Talk:Denmark Strait overflow

Major questions about this article

Arrived here from waterfall, where a newly registered editor had added a new section that was similar to some of the text of this article. While I understand that some sources have termed the phenomenon described here a "waterfall", I have yet to see a reliable source that unequivocally does so. Three of the four refs provided (none of them inline) do not mention the words "waterfall" or "cataract"—and in fact do not really describe this specific phenomenon at all—and the fourth ref is a dead link. Our Denmark Strait article has an inline citation for its mention of the "waterfall", but the linked page is, like the ones here, only peripherally relevant. Undoubtedly, there are many natural wonders with which I'm unfamiliar, but unfortunately I don't have time to go delving into this in a big way. It seems to me that we really need at least one solid source to support (1) the general thrust of the article, (2) the name of the article (i.e., use of the word "cataract"), and (3) the notability of the topic. If these aren't forthcoming, I'd suggest that deletion may be in order. In the meantime, I have tagged the article ({{original research}} and {{refimprove}}. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 05:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the academic and popular references added to this article since 2016 cement the subject's notability. However, the academic sources consistently call the feature an "overflow", and only a few popular sources call it a "waterfall". I don't see any evidence that either the *academic* or *common* use of the term "waterfall" usually applies to sea overflows. Rather, it appears to be a very minority popular-level definition. So, in this article and in the "waterfall" article, I think there only needs to be a single sentence mentioning this broader use of the term. Otherwise this should be discussed as just an overflow. Jess_Riedel (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I have now re-named the page to "Denmark Strait overflow", adjusted the language appropriately, and moved the sentence comparing it to a waterfall to the end of the article.

Note: if you disagree with this change, please find evidence that undersea overflows are considered "waterfalls" in common usage. The only examples I can find seem to be websites using that unusual broad definition *exclusively* to describe this overflow, and they almost all justify that based on this Wikipedia article rather than primary or secondary sources. Jess_Riedel (talk) 14:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)