Talk:Bass Strait

message: Strong currents between the Antarctic driven Southern Ocean and Tasman Sea provide a strait of powerful, wild storm waves. To illustrate its wild strength, Bass Strait is both twice as wide and twice as rough as the English Channel.
I'm a bit confused by the last sentence. This article and others refer to Bass Strait as measuring 322 km in length and 240 km wide at its narrowest point.  The article on the English Channel refers to that water body as measuring 536 km in length and 34 km wide at its narrowest, 240 km wide its widest.Plasma east 09:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect dimensions?

message: i am kassandra joharia bass, my great grandfather came, with his parents to the united states in the very late 1800's, my mother who is now 68 years old, said that he used to make boomerangs and curved little animals out of od, she said he told them that he came from the bering straits, down through canada and into the ohio valley. the only connection i have here are the boomerangs and the last name bass, if anyone has any information on willie lee bass please e mail me, we are a people of dark skin and blue eyes our hair color ranges from black to silver white, i understand that these are some of the genetic make ups of the aborigine people. thank you
:Well, I'm not sure if this will help you, but George Bass (who Bass Strait was named after) was a european, not an aboriginal. -- Chuq 23:03, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: George Bass

message: I don't know about copyright for these images, and I don't know how to put them on the page. But here they are:
http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bassstrait1sb.jpg (Google Earth sattelite image)
http://img96.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bassstarait9wy.jpg (Road map, original image was found on Google Images)
: These images are copyrighted and so cannot be included on the page.  However you can add links to the images.  Note that the second link you give above seems to be a broken link.  Richard W.M. Jones 09:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll endeavour to get some World Wind screenshots of the region. -- Chuq 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some images for this article 

message: Anyone?  Just started S.S. Loongana due to its connection with the 1912 North Mount Lyell Disaster but there seems nothing in this article that might correlate.  Is history of australian coastal shipping hiding somehwere?SatuSuro 09:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bass Strait Passenger Ships

message: Interesting article.  I see only one facet upon which Australian WP editors (or WP editors from any actual locality) do not have an "authoritative leg up."  Australians, perhaps unfortunately due to the common usage on Australian maps, no more "get to decide" the name of the oceans of the world than do the people of, say, Chile, who refuse to use "Pacific" and have their own name for it on all their maps. The group that does is the IHO (see the WP Southern Ocean article for references....this article should not be cluttered with IHO references, I should think!) .  
:For good or bad (bad if you're a fan of Australian maps and terminology), they have decided that Australia is a continent sitting in the Indian Ocean, with the Pacific along its eastern side.  They publish this with carefully delineated borders for these water bodies (see that mentioned in the WP Great Australian Bight article.  So, certainly not for Australian use, but for a worldwide English enclopedia, its "Indian Ocean", not "Southern Ocean."  The IHO very clearly ruled (after a vote of member nations) that the "Southern Ocean" stops at 60 degrees south, and north of that its the Indian Ocean.  Not debatable, unless you want to try to overturn the worldwide and WP-wide acceptance of the IHO as the authority on these matters.  Water bodies that Australia does not share with other nations are a different matter, of course.  This is how world geographers (and the IHO) avoid having several names for various sides of various oceans.  Having done the South Coast Track in Tasmania and looking southwest off the cliffs (an amazing place;  huge old growth trees, remote beaches) and saying something to a local about the big Indian Ocean waves and getting an incredulous stare, I know this doesn't make sense locally.....But it's an international encyclopedia.DLinth 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Geoscience Australia or any other Australian agency a member of the International Hydrographic Organization? That article does not list its members, and Southern Ocean does not list the dissenting members. It appears that Southern_Ocean#History says that only 14 countries voted in favour of using the name "Southern Ocean" and defining it to be no further north than 60° South. That's not many countries, even out of only 68 members of the IHO. Neither article says what countries are bound by the decision, or whether it needs to be (or has been) ratified by their respective governments. Just because the IHO has decreed something maynot make it so (everywhere). --Scott Davis Talk 09:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further research: Australia is a member of the IHO, represented by the Royal Australian Navy Hydrographic Service. A search for "Southern Ocean" in their Maritime Gazetteer of Australia (MGA) Search yields 34 results, only 6 of which are south of 60° South latitude. Particularly relevant to this discussion is the third match, at 35°0'S, 115°0'E, from chart Aus335 near Cape Leeuwin. I think the statement that Bass Strait and the Great Australian Bight are in the Indian and not Southern Ocean is far from universally true. --Scott Davis Talk 09:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Times Atlas (UK, #1 world atlas), CIA World Fact Book, US Board on Geographic Names, etc., etc., and nearly all non-Australian atlases and maps strictly show the Southern Ocean as below 60 degrees lat.  All sources go on and on about it being defined as an ocean due to its hydro characteristics....a cold, polar current circling Antarctica.  So 35 degrees south is particularly far "off the charts" in the world's view....that's the same lat. as the Mediterranean! (for a "polar" ocean!??) Seems like all around WP, most atlases, most world maps, the IHO is being given the first and last word on this.  DLinth 19:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I propose we centralise this discussion to Talk:Australia#Ocean_names for now. --Scott Davis Talk 10:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can such a shallow, recently created (in geological terms) piece of water be considered to be part of any ocean? HiLo48 (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a shallow, recently created part of the Pacific, perhaps? Does the ocean only start a certain distance from the coastline, once it's considered deep enough? Horatio (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how do we classify a chunk of water such as Port Phillip Bay? It's connected to Bass Strait, and was created as part of the same flooding that created the Strait. Is Port Phillip Bay part of the Pacific Ocean too? Is every piece of sea water anywhere on Earth part of some ocean? HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, could be considered part of the Pacific. But there seems to be a question of definitions -- whether the World Ocean is subdivided into the main oceans, parts of which are then identified as seas, vs oceans as separate from seas. Horatio (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  Here's an example: Mediterranean Sea says "The Mediterranean Sea is a sea connected to the Atlantic Ocean" while Atlantic Ocean says: the Strait of Gibraltar (where it connects with the Mediterranean Sea–one of its marginal seas. The first implies that the Mediterranean isn't part of the Atlantic, while the 2nd says it is. Horatio (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's what the second example says at all. It's a sea on the margin of the Atlantic Ocean. Doesn't explicitly say that it's part of it. Common usage certainly doesn't say that it is, and common usage carries a fair bit of weight here. And going back to my previous point. Surely nobody claims that Port Phillip is part of the Pacific Ocean. So, there is a boundary between oceans and other bits of water. I'm still to be convinced that Bass Strait is part of any ocean. HiLo48 (talk) 11:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Check the map on Pacific Ocean: it includes the Tasman Sea, Sea of Japan etc. (Bass Strait is a bit hard to see.) It includes all kinds of straits, shallow bays and harbours around the New Zealand coastline (and the map of the Atlantic Ocean includes the Mediterranean). Both conventions are commonly used. Horatio (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  Also, the existance of :Category:Seas of the Pacific Ocean, and :Category:Marginal seas of the Pacific Ocean. Horatio (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Categories in Wikipedia prove almost nothing. They are one of its least controlled and worst aspects. Is Port Phillip part of the Pacific Ocean? HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, when using the convention that every point of the World Ocean is part of one of the main oceans, and since Port Phillip is ocean and not a river estuary, it would be part of Bass Strait and thus part of the Pacific. Alternatively, if not using that convention, then it's not. Horatio (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'd agree with that. Now convince me that we should be using the convention that every point of the World Ocean is part of one of the main oceans. It's a convention I haven't come across before. Where in Wikipedia does it say that it's the convention we should be following? HiLo48 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Wikipedia doesn't follow either convention consistently. Wording often prefers seas separate to oceans, but not always, but then there are maps in the same articles that show the inclusive definition. I'll try to think of a wording to say that *if* Bass Strait is going to be considered part of an ocean, then it should be the Pacific and not the Indian or Southern. Horatio (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: It is an old document and contains quite a few errors, but unfortunately it is the best that's been ratified and published by the IHO. An updated version, presumably with fewer errors and greater clarity, was due for ratification in 2000, but that was blocked due to objections raised by Australia (the old Southern Ocean question again), and so we're stuck with the 1953 version. Bazonka (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Ocean names

message: Only a month or so after the revert warring about the "rail link", there is a 3rd party source about a bridge - http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/07/03/156421_tasmania-news.html .  It may not be a concrete proposal (ie. it is for an architecture exhibition) but it is officially out there now.  Worth a mention? -- Chuq (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, this idea keeps coming over and over again, even if no one is going to pay for it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge 

message: The islands section is self-contradictory - first "over 50 islands" are cited, then later, "over 60" in just one of the sub-groups of islands!? Anyone able to sort this out?  BTW good article and thanks to all contribs from an Aussie:)  Melba1 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not contradictory (anything over 60 is also over 50), but it's certainly worded oddly. I think it boils down to an inconsistent definition of "island" - probably the "over 50" number refers to big, habitable islands, whereas the "over 60" number also refers to rocks. I do not know the answer, but I will reword it so that it looks less strange. Bazonka (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many islands? 

message: The Sydney-Hobart fleet does not enter Bass Strait. Once passing Gabo Island, they come under the influence of the Strait's weather patterns but they do not enter it, much less cross it.
I suggest this section be removed as it is both confusing and technically incorrect. Flanker235 (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Be WP:BOLD, Flanker, be WP:BOLD. Bazonka (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reworded it as per comment. Horatio (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sydney-Hobart Yacht Race reference 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bass Strait. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131227175314/http://www.nswseakayaker.asn.au/mag/38/bassstraitsolo.html to http://www.nswseakayaker.asn.au/mag/38/bassstraitsolo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bass Strait. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008191433/http://www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf to http://www.iho-ohi.net/iho_pubs/standard/S-23/S23_1953.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.shortypen.com/brdboat/cruise/blkburn/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.breakloose.com.au/articles/idx/6/035/article/Bass_Strait_Crossing_by_sea_kayak.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321021942/http://www.paddlewithsim.com/node/67 to http://www.paddlewithsim.com/node/67
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello all
I have removed some highly speculative and controversial material from this section and replaced it with brief factual and neutral information. Specifically I have removed:
Bass Strait
 A talented and diligent hydrographer, Cook quickly surmised the likelihood of a strait. The Admiralty had issued its usual verbal instructions to hide strategically important discoveries that could become security risks, such as off-shore islands from which operations could be mounted by a hostile power.
Consequently, in his journal Cook disguised his discovery with a riddle;[41] and on his chart he drew a curtain across the truncated channel by sketching a false coastline down to an invented Point Hicks.[42] Cook's cartographic fabrication worked and Tasmania's insularity was suppressed for three more decades.
There is no evidence that Cook discovered Bass Strait but hid his discovery. Cook's relevant journal entry for 19 April 1770 states that it is "doubtful whether they [ie Van Diemen's Land and New Holland] are one land or not." No document has been found indicating that the British Admiralty knew of the existence of a strait between Tasmania and the mainland before Bass's discovery in 1797. It is highly unlikely that the Admiralty would have let Phillip and Vancouver sail to Australia without telling them about Bass Strait if they knew about it. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery and exploration by Europeans 

message: The article currently states: In the currently in-force IHO 1953 draft, it is instead listed as part of the Indian Ocean..
Perhaps I am missing something, but the cited IHO documented does not appear to assign the Bass Strait to either the Indian Ocean nor the Pacific? Delta 51 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  IHO 1953 and the Indian Ocean