Talk:Resolution Guyot

Bathymetric map

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Is there any reason this page doesn't have a figure depicting the bathymetry and shape of Resolution Guyot? I'm not seeing anything about it on the FAC. I can try and make one using GEBCO data and GMT. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

For the standard reason why Wikipedia articles don't have an image: There isn't a non-copyrighted one. If you can create or get a non-copyrighted one that would be great. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I added these two images; please let me know if you have any feedback.

• 
• 

Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems good but I am a little concerned that by using GEBCO data it might be a derivative work of GEBCO; Nikkimaria, what say you? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If you're only using data it's fine - data is not typically copyrightable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The gridded bathymetric data is the only thing I got from GEBCO; I wrote the script to generate the plots (and am also a maintainer for PyGMT software). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like you are fine to add these, then. Balon Greyjoy, if whatever-you-used-to-create-these-images is scalable, there is a lot of other articles that could similary be expanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Vida0007: Would you like any changes or updates to the 3D bathymetric map for this article? I saw that it's nominated over at WP:TFAR and want to let you know that I can change the figure if you think it could be improved (different perspective angle, different region covered in the map, different color scheme). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm okay with the current bathymetric map, but I wouldn't mind to see a different angle to it. Vida0007 (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Same for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2023

Change "The guyot was probably formed by a" to "The guyot was likely formed by a" Enter Demoman (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: same meaning. I think the current version is clearer. – small jars tc 15:11, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

ok Enter Demoman (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)