Talk:Littoral zone

Add PO definition

In physical_oceanography the littoral zone refers to coastal regions of significant tidal flow, frequently extending to the continental shelf break, or to depths of nearly 200 m. The physical processes generally include non-linear flows, internal waves, river outflows, oceanic fronts, and submarine canyons. rmo13 02:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Supralittoral, Sublittoral

Supralittoral zone and Sublittoral zone don't seem to have much going on, and even rehash some material that belongs here. ENeville 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would add that there is reason to merge littoral zone, in turn, with other articles. See Talk:Intertidal zone. ENeville 22:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems a good idea to me - merge the articles and put in redirects, having seperate articles for all the different zones is unnecessary fragmentation, a single article covering zones in general makes much more sense.Trewornan 00:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• yes, merge them, theyre all similiar, so merge them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.181.107 (talk) 03:39, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
• No leave them separate. They are usually treated separately in marine biology experiments and papers, and they are linked here any way so it's easy to get from one to the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.240.111 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, sublittoral should be merged. It has very little information of a normal encyclopedic type and, apparently, few/no editors have been interested in responding to improve the existing article. I take no position on which article sublittoral should be merged with, whether littoral, or intertidal, or what. But one article covering zones of the beaches, Intertidal zone, etc. of theContinental shelf would be more useful, it seems to me. N2e 20:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• No, keep them separate. They are ecologically and biologically distinct, and it would be possible to expand each article with a discussion along these lines. For example many species of seagrass form extensive meadows in the sublittoral zone, but don't occur in the other zones. Seagrass meadows are of course an important habitat for some marine fauna. And so it goes, giving the sublittoral zone its own distinct character. Hesperian 11:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• No, keep them separate. For anyone researching this topic they are extraordinarily different and will be searched for as different topics completely. Each separate one could have its own content if a user were to take the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcg414 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Defining the littoral zone

The term littoral zone is used in ways that sometimes seem confusing. Look at these google definitions! Anyway, I have expanded the article and tried to thread a way through the confusion. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems / suggested improvements

I think there are a number of problems with the article at the moment (mainly in terms of structure rather than content). I'll try and have a go at sorting it out when I have the opportunity, but for now I'll just list what I think needs fixing, so that those who know more about the subject can comment.

1: The diagram - refers to the military definition (which seems to be a minority meaning, at least by the importance placed on it in the rest of the article), and more importantly it is easy to see any details without expanding it.

2: The intro: jumps around from saying that definitions vary, to the etymology, to saying that definitions vary (again).

3: "Overview": only talks about the land part of the littoral zone.

4: "Lakes" section: says that in lakes, "other definitions are used" - but this is the first section were any detailed definitions are given.

5: "Military" section: says that the littoral zone is divided in different ways, and points to the diagram, but doesn't actually explain what these differences are. Also there is no citation (at least until you actually click on the image, and no details or citation for the statement that "The US Army Corps Engineers and EPA have their own definitions, and these have legal implications".

My suggestions for improvements:

1: Replace the "Military definition" diagram with a more general (and easier to read) version, give each definition a diagram.

2: Reorder/rewrite the intro to say something like "In coastal environments and biomes, the littoral zone is a term for the zone that extends from the high water mark (which is rarely inundated) to shoreline areas that are permanently submerged. There is no single definition: use of the term varies depending on context (marine environments vs. rivers and lakes), discipline (scientific, military or legal) and country." (And then go into the etymology).

3: Overview: rename this "General characteristics", and describe the particular physical and biological features of the littoral zone, including inter-tidal and sub-tidal parts.

4: Definitions:

Marine biology/oceanography should go first, because it has the most information.

Then the river/lake definition, which really ought to say whether or not "under 15ft" is a common/universal definition or specific to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and there ought to be a citation for the statement about "because the high amount of sunlight". (I'm not disputing it, but it isn't in the previously cited document).

Then the military definition, which needs to be expanded to say what the US ACE and EPA definitions are and what their legal implications are (with citations), and whether other countries' militaries have other definitions. - Wardog (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wardog. This article needs some significant improvements. The image file posted as being from the U.S. Navy, may very well originally have come from there, but the link to the page it came from is now 404 not found. Also, the image currently appears on page 504 of Geosystems by Christopherson (Publisher: Peirson - Sixth Edition), where it may have been used under "fair use" but I have not been able to confirm.

Interestingly, the image, along with the Navy's definitions are exactly what is used to describe Littoral Zone in the book. According to Christopherson, it isn't different from the definition given in the book. It is however much different from the definition given here. The book describes the zone, in oceanic context, as extending from the highest waterline that occurs during a storm, to where the water is too deep for sea floor sediment to be moved by a storm. Someone may want to refer to that book, as well as some others.

Christopherson's book is a college level text.

Clearly troublesome is the complete lack of any citations at all for the actual definition section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.90.100 (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some good points. The article clearly needs citations. The article is trying to thread a middle way through the confusing mess of approaches to the littoral zone (and there seems to be nary a citation for that task!). How the term is used depends on who is using it. Christopherson, well that's in the context of oceanography, and the definition he gives is compatible with the definition already in the article for oceanography. Definitions for the littoral zone around lakes vary, and perhaps several could be cited to illustrate this. The Minnesota one is just a local definition, and even within Minnesota, a lentic ecologist studying benthic life would probably use a different definition to a geologist studying sedimentation. If you want to add detailed definitions for the military, please do so. And decent diagrams are always welcome! You are more than welcome to improve the article. And maybe, if I get time, I'll have another crack at it too. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edits

This revert is unacceptable [1]. The revert puts back in place bolding for terms that are not synonyms for the article title, breaking the guideline MOS:BOLDTITLE. It also reinserts text that is already in the daughter article, breaking the guideline about sub-articles. Lastly, it's impolite to revert good faith edits. Demanding consensus for minor cleanups is plain nonsense and smacks of WP:OWN. FurrySings (talk) 09:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Your rudeness deserves no response, but I'll make a few points. Firstly, you instruct me in an edit summary to read WP:BRD. Read it yourself; you are the one who did not follow its recommendations. Secondly, exactly where in MOS:BOLDTITLE does it say that you cannot use bold in the main body of an article? Thirdly, exactly where in the guideline does it say that a parent article cannot have text that is duplicated in a sub-article? It is necessary and not impolite to revert good faith edits when they are misguided. However, your revert of my reversion was impolite, as are your arrogant comments on my talk page. Your further revert, not waiting for a reply here, is outright edit warring. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Apparently you are someone who can dish out rude behavior, but can't take any pushback. Since you ask, and appear unwilling to lookup the guidelines for yourself, I will quote the guidelines. MOS:BOLDTITLE states, "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles are placed in bold", WP:MOSBOLD states, "Boldface (text like this) is common in Wikipedia articles, but only for certain usages. ... (a list of usages follow: Article titles, Table headers and captions, Terms listed in list articles, Synonyms and Redirects to the article within the first few paragraphs, Mathematical objects, Journal Volume Numbers)" It ends, "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis in article text." FurrySings (talk) 10:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSBOLD specifically says that bold can be used to "identify terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article (or section of an article) which are the targets of redirects" (italics added). The bold terms you removed are, or should be, the targets of redirects. You made no attempt to answer the third question: Which guideline says that a parent article cannot have text that is duplicated in a sub-article? Nor have you acknowledged the roughshod manner in which you rode over WP:BRD. Your changes are way out of process, and you should revert them until such times as consensus has been reached here. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Please, those sections have dedicated articles -- synonyms should be directed at the dedicated articles. Since I do not see you asking for permission on article talk pages before making changes to articles, I cannot believe that you are arguing in good faith. I'm going to ignore you now. KTHXBYE, FurrySings (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have for the second time left a message on your talk page asking you to continue the discussion here. What does "those sections have dedicated articles -- synonyms should be directed at the dedicated articles" mean? That seems confused. You also seem confused about how Wikipedia operates, and you really need to sit down quietly and take in some of the relevant essays and guidelines. Your continuing accusations that I am acting in bad faith are themselves a form of bad faith. You told me to read WP:BRD but you are the one who is not adhering to it. You are the one who made the changes to a long established article. When they were disputed and reverted, you should have allowed the reversion to stand until such time as the matter had been resolved here, on the article talk page. That is what WP:BRD is about. But you didn't do that, you reverted the revert, made insulting comments on my talk page, and then continued to edit war, even escalating the matter by making further disputed changes. You assert there are guidelines that support the changes you have made, but you cannot point to where they support your changes. There is nothing wrong with you making changes to an article without seeking consensus. But when someone such as myself objects in good faith to some of your changes, then you must counter the objections or allow your changes to be reverted. You cannot have it both ways. If you still believe the guidelines support the changes objected to, then you must show where the guidelines do that. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Littoral as human geographic zone

This page has to serve historian-geographers for whom the term littoral is well-established as a large swath of territory surrounding a major body of water, such as the Mediterranean or the Black Sea. I do not know where to begin to add such a portion to this because this article is solely given over to the oceanographic interpretation. Separate article, new section, what? Who can make such a decision? --Nlight2 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well the article discusses the use of the term in marine biology and by the military as well as in oceanography. Additionally, it says the term derives from the Latin litoris meaning "shore". But if you think this does not do justice to the way historians and geographers use the term, and that they have instead well defined but different uses for the term, then be bold and add the section you think is missing. It will be fine to make the decision yourself, so long as you enter relevant text with reliable sources. However, I suspect that historians and geographers generally use the term somewhat vaguely and without specific precision, piggybacking somewhat on established uses of the term elsewhere. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)