Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Glaciers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Glaciers

This article is within the scope of the Glaciers WikiProject, a collaborative WikiProject related to glaciers and glaciology worldwide. It may include the Glacier infobox. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
NA This article has been rated as NA-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Infobox

I think an infobox for glaciers would be a good idea. The box would need space for an a banner at top with perhaps a bluish color, an image, a image caption, the type of glacier, location, area, length, coordinates and anything else anyone can think of. It's not mandatory and there is no hurry, but it might add a nice touch.--MONGO 08:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that There is a very basic infobox for many Norwegian glaciers as shown at Okstindbreen, and there is a different infobox at Columbia Glacier, Alaska and at Taku Glacier. --MONGO 12:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming clarification

Thanks for joining the project. I thought that there are enough articles on glaciers that a project was possible. Just to do some clarifications, I think an ice field and an ice cap are different things. Generally, an Ice cap is a body of ice that is larger than a Glacier, is more continuous, but is smaller than an Ice sheet. Modern ice sheets would include only Greenland and Antartica...but of course, much of Siberia, northern Europe and North America were also once under ice sheets. I think that ice cap is also used for larger mountain based areas of continuous ice. I may have to work on clarification of these major definition articles to clear up what they should say to differentiate themselves. An Ice field is more ambiguous...not sure what the differences between it is and the other definitions, but I'll try and figure it out. I think you probably alreay know all of this, so excuse me if I'm coming across as condescending. The Ice field and Ice cap definitions must be avaiable somewhere. I mean we have Columbia Icefield, Wapta Icefield, Waputik Icefield and we also have the Quelccaya Ice Cap...but they appear to be pretty much the same things...each has outflow, or outlet glaciers and are smaller than icesheets. I suppose how we spell the terms may matter too...I mean, is it Icefield; Ice field....Icecap; Ice Cap...you get the picture...there is much work to do. We'll have to work to standardize the naming based on some universally accepted style, that glaciologist also use to define the terms.

I also saw you suggested we change the name of the List of glaciers to something else, which may be fine but let me see if there is a better name then either of us has come up with. That list was started some time ago, so I'll try and ask those that worked on it earlier what their thoughts are.--MONGO 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. While I agree there's a clear-cut defintion between ice sheet and ice cap, it seems that ice field and ice cap are analgous (or, in the case of ice field]]) vague enough to combine into one article. It seems the heirarchy, in terms of size, of bodies of ice is:
  1. Ice sheet
  2. Ice cap/Ice field
  3. Glacier

What do you think? Jarfingle 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi...thanks for responding...I was looking at NSIDC's website and on this page under "I" they are quite helpful in determining common terminology. I would agree with you that there is little if any difference between an icecap and an ice field aside from their definition that an icecap is "larger than and ice field but less than 50,000 km² (12 million acres)" I also clicked on the ice field link and it states that "icefield: a mass of glacier ice; similar to an ice cap, and usually smaller and lacking a dome-like shape; somewhat controlled by terrain". Like I said, and not being an expert myself, I would tend to agree that icecaps and ice fields are the same thing, but perhaps there is enough of a difference they do deserve to be classified differently. Now when I created the short article about the Quelccaya Ice Cap, I spelled Ice Cap in two words, but that website combines them...the don't combine icefield, instead keeping it as two words...whereby the three article also listed above have the wording icefield as one word...so my articles are backwards from their spellings.....so here's some google info to see what is the best used terminology:
  • "Columbia Icefield" [1] 211,000 hits
  • "Columbia Ice Field"[2] redirects me to Columbia Icefield
  • "Quelccaya Icecap" essentially redirects to "Quelccaya Ice Cap" as well...I dunno...I suppose any wording will do...but the NSIDC is usually a very informative source so I'm confused. Let me email User:Peltoms who is the glaciologist that was instrumental in helping us bring Retreat of glaciers since 1850 to FA level and see what he has to say on the matter...he may however be in in the field doing research so a response from him may be slow or we may not get one at all.--MONGO 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. I think the generic ice field is supposed to be spelled as ice field, however, despite this, many official place names (see Juneau Icefield, Columbia Icefield) are officially named with no space. In fact, I think a majority of ice fields in context of official names are spelled without a space. I ran into a similar problem with LeConte. Supposed to be spelled with a space (see Joseph Le Conte), however many placenames (LeConte Glacier, LeConte Bay, M/V LeConte) are spelled without the space. — Jarfingle 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that when in a proper name,the words tend to be combined. I just emailed Peltoms, but he may or may not respond. It's probably trivial nothingness...but what you mentioned last on my talk page sounds like a good working standard. Maybe we can transpose this to the project talk page too? It's kind of empty over there. I also invited Peltoms to join the project.--MONGO 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
An ice cap is not just size it is an area in which the topography of the glacier controls flow, hence it tends to be on a relatively flat plateau or lowland. An icefield, I would use one word as has been noted, flow is controlled by the surrounding mountain topography.Peltoms 12:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not officially listed as a participant, I have this talk page watchlisted and may check in from time to time... I think there is an important technical distinction between an ice cap and icefield (also note the one-word spelling). The distinction relates to how topography influences flow of the ice. An icefield is strongly influenced and constrained by the underlying bedrock topography, whereas an ice cap takes on more of a dome-like shape and looses the influence from the underlying topography. [3] I would need to consult some paper-based sources to come up with more of an explanation than this. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, an icefield often have nunataks poking through the surface, whereas ice caps do not. [4] Possibly, we could use an article on glacier morphology that explains these differences and the various types of glaciers. Then, perhaps articles such as ice cap can go in more depth, and list notable ice caps. Same for icefields, and other types. Sources I recommend drawing from for this include Glaciers and Glaciation by Douglas I. Benn, David J. A. Evans, and there's the more technical Physics of Glaciers by W. S. B. Paterson which is often cited in scholarly literature. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Very good points and that is most helpful....I had forgotten about the nunatak being a methodology of distinction. My understanding is that ice caps were also more generally more likely to be mountain based and icefields less so. Good references too, so thanks for chiming in!--MONGO 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a stub, glacier morphology, which should go in more depth to the glacier types than in the main glacier article. Won't have much time to work on it in the next couple weeks, but may come back to it at a later time. Of course, anyone is welcome to work on it. In creating this stub, I noticed some other missing articles, such as ice calving.

The spelling difference (icefield vs. ice field) seems perhaps to be a regional thing, with Canadians using "icefield". (this also shows up in Benn and Evans book, though David Evans is Canadian). NASA, USGS, et al. also seem to prefer "icefield", as does Science (magazine) [5]. As such, "Southern Patagonia Icefield" for example turns up 433 google hits [6], where as "Southern Patagonia Ice Field" returns 44 [7] (including Wikipedia). This difference also holds with Google Scholar. [8].

As for ice caps in mountainous terrain?

Aside from the many red links, hope this helps clarify that "Ice caps" aren't necessarily specific to mountaineous terrain, but more to the contrary. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 'icecap' tends to imply that the glacier is to some extent dome-shaped/convex. An 'icefield' (all one word), is an expanse of ice, normally at high elevation, that is essentially flat. At least that is my understanding. Icefields tend not to occur in Europe but besides the notable Alaskan cases you might also want to look up New Zealand's Garden of Eden and Garden of Allah icefields. Nunataks occur on icecaps too; for example several Icelandic icecaps, many Norwegian icecaps etc. Glaciologists often use the local terminology.130.237.175.198 12:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] InfoBox Question

Hi MONGO, I was curious in the Glaciers Infobox under type if, for say a tidewater glacier, I should list the type as "tidewater glacier" or "valley glacier"? I think pretty much all tidewater glaciers are valley glaciers, but that's just me. Jarfingle 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

NSIDC states that a valley glacier is: a mountain glacier whose flow is confined by valley walls...and a tidewater glacier is: mountain glacier that terminates in the ocean[9]...not sure if their definition is law or anything, but maybe that will help define it...maybe we need to bascially identify 4-6 or so major "types", explain them on the project page of the template page for the infobox and that way it will be easier for people to figure out. I'm not beholden to any wording or formatting about anything on this project, so if you think something needs to be fixed, never hesitate to do so...this project belongs to everyone. If you think something needs to be added to the infobox or anything else, go for it.--MONGO 04:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC
I would agree that zone of ablation should be ablation zone and we need an accumulation zone page. You create these and I will populate the two articles. Tidewater seldom applies to non-valley glaciers but it does, so it is best to leave them separate. It is similar to surging in that it can apply to a valley glacier but is more of a speicific conditions. Similarly polar glaciers as compared to temperate glaciers, this distinguishes them by temperature.Peltoms 12:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking over lots of data, what I also find is that Ice caps not only include large areas on mountaintops, but is applied to areas such as the Greenland Ice Cap...which is pretty much the entire island. Icefields seem to include areas where there are numerous glaciers that are not even connected to each other. Hopefully we can get the spelling correct and use proper naming conventions.--MONGO 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, me again. 'Tidewater glacier' should very definitely be seperate from 'valley glacier'. A tidewater glacier is strongly influenced by tidal effects both in terms of it's dynamic behaviour and in terms of it's mechanical stability. In practical terms they also generate icebergs which is of more than passing interest to anyone passing by in a boat. Valley glaciers whilst being much more populous are also regarded as duller. It is not a good time to be an Alpine glacier as all those dudes in Alaska get all the press :-(

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sea ice & drift ice

Please voice your opinions about their merge proposal in Talk:Sea ice#Merge proposal. `'mikkanarxi 02:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox and Userbox

Hi folks, I decided to be bold and alter the look of the project page somewhat. I added the Template:Infobox WikiProject and I've also created a userbox for the project.

This user is a member of the Glaciers WikiProject.

  {{Template:User WikiProject Glaciers}}


I hope these changes are OK with everyone. Thanks. --Seattle Skier 22:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks very good...thank you for the addition.--MONGO 04:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I'll add it to the project page, if no one minds. ~ UBeR (talk)

[edit] Misfit streams

I have made some improvements to this article and wonder if it is now better than a stub-class article. This is the first time I've done this, so if someone else would like to have a look and see if I've got the right idea, that would be great. Thanks. Milton25 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it to have at least three references or more data before it is considered a start level article. Otherwise, it looks good...nice picture too.--MONGO 04:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Why use Acres?

[edit] Geology Project

This project should be a part a bigger project dedicated to geology. Currenly all geology related articles, including volcano, earthquake, minerals, glaciers related articles are all over the places in don't have a common roof. If you are interested, please sign up to help establish the Geology Project. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Geology. Solarapex 21:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that a Geology WikiProject would be very useful, but I don't think that this project needs to be part of a bigger project. I think it is doing quite well on its own, right? I think that any potential new Geology WikiProject should concentrate on improving those areas and articles which are outside the scope of existing WikiProjects such as this one or WikiProject Volcanoes, including articles about non-glacial and non-volcanic geological features and rocks. That would provide the maximum benefit without disrupting current projects, and interested editors could simply join both projects.
Please also realize that starting, setting up, and maintaining a productive WikiProject is a major effort, and it will take a large degree of long-term commitment and large amounts of time to make it a success. --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I do realize all this, this is why I'm looking for help. The ultimate goal of the Geology project would be to organize the existing geology articles, establish links with sister or daughter projects such as ones listed above. Keeping this the it is now is not an alternative. This is something that just needs be done now. Otherwise, as Wikipedia grows it'd be much more difficult task to sort and organize all these things, hence, more unlikely to be even started as such. It's already overdue. On the other note, this is not like starting a brand new project. Like I said, there are existing projects in other Wikipedias (e.g. Russian). They can be used as an examle. I did invite those people to participate, but the problem is they may not have good knowledge of English. Solarapex 23:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Water distribution inaccuracies

Water distribution on Earth, Fresh water, Antarctic ice sheet, all have contradictory to each other information on distribution of fresh water on Earth. I, personally, trust this source, which cites Gleick, P. H., 1996: Water resources. In Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, ed. by S. H. Schneider, Oxford University Press, New York, vol. 2, pp.817-823. (Igny 16:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Microformats in Infobox

I've added an hcard microformat (per WP:UF) to {{Infobox Glacier}}. Changing the coordinates to use {{coord}}, instead of coor dm, as I've done on Columbia Glacier (Washington), will cause them to display in the title bar also (if the "display" property is set to "display=inline,title") and to appear as a geo microformat. Andy Mabbett 19:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cirque and Corrie

Please see Talk:Cirque for this disputed merger. The way, the truth, and the light 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect of Cirque glacier to Cirque

Cirque glacier is a distinct type of glacier, with each glacier type having an article. A cirque is a related, but separate thing (it's the landform type, which may or may not include a glacier. As such, I don't think a redirect is acceptable, but am open to discussion at Talk:Cirque glacier. --Aude (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding the infobox

A decent question regarding adding altitude parameters to the infobox for the highest and lowest points for each glacier has been made here. I think this is a good idea, so long as blank parameters continue to show up blank. I'd do this myself, but not sure how to adjust the template.--MONGO 06:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any experts?

Hello. Are there any glaciologists or anyone with particular knowledge on the pleistocene glaciation? I would enjoy some help on one or two articles I'm trying to progress. Thanks. ~ UBeR 16:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uber, User:Peltoms is a professional glaciologist...you can request assistance directly on his talkpage, but he is an infrequent participant at times due to his work. He was instrumental in bringing Retreat of glaciers since 1850 to FA status.--MONGO 16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the information, MONGO. ~ UBeR 19:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could someone look at Nisqually Glacier

I saw these changes which said that the Nisqually Glacier "is advancing at the rate of 18 feet per year". I found it incredible so I did a little reading. I didn't find any source describing such advancing but I found a few which described a thickening of 18 feet per year. They referenced the same abstract in the Washington Geology Journal. I added these detail to the article here. The abstract predicted that the glacier would begin advancing in this decade. This is the opposite of everything I have read about glaciers in Washington State. If you are familiar with recent writings on the Nisqually Glacier could you review the facts in the article . Thanks, PatLeahy (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Argentina-Perito Moreno-Glacier.jpg

I've submitted a request to have Image:Argentina-Perito Moreno-Glacier.jpg delisted as a featured picture on Wikipedia. Since this project claims it as one of your featured images, this is a courtesy note to inform you of Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/Image:Argentina-Perito Moreno-Glacier.jpg. Please feel free to comment. - auburnpilot talk 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of glaciation

Hey, guys. I was trying to organize the articles on Wikipedia that deal with historical glaciation into a list. You can see what I've got here. You can read more details and help expand at the subpage. Thanks for any help. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hellloooooo

Hi, does anyone work with this project anymore? Anyway, I've got a rather ambitious project going at Quaternary glaciation. Check it out. This is a very important topic (our current ice age--what could be more relevant to this WikiProject?). Because of such an important topic, I would like to get this article to FA, or at least GA! But I can't do that without your help! A lot has already been done, but there's more work to do. Help me in getting this important article to FA status, will ya? ~ UBeR (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] type:glacier added for glacier coordinates

Following WT:GEO#type:waterbody for rivers, glaciers, WP:GEO#type:T now includes "type:glacier" instead of "type:waterbody" for glaciers. "type:waterbody" is mainly used for lakes. Some of the glaciers were using "type:landmark". Coordinates will be updated to include this. Sample coordinates:

{{coor at dms|46|26|32|N|8|04|38|E|region:CH-VS_type:glacier}}

which would render on Aletsch Glacier as:

46°26′32″N, 8°04′38″E

and display coordinates on the top corner of the page. -- User:Docu