This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Campo de hielo sur" or (CHS) Should be included in this article. Its the biggest glacier in the southern hemisphere nfter the antartic ones. A lot of glaciers (of lesser importance) are named here, but not this one.
203.177.168.235 dumped the following at the bottom of the page:
That may be so, but it'll need some editing before it goes in the main article (height 250 miles?). I haven't the time right now so I moved it here. JTN 19:15, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Glacier Motion might needs to be integrated with glacier motion. The one I translated from es.wikipedia.com is more on why glaciers move, glacier motion describes historic movements and landscap transformation as result of the movement.
Maybe the articles should be consolidated. -- JuanPDP 06:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I just translated the "formation of glaciers" section and only after I was done did I bother to look at the English article already extant. It seems like we've got a significant amount of overlap between the English and Spanish articles, so what I'm going to do is excise the redundant Spanish paragraphs after I salvage any extra information. Might take a bit. Sadly, the paragraph I translated is going to have to go almost in its entirety. Fernando Rizo T/ C 22:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I left the following message on the es talk page:
Basically asking for clarification on what I think was a typo for the Spanish equivalent of "solar radiation". radicación is a word, but not one that makes sense to me in this context. Jmabel | Talk 05:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Does this spanish translation project really work by dumping a pile of spanish text into the en: pages and then slowly translating it out? That seems a rather poor way of working, because it trashes the article while you're working on it. Why isn't it done on a copy on the talk page or something? William M. Connolley 09:21:00, 2005-07-25 (UTC).
Come on, people. It's not that terrible to see Spanish in an article temporarily, is it? At least r3m0t's preserved the Spanish text somewhere; however, even that solution is suboptimal, because there's no indication of where those pieces fit in to the original article. This morning, I started translating a section where the last translator stopped mid-paragraph. How would I know where the rest of that paragraph was supposed to go, or even that it was part of another paragraph, if it weren't already embedded in the article?
Spanish Translation of the Week has always worked by taking an entire article from sp.wikipedia.org, pasting it into the corresponding space here, and then translating it piece by piece. It takes about a week or so to complete the translation, and then we move on to the next article. (There's a history of past collaborations at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week/History.) It is, IMO, the simplest, quickest, least confusing way to do this work. Can we continue to work that way here? If not, why not? -- Skoosh 17:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Since this is a matter that potentially impacts this project in general, it's probably more appropriate to continue this on the W:SPATRA talk page, where there is already an ongoing discussion on the same issue. -- Skoosh 19:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It was me that removed the spanish text from the article, and I realise now that I should have copied it somewhere. For not doing this I apologise, but you have understand that an article on the english wikipedia cannot be filled with spanish text! The main article space is entirely devoted to the readers, not the editors. You have to realise that like 99% of everyone that reads wikipedia is not an editor, they couldn't care less about WP:SPATRA. What kind of image does it present of wikipedia when they see a page like this? Many people even disagree that a COTW tag should be on the article! Why don't you work on it at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week/Glacier and translate there, and when you are done copy it into the article. That, or you could make a Talk: sub-page like Talk:Glacier/Spanish text and do it there. Again, I apologise for not doing this myself, I just figured one of you guys would be more comfortable doing it since it is your project. How about it? gkhan 21:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC) NB: I am not critical of the project itself, infact, I think it is marvelous idea. Keep up the good work.
I have proposed a solution here. Please leave your comments so that we may reach a consensus. — J3ff 01:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
gkhan, if you are "not critical of the project itself", couldn't you have commented out the material instead of deleting it? Because I promise, now that it is physically removed from the page, almost none of the participants in the translation project are going to find it anywhere else. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
What is the proper term for this in English? Here's a translation of the relevant passage, found under "Glacial Erosion":
=== Rocas aborregadas === These are formed by the passage of a glacier as it carves small hills out of protrusions in the bedrock. A protrusion of this type is known as a ''[[roca aborregada]]''. ''Rocas aborregadas'' are formed when glacial abrasion polishes the smooth incline that faces the glacial ice next to it, and erosion increases the steepness of the opposite side proportionately as the ice passes over the protrusion. These rocks indicate the direction of the glacier's flow.
"Roca" means "rock", and "aborregada", from what I gather, means "fleecy", or "like a sheep". Is this section talking about striation, or something else? -- Skoosh 15:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a geologist, but I have climbed in the French alps. It might well be what the French call a "roche moutonnee"... http://www.zephryus.demon.co.uk/geography/resources/glaciers/stria.html. I rather suspect that the English take over the french word. William M. Connolley 20:33:06, 2005-07-30 (UTC).
I've only encountered this word ("start" or "impulse") in the context of starting a car. So far, I've been eliding it, or replacing it with "motion" or "surge" or something else that flows naturally in context. I'm not sure if there's a specific term in English-language glaciology to replace it. Ideas? -- Skoosh 15:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Glaciology is a very poor article; maybe it's better off merged with glacier? Or else somebody who knows about it should at least tidy it up. Rd232 17:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, the rough translation is done. I've checked the article twice, and there's no commented text left (check it again, please, because I might have missed something). So, the only thing left to do is to go over the text with a fine comb. However, the following images need translation:
I've contacted Luis María Benítez, the original author of the images, and he is going to translate them tomorrow. I've been playing around with the SPATRA header to make it easier for him to find the images.
Good job, everyone! In spite of this week's controversy, we've finished another article. Pat yourselves on the back. :) -- Titoxd 03:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I've finally taken a look at the article now that the translation is complete (way too much going on for me to try and following along while it was in process). In my opinion, the article still needs a great deal of work. First off, the article no longer defines a glacier! It talks about glaciers - how they're formed, and various terms associated with them, but it no longer defines what a glacier is. The first section should concisely describe the subject of the article. I'll take a look back at the article pre-conversion over the next few days to see what I can incorporate back in. I had added a paragraph to the article defining Tidewater Glaciers and the formation of icebergs. That has been completely removed. I'll be making a comment on the Wikipedia talk:Spanish Translation of the Week page. -- Dan East 08:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I know you have problems translating some Spanish geologic terms, so here I show you all the words that you might come across when writing about glaciers. I was the author of the Spanish version of this article and I had to face lots of English terms that I learned. I also translated the text on the drawings I created. Take a look:
GEOLOGIC TERMS:
Lahar: Lahar*. (*): this term is not necessarily related to glaciers, but as you know, when volcanic eruptions take place in an underground volcano, the ice right upon it melts and starts flowing in a spectacular view. This receives the name of lahars, and it is also known in Iceland (where you have lots of volcanoes underneath glaciers) as jökullhaup. In fact, this term is also applied by English-speakers when talking particularly about Icelandic lahars.
MY DRAWINGS:
plucking,
drumlins,
glacial ice formation,
glacial weight effects,
glacial landscape,
Recedinc glacier landscape. I also uploaded no captioned versions so that these drawings could be used by other Wikipedia versions. See each description page. That’s all.
I have a subpage on the Spanish version with lots of drawings related to geology and other sciences. Take a look: Dibujos (Drawings). Please, feel free to contact me in case you need any help with this article. It is a pleasure indeed. Luis María Benítez 20:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I see that there is no mention of glacial retreat, which is the main glacial motion being observed in our time. Can this aspect have been an oversight? -- Wetman 22:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Does this belong on the page? "The largest glaciers are about the size of some overgrown gophers." Someone please revert.
The following is most confusing:
Can someone explain the upward deposition forces of the previous quote? It may be some glaciology jargon, but I envision sediments spurting up from the ice - propelled by some mysterious diapir like forces. What do we really mean? Vsmith 03:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Anybody able and willing to include an explanation of ice penitents and ice flutes formations, or initiate an article devoted to them? I don't feel able enough to do more than citing external sources, like this one.
Simply put, after a good web search as well as a visit to the forest service visitor center down at the Mendenhall glacier I dont get how this was removed. It's the cause of the deep blue in a recently calved glacier. The breakout of air compressed down for decades or centuries trapped in glacier ice that cause it to turn the whiter, normal ice shade as it's exposed. The fact that glacier Ice does this when your ice cubes dont is because of formation. Glaciers are commonly formed by snow compressed by more snow rather then water freezing. - M ask 06:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
after reading this i would recommend it to be re-written, slightly differently and including "types of glacial movement" including, laminar flow, internal deformation aswell as basal sliding, and the description of "plastic flow" which is internal deformation.
laminar flow is described but not named.
also, where is extending and compressing flow?...
a more clear distinction between how a polar and temperate glacier moves. and also about fluctuations around zero.
this all depends on whether this is a summary or suppose to be indepth
added section on last intergalcial period and an external link KonaScout 14:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The current definition on this page of a glacier is not very good. It contains too many relative adjectives "large", "slow moving" and "slowly deforms". Large compared to what? Slowly moving compared to what? I also feel the phrase "river of ice" is an analogy and not good for a definition.
I propose the following definition: "A glacier is a moving perennial ice mass that flows through a mountain valley."
It is simple and removes unneeded items required to define a glacier. -- Campbead 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Geologically and biogeographically, New Guinea and Australia are one continent - see Australia (continent). So there are still glaciers on all continents - though maybe not for much longer given the rate of melt on Puncak Jaya-- Gergyl 13:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should make a glacial article that is separate from this one, i.e one that discusses what the opposite of a interglacial is. It need not be very long, as this article discusses most of the physical properties of a glacial (e.g. advance of the glaciers). I think it should made though, to explain there are periods of advance and retreat within an ice age. ~ UBeR ( talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The second sentence ont the page reads: "Glacial" and "Glaciation" redirect here. There is no further explanation of these terms on the glacier page. According to the relevant chapter of Wikipedia:Redirect there should be at least a short sentence like e.g. "glacial refers to anything related to glaciers" and "glaciation is the process of glacier development or the coalescence of single glaciers into an ice sheet". Is there any special reason here no to do so?-- Jo ( talk) 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is clearly not of GA quality, as it has few references, and so I have delisted it. Please add inline citations. Johnfos ( talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is the bit about polar ice caps on mars in here? Seems a useless bit of trivia, and not really appropriate for the section. -- Iscariot40 ( talk) 06:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we get a definition of theidifference between an ice field and a glacier? Also, how about a listing of what US states have glaciers and which don't? Also, I'm interseted if there are any Eastern mountain glaciers (Mount Washington, Laurentians, etc.) TCO ( talk) 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest to include a section on glaciar melting, which is a very hot international topic by scientist ranging from geologists and environmentalists to biologists. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is to insert the word "possibly" in front of "Exacerbated by global warming" as this is not a factual statement as is but a popular opinion and is subject of debate among earth-scientists world-wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.159.77 ( talk) 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Toolbox ( | )
---|
This page needs alot of work. I will work through the entire text this week, correcting inaccuracies and filling in gaps. I will then add references. At that point it will need a look by someone else at the organization. Peltoms ( talk) 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mongo, I have removed the ice age section and wonder about removing the glacial geology, it is really a separate topic, we all know that article length is key, and would it be better to have these two covered in a separate topic? I have finished the first run through. I will do one more run through adding the references. Peltoms ( talk) 12:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
We will not worry about splitting it off until we see the final product. I have begun to add some references, I know exactly which ones to use as the original sources of some of the information, I will also use online references for ease of access. It is the formatting of these that I will at first not pay much attention to. Peltoms ( talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MONGO on the A class status of this article. It is pretty near to Good Article standard, therefore due to agreement of two separate reviewers from WikiProject Glaciers I am changing it back to A class Polargeo ( talk) 09:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for pointing out those two issues. I have dealt with them. Although in such a large article one citation needed tag surely doesn't warrent demotion to B class. I note Global warming has two citation needed tags and is a featured article. That was the only one I looked at, I'm sure there are many many others. Polargeo ( talk) 11:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi foks. I just created Ice calving. If anyone has time to give it a look-over, that would be great. I was slightly toasted when I made it and I'm sure it's full of errors. I searched the topic on Wiki first, but am not sure if there isn't already an article that covers this. If you know, please advise. Finally, there are about 300 articles that refer to 'calving' (excluding helping out pregnant cows). If you would be so kind and have a few minutes, linking a few here and there would be very helpful. Thanks all. Oh yeah, I didn't add anything about global warming in the article. Please feel free.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In this page, all of the images have a text explaining the country the picture is taken in, except one further down. It just says, North Cascades. I had no idea what this mysterious "North Cascades" is, so I clocked on the link. "Aah it's in the US, why doesn't it say?" The answer is simple. This text is not neutral. I've noticed this on many other pages too, so I will edit wherever find it. Don't revert my edits because many people does not know what the heck all of the things in the US are. -- 89.233.224.13 ( talk) 17:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.50.145 ( talk) 15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I just visited the discussion page on an unrelated subject and discovered i had a new message that revealed an edit i had made had been reverted (an edit made to the Glacier page)
Now I have never edited this page (in fact i don't recall ever having visited it before today)
Why is my username being sullied? 58.169.239.32 ( talk) 03:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Another general question: a picture of a "black ice" glacier in the article begs the question; what makes the ice black? Can't seem to find the answer, other than roadway black ice. Ebrockway ( talk) 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
"Conversely, areas of the Arctic, such as Banks Island, and the McMurdo Dry Valleys in Antarctica are considered polar deserts, as they receive little snowfall despite the bitter cold." I think this is wrong. Certainly, the dry valleys are kept dry by katabatic winds (as their article says). The actual snowfall there isn't too relevant (depending on exactly what you mean by it) William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following:
because the it was not on the page number noted, because the source is from 1938, and because the source seems to be pseudoscientific theories on racial superiority. The title of the chapter beginning on p. 59, for example, is "Glaciation and the Supremacy of Europe". I haven't read enough to conclude it's a racist book, but it seems to tend towards this direction. I think it should be dropped. Ufwuct ( talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
References
There was a proposal, dating back to December 2009, to merge Ogive (glacier) with Glacier#Ogives. It was never discussed, but there was nothing in the former that was not done better in the latter. I have therefore performed the merge. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Making an article better is not just about removing content like this. While some of the edits recently made have been improvements, nothing has been added to the references, so the article, while it did need a lot of work before, seems to be going a bit backward now. This is a pretty broad subject that is a top-importance rated article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Glaciers so what it needs is to be comprehensive. It is no way near a Good Article level at this point and may need to be downgraded from "B"-class to "C"-class.-- MONGO 02:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The Thule_Air_Base entry mentions active glaciers (without a link), and there's a bunch of other entries that do, some implying this refers to one with an area larger than some (unspecified) threshold. Is there anyone who knows what the threshold is, and may be able to add a definition to this entry? The Crab Who Played With The Sea ( talk) 15:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I see this article has several diagrams. I note, however, that this one is missing. Perhaps editors more familiar with this topic can judge whether it is worthy of being added? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Campo de hielo sur" or (CHS) Should be included in this article. Its the biggest glacier in the southern hemisphere nfter the antartic ones. A lot of glaciers (of lesser importance) are named here, but not this one.
203.177.168.235 dumped the following at the bottom of the page:
That may be so, but it'll need some editing before it goes in the main article (height 250 miles?). I haven't the time right now so I moved it here. JTN 19:15, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)
Glacier Motion might needs to be integrated with glacier motion. The one I translated from es.wikipedia.com is more on why glaciers move, glacier motion describes historic movements and landscap transformation as result of the movement.
Maybe the articles should be consolidated. -- JuanPDP 06:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
I just translated the "formation of glaciers" section and only after I was done did I bother to look at the English article already extant. It seems like we've got a significant amount of overlap between the English and Spanish articles, so what I'm going to do is excise the redundant Spanish paragraphs after I salvage any extra information. Might take a bit. Sadly, the paragraph I translated is going to have to go almost in its entirety. Fernando Rizo T/ C 22:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I left the following message on the es talk page:
Basically asking for clarification on what I think was a typo for the Spanish equivalent of "solar radiation". radicación is a word, but not one that makes sense to me in this context. Jmabel | Talk 05:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Does this spanish translation project really work by dumping a pile of spanish text into the en: pages and then slowly translating it out? That seems a rather poor way of working, because it trashes the article while you're working on it. Why isn't it done on a copy on the talk page or something? William M. Connolley 09:21:00, 2005-07-25 (UTC).
Come on, people. It's not that terrible to see Spanish in an article temporarily, is it? At least r3m0t's preserved the Spanish text somewhere; however, even that solution is suboptimal, because there's no indication of where those pieces fit in to the original article. This morning, I started translating a section where the last translator stopped mid-paragraph. How would I know where the rest of that paragraph was supposed to go, or even that it was part of another paragraph, if it weren't already embedded in the article?
Spanish Translation of the Week has always worked by taking an entire article from sp.wikipedia.org, pasting it into the corresponding space here, and then translating it piece by piece. It takes about a week or so to complete the translation, and then we move on to the next article. (There's a history of past collaborations at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week/History.) It is, IMO, the simplest, quickest, least confusing way to do this work. Can we continue to work that way here? If not, why not? -- Skoosh 17:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Since this is a matter that potentially impacts this project in general, it's probably more appropriate to continue this on the W:SPATRA talk page, where there is already an ongoing discussion on the same issue. -- Skoosh 19:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
It was me that removed the spanish text from the article, and I realise now that I should have copied it somewhere. For not doing this I apologise, but you have understand that an article on the english wikipedia cannot be filled with spanish text! The main article space is entirely devoted to the readers, not the editors. You have to realise that like 99% of everyone that reads wikipedia is not an editor, they couldn't care less about WP:SPATRA. What kind of image does it present of wikipedia when they see a page like this? Many people even disagree that a COTW tag should be on the article! Why don't you work on it at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week/Glacier and translate there, and when you are done copy it into the article. That, or you could make a Talk: sub-page like Talk:Glacier/Spanish text and do it there. Again, I apologise for not doing this myself, I just figured one of you guys would be more comfortable doing it since it is your project. How about it? gkhan 21:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC) NB: I am not critical of the project itself, infact, I think it is marvelous idea. Keep up the good work.
I have proposed a solution here. Please leave your comments so that we may reach a consensus. — J3ff 01:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
gkhan, if you are "not critical of the project itself", couldn't you have commented out the material instead of deleting it? Because I promise, now that it is physically removed from the page, almost none of the participants in the translation project are going to find it anywhere else. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
What is the proper term for this in English? Here's a translation of the relevant passage, found under "Glacial Erosion":
=== Rocas aborregadas === These are formed by the passage of a glacier as it carves small hills out of protrusions in the bedrock. A protrusion of this type is known as a ''[[roca aborregada]]''. ''Rocas aborregadas'' are formed when glacial abrasion polishes the smooth incline that faces the glacial ice next to it, and erosion increases the steepness of the opposite side proportionately as the ice passes over the protrusion. These rocks indicate the direction of the glacier's flow.
"Roca" means "rock", and "aborregada", from what I gather, means "fleecy", or "like a sheep". Is this section talking about striation, or something else? -- Skoosh 15:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a geologist, but I have climbed in the French alps. It might well be what the French call a "roche moutonnee"... http://www.zephryus.demon.co.uk/geography/resources/glaciers/stria.html. I rather suspect that the English take over the french word. William M. Connolley 20:33:06, 2005-07-30 (UTC).
I've only encountered this word ("start" or "impulse") in the context of starting a car. So far, I've been eliding it, or replacing it with "motion" or "surge" or something else that flows naturally in context. I'm not sure if there's a specific term in English-language glaciology to replace it. Ideas? -- Skoosh 15:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Glaciology is a very poor article; maybe it's better off merged with glacier? Or else somebody who knows about it should at least tidy it up. Rd232 17:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, the rough translation is done. I've checked the article twice, and there's no commented text left (check it again, please, because I might have missed something). So, the only thing left to do is to go over the text with a fine comb. However, the following images need translation:
I've contacted Luis María Benítez, the original author of the images, and he is going to translate them tomorrow. I've been playing around with the SPATRA header to make it easier for him to find the images.
Good job, everyone! In spite of this week's controversy, we've finished another article. Pat yourselves on the back. :) -- Titoxd 03:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I've finally taken a look at the article now that the translation is complete (way too much going on for me to try and following along while it was in process). In my opinion, the article still needs a great deal of work. First off, the article no longer defines a glacier! It talks about glaciers - how they're formed, and various terms associated with them, but it no longer defines what a glacier is. The first section should concisely describe the subject of the article. I'll take a look back at the article pre-conversion over the next few days to see what I can incorporate back in. I had added a paragraph to the article defining Tidewater Glaciers and the formation of icebergs. That has been completely removed. I'll be making a comment on the Wikipedia talk:Spanish Translation of the Week page. -- Dan East 08:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I know you have problems translating some Spanish geologic terms, so here I show you all the words that you might come across when writing about glaciers. I was the author of the Spanish version of this article and I had to face lots of English terms that I learned. I also translated the text on the drawings I created. Take a look:
GEOLOGIC TERMS:
Lahar: Lahar*. (*): this term is not necessarily related to glaciers, but as you know, when volcanic eruptions take place in an underground volcano, the ice right upon it melts and starts flowing in a spectacular view. This receives the name of lahars, and it is also known in Iceland (where you have lots of volcanoes underneath glaciers) as jökullhaup. In fact, this term is also applied by English-speakers when talking particularly about Icelandic lahars.
MY DRAWINGS:
plucking,
drumlins,
glacial ice formation,
glacial weight effects,
glacial landscape,
Recedinc glacier landscape. I also uploaded no captioned versions so that these drawings could be used by other Wikipedia versions. See each description page. That’s all.
I have a subpage on the Spanish version with lots of drawings related to geology and other sciences. Take a look: Dibujos (Drawings). Please, feel free to contact me in case you need any help with this article. It is a pleasure indeed. Luis María Benítez 20:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I see that there is no mention of glacial retreat, which is the main glacial motion being observed in our time. Can this aspect have been an oversight? -- Wetman 22:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Does this belong on the page? "The largest glaciers are about the size of some overgrown gophers." Someone please revert.
The following is most confusing:
Can someone explain the upward deposition forces of the previous quote? It may be some glaciology jargon, but I envision sediments spurting up from the ice - propelled by some mysterious diapir like forces. What do we really mean? Vsmith 03:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Anybody able and willing to include an explanation of ice penitents and ice flutes formations, or initiate an article devoted to them? I don't feel able enough to do more than citing external sources, like this one.
Simply put, after a good web search as well as a visit to the forest service visitor center down at the Mendenhall glacier I dont get how this was removed. It's the cause of the deep blue in a recently calved glacier. The breakout of air compressed down for decades or centuries trapped in glacier ice that cause it to turn the whiter, normal ice shade as it's exposed. The fact that glacier Ice does this when your ice cubes dont is because of formation. Glaciers are commonly formed by snow compressed by more snow rather then water freezing. - M ask 06:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
after reading this i would recommend it to be re-written, slightly differently and including "types of glacial movement" including, laminar flow, internal deformation aswell as basal sliding, and the description of "plastic flow" which is internal deformation.
laminar flow is described but not named.
also, where is extending and compressing flow?...
a more clear distinction between how a polar and temperate glacier moves. and also about fluctuations around zero.
this all depends on whether this is a summary or suppose to be indepth
added section on last intergalcial period and an external link KonaScout 14:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The current definition on this page of a glacier is not very good. It contains too many relative adjectives "large", "slow moving" and "slowly deforms". Large compared to what? Slowly moving compared to what? I also feel the phrase "river of ice" is an analogy and not good for a definition.
I propose the following definition: "A glacier is a moving perennial ice mass that flows through a mountain valley."
It is simple and removes unneeded items required to define a glacier. -- Campbead 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Geologically and biogeographically, New Guinea and Australia are one continent - see Australia (continent). So there are still glaciers on all continents - though maybe not for much longer given the rate of melt on Puncak Jaya-- Gergyl 13:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we should make a glacial article that is separate from this one, i.e one that discusses what the opposite of a interglacial is. It need not be very long, as this article discusses most of the physical properties of a glacial (e.g. advance of the glaciers). I think it should made though, to explain there are periods of advance and retreat within an ice age. ~ UBeR ( talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The second sentence ont the page reads: "Glacial" and "Glaciation" redirect here. There is no further explanation of these terms on the glacier page. According to the relevant chapter of Wikipedia:Redirect there should be at least a short sentence like e.g. "glacial refers to anything related to glaciers" and "glaciation is the process of glacier development or the coalescence of single glaciers into an ice sheet". Is there any special reason here no to do so?-- Jo ( talk) 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is clearly not of GA quality, as it has few references, and so I have delisted it. Please add inline citations. Johnfos ( talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Why is the bit about polar ice caps on mars in here? Seems a useless bit of trivia, and not really appropriate for the section. -- Iscariot40 ( talk) 06:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Could we get a definition of theidifference between an ice field and a glacier? Also, how about a listing of what US states have glaciers and which don't? Also, I'm interseted if there are any Eastern mountain glaciers (Mount Washington, Laurentians, etc.) TCO ( talk) 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I strongly suggest to include a section on glaciar melting, which is a very hot international topic by scientist ranging from geologists and environmentalists to biologists. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion is to insert the word "possibly" in front of "Exacerbated by global warming" as this is not a factual statement as is but a popular opinion and is subject of debate among earth-scientists world-wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.159.77 ( talk) 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Toolbox ( | )
---|
This page needs alot of work. I will work through the entire text this week, correcting inaccuracies and filling in gaps. I will then add references. At that point it will need a look by someone else at the organization. Peltoms ( talk) 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mongo, I have removed the ice age section and wonder about removing the glacial geology, it is really a separate topic, we all know that article length is key, and would it be better to have these two covered in a separate topic? I have finished the first run through. I will do one more run through adding the references. Peltoms ( talk) 12:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
We will not worry about splitting it off until we see the final product. I have begun to add some references, I know exactly which ones to use as the original sources of some of the information, I will also use online references for ease of access. It is the formatting of these that I will at first not pay much attention to. Peltoms ( talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MONGO on the A class status of this article. It is pretty near to Good Article standard, therefore due to agreement of two separate reviewers from WikiProject Glaciers I am changing it back to A class Polargeo ( talk) 09:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for pointing out those two issues. I have dealt with them. Although in such a large article one citation needed tag surely doesn't warrent demotion to B class. I note Global warming has two citation needed tags and is a featured article. That was the only one I looked at, I'm sure there are many many others. Polargeo ( talk) 11:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi foks. I just created Ice calving. If anyone has time to give it a look-over, that would be great. I was slightly toasted when I made it and I'm sure it's full of errors. I searched the topic on Wiki first, but am not sure if there isn't already an article that covers this. If you know, please advise. Finally, there are about 300 articles that refer to 'calving' (excluding helping out pregnant cows). If you would be so kind and have a few minutes, linking a few here and there would be very helpful. Thanks all. Oh yeah, I didn't add anything about global warming in the article. Please feel free.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 07:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
In this page, all of the images have a text explaining the country the picture is taken in, except one further down. It just says, North Cascades. I had no idea what this mysterious "North Cascades" is, so I clocked on the link. "Aah it's in the US, why doesn't it say?" The answer is simple. This text is not neutral. I've noticed this on many other pages too, so I will edit wherever find it. Don't revert my edits because many people does not know what the heck all of the things in the US are. -- 89.233.224.13 ( talk) 17:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.50.145 ( talk) 15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I just visited the discussion page on an unrelated subject and discovered i had a new message that revealed an edit i had made had been reverted (an edit made to the Glacier page)
Now I have never edited this page (in fact i don't recall ever having visited it before today)
Why is my username being sullied? 58.169.239.32 ( talk) 03:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Another general question: a picture of a "black ice" glacier in the article begs the question; what makes the ice black? Can't seem to find the answer, other than roadway black ice. Ebrockway ( talk) 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
"Conversely, areas of the Arctic, such as Banks Island, and the McMurdo Dry Valleys in Antarctica are considered polar deserts, as they receive little snowfall despite the bitter cold." I think this is wrong. Certainly, the dry valleys are kept dry by katabatic winds (as their article says). The actual snowfall there isn't too relevant (depending on exactly what you mean by it) William M. Connolley ( talk) 19:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I removed the following:
because the it was not on the page number noted, because the source is from 1938, and because the source seems to be pseudoscientific theories on racial superiority. The title of the chapter beginning on p. 59, for example, is "Glaciation and the Supremacy of Europe". I haven't read enough to conclude it's a racist book, but it seems to tend towards this direction. I think it should be dropped. Ufwuct ( talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
References
There was a proposal, dating back to December 2009, to merge Ogive (glacier) with Glacier#Ogives. It was never discussed, but there was nothing in the former that was not done better in the latter. I have therefore performed the merge. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Making an article better is not just about removing content like this. While some of the edits recently made have been improvements, nothing has been added to the references, so the article, while it did need a lot of work before, seems to be going a bit backward now. This is a pretty broad subject that is a top-importance rated article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Glaciers so what it needs is to be comprehensive. It is no way near a Good Article level at this point and may need to be downgraded from "B"-class to "C"-class.-- MONGO 02:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The Thule_Air_Base entry mentions active glaciers (without a link), and there's a bunch of other entries that do, some implying this refers to one with an area larger than some (unspecified) threshold. Is there anyone who knows what the threshold is, and may be able to add a definition to this entry? The Crab Who Played With The Sea ( talk) 15:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I see this article has several diagrams. I note, however, that this one is missing. Perhaps editors more familiar with this topic can judge whether it is worthy of being added? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)