Chemical oceanography has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Science, Earth science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Stub-Class.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of oceans, seas, and bays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OceansWikipedia:WikiProject OceansTemplate:WikiProject OceansOceans articles
Other : add ISBNs and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from Aral Sea; check La Belle (ship) for GA status; improve citations or footnotes and remove excessive or inappropriate external links from MS Estonia
Chemical oceanography 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
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
I agree with merging and improving... how about something like:
1) Geochemical cycling
2) Global biogeochemical cycles
3) Biogeochemical cycling in the water column and in the sediments
4) Marine chemistry on other planets and their moons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65Eq (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no consensus. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to merge Ocean Chemistry and Marine Chemist into Chemical Oceanography. I have added merge from templates to the Ocean chemistry and Marine chemist articles, and a merge to template to Chemical Oceanography. I am in favor of this merger, which will improve the quality of information on Chemical Oceanography and Wikipedia as a whole. I recognize Wikiproject Limnology and Oceanography as the relevant Wikiproject for this subject, and I have proposed this merger on that page as well. The history of merge requests on the talk page of Chemical Oceanography indicates a consensus for this action, which I propose to be carried out by the WPL&O community pending further discussion. OHClNaMg (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a non oceanography person I would say that Marine chemistry would be a better target topic -- its what folks are more likely to search for -- its the thing that people are going to find. As for the distinction between profession and topic: I suggest trying to keep them separate, and rebuild the chemist or the field of study (this) article around the different parts of the profession distinct from the subject they explore. Sadads (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOcean chemistry and Chemical oceanography have roughly the same average daily pageviews (with Ocean chemistry slightly higher - see here). Marine chemistry redirects to Ocean chemistry and about 20% of traffic comes from Marine chemistry redirects (see here). Very few redirects for Chemical oceanography (see here). Jayzlimno (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems a good idea to merge but as another non oceanography person I would say that "Chemical oceanography" seems slightly too technical as an article title. A title ending with "chemistry" might be better for, say, a high school student reader. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles are individually such a mess that "merging" them would just mean creating one seriously big mess. I'm not sure that would be an improvement. People have been copying huge slabs from other articles that simply miss the mark. It would be great to have a competent chemical oceanographer around, even if only directing from the sideline. Oh well... There is a case for retaining both chemical oceanography and ocean chemistry providing the articles were to be written properly. Chemical oceanography is a significant professional field, and needs its own article. The article could talk about things like the paraphernalia of the chemical oceanographer, associated sampling techniques, remote sensing, and the use of oceanographic ships and ROV's. And it could talk about things that mark chemical oceanography apart from other fields of chemistry. For example, the discourse of the chemical oceanographer and it's grand obsessions with DOC, POC, DIC, PIC, DOM, POM, DIM and PIM. The article on ocean chemistry would then be freed up to be just that, an article focusing on what is actually known about ocean chemistry. Sorry. I don't seem to have anything practical to say here. — Epipelagic (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support a merger of sorts - I would support a merger of Ocean chemistry to somewhere. This article is actually very short because the section on human impacts is just excerpts from elsewhere. The only "unique" section is this one: "Marine chemistry on earth". I am wondering if perhaps it should just be merged to ocean (perhaps some of it is already there anyhow)? EMsmile (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
