Active discussions

Missing informationEdit

I had to search google to find out where Alma, New Brunswick is. Well it is in Canada. Can you add it to the two images on the top? רם אזרח מזרחי (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done. Not really necessary, as hovering over the existing links immediately shows Canada... but done anyway: [1]. - DVdm (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


Concerning the text and diagram of tides in Cook Strait, Nelson is on the southern side, Wellington on the north   Done Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Cook Strait ... againEdit

The description belonging to the diagram was corrected, but the main body of text still has Nelson to the north and Wellington to the south. It is the other way around.

  Done Since you can edit here, you can edit in mainspace and could therefore have done the corrections yourself. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Cook Strait ... again ... againEdit

There are still errors in the text saying Nelson is north and Wellington is south. I am not a registered Wikipedia user, and as a matter of principle I do not register with internet websites. I cannot therefore edit the text myself. Regards Alan Graham Robinson

You do not have to register with WP to edit, so you can edit yourself. I couldn't see where the problem is, so unless you make it clear (not just airy "There are still errors") any errors will go uncorrected. Please ensure you sign all edits on the talk page with four tildes (~~~~). Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

When I open the page for editing I see this ... 'This page is currently semi-protected so that only established, registered users can edit it.' But seeing how you turn personal (not just an airy) might I just make this observation; I thought Wikipedia existed for the betterment of mankind by the dissipation of knowledge and fact. I should have thought that the Wikipedia community were keen to raise standards and enhance Wikipedia's reputation. I should have thought that whoever put these mistakes in the article would have welcomed them being pointed out. I should have thought that people participating in this talk page would have their facts straight before becoming huffy with those who come here, with the best intentions, to make improvements. But in retrospect, maybe I should have read the Wikipedia article on ego before made such assumptions.

Anyway, seeing how you haven't read the article carefully and for your guidance, as I read the article this morning it says ' only one of the two spring tides at the north end (Nelson) has a counterpart spring tide at the south end (Wellington), so the resulting behaviour follows neither reference harbour.' And if we really want to be fussy, Wellington is in fact on the EAST side of Cook Strait, situated on NORTH Island. Nelson isn't on Cook Strait at all, but on South Island and some 100 km to the WEST of Cook Strait. I am not a registered user and therefore cannot correct this tripe. (talk) 04:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Alan Graham Robinson

Right, first an apology. I hadn't seen that the article was one of the few that has had to be semi-protected. Basically this means there has been a lot of vandalism in the past and the normal rules have had to be suspended to stop the vandals.
I'm not too familiar with NZ geography (we did in at school in 1966/7), so do tend to check things up before making changes. The Cook strait runs roughly NW to SE, and Wellington is at the SE according to Bing maps. There does appear to be a Nelson in the middle of the Cook straight, see Nelson, New Zealand. By the way, the article mentions Napier, but the only Napier I have found is Napier, New Zealand which certainly is not on the Cook Strait, but is on the East side of North Island, and so I assume it only gets one cycle of springs/neaps per month. I've amended "south end" to be "south east end" and "north (Nelson)" to "north west end of the strait near Nelson". Is this satisfactory?
Moving on, please have a read of {{Request edit}}. Whilst you don't have to use the template, the page does give guidance at point 3 as to what information is needed. Please remember that editors are volunteers who are interested in particular topics and points that are important in themselves may be peripheral to the particular page. That's why we need a collaboration bringing in this case your knowledge of NZ to my interest in tides. BTW, thanks for using the signature mechanism. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Metric ConsistencyEdit

I don't mind the use of either English or Metric systems, but we should be consistent in each article (as we do with BE and AE, Serial Commas, etc).

In the section Lake Tides, the first measurement is in metric, converted to English parenthetically. The next sentence has English, converted to metric...followed by a FRACTIONAL measurement instead of decimal. I would make the changes myself, but I'm not certain which way to go.

Thanks, WesT (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  Done as best as I can; kept the fraction since that's what's given in the source and I'm hesitant to convert to a decimal giving a false sense of measurement precision; units are now given in metric-first. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! That's what I would have opted for, but I wasn't bold enough to try. WesT (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the recognition of tidal physics in IndiaEdit

Hi, I'm not aware of every reference to the effects of the diurnal cycle on the tides in Indian literature/sciences, however it should be noted that the Ramayana, the ancient Indian epic, in the section Sundara Kanda talks of this effect and perhaps deserves a note in the "History of tides" section. This section narrates Hanuman, one of the characters, observing the moon.

"Then he saw the moon, which destroys the sorrows of the world, which increased the levels of the great sea and which traveled by giving light to all beings."

Wrong explanation and opposite effect?Edit

I've read before that the moon and sun do not attract the water like it says here (sorry, can't find the article). The moon and sun actually attract the earth, that is not solid, so the water flows down in the other direction, making the tides. I just checked the tide and moon positions for my city and it's consistent. I'm in Quebec City, the full moon was on the horizon around 6am (May 7th 2020), and it was a high tide, and at 2pm the moon will be at nadir (down) and the sun up, making a low tide (I checked the moon position with the SkyMap app and the tides here: I googled a bit and it seems that most webpages are consistent with wikipedia, but it's not what I just observed when looking at the actual data. Someone care to tell me if I'm disastrously wrong? Thanks! Ccvieira (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Here we can only discuss the article, not its subject — see wp:Talk page guidelines. You can try asking at our wp:Reference desk/Science. Good luck. - DVdm (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The section on tidal physics explains that the driving force is the differing lunar (and to a lesser extent solar) gravitational force over the Earth's surface. This produces a oscillating tractive force that operates on ocean basins (see bathymetry) to sustain resonant patterns of movement. The timing of high water at any given point is dependent upon the movement of masses of water around an amphidromic point. As the mass sweeps past there is high tide, when the mass is missing there is low tide. I'm sorry to say that on both points you make you are wrong, possibly not disastrously though :-). If you need more help, look for books designed for sailors, not schoolkids, or as DVdm says take this to the reference desk. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I figure this article is, in large part, designed for future physicists and oceanographers, who are splendid people but not ones who most need to look up tides in a general encyclopedia. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please Look Again at the ExplanationEdit

I am a professional engineer with a scientific (Physics) education. I visited this site in the hope of finding an explanation for the two opposite tidal bulges, but found that the explanation given ('Forces' section) was completely impenetrable. God knows what a layman would make of it. I have gone away no better informed that I started. PLEASE try again to give an explanation which is to the point, and which can be followed by an intelligent reader. We want to know why the oceans rise on opposite sides of the earth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 07:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The short answer is that there aren't – that is the schoolbook explanation. Even the Venerable Bede in AD 725 realised that the water was surging around the sea: he explains that the tide "deserts these shores in order to be able all the more to be able to flood other [shores] when it arrives there". Consider for a moment if there were simply two bulges chasing around the planet. As the bulge sweeps across the Pacific it encounters the Americas and must either stream past Cape Horn at an incredible velocity, or simply jump over the whole continents. Three hours later it hits Europe and Africa so has to find its way around the Cape of Good Hope at hypersonic speed or else jump the whole of Europe and Asia. Perhaps that's why the British Isles get a lot of rain? :-) Where you are correct is that a rewrite is needed. I suspect that there is a lot of timidity here, attempting to debunk the two bulge analysis always results in shouts from those who learnt it at school and know that it's right, even when they can see it is wrong. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Tide" page.