Talk:North Sea

Less known German name

I don't know, how to handle the knowledge, or better, where the right place to right is, but I don't think, it's unimportant. A more or less uncommon German name is "Blanker Hans" (means: "bare/naked Hans"). It's only known in north Germany, if it's known. Also it's used in the poem "Trutz Blanker Hans" (resist Blanker Hans), an poem about the town "Rungholdt", which was destroyed by a North Sea's storm.79.194.208.144 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is it a real name, or just a nickname? If the latter, I don't think it should be mentioned. If it's a proper name, then we would need a reliable source before it can be included, and even then I'm not convinced that it's relevant for an English-language encyclopedia. Let's see the source first though. Bazonka (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I would call it a nickname or a real name. To me, it's more of a mythological name which personifies the terror of the raging North Sea ("Hans" = "John"). Sorry, don't have any sources. --217.239.14.124 (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

"Blanker Hans" isn't a name for the North-Sea itself, but for the storm surges of the North-Sea, so there is no reason to feature that name in this article. 193.159.188.202 (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Lying between

Hi Tyler, you wrote in your edit summary that "Scandinavia includes Sweden, which does not connect its water borders to the North Sea". This is true, but it is also true for some of the other regions listed, e.g. Great Britain and Wales (Irish Sea), Norway and Finnmark (Barents Sea), Germany and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Baltic Sea), France and Corsica (Mediterranean Sea) etc. Stara Marusya (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I still don't think the solution to that is making the lead more vague by using ″Scandinavia″ (which in some English definitions can even include Finland). TylerBurden (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Epeiric

The second sentence of the article says that the North Sea is an epeiric sea. The word "epeiric" is linked to an article that says that's a synonym for being an inland sea. The North Sea really obviously isn't an inland sea. I know the wiki game - we've all been there, someone's going to find some reference using the word epeiric in relation to the North Sea, and observe that a wikipedia article saying that means inland sea isn't reliable so we shouldn't change this article and meanwhile someone will find some other source that says or could be intepreted as meaning that epeiric is inland so the other article shouldn't change either but if there is anyone out there that is even marginally sane then at bare minimum this aricle shouldn't say it's epeiric while linking the term to an article that says that means it's an inland sea when it really clearly isn't. 46.31.205.228 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"What constitutes an "inland sea" is complex and somewhat necessarily vague. The United States Hydrographic Office defined it as "a body of water nearly or completely surrounded by land, especially if very large or composed of salt water"." It doesn't seem crazy if you go by that definition. Oxford also specifically mentions the North Sea in its definition. So with that in mind, I think you should provide some better arguments than "it really clearly isn't". TylerBurden (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The Baltic is almost completely surrounded by land, with only a single narrow opening to the North Sea via the Skagerrak (about 80km wide). The North Sea is open to the Atlantic via the English Channel (30-240km) & the Fair Isle Gap (80km), and to the Norwegian Sea (200km). Not quite as open as the Caribbean (~1500km), far more open than the Adriatic (~100km) or the Mediterranean (14km), neither considered epieric.

The OED entry for `epeiric` is quite stale (entered 1972 & unrevised since) & the quote mentioning the North Sea as an example is from 1912, and is not included in its definition (which defers to the 1930 quote). It should not take precedence over International Hydrographic Organization definitions (subject matter expert body & more frequently updated). Nowadays the term has specific meaning as to circulation and sediment and boundary of a sea, usually historic, and would be considered a jargon term. The average reader would not consider an unrestricted epeiric sea as an 'inland sea'.

The distinction doesn't seem useful, and it's likely to mislead and confuse readers. Falsedan (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate text in History section

Since I'm not allowed to edit, let me just point out a necessary correction. In the first para of the History section, the following text is immediately duplicated the diffusion of cultures and technologies from across or along the North Sea to Great Britain and Scandinavia and reliance by some prehistoric cultures on fishing, whaling, and seaborne trade on the North Sea. The Romans established organised ports in Britain, which increased shipping and began sustained trade Caminobop (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! Largoplazo (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2025

Under the Names heading, please add File:Geological map Britain William Smith 1815.jpg|[[William Smith]]'s 1815 geological map of England and Wales showing ''The German Ocean'' to the image gallery.

This map is of historical interest, showcases a different usage than the other images in the gallery, and expands the range of time covered by the gallery to the 19th century. The gallery itself only contains 2 images, so adding a third will make better use of the space without causing any cluttering. ~2025-31245-38 (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done! — Alex26337 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2026

"Under economy => Oil and gas section, change phrase'Onshore resources, for example the K12-B field in the Netherlands continue to be exploited today.' to 'Onshore resources, for example the K12-B field in the Netherlands continue to be utilized today.' due do negative connotation. Lofty37347 (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done I see your point, but forms of "exploit" are used throughout the section as well as in the Modern Era section, and, despite its negative connotation when applied to people and animals, the word is neutral and commonly used in such context as this. Largoplazo (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Was just about to echo the decline above, but I also wanted to add that "utilize" should pretty much never be used. Why use utilize when you can utilize use? as the saying goes. (That sentence is missing a comma though). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)