Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Glaciers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Glaciers is part of WikiProject Glaciers, a WikiProject related to glaciers and glaciology worldwide. It may include the Glacier infobox. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

I think an infobox for glaciers would be a good idea. The box would need space for an a banner at top with perhaps a bluish color, an image, a image caption, the type of glacier, location, area, length, coordinates and anything else anyone can think of. It's not mandatory and there is no hurry, but it might add a nice touch.--MONGO 08:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that There is a very basic infobox for many Norwegian glaciers as shown at Okstindbreen, and there is a different infobox at Columbia Glacier, Alaska and at Taku Glacier. --MONGO 12:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1 Naming clarification
2 InfoBox Question
3 Project directory
4 sea ice & drift ice

[edit] Naming clarification

Thanks for joining the project. I thought that there are enough articles on glaciers that a project was possible. Just to do some clarifications, I think an ice field and an ice cap are different things. Generally, an Ice cap is a body of ice that is larger than a Glacier, is more continuous, but is smaller than an Ice sheet. Modern ice sheets would include only Greenland and Antartica...but of course, much of Siberia, northern Europe and North America were also once under ice sheets. I think that ice cap is also used for larger mountain based areas of continuous ice. I may have to work on clarification of these major definition articles to clear up what they should say to differentiate themselves. An Ice field is more ambiguous...not sure what the differences between it is and the other definitions, but I'll try and figure it out. I think you probably alreay know all of this, so excuse me if I'm coming across as condescending. The Ice field and Ice cap definitions must be avaiable somewhere. I mean we have Columbia Icefield, Wapta Icefield, Waputik Icefield and we also have the Quelccaya Ice Cap...but they appear to be pretty much the same things...each has outflow, or outlet glaciers and are smaller than icesheets. I suppose how we spell the terms may matter too...I mean, is it Icefield; Ice field....Icecap; Ice Cap...you get the picture...there is much work to do. We'll have to work to standardize the naming based on some universally accepted style, that glaciologist also use to define the terms.

I also saw you suggested we change the name of the List of glaciers to something else, which may be fine but let me see if there is a better name then either of us has come up with. That list was started some time ago, so I'll try and ask those that worked on it earlier what their thoughts are.--MONGO 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. While I agree there's a clear-cut defintion between ice sheet and ice cap, it seems that ice field and ice cap are analgous (or, in the case of ice field]]) vague enough to combine into one article. It seems the heirarchy, in terms of size, of bodies of ice is:

What do you think? Jarfingle 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi...thanks for responding...I was looking at NSIDC's website and on this page under "I" they are quite helpful in determining common terminology. I would agree with you that there is little if any difference between an icecap and an ice field aside from their definition that an icecap is "larger than and ice field but less than 50,000 km² (12 million acres)" I also clicked on the ice field link and it states that "icefield: a mass of glacier ice; similar to an ice cap, and usually smaller and lacking a dome-like shape; somewhat controlled by terrain". Like I said, and not being an expert myself, I would tend to agree that icecaps and ice fields are the same thing, but perhaps there is enough of a difference they do deserve to be classified differently. Now when I created the short article about the Quelccaya Ice Cap, I spelled Ice Cap in two words, but that website combines them...the don't combine icefield, instead keeping it as two words...whereby the three article also listed above have the wording icefield as one word...so my articles are backwards from their spellings.....so here's some google info to see what is the best used terminology:

"Columbia Icefield" [1] 211,000 hits
"Columbia Ice Field"[2] redirects me to Columbia Icefield
"Quelccaya Icecap" essentially redirects to "Quelccaya Ice Cap" as well...I dunno...I suppose any wording will do...but the NSIDC is usually a very informative source so I'm confused. Let me email User:Peltoms who is the glaciologist that was instrumental in helping us bring Retreat of glaciers since 1850 to FA level and see what he has to say on the matter...he may however be in in the field doing research so a response from him may be slow or we may not get one at all.--MONGO 16:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think the generic ice field is supposed to be spelled as ice field, however, despite this, many official place names (see Juneau Icefield, Columbia Icefield) are officially named with no space. In fact, I think a majority of ice fields in context of official names are spelled without a space. I ran into a similar problem with LeConte. Supposed to be spelled with a space (see Joseph Le Conte), however many placenames (LeConte Glacier, LeConte Bay, M/V LeConte) are spelled without the space. — Jarfingle 16:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that when in a proper name,the words tend to be combined. I just emailed Peltoms, but he may or may not respond. It's probably trivial nothingness...but what you mentioned last on my talk page sounds like a good working standard. Maybe we can transpose this to the project talk page too? It's kind of empty over there. I also invited Peltoms to join the project.--MONGO 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

An ice cap is not just size it is an area in which the topography of the glacier controls flow, hence it tends to be on a relatively flat plateau or lowland. An icefield, I would use one word as has been noted, flow is controlled by the surrounding mountain topography.Peltoms 12:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not officially listed as a participant, I have this talk page watchlisted and may check in from time to time... I think there is an important technical distinction between an ice cap and icefield (also note the one-word spelling). The distinction relates to how topography influences flow of the ice. An icefield is strongly influenced and constrained by the underlying bedrock topography, whereas an ice cap takes on more of a dome-like shape and looses the influence from the underlying topography. [3] I would need to consult some paper-based sources to come up with more of an explanation than this. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, an icefield often have nunataks poking through the surface, whereas ice caps do not. [4] Possibly, we could use an article on glacier morphology that explains these differences and the various types of glaciers. Then, perhaps articles such as ice cap can go in more depth, and list notable ice caps. Same for icefields, and other types. Sources I recommend drawing from for this include Glaciers and Glaciation by Douglas I. Benn, David J. A. Evans, and there's the more technical Physics of Glaciers by W. S. B. Paterson which is often cited in scholarly literature. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Very good points and that is most helpful....I had forgotten about the nunatak being a methodology of distinction. My understanding is that ice caps were also more generally more likely to be mountain based and icefields less so. Good references too, so thanks for chiming in!--MONGO 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a stub, glacier morphology, which should go in more depth to the glacier types than in the main glacier article. Won't have much time to work on it in the next couple weeks, but may come back to it at a later time. Of course, anyone is welcome to work on it. In creating this stub, I noticed some other missing articles, such as ice calving.

The spelling difference (icefield vs. ice field) seems perhaps to be a regional thing, with Canadians using "icefield". (this also shows up in Benn and Evans book, though David Evans is Canadian). NASA, USGS, et al. also seem to prefer "icefield", as does Science (magazine) [5]. As such, "Southern Patagonia Icefield" for example turns up 433 google hits [6], where as "Southern Patagonia Ice Field" returns 44 [7] (including Wikipedia). This difference also holds with Google Scholar. [8].

As for ice caps in mountainous terrain?

"Ice Cap" is commonly used with names in the Canadian Arctic islands (Baffin Island: Penny Ice Cap, Barnes Ice Cap, Devon Ice Cap, Ellesmere Island: Sydkap Ice Cap, Agassiz Ice Cap), though there are also some icefields (Prince of Wales Icefield, Manson Icefield). "Ice Cap" is also used with Quelccaya Ice Cap, and Vatnajökull (Iceland). There is a satellite image of Vatnajökull that provides a good example of an ice cap.
"Ice Cap" is not used in the Canadian Rockies, the British Columbia coast ranges, or Alaska, whereas "icefield" is. (Canadian Rockies: Columbia Icefield, Wapta Icefield, Waputik Icefield, Clemenceau Icefield, Coast ranges (British Columbia): Pemberton Icefield, Homathko Icefield, Monarch Icefield, Cambria Icefield, Alaska: Juneau Icefield, Stikine Icefield, Sargent Icefield, Harding Icefield, Bagley Icefield). "Icefield" is also used in the Andes (Argentina/Chile: Northern Patagonia Icefield, Southern Patagonian Ice Field). The photo in Juneau Icefield is a good contrast to Vatnajökull.

Aside from the many red links, hope this helps clarify that "Ice caps" aren't necessarily specific to mountaineous terrain, but more to the contrary. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] InfoBox Question

Hi MONGO, I was curious in the Glaciers Infobox under type if, for say a tidewater glacier, I should list the type as "tidewater glacier" or "valley glacier"? I think pretty much all tidewater glaciers are valley glaciers, but that's just me. Jarfingle 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

NSIDC states that a valley glacier is: a mountain glacier whose flow is confined by valley walls...and a tidewater glacier is: mountain glacier that terminates in the ocean[9]...not sure if their definition is law or anything, but maybe that will help define it...maybe we need to bascially identify 4-6 or so major "types", explain them on the project page of the template page for the infobox and that way it will be easier for people to figure out. I'm not beholden to any wording or formatting about anything on this project, so if you think something needs to be fixed, never hesitate to do so...this project belongs to everyone. If you think something needs to be added to the infobox or anything else, go for it.--MONGO 04:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC

I would agree that zone of ablation should be ablation zone and we need an accumulation zone page. You create these and I will populate the two articles. Tidewater seldom applies to non-valley glaciers but it does, so it is best to leave them separate. It is similar to surging in that it can apply to a valley glacier but is more of a speicific conditions. Similarly polar glaciers as compared to temperate glaciers, this distinguishes them by temperature.Peltoms 12:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking over lots of data, what I also find is that Ice caps not only include large areas on mountaintops, but is applied to areas such as the Greenland Ice Cap...which is pretty much the entire island. Icefields seem to include areas where there are numerous glaciers that are not even connected to each other. Hopefully we can get the spelling correct and use proper naming conventions.--MONGO 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)