This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harmful algal bloom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Whit5022.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Dlehdwns516.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
So I think this should be merged with red tide. Red tide is a colloquial term for a scientific phenomenon. We should redirect red tide to here. What say the rest of you guys? OptimistBen 04:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"I think they should remain separate for clarity of understanding. Red tides are regional, mainly marine, (salt water) and are caused by various organisms clearly named in that article. Harmful algal blooms refer to a much broader category, can be fresh or salt water and are caused by a much wider variety of organisms. The existing links from one article to the other are more than adequate to enable a person to focus on the most appropriate area of study." Photojack53 08:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree they should remain separate. Although the terms 'harmful algal bloom' and 'red tide' are often used interchangeably, this usage is incorrect and there is a trend among the HAB community to move away from this.-- Bosco911 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
These are two terms referring to the same phenomenon, and they should definitely be merged, regardless of any terminology nitpicking. The "Red tide" article is bigger and more comprehensive, while the HAB article is a mere stub created to advance a particular viewpoint (that the term "Harmful algal bloom" is allegedly "more scientific"). There are no citiations substantiating this alleged superiority, and Google yields only 103K hits for "harmful algal bloom" as opposed to 722K for "red tide"--a clear indication that "red tide" is the more common term. While you may personally feel that it is inaccurate, please do not use Wikipedia as an instrument for pushing your agenda.
See also the Wikipedia guideline about merging, and note that the article in question fulfills not merely one, but all four of the criteria listed for merging articles--this is more than enough. The proper way would be to mention the alternative name and its rationale in the article (this has already been done), merge, then recreate the HAB page as a redirect to the merged article.
I replaced the appropriate merge tags; I'll wait a week or two for input, then I'll go ahead with the merger. Freederick ( talk) 11:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
HAB is definately more correct scientifically-this refers to blooms of algae that are harmful or potentially harmful. About 300 species of microalgae are reported to form mass occurrences, so-called 'blooms', and nearly one-fourth of these species are known to produce toxins (from Hallegraeff et al. 2003. Manual on Harmful Marine Microalgae. UNESCO). Red tide is a term used colloquially to describe blooms of non-toxic species as well: Noctiluca being one example that produces fine red coloured blooms. Halfsnail ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC).
Fully agree. As a 'non specialist' user who just came in here to understand what's going on off the coast of Oman at the moment, there does not appear to me to be any need for two separate articles. Just make Red Tide a subset of HAB and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.245.5 ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC) sure why not you
HAB is a diffrent phenomenon than Red Tide, so lets just give red tide a more scientific name and get it over with.
I fully and compleatly agree! They are two related, but seperate subjects that should be kept apart! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.54.197 ( talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) While not exactly the same it would be better to have both together. Most will look them up for the same reasons - the toxins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.18.119 ( talk) 03:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I think both should be seperate for clarity and understanding Preyus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.89 ( talk) 10:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
So here's the current situation. We have three articles:
I don't know what a more appropriate organisation is, but the current organisation is clearly counterproductive. For example, all three of them describe causes of algal blooms:
This redundancy is a problem. I'm going to boldly propose that all three of these articles be merged into a single article, with sections for the "red tide" term and harmful blooms in particular, unless there is significant disagreement. If you disagree, please suggest a different organisation. It may be that three articles is fine, but the content needs to be reorganised to eliminate redundancy. Dcoetzee 01:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I would support merging all three pages. I think the segregation that exists at the moment is a hindrance to understanding algal blooms (in all their forms), which must surely be the primary function of the articles. As a marine biologist, I'm also a little concerned about the distinction between what are being termed "harmful algal blooms" and "algal blooms", as the articles tend to imply that "algal blooms" are always benign. I would like to see these distinctions emerging in the combined article:
In a combined article, I think these distinctions would be clearer and there would be far less redundancy and confusion. Mikespoff ( talk) 02:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Even the Red Tide article itself makes it absolutely clear that it is not a distinct topic and is merely a synonym / duplication of harmful algal bloom. North8000 ( talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the content in this page should rather be at Harmful algal bloom, because except for nouns that are never given as singular (e.g. scissors), the manual of style says to use a singular title. In fact, the first sentence of this article uses singular. I propose to move the content of this article there, using a history merge. -- Slashme ( talk) 13:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The singular title rule is actually quite strong: even an article like Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug is in the singular, even though you'll see NSAIDs much more frequently than NSAID on the web and in literature. -- Slashme ( talk) 20:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I just made Phosphates in detergent. I linked that article from this article in a small way but this article could have a small section on the topic to highlight it. I am posting this notice to harmful algal bloom and eutrophication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harmful algal bloom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harmful algal bloom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Whens it comes to blue-green algae blooms, many sources say that if you remove the guts/organs of the fish, the risk pf consumption is low. Some advise avoiding eating them as precaution, though say the risk is low if properly gutted. The state of Oregon states in a PDF from the Oregon Health Authority: "Eating fish caught from affected waters is an unknown health risk. There have been no reports of people becoming sick from eating fish caught during a bloom, but there has been no definitive research regarding the risk to human health.". The article's food section should be updated to reflect that different points of views expressed in the three reliable sources linked to below:
-- Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 21:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
If there are three main types, couldn't there be three sub headings and descriptions - one for each? Rather than Cyano and Red Tide. SquashEngineer ( talk) 20:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This came up at a related article and here was the part of my post that could be relevant here: "....merging harmful algal blooms into algal blooms looks like a good idea. Harmful algal blooms is unequivocally a subset of algal blooms. That alone is not enough to merge, it could be a sub-article. But combine that with most of the current algal blooms article already being about harmful algal blooms there's little need for a sub-article. By North8000 2/22/22
I was starting to work on the merge and am starting to question some of the images in this article. There are a few pictures here which look to me like routine "duckweed" coverage that I see all the time on inland ponds.....small green leaf plants that float on the surface completely covering the water. Do you think that these are algal blooms, and, if so, do you think that they are harmful algal blooms? North8000 ( talk) 01:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Red Tide regarding merging that article into this one. From the standpoint of this article, this would include strengthening the coverage of the term "Red Tide" here and also adding any good material & sources from the article that is not currently in this article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I completed the merge from the red tide article. I errored on the side of carefulness regarding losing material or references. I plan to do additional work on merging some material within this article at the more detailed level. North8000 ( talk) 21:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
In the Human health --> Food section, I have rearranged chronologically. However, the Food section begins: "Eating fish or shellfish from lakes with a bloom nearby is not recommended." This seems to contradict text in the lede, which says: "HAB species can be found in oceans, bays, and estuaries, but they cannot thrive in freshwater environments."
May we remove the "lake bloom" statement, which is overly specific? My thought is that most shellfish are harvested from non-freshwater sources. The remainder of the section reads just as well, even with the removal of the "lake" text. I am loathe to rmv a sourced statement, and propose moving it, with some better development, to the 2018 "Utah" paragraph, same Food section. Opinions, suggestions, welcomed.(Please ping me) Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 20:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I took out the wrong "cannot thrive" sentence. But I suggest continuing to pursue the other issues that you raised. North8000 ( talk) 13:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JehlianeC (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Elysetnguyen ( talk) 07:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:JehlianeC, I removed this as it wasn't clear how this could be used as a remedy exactly. Be careful when using primary sources - secondary sources are generally better, see WP:PST.
Cyanobacteria are found to thrive most at higher light levels due to their photo-protective function, [1] and these elevated temperatures allow for toxic cyanobacteria strains to flourish substantially, outgrowing other aquatic life such as diatoms and green algae; [2] in addition, chlorophyll-a and pheophytin-a algal pigments were found to increase in the day but remain stagnant in the night, with no significant level of production occurring at night. [3] Vertical mixing has effects that reduce the factors that lead to HAB production. EMsmile ( talk) 10:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Harmful algal bloom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Whit5022.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Dlehdwns516.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 22:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
So I think this should be merged with red tide. Red tide is a colloquial term for a scientific phenomenon. We should redirect red tide to here. What say the rest of you guys? OptimistBen 04:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"I think they should remain separate for clarity of understanding. Red tides are regional, mainly marine, (salt water) and are caused by various organisms clearly named in that article. Harmful algal blooms refer to a much broader category, can be fresh or salt water and are caused by a much wider variety of organisms. The existing links from one article to the other are more than adequate to enable a person to focus on the most appropriate area of study." Photojack53 08:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree they should remain separate. Although the terms 'harmful algal bloom' and 'red tide' are often used interchangeably, this usage is incorrect and there is a trend among the HAB community to move away from this.-- Bosco911 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
These are two terms referring to the same phenomenon, and they should definitely be merged, regardless of any terminology nitpicking. The "Red tide" article is bigger and more comprehensive, while the HAB article is a mere stub created to advance a particular viewpoint (that the term "Harmful algal bloom" is allegedly "more scientific"). There are no citiations substantiating this alleged superiority, and Google yields only 103K hits for "harmful algal bloom" as opposed to 722K for "red tide"--a clear indication that "red tide" is the more common term. While you may personally feel that it is inaccurate, please do not use Wikipedia as an instrument for pushing your agenda.
See also the Wikipedia guideline about merging, and note that the article in question fulfills not merely one, but all four of the criteria listed for merging articles--this is more than enough. The proper way would be to mention the alternative name and its rationale in the article (this has already been done), merge, then recreate the HAB page as a redirect to the merged article.
I replaced the appropriate merge tags; I'll wait a week or two for input, then I'll go ahead with the merger. Freederick ( talk) 11:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
HAB is definately more correct scientifically-this refers to blooms of algae that are harmful or potentially harmful. About 300 species of microalgae are reported to form mass occurrences, so-called 'blooms', and nearly one-fourth of these species are known to produce toxins (from Hallegraeff et al. 2003. Manual on Harmful Marine Microalgae. UNESCO). Red tide is a term used colloquially to describe blooms of non-toxic species as well: Noctiluca being one example that produces fine red coloured blooms. Halfsnail ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC).
Fully agree. As a 'non specialist' user who just came in here to understand what's going on off the coast of Oman at the moment, there does not appear to me to be any need for two separate articles. Just make Red Tide a subset of HAB and be done with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.245.5 ( talk) 14:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC) sure why not you
HAB is a diffrent phenomenon than Red Tide, so lets just give red tide a more scientific name and get it over with.
I fully and compleatly agree! They are two related, but seperate subjects that should be kept apart! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.54.197 ( talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) While not exactly the same it would be better to have both together. Most will look them up for the same reasons - the toxins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.18.119 ( talk) 03:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I think both should be seperate for clarity and understanding Preyus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.227.89 ( talk) 10:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
So here's the current situation. We have three articles:
I don't know what a more appropriate organisation is, but the current organisation is clearly counterproductive. For example, all three of them describe causes of algal blooms:
This redundancy is a problem. I'm going to boldly propose that all three of these articles be merged into a single article, with sections for the "red tide" term and harmful blooms in particular, unless there is significant disagreement. If you disagree, please suggest a different organisation. It may be that three articles is fine, but the content needs to be reorganised to eliminate redundancy. Dcoetzee 01:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I would support merging all three pages. I think the segregation that exists at the moment is a hindrance to understanding algal blooms (in all their forms), which must surely be the primary function of the articles. As a marine biologist, I'm also a little concerned about the distinction between what are being termed "harmful algal blooms" and "algal blooms", as the articles tend to imply that "algal blooms" are always benign. I would like to see these distinctions emerging in the combined article:
In a combined article, I think these distinctions would be clearer and there would be far less redundancy and confusion. Mikespoff ( talk) 02:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Even the Red Tide article itself makes it absolutely clear that it is not a distinct topic and is merely a synonym / duplication of harmful algal bloom. North8000 ( talk) 14:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the content in this page should rather be at Harmful algal bloom, because except for nouns that are never given as singular (e.g. scissors), the manual of style says to use a singular title. In fact, the first sentence of this article uses singular. I propose to move the content of this article there, using a history merge. -- Slashme ( talk) 13:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
The singular title rule is actually quite strong: even an article like Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug is in the singular, even though you'll see NSAIDs much more frequently than NSAID on the web and in literature. -- Slashme ( talk) 20:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I just made Phosphates in detergent. I linked that article from this article in a small way but this article could have a small section on the topic to highlight it. I am posting this notice to harmful algal bloom and eutrophication. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harmful algal bloom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harmful algal bloom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Whens it comes to blue-green algae blooms, many sources say that if you remove the guts/organs of the fish, the risk pf consumption is low. Some advise avoiding eating them as precaution, though say the risk is low if properly gutted. The state of Oregon states in a PDF from the Oregon Health Authority: "Eating fish caught from affected waters is an unknown health risk. There have been no reports of people becoming sick from eating fish caught during a bloom, but there has been no definitive research regarding the risk to human health.". The article's food section should be updated to reflect that different points of views expressed in the three reliable sources linked to below:
-- Notcharliechaplin ( talk) 21:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
If there are three main types, couldn't there be three sub headings and descriptions - one for each? Rather than Cyano and Red Tide. SquashEngineer ( talk) 20:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
This came up at a related article and here was the part of my post that could be relevant here: "....merging harmful algal blooms into algal blooms looks like a good idea. Harmful algal blooms is unequivocally a subset of algal blooms. That alone is not enough to merge, it could be a sub-article. But combine that with most of the current algal blooms article already being about harmful algal blooms there's little need for a sub-article. By North8000 2/22/22
I was starting to work on the merge and am starting to question some of the images in this article. There are a few pictures here which look to me like routine "duckweed" coverage that I see all the time on inland ponds.....small green leaf plants that float on the surface completely covering the water. Do you think that these are algal blooms, and, if so, do you think that they are harmful algal blooms? North8000 ( talk) 01:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Please see discussion at Red Tide regarding merging that article into this one. From the standpoint of this article, this would include strengthening the coverage of the term "Red Tide" here and also adding any good material & sources from the article that is not currently in this article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
I completed the merge from the red tide article. I errored on the side of carefulness regarding losing material or references. I plan to do additional work on merging some material within this article at the more detailed level. North8000 ( talk) 21:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
In the Human health --> Food section, I have rearranged chronologically. However, the Food section begins: "Eating fish or shellfish from lakes with a bloom nearby is not recommended." This seems to contradict text in the lede, which says: "HAB species can be found in oceans, bays, and estuaries, but they cannot thrive in freshwater environments."
May we remove the "lake bloom" statement, which is overly specific? My thought is that most shellfish are harvested from non-freshwater sources. The remainder of the section reads just as well, even with the removal of the "lake" text. I am loathe to rmv a sourced statement, and propose moving it, with some better development, to the 2018 "Utah" paragraph, same Food section. Opinions, suggestions, welcomed.(Please ping me) Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 20:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I took out the wrong "cannot thrive" sentence. But I suggest continuing to pursue the other issues that you raised. North8000 ( talk) 13:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
JehlianeC (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Elysetnguyen ( talk) 07:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi User:JehlianeC, I removed this as it wasn't clear how this could be used as a remedy exactly. Be careful when using primary sources - secondary sources are generally better, see WP:PST.
Cyanobacteria are found to thrive most at higher light levels due to their photo-protective function, [1] and these elevated temperatures allow for toxic cyanobacteria strains to flourish substantially, outgrowing other aquatic life such as diatoms and green algae; [2] in addition, chlorophyll-a and pheophytin-a algal pigments were found to increase in the day but remain stagnant in the night, with no significant level of production occurring at night. [3] Vertical mixing has effects that reduce the factors that lead to HAB production. EMsmile ( talk) 10:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
References