Talk:Intertidal zone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Requested move and merges

Intertidal, intertidal ecology, foreshore, and littoral are all terms that describe the same habitat. Intertidal zone is the most straightforward (and most common) title. Unfortunately, separate articles have been made for each term. Much of the information is redundant, and what's not should be consolidated into one article for accessibility. Anyone disagree? bcasterline t 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Support --Stemonitis 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom. Duja 17:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Support per nom. David Kernow 11:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Support Theflyer 16:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I don't think these things can be merged. Littoral is used in many countries as a substitute for coastal area, so it it not universal. Foreshore is a loose term that can mean different things in different places, but at best is a part of the intertidal zone. Intertidal ecology is an aspect of what happens in the intertidal zone. If you want the biologically correct terminology, then eulittoral zone is more correct. However, most people use intertidal zone. (I am a marine biologist who has researched and taught about intertidal ecology for around 20 years). Dkeats 08:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Support I think that Dkeats actually gives good reasons why a well-written article would properly show how these different terms explain different aspects of the same region. Perhaps the best thing would be to move the bulk of the information to Intertidal Zone and leave the remaining sections standing with a link to that page, but a sentence or two explaining what is different about the "foreshore"... Eulittoral zone is another fine term, but refers to a specific portion of the intertidal zone. I don't see any particular reason that this entry should exclude the important biology that occurs in the "swash" (supralittoral) zone. The point isn't that a single term is the only appropriate one, but to make sure that people don't add information to a page that is completely redundant to the same information on a different page with a regionally-different title. Many of these suggestion are subdivisions based on individual users' particular areas of focus. mooseo 21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I strongly feel this only should be consolidated if it goes into the entry with the most technically correct name. Using the common/uneducated/ignorant term is a pedagological failure and promotion of ignorance. Many people who are poorly educated complain about the usage of polysyllabic terminology and ask why one should not use simple words in place of a single precise one (the answer is that it is a single word rather than multiple paragraphs). This would be a move that leads to yet more ignorance and is a poor choice as suggested. sdemerch 19:02 30 May 2006 (PDT)

Not exactly disagreeing with you, but what would you suggest is the "most technically correct name?" The consolidation that needs to occur is to fix the exact problem that you are railing against; there are several entries discussing the same basic region of the world due to overspecificity. "intertidal", "littoral" and "foreshore" all have the same definition, and usage is generally regional. --mooseo 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved; you'll have to merge yourself, though. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the littoral and intertidal zone can be, but are not necessarily, the same place. If you are speaking of the ocean then they are often one and the same; Freshwater lakes and rivers, on the other hand, generally do not have intertidal zones while they do have littoral zones. It would be fairly insulting to limnologists and freshwater biologists as well as inaccurate to merge these catagories. 21 June 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.222.158 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 June 2006.

Good point; I forgot about that. No offense meant to limnologists and freshwater biologists. Littoral zone should cover freshwater, while intertidal zone covers the ocean shore. -- bcasterline • talk 01:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tend to agree with merge (but into Littoral zone. However non-tidal regions need to be covered. I'd suggest merging all into Littoral zone, and having separate sections for Tidal and non tidal regions if necessary. How does that sound?HappyVR 17:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As the US Navy has a major program initiative using the term "littoral" to describe missions that diifer from the deep water (blue water) navy, i.e. coastal and major rivers and deltas and lakes outside U.S., the definition fits, and should remain as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boblyons (talk • contribs) 23:58, 29 June 2006.

Oppose 85.138.0.158 21:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the merege that has already take place is Intertidal to Intertidal zone. I agree that the others should be merged in as well. Also, what about Rocky shore, which is a v short stub along the same lines. Inner Earth 07:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree merge.HappyVR 17:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: As "Intertidal Zone" applies mainly to oceans and "Littoral" applies also to rivers and streams, I don't think they should be merged. Much of the information that could be added under "Littoral" have little or no bearing on "Intertidal Zone"

partially oppose. intertidal ecology is a big enough topic to stand on its own. Littoral is a freshwater term. foreshore could be merged into intertidal Architectsf 19:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

oppose: In physical oceanography littoral includes the depths to about 200m, regions defined by signifigant tidal flows and energy dissipation. The US Army Corps Engineers and EPA have another yet another set of definitions, and these have legal implications. rmo13 02:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)