Talk:Artificial reef
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Benthic
"including structures purposely built for use as marine benthic habitat are used."
I looked at Benthic zone and I am confused. Aren't artifial reefs built above the benthic zone? --Gbleem 21:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Technically, demersal would be a more correct term to use than benthic, you are correct. demersal refers to habitats/species which are integrally tied to the seafloor, but not directly on or in it- species like cod, and many coral reef fish. Hope that helps--Jkrumholz 18:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reef Balls
Is it me, or is reefer turning into a bit of a PR piece for the Reef Balls and their foundation? --Badger151 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's not just you. Unless a reliable source can be provided that shows
- Not only that this company has coverage but
- Also that they are important enough in the "artificial reef circle" do be mentioned by name (multiple times!) on this page,
- Don't hesitate to scrub it off the article.
- brenneman 13:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Reef Balls play a pretty significant role among purpose built artificial reef technologies. I added a mention back into the article, but kept it low key. I hope you find this to be a reasonable compromise--Jkrumholz 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Designed reefs --> reduction in costs?
How does a designed reef cost less than using materials of opportunity, if by their definition, materials of opportunity are available, while a designed reef must be sought and designed? --Badger151 18:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
It cost over $3 million dollars to scuttle the USS Oriskany. Mostly because it costs tons of money to turn something that isn't supposed to be a reef into something that will work as a reef (removing oil and hazardous chemicals, towing, blasting etc...), compared to just building it as a reef in the first place --Jkrumholz 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Notable Artificial Reefs
A lot of this article has been pruned and some of the sections may well have needed to be cut, but I think the article has really been gouged without any opportunity for discussion. I think it would be worth adding back the notable artificial reef section to provide readers links to examples of what can constitute an artificial reef. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlroller (talk • contribs).
- First, what exactly constitutes a "Notable" reef? Are you talking about external links? - brenneman 01:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- No. The one I was particularly thinking of was the link to the USS Oriskany article. The artificial reef portion of that article could certainly use further development, but it is also a great example of how some artificial reefs are formed. I think the multitude of links to these ReefBall thinks was worth cutting, but if there are any wiki articles on one or two of those they might be worth putting back in too. Would be better if they could be incorporated as part of the article rather than as a list, but I found the links helpful and was disappointed to see them cut.croll 23:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ahh, /* Looks in page history */ I see the bit you mean now. I removed that bit becaue it was just a laundry-list jumble to my eyes. I'd have no objection to it being fleshed out as prose. - brenneman 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- K. :) I put in back in as a paranthetical in the introduction. croll 18:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ahh, /* Looks in page history */ I see the bit you mean now. I removed that bit becaue it was just a laundry-list jumble to my eyes. I'd have no objection to it being fleshed out as prose. - brenneman 01:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- No. The one I was particularly thinking of was the link to the USS Oriskany article. The artificial reef portion of that article could certainly use further development, but it is also a great example of how some artificial reefs are formed. I think the multitude of links to these ReefBall thinks was worth cutting, but if there are any wiki articles on one or two of those they might be worth putting back in too. Would be better if they could be incorporated as part of the article rather than as a list, but I found the links helpful and was disappointed to see them cut.croll 23:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup tag
This article needs some attention for structure. It lacks headings, the flow of information is poor- the same topic is discussed in several places with no rhyme or reason instead of under a heading. In general, this article seems poorly written, but no so poor as to need a rewrite. Phasmatisnox 16:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV problem regarding artificial surfing reefs
This text which I removed is clearly NPOV and needs some fixing and references before it can be added to the article again: "The information evolving has been getting "censored" by commercial operators who wish to expand the patent ASR product to a world Market and are threatening acedemic research (for which one reef was approved for) which may show undesirable atributes to the overall project. Confidence has been shattered in the prospect of sustainable "perfect surf" in sand circumstances as sand particles will do as they will not what computer models wish then to do."63.197.134.209 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
