Hi, I don't understand one thing. The page apparently was vandalized and then quickly reverted to the right version. But as an unlogged user I still see the vandalized version. It's not good if the vandalized page is visible as a today's featured article.
If I log in I see the newest version.
I'm not an experienced user, I would appreciate if somebody could explain to me, why is it so, how to fix it, and... where to report this kind of things?
Borys1703 (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
- The same thing is happening to me. There must be some kind of weird technical issue going on? Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
- @Borys1703: I just purged the page. It seems to have worked on my browser, can you check to see if it looks OK on yours? Much thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Now it looks ok, also when I log out. Borys1703 (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Yeah, sometimes the caches do not update immediately after a vandalism revert. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
As I do not typically travel on the sea floor and the depth of the adjoining sea floor is not mentioned, it would be nice to be able to somewhere read the the distance between the top of the undersea platform and the current surface of the sea. Is it a hazard to shipping? Is it a hazard to submarines? Etc. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.199.79.38 (talk) 12:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
- That's a good question. The problem is that none of the sources I have seen gives a definitive minimum depth; the bathymetric map here on page 15 only indicates that it's shallower than 1,500 metres (4,900 ft), and some sources confuse the depth of the seamount with the depth of th Site 865 drill core. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Piledhigheranddeeper Regarding your "how can a trapezoid have a radius?" edit, based on the map it seems like some sources (including the one cited for the statement) approximate the shape as a circle. I am not sure whether that is a geometrically sound concept, but there you go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks. "Width" seems a much better term. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
- @Piledhigheranddeeper: Er, a radius is half a width of a circular shape. If anything it should say a width of 24 kilometres ... and the source explicitly says "radius". Moreover, Grötsch and Flügel 1992 say that the summit platform has dimensions of 35km x 70km which is hardly compatible with the claim of a 12km radius. I'll yank the radius estimate; the Grötsch and Flügel source is more coherent with the bathymetry of the seamount. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
- While a radius is indeed half a diameter (and I wondered if I should double the figure) I checked the bathymetric map in the source; it suggests that the width (as opposed to the—obviously—greater length) of the top (anyway) is in the neighborhood of the distance cited. I think there's value in giving the size: in the absence of a map or silhouette, it enables the reader better to visualize the geography. If you'd prefer the length-by-width approach, that works for me. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
