Jump to content

Talk:Black Sea

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

[edit]

Here's a new article that might be useful:

  • Karatay, Osman (in press). "On the origins of the name for the 'Black Sea'". Journal of Historical Geography. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2010.08.018. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no mention that locals to the area know the sea is a lot more hospitable than the Aegean (warmer in summer, etc).

Also in recent years the amount of bacterial infections by swimmers has increased due to the sea being used by so many industrial shipping routes. So it has become more inhospitable in a way. 31.151.113.102 (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Residence time

[edit]

According to This book, the residence time for water in the Black sea ranges from about 4.8 to 625 years, depending on depth. I thought I read about that here once before. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European bias?

[edit]

The Black sea is also connected to the Indian Ocean via the Suez canal and the red sea. It is more closer that way. 152.14.125.72 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about this, or you're just testing to see who's going to protest about you being intoxicated when you wrote all this nonsense!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.94.91 (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have found a new theory about the Black sea name. See Svetovid, the appearance section. Maybe is it worth mentioning on this page as well? Valugi (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this article on Black Sea, countries around the Sea are mentioned alphabetically. It would be more useful if they were mentioned geographically in clockwise or anti-clockwise sequence.

As this is Geographical article, political correctness should not be factor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.8.16 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrochemistry

[edit]

This paragraph:

Modelling shows the release of the hydrogen sulphide clouds in the event of an asteroid impact into the Black Sea would pose a threat to health—or even life—for people living on the Black Sea coast.[25]

is rather lost. It needs some introduction about the conditions that lead up to this consequence. Is it because of the underlying rock? Dissolved gases in lower layers of the water? Something else? Without this it's just a random observation about a very rare event and there's nothing to indicate that it's a peculiarity of the Black Sea and wouldn't happen if an asteroid fell into some other body of water.

Pstemari (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I read this in the article I came to comment on it. I can't believe it's even there, It's just ridiculous. It should go without saying that a sizable meteorite impact "would pose a threat to health—or even life—for people living" where ever it might happen. 209.179.21.14 (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not ridiculous, but needs expansion and explanation. The missing info is that there is significant H2S in the deep waters. From an abstract: "Since the hydrogen sulphide (H2S) zone was discovered in the early 19th century in the Black Sea...".
The H2S article has nothing about this either. A paragraph here should explain the occurance data before mentioning the impact hypothesis.73.81.148.202 (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

[edit]

Currently 44°N 35°E is given as coordinates, while the geographic centre is located at 43° 17′ 49″ N, 34° 1′ 46″ E; or 43.296944, 34.029444 in decimal degrees. I suggest to adjust this or at least mention it. Link : https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/geohack.php?language=en&pagename=%D0%A7%D1%91%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5_%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B5&params=43_17_49_N_34_1_46_E_scale:5000000_type:waterbody

There is no need for this. See WP:OPCOORD. Bazonka (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of a politically biased map

[edit]

The map inserted on the top right side of the main page is mistakenly displaying the country officially known as F.Y.R.O.M. (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia) as "Macedonia". However, this name is not officially accepted, because it is seriously disputed by the neighboring Republic of Greece on the basis of Historical, Cultural and Geo-Political reasons. Until this dispute is settled the proper name should be used. All international organizations (United Nations Organization, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, European Union, etc.) have adopted the acronym F.Y.R.O.M. for official use and certainly NOT just plain "Macedonia". The Greek Republic is very serious about that and wikipedia should abide with international law or risk finding itself at the wrong end of the judicial stick. Please remove this map and replace it with one that shows the proper name of this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.94.91 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FYROM. Wikipedia policy is to refer to the country as just Macedonia where there is no ambiguity. If you disagree with this, then the best place to discuss it would be Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia), although you aren't likely to change anything. Also please note Wikipedia:No legal threats. Bazonka (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

These few days the article is under anonymous user attack, it's clear that someone tries to make the same willful change from different IPs. I think the article needs protection from IPs.--g. balaxaZe★ 21:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

colors and directions

[edit]

In the the name section, the four seas named after four colors are discussed. I can't seem to confirm it on the net, but I distinctly remember the four colors were historically associated with the four cardinal directions. Red was historically associated with the South, yellow for East, white for West, and Black for the North. So the White sea is the Mediterranean Sea, The Yellow Sea is the East China Sea, and the Red and Black Seas are still called the Red and Black Seas. Can anyone out there help confirm or deny this?

Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Status of Crimea and Crimean Cities

[edit]

According to UN and EU, Crimea is not a disputed territory, but a Ukrainian territory annexed by Russia. This act of Russia caused sanctions against Russia. Claiming that Crimea, or its parts, is disputed is wrong. It's not better than supporting ISIS claims, whatever they were.

Vlad Patryshev (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start??

[edit]

Stumbled upon this; goes against every standard and guideline. Single sentence paragraphs? IWI (chat) 21:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

zoomed out version of main map

[edit]

Is there a more zoomed-out copyright-free map we could use as the first map? Something that shows more of the surrounding areas. I am from the other side of the world, and from that map i can't actually tell which sea this is about. Obviously in my case i'll scroll down, click a few links, try google maps etc. I'm just saying that isn't a very informative as a first image for someone unfamiliar with the region. Irtapil (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fixed it myself, i found something suitable in commons and added it to the box. Irtapil (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why the American dates template?

[edit]

why when the only place that puts the units of time so terribly out of order is on the other side of the world? (not the same other side as me, i'm Southern hemisphere.) Irtapil (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal cities, requesting help;

[edit]

Greetings,

Since the previous article section Black Sea#Holiday resorts and spas being more apt at sister project is shifted @ wikivoyage and the section is to be upgraded to Black Sea#Coastal and port cities on Black Sea coast and trade (If some one changes section heading further pl. do update here too).

  • Black sea coastal cities do have a long naval and trade history too including that of female slave trade actually which is my primary area of interest to update related Wikipedia articles, but any trade we research for any historical city we are going to come across slavery and non slavery both kind of trade, so I thought it would be proper to research and map the same in more detail with Wikipedian collaborative effort hence this effort to update this section.

Crimean cities, how to describe contemporary political status?

[edit]

At Ref desk discussion some users expressed concern over depiction of political status of Crimean cities.

As of now I have mentioned Russia* denotes contemporary disputed territories claimed by Ukraine but personally I do not have preferences which way to be depicted; rather after studying history of Black sea female slavery Where in one neighboring region Crimean Khanate looted women of neighboring region Circassia and sold them in distant Ottoman empire; in course of time one more neighboring region emerges as a big player expels and deports inhabitants of both Crimea and Circassia with humanitarian crisis; there after in 21 century too big player Russia and small big neighbor Ukraine fight for territories. What any uninvolved Wikipedians supposed to have opinion beyond being neutral? Please don't take my reason of neutrality negatively, Why I explain some how I find this point discussion encyclopedicaly less important so those who can avoid this political discussion please help spend time for researching trade and slave history of this region or even tourism while those who are interested thrash out this subject.

Btw I do not want to close this discussion too early since it is good point of attraction and there after I can request people joining the discussion to join researching slave history of Black sea region and update Wikipedia further for the same. Thanks for joining the discussion. Bookku (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding User:Pipsally's issues

[edit]

Dear User:Pipsally greetings,

a) You seem to have some issue with dif 1010177656 of User:John L. Booth. Edit of User:John L. Booth just adds additional information which had been already requested on article talk page, since topic is already on talk page and your editing is contrary to Wikipedia spirit then is it not your moral responsibility to come at the article talk page first?

b)Are you sure your edit war with the addition making user elsewhere is not just spilling over here ? and you really don't have a point here ?

I am just pointing out, not expecting any answer from you on above points, I don't want to stretch this point too much further, since usually I am against personalizing the issues.

Let us come to content dispute

[edit]

Let me understand what is your content issue with dif 1010177656 ?

1) Can you help understand you do not have issue with a table that seeks information but you seem to have issue with addition of information, can we understand your point better? 2) You do have issue with dif 1010177656 does not have references ? 3) Or do you have issue with mentioning of old historical names of the cities ? If so why do you have issue with mentioning of old names?

I did seek names of old names of cities to update history of trade in black sea. The people like me if know old names of cities searching history of trade related information becomes easier, we can avoid mistakes in factual detail, that is how my logic goes can you explain how my logic is wrong?
If at all you and other users do not want old names in long term I won't have issues to remove those at a latter stage after completion of historic trade related updates since if old names are there others readers too can easily join for factual verification over period of time.
Can you please positively discuss keeping personal conflict with other user aside and let me know how we can positively proceed ?
Looking forward to your constructive collaboration in improving trade history related information.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Requested help" on the talk does not somehow qualify edits to be automatically accepted. That's before we get to you're curious randon request for help from a new editor on a page they're previously shown no interest in, which is pushing towards meat puppetry.
There's no real need to add all the ancient names to this article, it's bloat, and the information is adequately covered extensively elsewhere. this article is aguably overlong already and could do with a thorough edit.Pipsally (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pipsally:
  • Can you explain me the logic that tourism related small places can be listed in the article and not second names of trade related big places ?
  • Since I do not know, neither I want to be judge, on which tourism places are notable for this article and which are not I did not delete the list, leaving for discussion by people who are interested in/ related to the topic. Once they decide at this talk page tourism related list will get smaller, besides there is one more list related list, that earlier list and my list can be combined that will save space and that proposition is in pipeline already.
  • I can do the work of old city names on talk pages too but still I wanted to get involved more users from Black sea related topics as collaborative effort so I included list there in the article.
  • All the articles that need expansion, first I include related linked names in the articles and then I give 'related edits' from the menu and who ever is adding new content I do invite them for article expansions. Similar way user User:John L. Booth's name came there so invitation went to him. You might have issues which others need not be aware while sending article expansion invitations. (Also do note invitation already included talk page discussion link too)
  • I do not want to stretch issue of adding old city names too much alone, it is for Wikipedia community visiting this discussion to decide.
  • Please let me know if you are against adding history of Balck sea trade to this article, in that case we will invite others for that point and then at later stage discuss at RfC .Mean while I can work on history of Black sea trade in sandbox.
  • So pl. do understand if it is an attempt to block history of Black sea trade then that will come in this or some other article in Wikipedia, hopefully you won't be able to soft censor whole of Wikipedia but still if you want to spend time on soft censoring Wikipedia then best wishes to you.
Thanks any ways Bookku (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this list adds usefully to this article. It would be better as it's one page of anything. The list is arbitrary and incomplete and it's bloat for this page, which again needs a good overhaul.
The list you removed shouldn't be in here either.Pipsally (talk) 09:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pipsally: Have you seen there is one more list, there are total three lists. I don't have issues removing all the three lists temporarily and seek the consensus on talk page before we restore them.
My another question is if other part of article lengthy and clumsy even proper listing of cities is also supposed to suffer?
You have not answered my question on trade in Black sea region. Thanks Bookku (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I think all the lists should come out.
I'm not sure exactly where the Black Sea Trade discussion comes into this, though my answer would be similar in that I think a solid but brief summary is sufficient in this article and that covering the topic in more depth in a standalone article in the context of bodies like the Black_Sea_Trade_and_Development_Bank and Organization_of_the_Black_Sea_Economic_Cooperation would be more productive.
BTW in the context of your comments elsewhere I have no strong feelings on the Ottoman Empire one way or the other, other than like most empires they have both admirable qualities and deplorable ones, great episodes and shameful ones. What I do feel strongly about is that there should be adequate, non partisan and reliable sources for edits around nationality and ethnicity and not just changes based on personal feelings and OR. You'll note that once those were provided and consensus was established on the Battle of Alcacer Quibir I've made no further efforts to change what is reliably sourced, (though I do continue to have doubts about the size of the Ottoman contribution to that battle.)Pipsally (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pipsally: Thanks for letting me know your opinions. When I was stopped while working on cultural aspect of segment of women, I didn't understand I started digging more, reached to women related bigger area of work Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones, while working on it I I realized commoner women's female slavery of Black sea area of Ottoman times and central Asia is under covered. If meditarian slave trade is well covered in European slave trade article there is no reason Black sea slave trade to be avoided.
As we take note of good parts of the history we need to take bad parts of history too into our encyclopedic stride. Whether it is western slavery or eastern one specially injustices towards women in any geographic area need to be accounted and reported in those geography related articles of course with due references, that what I believe and strive for.
Hence if any way I am going to work on Black sea female slave trade then I will work on general trade too because it does not take additional time. I will work and let community decide whether what and how much part of trade to be included and whether they want to shy away from reporting history of female slave trade in Black sea.
As far as lengths of the article is concerned some other sections too need split and briefing in this article. If other sections too are briefed neatly there is no reason a paragraph or two for Black sea trade also can not be accommodated. Earlier I wanted to focus only on trade since you have pointed out I will work on trimming other sections too. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what any of that has to do with a list of towns around the Black Sea which is what this discussion is actually about. i'm sure there's a place for an article on the Black Sea economy, and the slave trade therein. It doesn't need more than a summary in this article though.Pipsally (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are kindly invited to expand Draft:Black Sea trade and economy. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 13:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some article restructuring and overhaul

[edit]

Greetings,

A major article overhaul being proposed, by clubbing, splitting, trimming of some sections. I am quite okay if some one else works on overhaul and restructuring, That would save my time, If no one comes ahead I will do it my self. Suggestions too are most welcome.

  • I will be sending some discussion invitations from article history statistics, active users who have contributed reasonable amount of content to the article or related articles previously, others too are welcome to join in.

Bookku (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coastline length by country :→ (proposing section clubbing)
  • Basin countries & ‎Largest rivers :→ (proposing section clubbing of Rivers and Basin Countries in tabular form) :→ Created Black Sea drainage basin as main article, so besides Table we can have a brief paragraph in long run from Black Sea drainage basin article.
  • Population :→‎ (proposing section clubbing Splitting Briefing )
  • Oil and natural gas :→‎(proposing section restructuring by partially shifting to economics ):→ Draft:Black Sea trade and economy
  • ‎Ecology  :→ (proposing section splitting and briefing)
  • Climate  :→‎ (proposing section clubbing with ecology as separate article and briefing in this article):→ Draft:Black Sea climate and ‎ecology
  • Islands & Bays:→‎ ( Sections deserves brief encyclopedic para than that of just list)
  • Recorded history  :→‎ (proposing Splitting of socio political history ) Splitting to :→‎ History of Black Sea
  • ‎Historical names and etymology  :→‎ (proposing restructuring splitting and section clubbing History special article) Splitting to :→‎ History of Black Sea
  • Article help requirements are mentioned in brief in respective section notice templates; Besides Following new split articles have been created to take care of above mentioned needs. Please help them expand. Bookku (talk)
    Bookku, I just came here from Black Sea climate and ecology and was just about to tag it for speedy deletion as a direct duplicate of material in this article. I think the correct thing to have done here would be to place a {{split}} notice on top of the article to clearly notify people of what you are proposing. I will do that now. I think some splitting may a good idea, but maybe you should await some more input before you go ahead with it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elmidae: I have taken note of your point now, thanks for placing {{split}}. As such two weeks before I made mention of changes in edit summary since article has large number of watchers and good number visiting edits. Besides I did effort to search active users among top 30 who edited article previously, to seek their inputs, though I found only five of them active to whom I notified the proposed changes but most of these five were just copy editors, one of them seems to have done small edits too.
    Since restructuring and split is mainly done for reducing clutter and Splitting will help neatness of those section better organic growth of independent articles.
    Since I just came across the article preferred to help it out, I am not insistent on any point if some one wants to arrange it in different way I am not likely have much issues .
    Thanks and warm regards
    Bookku (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you want to drop a notice at the talk pages of a few related wikiprojects? Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography seem reasonably active. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done thanks Bookku (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Bookku, the content on this page was only just over 30kB of prose, and is now at 27kB. What was the impetus for splitting it? For any split pages, I suggest applying Template:Copied onto their talkpages. CMD (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for your participation in the discussion.
    From your message it's not clear which specific split article you are referring to, so I consider it general question as of now.
    I received at least one 'thanks' for split so that means there are more likely different opinions and I welcome all of those including yours.
    Total length of article is grown exponentially so it needs treatment
    Clutter of 10 10 bytes adds to clutter of hundred bytes So let us join in making the article smarter by shifting the clutter.
    The majior part of content was added in 2008, there must have been mor RS sources available to develop article further.
    Then next imp point is potential of content to grow further can be better in independent article
    I do not own the article so I did not trim it in one go rather I prefer others to join in trimming or given the liberty I will trim it further over a period of time since I will prefer to do it with minimum shock to the usual readers.
    The rest as Wkipedians decides so more opinions are welcome.
    Thanks and warm regards
    Bookku (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I don't have any comments on the specific content yet, I'm commenting based on the overall presence of a split tag. This article is currently 27kB long, and in general (per WP:SIZE) I don't look to split until it reaches above 40kB. However, that is prose only, so if the suggestion is moving overlong and detailed tables/lists that is a different consideration. Hence why I'm inquiring into the reasoning behind this. I would support splitting lists, for example the list of animal species currently in this article, while keeping the prose. CMD (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What is “clubbing”? —Michael Z. 15:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mzajac: Kind of merging, Pl. see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 188#Requesting assistance in clubbing of tables.
    Looking for merging/clubbing help @ Black Sea#Drainage basin (This likely to need detail knowledge of every concerned river and region)
    Also looking for merging/clubbing help @ Black Sea#Coastal and port cities on Black Sea coast, population and trade
    Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drainage basin countries

[edit]

Both the section '#Drainage basin' here and '#Basin countries' at Black Sea drainage basin say there are 25 countries in the basin and then they list only 24. What is the 25-th country, missing in the lists? --CiaPan (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're on the subject, I notice that Greece is included in the list of countries that the Black Sea's drainage basin covers. This seems erroneous: most of the sources cited omit Greece (save a European Union programme, which might have wider criteria of inclusion), and the relevant maps show clearly that all of northeastern Greece is drained into the Aegean (along with all adjacent Bulgarian territory), either by the Maritsa and its tributaries or directly by smaller rivers further west. Northwestern Greece is likewise not drained into the Black Sea, as the Danube's drainage basin barely reaches Albania (where the vast majority of the waters end up in the Adriatic) and North Macedonia (most of which is drained by the Vardar system into the Aegean). Waltham, The Duke of 13:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about "inland" status depending on whether Europe and Asia are considered a single continent is misleading

[edit]

The Black Sea is connected to the ocean via the Mediterranean. The Caspian Sea is not connected to the ocean at all.

The fact that the Black Sea is connected to the ocean does not depend on whether Europe and Asia are considered a single continent. We have not seen a source claiming otherwise.

Britannica does refer to the Black Sea as "inland", as per source recently added by @Pipsally:. Britannica also claims that the Caspian Sea is "world's the largest inland body of water" [1]. So Britannica either contradicts itself, or their usage of "inland" in the Black Sea article is colloquial, not strictly meaning "disconnected from the ocean". Tropcho (talk) 08:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salinity

[edit]

It is unfortunate that this article lacks a description of Black Sea salinity other that vague qualitative information and a single concentration given i poorly defined PSU. (Practical salinity unit but sometimes percent, sometimes per mille, sometimes defined for volume sometimes for weight an possibly following some simplified procedure to convert other quantities (e.g. conductivity or density) into salinity. 150.227.15.253 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Sorry I now found a bit more information on the salinity of the Black Sea, but more would certainly be welcome. The PSU was typically based on halide ion titration using silvernitrate.150.227.15.253 (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me

[edit]

Greetings,

Hi, I am User:Bookku, my expectations to get expanded Black sea related articles failed miserably. I am expecting and requesting at least some help in expanding the article Draft:List of erstwhile slave trading townships with regions surrounding Black sea. In next steps I wish to have a proper map showing erstwhile slave trading townships across black sea.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul is along the coast?

[edit]

it might be close, but it is not on the coast. Maybe change it to "Important cities along ("along"? or "on"?) or near the coast" --142.163.194.224 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. According to the limits defined in the Geography section, the Black Sea ends at the northern end of the Bosporus. So Istanbul is close to but not on the Black Sea. I'll remove it from the list. Declangi (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting more options
'in proximity/ vicinity ' 'adjacent' 'nearby' 'in the region of'
BTW on side note, I am looking for some list expansion help in the Draft:Former centers of slave trading
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Depth

[edit]

I think the number should say 2588 meters = 8491 feet.

Sources: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256485436_Evaluation_of_the_Circulation_Patterns_in_the_Black_Sea_Using_Remotely_Sensed_and_in_Situ_Measurements also the online map at https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/maps/bathymetry/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.140.150.29 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Biogeochemical Cycles

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KumruKocaman (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dclark57.

— Assignment last updated by MethanoJen (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ranking of cities

[edit]
Important cities along the coast include Odesa, Samsun, Sevastopol, Sochi, Varna, Constanța, Trabzon, Novorossiysk, Burgas, and Batumi.

The order of these was changed a few weeks ago, without stating a reason. I don't know the rationale for either order; perhaps by population? If it were up to me I'd make it clockwise from the Bosporus. —Tamfang (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamfang I would support and looking forward to 'clockwise listing from the Bosporus' as you suggested. Bookku (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hm, someone objected to the same arrangement for the states: clock doesn't start at six o'clock, or does it? List by letter. Strange way to put it. I see the list as part of the description of the Black Sea itself, but I suppose it's possible that some readers come here to see whether their favorite state has a Black Sea coast. —Tamfang (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Schwarzes Meer" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Schwarzes Meer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 19 § Schwarzes Meer until a consensus is reached. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Sea&oldid=1194082560"