Talk:Great Blue Hole

message: I am changing the Lighthouse Reef link to link to the Belize Barrier Reef article. The original Lighthouse Reef article was deleted.Dreammaker182 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lighthouse Reef 

message: About the "Discovery and Exploration" section -- I think the term "discovery" is incorrect and should be removed.  The section discusses Cousteau's exploration of the hole, but does not state that he "discovered" it.  Moreover, I think it's self-evident that the feature was known to local inhabits, if not earlier explorers.  I propose changing the section to "Exploration" or "Exploration by Cousteau".  Comments? 
Karl gregory jones (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the section does seem to only contain information on the exploration of the feature and says nothing about its discovery. The header should be updated. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

text: PS It seems like it would be a fairly uncontroversial move, so I've gone ahead and updated it. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work. Karl gregory jones (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery? 

message: I see no reason to merge Blue hole and Great Blue Hole as is currently proposed. "Blue hole" is an overview article on the geographic phenomenon and "Great Blue Hole" is a fully formed and referenced stand-alone article on a specific blue hole (as is Dean's Blue Hole and Blue Hole (Red Sea)). It would be akin to merging every significant mountain into a single Mountain article. (Cross-posted to Talk:Blue hole) Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: The Nasa and Nat Geo links are reversed.
Attempted edit but failed.
203.44.180.195 (talk) 03:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch! I've fixed them. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference links are swapped 

message: There is two sections with the same information and title. I have tried to remove one of them but the change was reverted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.121.45 (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Thank you for the clarification. I reverted my reversion. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Exploration" section is repeated 

message: Is it interesting to mention volume? I calculated it to 100M liters. Beatitudinem (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume? 

message: Despite the license of the cross-section image itself, it appears to simply be a trace of a copyrighted image on the article that it cites as its source. I'm unsure if the source image allows derivative works.
NexusXe (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. I removed it. Alfie↑↓© 20:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights of cross-section image 

message: This image does not represent its structure and offers no additional value at all. On the contrary, it is extremely misleading. I will not start an edit war. If it is not removed in due time, I will take it to Arbitration. Alfie↑↓© 11:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it not the shape of its structure when the article itself say "The hole is circular in shape, 318 m across and 124 m deep"? It's not misleading, and it's helpful to grasp how the Great Blue Hole is : way more wide than deep, when the picture alone make it feel like a bottomless pit.--Aréat (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

text: This source of the 3D mapping show it is indeed this circular shape.--Aréat (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

text: Also, I was convinced to make the graph from experience. When you hear about it and make a few search, you find images of very dark water and  actually misleading graph like this one, giving the fake impression of a bottomless pit. But when searching further, you discover it's actually a flat cylinder only one third as deep as large. Hence the need for a diagram rapidly giving this information in a visual way. There's the benefit. While, again, I don't see the problem about it.--Aréat (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Which experience? I’m a cave diver and was there. But personal experiences don’t count in WP. Of course, the right image there is plain nonsense. However, I still don’t think that your graph improves the article. As an alternative give the source of the 3D mapping as a reference after the second sentence in the introduction. Alfie↑↓© 06:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The experience of being misled by how the hole look from the surface, and misleading diagram used on the internet. Hence the need for the faithful one I did for the page. Why do you think it doesn't improve the article? I already added that source to the file page.--Aréat (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of "Layout"