really design in a cool manner. In the creation of these boxes some people think all these parameters are beyond the capacity of the user so on the sly they coded them out, thus diminishing the original capability. Bad idea.Botteville (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created by subduction, but not a subduction zone

This trench, or group of trenches, are created by extension within the forearc of the subduction zone and are not a surface manifestation of the subduction zone itself. Mikenorton (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. I note your tags and will try to get the appropriate educational sources. If not, those paragraphs can come out. I would prefer them in, but if you want the refs I need to find them. Geologic writing is tough going for non-geologists and I think we need to help the reader any way we can. This is not a problem for you geologists but WP is not only for the geologists, I believe. We do not want a purely geologic article but one that also educates in geology, as I see it. Certainly, your status as a geologist does give you an edge. I look forward to more of your comments.Botteville (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Norton, you force me to put the whole article in a few paragraphs up front. Can't do it. These ideas have to be developed; meanwhile, the reader has to be patient while they unfold. I do appreciate your critique and will try to respond as best I can. I left off at the beginning of subduction zone structure so that tag will be there while I develop it. My subsequent section will be on the geologic history of the trench and then I think the ecology section should be expanded. That is where we are headed unless I see or think of something new. Your UP said you are working on stubs. That is basicically what I am doing too at least in my geologic effort. I have other efforts, neglected right now. Bonne chance.Botteville (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trench not a subduction zone

OK on that as it standsBotteville (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Research and the geologic vocabulary" section and other issues

This section is in my view excessive, there's a much bigger discussion in that section on the terminology than there is in the subduction article and this article isn't even about a feature directly related to subduction. The whole "Hellenic subduction zone" section needs trimming right down I think. There also needs to be more on the terminology - the western part of the trench is variously called the "Hellenic Trench", the "Ionian Trench" and the "Matapan Trench". At least one of the eastern trenches has an alternative name, the "Southeast Cretan Trough" instead of the "Ptolemy Trench", a "Southwest Cretan Trough" has also been described - these last two are in Sakellariou et al 2013 and Gallen et al. 2014. Mikenorton (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Sorry. The content of other articles can't be used as a standard for this article - most of the other articles are in terribly bad shape. If you are going around fixing stubs, you did not get very far. If you are going to suggest material belongs in another article, that is fair game, but the material has to be there. The subduction article has a couple of paragraphs and is basically a stub. I said before, this is a geology education article. If we remove explanations or clues to the geologic terms the article is not going to be comprehensible and will end up with an incomprehensibility tag. The subduction article is not adequate and needs to be made adequate. Until it is I think the vocabulary explanations should stay. "Arctuate" is rare so I am leaving that.

How can you say this article is not directly related to subduction? At least 50% of the articles I see attribute the trench to the subduction. The first two refs quote from two of those aticles. I know there are different views but as far as I can see they are not in the ascendant. Everyone with some data and a view publishes it in language only a geologist can be comfortable with. We should present them to the ordinary people no doubt but our policy is to maintain a balance. If there is a difference in credible views we need to present it. I'm against omitting the classical view that the trench is the direct result of subduction. That is referenced material.

The names of the trenches. What you present above are not the names of the whole trench, but are only specific parts of it. They should be in there in proper place but no one has written that place yet. I am just starting on that. Alternative names certainly should be presented. One of the articles I read spent a whole section on alternative names. What we should not do is argue about which alternative name should have exclusive presentation. Present them all! But, we can't be applying the name of a basin near Crete to a basin near the Peloponnesus. The names you cite are geographically local. If you want me to do it I certainly will consider what you say. You can do it also; in that case, I will evaluate what you say. Bottom line is that I have not got that far yet. If you are impatient, try writing some fresh material yourself. If you are leaving it to me (or someone), then thanks for the hint. I certainly will respond at the appropriate place and will look up your web sites. I have mainly spent my time this morning replying to this post. Ciao.Botteville (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The subduction article is rated "B class" and its very definitely not a stub in any ordinary understanding of that word. A short etymology section would be a useful addition, however. The place for such text is not in this article.

OK, that is doable. I will have to switch over to "subduction" for a while. Not long I hope. Nevertheless I still insist on either notes or parenthetical expressions giving the reader a heads-up on the meaning of a linked term or unlinked technical term. I will have to go through what I have done again to make sure it is clear without undue puzzlement. Not only that, but in geology there are still unsettled matters presented in WP as settled, such as the cause of back-arc extension. The reader needs to be given some idea that they are still open.Botteville (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should certainly mention that the trench has been interpreted to be a "trench" in the normal plate tectonic use of the term and to some extent still is interpreted that way. A quick run through of the first 100 papers in a google scholar search after 2009 gives : 31 that definitely show that the trench is not a plate boundary, 11 are less clear but still support that view, 39 give no clear view, 5 suggest that the trench is a subduction zone and the remaining 14 explicitly support that view. So, overall, roughly two to one. It is notable I think that several papers went out of their way to point out that the trench(es) are not trenches in the normal plate tectonic sense, despite earlier interpretations. In contrast, not one paper that gave the opposite view mentioned the alternative. Mikenorton (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is impressive labor. Too bad it is not the sort of thing you would bring up in the article. It is nevertheless useful in determining what to say. I only want to point out that the issue is still open without getting into how many believe what. That is something I do not see geologists generally doing. Typically they present their research as the way it is. Of course it is tough for us WP editors to spot all the problems. As long as you think more like a WP editor than a geologist selling a view I probably will continue the joint effort. By the way 100 articles is a bit more than I anticipated reading. So, I probably will not get into every issue and phenomenon, but only try to present and make sense of some generalities. It seems as though the article will be longer at that. Well, I have work to do. Wish I had more time.Botteville (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]