Talk:Glacier/Archive 1

Archive 1

Southern Patagonia Icefield

"Campo de hielo sur" or (CHS) Should be included in this article. Its the biggest glacier in the southern hemisphere nfter the antartic ones. A lot of glaciers (of lesser importance) are named here, but not this one.

Lambert ice shelf

203.177.168.235 dumped the following at the bottom of the page:

Lambert ice shelf is known as the largest glacier in the world. It has a height of 250 miles and is 402 kilometers long.

That may be so, but it'll need some editing before it goes in the main article (height 250 miles?). I haven't the time right now so I moved it here. JTN 19:15, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

The Lambert glacier feeds the L ice shelf. 250 miles is about 402 km? William M. Connolley 21:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Consolidate?

Glacier Motion might needs to be integrated with glacier motion. The one I translated from es.wikipedia.com is more on why glaciers move, glacier motion describes historic movements and landscap transformation as result of the movement.

Maybe the articles should be consolidated. --JuanPDP 06:26, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think the glacial motion section should stay here; it fits within the scope of the article. However, the Quaternary and ice age sections should be merged into those respective articles. - mako 21:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Overlap between Es. and En. glacier articles

I just translated the "formation of glaciers" section and only after I was done did I bother to look at the English article already extant. It seems like we've got a significant amount of overlap between the English and Spanish articles, so what I'm going to do is excise the redundant Spanish paragraphs after I salvage any extra information. Might take a bit. Sadly, the paragraph I translated is going to have to go almost in its entirety. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

¿radicación?

I left the following message on the es talk page:

"radicación solar": ¿se debe decir "radiación solar"? (Estamos traduciendo el artículo al inglés; favor de responder, o en inglés o en español, en la página en:talk:Glacier). Grácias.

Basically asking for clarification on what I think was a typo for the Spanish equivalent of "solar radiation". radicación is a word, but not one that makes sense to me in this context. Jmabel | Talk 05:07, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was a typo and it should read "radiación solar" (solar radiation) as it does now. Thanks for pointing it out. --Balderai 05:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Whats going on then?

Does this spanish translation project really work by dumping a pile of spanish text into the en: pages and then slowly translating it out? That seems a rather poor way of working, because it trashes the article while you're working on it. Why isn't it done on a copy on the talk page or something? William M. Connolley 09:21:00, 2005-07-25 (UTC).

• That is more or less exactly how it works. There's a note at the top of the page to warn the unsuspecting visitor that the page is going to be in flux for the week. Fernando Rizo T/C 15:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

English and español on the front page

Come on, people. It's not that terrible to see Spanish in an article temporarily, is it? At least r3m0t's preserved the Spanish text somewhere; however, even that solution is suboptimal, because there's no indication of where those pieces fit in to the original article. This morning, I started translating a section where the last translator stopped mid-paragraph. How would I know where the rest of that paragraph was supposed to go, or even that it was part of another paragraph, if it weren't already embedded in the article?

Spanish Translation of the Week has always worked by taking an entire article from sp.wikipedia.org, pasting it into the corresponding space here, and then translating it piece by piece. It takes about a week or so to complete the translation, and then we move on to the next article. (There's a history of past collaborations at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week/History.) It is, IMO, the simplest, quickest, least confusing way to do this work. Can we continue to work that way here? If not, why not? --Skoosh 17:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is the simplest or quickest or least confusing way to do the work. It does a terrible disservice to the readers, who are viewing this page by the thousands while you're making this kind of a mess. Just a few weeks ago Steve Jobs put the WP article tiger on a giant screen in front of hundreds of reporters - what kind of impression would it have made if the article were in Spanish or Russian or Malay at that point? It would have been just as easy to make a temp page, put a note at the top of the real article warning not to edit randomly because the temp page was going to become the real thing in a week or so. Doesn't anybody think about the readers anymore? Stan 18:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Since this is a matter that potentially impacts this project in general, it's probably more appropriate to continue this on the W:SPATRA talk page, where there is already an ongoing discussion on the same issue. --Skoosh 19:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, it doesn't bother me as far as browsing goes to see the Spanish mixed in. However another issue is snapshots / dumps of WikiPedia used on disconnected devices, like Pocket PCs. Those types of conversions occur infrequently, so you would have these "translation in progress" articles mucking things up a bit. --Dan East 20:43, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

It was me that removed the spanish text from the article, and I realise now that I should have copied it somewhere. For not doing this I apologise, but you have understand that an article on the english wikipedia cannot be filled with spanish text! The main article space is entirely devoted to the readers, not the editors. You have to realise that like 99% of everyone that reads wikipedia is not an editor, they couldn't care less about WP:SPATRA. What kind of image does it present of wikipedia when they see a page like this? Many people even disagree that a COTW tag should be on the article! Why don't you work on it at Wikipedia:Spanish Translation of the Week/Glacier and translate there, and when you are done copy it into the article. That, or you could make a Talk: sub-page like Talk:Glacier/Spanish text and do it there. Again, I apologise for not doing this myself, I just figured one of you guys would be more comfortable doing it since it is your project. How about it? gkhan 21:40, July 25, 2005 (UTC) NB: I am not critical of the project itself, infact, I think it is marvelous idea. Keep up the good work.

I have proposed a solution here. Please leave your comments so that we may reach a consensus. — J3ff 01:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

gkhan, if you are "not critical of the project itself", couldn't you have commented out the material instead of deleting it? Because I promise, now that it is physically removed from the page, almost none of the participants in the translation project are going to find it anywhere else. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I could have, had I thought of it :P Again I apologise for acting a little rash, but it's not like the text has disappeared or anything, it is in the history. And really, I think it is a great project, it was just the method I had concerns with. gkhan 07:35, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Translation of special terms

Roca aborregada

What is the proper term for this in English? Here's a translation of the relevant passage, found under "Glacial Erosion":

=== Rocas aborregadas === 
These are formed by the passage of a glacier as it carves small hills out of protrusions 
in the bedrock.  A protrusion of this type is known as a ''[[roca aborregada]]''.  ''Rocas 
aborregadas'' are formed when glacial abrasion polishes the smooth incline that faces the 
glacial ice next to it, and erosion increases the steepness of the opposite side 
proportionately as the ice passes over the protrusion.  These rocks indicate the direction 
of the glacier's flow.  

"Roca" means "rock", and "aborregada", from what I gather, means "fleecy", or "like a sheep". Is this section talking about striation, or something else? --Skoosh 15:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• I've never heard that word in my life. I hope we can get an actual geologist to comment on what this might be. I'll leave a message on William M. Connolley's talk page. Fernando Rizo T/C 20:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a geologist, but I have climbed in the French alps. It might well be what the French call a "roche moutonnee"... http://www.zephryus.demon.co.uk/geography/resources/glaciers/stria.html. I rather suspect that the English take over the french word. William M. Connolley 20:33:06, 2005-07-30 (UTC).

I don't know enough Spanish, but yes, rouche moutonnee is the English term for a glacial rock formation. --- hike395

USGS: "Roche Moutonnée: An elongated, rounded, asymmetrical, bedrock knob produced by glacier erosion. It has a gentle slope on its up-glacier side and a steep- to vertical-face on the down-glacier side." [1] There also is mention of "sheepback". [2] (SEWilco 02:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC))

Right! I had forgotten about "sheepback". Quick Google check of "Roche moutonnee +glacier" yields 395 hits, while "sheepback + glacier" yields 25. So, roche moutonnée is probably preferred. -- hike395 03:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

arranque

I've only encountered this word ("start" or "impulse") in the context of starting a car. So far, I've been eliding it, or replacing it with "motion" or "surge" or something else that flows naturally in context. I'm not sure if there's a specific term in English-language glaciology to replace it. Ideas? --Skoosh 15:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The english equivalent is "plucking", the ripping of material from the downstream side of a rock. There are many usages similar to "Los glaciares erosionan el terreno principalmente de dos maneras: abrasión y arranque." (Glaciers erode the terrain primarily through two means: abrasion and plucking.) The es: article also shows a diagram showing "arranque" in the downstream side of a rock formation, at the same area where plucking occurs. (SEWilco 15:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC))

Glaciology

Glaciology is a very poor article; maybe it's better off merged with glacier? Or else somebody who knows about it should at least tidy it up. Rd232 17:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

SPATRA Progress report

Well, the rough translation is done. I've checked the article twice, and there's no commented text left (check it again, please, because I might have missed something). So, the only thing left to do is to go over the text with a fine comb. However, the following images need translation:

• Glacial erosion
• Alluvial stratification
• Deposits in contact with ice

I've contacted Luis María Benítez, the original author of the images, and he is going to translate them tomorrow. I've been playing around with the SPATRA header to make it easier for him to find the images.

Good job, everyone! In spite of this week's controversy, we've finished another article. Pat yourselves on the back. :) --Titoxd 03:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• • All right, that is done. --Titoxd 22:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I've finally taken a look at the article now that the translation is complete (way too much going on for me to try and following along while it was in process). In my opinion, the article still needs a great deal of work. First off, the article no longer defines a glacier! It talks about glaciers - how they're formed, and various terms associated with them, but it no longer defines what a glacier is. The first section should concisely describe the subject of the article. I'll take a look back at the article pre-conversion over the next few days to see what I can incorporate back in. I had added a paragraph to the article defining Tidewater Glaciers and the formation of icebergs. That has been completely removed. I'll be making a comment on the Wikipedia talk:Spanish Translation of the Week page. --Dan East 08:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Glaciology-related terms translated from Spanish into English / drawings and more

I know you have problems translating some Spanish geologic terms, so here I show you all the words that you might come across when writing about glaciers. I was the author of the Spanish version of this article and I had to face lots of English terms that I learned. I also translated the text on the drawings I created. Take a look:

GEOLOGIC TERMS:

• Ablación: ablation.
  
• Abrasión: abrasion.
  
• Arista: Arête.
  
• Arranque / arranque glacial: plucking / quarrying (it could be translated either way).
  
• Balance (glaciar): glacial budget.
  
• Bloque errático glaciar: glaciar erratic.
  
• Circo (glaciar): Cirque.
  
• Depósitos en contacto con el hielo: ice-contact deposit.
  
• Derrubios estratificados: stratified drift.
  
• Derrubio glaciar: drift.
  
• Deslizamiento basal: basal slip.
  
• Desmembramiento glaciar: calving.
  
• Drumlin: drumlin.
  
• Esker: esker.
  
• Espolón truncado: truncated spur.
  
• Estría glaciar: striation.
  
• Flujo plástico: plastic flow.
  
• Glaciar alpino: alpine glacier.
  
• Glaciar de casquete: ice sheet.
  
• Glaciar de desbordamiento: outlet glacier.
  
• Glaciar de piedemonte: piedmont glacier.
  
• Glaciar de valle: valley glacier.
  
• Grieta (glaciar) / crevasse: crevasse.
  
• Harina de roca: rock flour.
  
• Horn: horn.
  
• Kame: kame.
  
• Kettle: kettle.
  
• Lago Pater noster: Pater noster lake.
  
• Lago pluvial: pluvial lake.
  
• Límite de las nieves permanentes: snowline.
  
• Llanura aluvial: outwash plain.
  
• Llanura de inundación: Floodplain.
  
• Morrena central: medial moraine.
  
• Morrena de fondo: ground moraine.
  
• Morrena lateral: lateral moraine.
  
• Morrena terminal: terminal moraine / end moraine.
  
• Morrena de retroceso: recessional moraine.
  
• Neviza: firn.
  
• Oleada (glaciar): surge.
  
• Pequeño lago de montaña / tarn: tarn.
  
• Plataforma glaciar: ice shelf.
  
• Roca aborregada: roche mountonnée.
  
• Terraza de kame: kame terrace.
  
• Tilita: tillite.
  
• Till: till.
  
• Tren de valles: valley train.
  
• Valle colgado: hanging valley.
  
• Valle glaciar: glacial trough.
  
• Zona de acumulación: zone of accumulation.
  
• Zona de desgaste: zone of wastage.
  
• Zona de fractura: zone of fracture.
  

Lahar: Lahar*. (*): this term is not necessarily related to glaciers, but as you know, when volcanic eruptions take place in an underground volcano, the ice right upon it melts and starts flowing in a spectacular view. This receives the name of lahars, and it is also known in Iceland (where you have lots of volcanoes underneath glaciers) as jökullhaup. In fact, this term is also applied by English-speakers when talking particularly about Icelandic lahars.

MY DRAWINGS:
plucking, drumlins, glacial ice formation, glacial weight effects, glacial landscape, Recedinc glacier landscape. I also uploaded no captioned versions so that these drawings could be used by other Wikipedia versions. See each description page. That’s all.

I have a subpage on the Spanish version with lots of drawings related to geology and other sciences. Take a look: Dibujos (Drawings). Please, feel free to contact me in case you need any help with this article. It is a pleasure indeed. Luis María Benítez 20:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Glacial retreat

I see that there is no mention of glacial retreat, which is the main glacial motion being observed in our time. Can this aspect have been an oversight? --Wetman 22:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

PAGE HI-JACKED

Does this belong on the page? "The largest glaciers are about the size of some overgrown gophers." Someone please revert.

• I've taken care of it. Next time, why not revert it yourself? If you're new to wikipedia, here are instructions on how to revert. --Dan East 04:16, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks. I didn't know how to do it.

upward deposition forces?

The following is most confusing:

The altitude where the two zones meet is called the equilibrium line. At this altitude, the downward erosive forces of the accumulation zone and the upward deposition forces of the deposition zone cancel out.

Can someone explain the upward deposition forces of the previous quote? It may be some glaciology jargon, but I envision sediments spurting up from the ice - propelled by some mysterious diapir like forces. What do we really mean? Vsmith 03:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it means that at the head of the glacier, the downward pressure from the accumulating snow kinda scrapes the rock away, but it has to go somewhere, so it builds up at the foot of the glacier. Therefore the amount of rock underneath the glacier is decreasing at the head but increasing at the foot. The article is a little unclear though, because it's not really an upward force, just a tendency for sediment to build up. I'll try to improve it. —Keenan Pepper 04:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if a translation from the Spanish page contributed to this phrasing. I'm interpreting the "upward" force as due to accumulation of deposits left behind by ablated/melted ice. So what is being referred to is the start of the zone where erosive ice encounters but is not able to push downhill the accumulated sediments? Incidentally, the present phrasing assumes ablation as the ice removal force and ignores that some glaciers experience melting during summer. (SEWilco 06:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

Ice penitents and ice flutes

Anybody able and willing to include an explanation of ice penitents and ice flutes formations, or initiate an article devoted to them? I don't feel able enough to do more than citing external sources, like this one.

Rayleigh Scattering

Simply put, after a good web search as well as a visit to the forest service visitor center down at the Mendenhall glacier I dont get how this was removed. It's the cause of the deep blue in a recently calved glacier. The breakout of air compressed down for decades or centuries trapped in glacier ice that cause it to turn the whiter, normal ice shade as it's exposed. The fact that glacier Ice does this when your ice cubes dont is because of formation. Glaciers are commonly formed by snow compressed by more snow rather then water freezing. -M^ask 06:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"glacial motion"

after reading this i would recommend it to be re-written, slightly differently and including "types of glacial movement" including, laminar flow, internal deformation aswell as basal sliding, and the description of "plastic flow" which is internal deformation.

laminar flow is described but not named.

also, where is extending and compressing flow?...

a more clear distinction between how a polar and temperate glacier moves. and also about fluctuations around zero.

this all depends on whether this is a summary or suppose to be indepth

ice ages

added section on last intergalcial period and an external link KonaScout 14:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Definition

The current definition on this page of a glacier is not very good. It contains too many relative adjectives "large", "slow moving" and "slowly deforms". Large compared to what? Slowly moving compared to what? I also feel the phrase "river of ice" is an analogy and not good for a definition.

I propose the following definition: "A glacier is a moving perennial ice mass that flows through a mountain valley."

It is simple and removes unneeded items required to define a glacier. --Campbead 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Many glaciers do not (and never did) move through mountain valleys. Cheers Geologyguy 18:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Continents

Geologically and biogeographically, New Guinea and Australia are one continent - see Australia (continent). So there are still glaciers on all continents - though maybe not for much longer given the rate of melt on Puncak Jaya--Gergyl 13:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Glacial

I think we should make a glacial article that is separate from this one, i.e one that discusses what the opposite of a interglacial is. It need not be very long, as this article discusses most of the physical properties of a glacial (e.g. advance of the glaciers). I think it should made though, to explain there are periods of advance and retreat within an ice age. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Since glacial was linked to too much in referencing glacier actions (e.g. "glacial erosion"), I've made glacial period instead. Edit: It might also be prudent to note that while "Glacial" redirects here, "Glacial period" exists to define periods within an ice age. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"Glacial" and "Glaciation"

The second sentence ont the page reads: "Glacial" and "Glaciation" redirect here. There is no further explanation of these terms on the glacier page. According to the relevant chapter of Wikipedia:Redirect there should be at least a short sentence like e.g. "glacial refers to anything related to glaciers" and "glaciation is the process of glacier development or the coalescence of single glaciers into an ice sheet". Is there any special reason here no to do so?--Jo (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Added info according to Wikipedia:Redirect, as no one gave any special reason. Jo (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Delisted GA

This article is clearly not of GA quality, as it has few references, and so I have delisted it. Please add inline citations. Johnfos (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Polar Ice Caps on Mars Section

Why is the bit about polar ice caps on mars in here? Seems a useless bit of trivia, and not really appropriate for the section. --Iscariot40 (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Expanded info and moved it to Glacier#Glaciers_on_Mars. Jo (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ice fields? states?

Could we get a definition of theidifference between an ice field and a glacier? Also, how about a listing of what US states have glaciers and which don't? Also, I'm interseted if there are any Eastern mountain glaciers (Mount Washington, Laurentians, etc.)TCO (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is not quite explicit in this article and Ice field, but the fundamental difference is that glaciers move (first sentence of this article). Ice fields don't. The list of US states presently with glaciers will be pretty short. Without doing any checking, Alaska, and high mountain glaciers in Montana, Washington, Oregon, California, and Colorado. Maybe Wyoming. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

MAYBE Wyoming? The total area of glaciers in the Wind River Range is larger than that of all other glaciers in the American Rockies. They're not as big as the glaciers of the Cascades, and they're nothing by Alaskan or Himalayan standards, but Wyoming does have some pretty nice specimens--much more impressive than Colorado's. Utah, Idaho, and Nevada all had remnant glaciers as of the mid 20th century, but they've pretty much dwindled to the point where it's debatable whether they fit the definition of a glacier any more. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Glacier Melting

I strongly suggest to include a section on glaciar melting, which is a very hot international topic by scientist ranging from geologists and environmentalists to biologists. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Exacerbated By Global Warming

My suggestion is to insert the word "possibly" in front of "Exacerbated by global warming" as this is not a factual statement as is but a popular opinion and is subject of debate among earth-scientists world-wide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.45.159.77 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Updating

Toolbox ()
disambig links edit count external links readability est.

This page needs alot of work. I will work through the entire text this week, correcting inaccuracies and filling in gaps. I will then add references. At that point it will need a look by someone else at the organization.Peltoms (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I will be glad to assist you as I can. It would be wonderful if you could make appropriate improvements.--MONGO 04:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mongo, I have removed the ice age section and wonder about removing the glacial geology, it is really a separate topic, we all know that article length is key, and would it be better to have these two covered in a separate topic? I have finished the first run through. I will do one more run through adding the references.Peltoms (talk) 12:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still looking at the Glacial Geology section and wondering if that shouldn't be split off as well...but not sure about this matter. I'm not terribly worried about maintaining a 35kb size (it's 41kb currently) so unless it gets to be 50-60kbs then splitting isn't too manadatory. I have added the toolbox link at right which helps us determine some overall issues this article faces, which seem to be few. I am more than happy to start working on refs myself since the 11 we currently have is far too few...40-50 would be better, and these should come from at least 20 seperate sources. The current readability quality of the article is still below Featured Article levels, but this may be because it simply needs copyediting still. I also think we need to find better and fewer images and ensure these images provide a global perspective and show specific details such as crevasses, moraines, etc. I have upgraded this article to "A" class in quality since it is pretty close to at least what is deemed as a "Good Article".--MONGO 16:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Though I just got through saying we have too many images here...I added one that shows the northern polar icecap on Mars....and I think a brief mention of the Martian icecaps is warranted, but wouldn't be opposed to seeing this instead moved and linked to at another article.--MONGO 17:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We will not worry about splitting it off until we see the final product. I have begun to add some references, I know exactly which ones to use as the original sources of some of the information, I will also use online references for ease of access. It is the formatting of these that I will at first not pay much attention to. Peltoms (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I can worry about the formatting issues...what we need mostly is simply more refs and better definitions overall.--MONGO 14:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A class

I agree with MONGO on the A class status of this article. It is pretty near to Good Article standard, therefore due to agreement of two separate reviewers from WikiProject Glaciers I am changing it back to A class Polargeo (talk) 09:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There's an incomplete sentence "Velocity increases with increasing slope, increasing thickness, increasing snowfall, increasing longitudinal confinement, increasing basal temperature, increasing meltwater production, reduced bed hardness and" which needs attention, along with one citation needed marker. DrKiernan (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for pointing out those two issues. I have dealt with them. Although in such a large article one citation needed tag surely doesn't warrent demotion to B class. I note Global warming has two citation needed tags and is a featured article. That was the only one I looked at, I'm sure there are many many others.Polargeo (talk) 11:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ice calving

Hi foks. I just created Ice calving. If anyone has time to give it a look-over, that would be great. I was slightly toasted when I made it and I'm sure it's full of errors. I searched the topic on Wiki first, but am not sure if there isn't already an article that covers this. If you know, please advise. Finally, there are about 300 articles that refer to 'calving' (excluding helping out pregnant cows). If you would be so kind and have a few minutes, linking a few here and there would be very helpful. Thanks all. Oh yeah, I didn't add anything about global warming in the article. Please feel free.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

North Cascades?

In this page, all of the images have a text explaining the country the picture is taken in, except one further down. It just says, North Cascades. I had no idea what this mysterious "North Cascades" is, so I clocked on the link. "Aah it's in the US, why doesn't it say?" The answer is simple. This text is not neutral. I've noticed this on many other pages too, so I will edit wherever find it. Don't revert my edits because many people does not know what the heck all of the things in the US are. --89.233.224.13 (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.50.145 (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

General Question

I just visited the discussion page on an unrelated subject and discovered i had a new message that revealed an edit i had made had been reverted (an edit made to the Glacier page)

Now I have never edited this page (in fact i don't recall ever having visited it before today)

Why is my username being sullied? 58.169.239.32 (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You have not established a username, or if you have, you aren't using it. Someone else probably made the edit that was questioned.[3] To avoid such problems, you may choose your own username.[4] Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Another general question: a picture of a "black ice" glacier in the article begs the question; what makes the ice black? Can't seem to find the answer, other than roadway black ice.Ebrockway (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The ice is black due to imbedded fine rock dust. Apcbg (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Polar deserts

"Conversely, areas of the Arctic, such as Banks Island, and the McMurdo Dry Valleys in Antarctica are considered polar deserts, as they receive little snowfall despite the bitter cold." I think this is wrong. Certainly, the dry valleys are kept dry by katabatic winds (as their article says). The actual snowfall there isn't too relevant (depending on exactly what you mean by it) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Polar desert makes much the same point. But most of the interior of Antarctica is polar desert. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Racial superiority

I removed the following:

with winter temperatures believed to reach −100 °C (−148 °F) in parts,

because the it was not on the page number noted, because the source is from 1938, and because the source seems to be pseudoscientific theories on racial superiority. The title of the chapter beginning on p. 59, for example, is "Glaciation and the Supremacy of Europe". I haven't read enough to conclude it's a racist book, but it seems to tend towards this direction. I think it should be dropped. Ufwuct (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

References

Merged article

There was a proposal, dating back to December 2009, to merge Ogive (glacier) with Glacier#Ogives. It was never discussed, but there was nothing in the former that was not done better in the latter. I have therefore performed the merge. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Deletions

Making an article better is not just about removing content like this. While some of the edits recently made have been improvements, nothing has been added to the references, so the article, while it did need a lot of work before, seems to be going a bit backward now. This is a pretty broad subject that is a top-importance rated article for Wikipedia:WikiProject Glaciers so what it needs is to be comprehensive. It is no way near a Good Article level at this point and may need to be downgraded from "B"-class to "C"-class.--MONGO 02:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand the need for comprehensiveness, but the original was, well, bad. It had been translated directly from Spanish, and that showed. Sentences like "The top 50 metres (160 ft) of the glacier, being under less pressure, are more rigid; this section is known as the fracture zone, and mostly moves as a single unit, over the plastic-like flow of the lower section." disrupt readability. Explanations like "This process is known as plucking, and it is produced when subglacial water penetrates the fractures and the subsequent freezing expansion separates them from the bedrock. When the ice expands, it acts as a lever that loosens the rock by lifting it" are not, in my opinion, clear enough to get their points across. Large amounts of redundancy--such as a section devoted to defining terms defined better elsewhere in the page--bloated the article. And details such as which Alaskan glaciers are popular with cruise ships just seemed unnecessary to me. Now, I've cut the article down a lot, and I probably deleted some stuff I shouldn't have deleted in the process. I'll try to fix that. But I don't think there are too many unnecessary deletions. This article just needs entirely new content. And yeah, GAN was dumb on my part. Not sure why I did it. Just looking for feedback (this is my first major revision); wasn't the best way to go about it. Thanks, though! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imareaver (talk • contribs) 05:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the article or sections of it were translated from Spanish...the website has many editors for which English is a second language and an article such as this one is likely to attract an international audience. Overall, I can see some of the trimming, though it is a lot, as the article went from nearly 60K to 43k...a cut of nearly a third. I would reword and reinsert the section (as shown in the diff provided in my earlier comment) the section "Glacier comes from French..." Obviously, the needs to be rewritten, but that or something similar seems mandatory. There are other areas that were trimmed but that one stood out in a cursory glance.--MONGO 15:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the comments on etymology. While I'm sure it could be improved, it is important to include in the article, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Active glaciers?

The Thule_Air_Base entry mentions active glaciers (without a link), and there's a bunch of other entries that do, some implying this refers to one with an area larger than some (unspecified) threshold. Is there anyone who knows what the threshold is, and may be able to add a definition to this entry? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have heard that anything less than 25 acres (10 ha) is considered less than the area necessary to be considered a glacier. Anything smaller than that is just ice or semi-permanent snow.--MONGO 11:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Looked around a bit more and I found http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/files/norock/products/GlacierRecession_infosheet2010_SRC_040910.pdf which seems to confirm that figure as the boundary, but not sure it's authoritative. Still useful to have that around, thanks. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Glaciologist Mauri Pelto (User:Peltoms is where I have heard that figure from in the past. I'll email him and ask if he knows of some reliable sources.--MONGO 14:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Glacier diagram.svg

I see this article has several diagrams. I note, however, that this one is missing. Perhaps editors more familiar with this topic can judge whether it is worthy of being added? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)