Talk:Loch Ness

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

Naming conventions[edit]

Should this page be called 'Loch_ness' to conform to wikipedia's way of only capitalising the first letter of a page? Alternatively Loch_ness could redirect to this. 80.229.14.246 5 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

The convention doesn't apply to proper nouns. I've put up the re-direct from Loch_ness just for you though. Grinner July 6, 2005 09:53 (UTC)

Depth[edit]

Is it 228 or 248 m deep? Ufwuct 21:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many conflicting accounts on the Internet, mostly from touristy rather than technical-looking sites. The most august publication I could find is the Bathymetrical Survey of the Fresh-Water Lochs of Scotland, 1897-1909, which quotes a maximum depth of 754 ft. Other reports mention underwater caves reaching deeper, and it may be that the Victorian survey overlooked the deepest part, but until a better reference is provided, I think 754 ft (230 m) is the best we can do. --Stemonitis 09:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a number of sites reporting a sonar reading of 256m (812 ft), from late last century. Lavateraguy 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the second paragraph the deepest point is given as 230m ( "Its deepest point is 230 m (126 fathoms; 755 ft)"), but in the right-hand overview panel the Max. depth is given as "226.96 m (124.10 fathoms; 744.6 ft)". Is this intentional or an oversight? MeBeMe3000 (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Volume[edit]

I always thought the Loch Ness was the largest body of water by volume in Great Britain, but Loch Lomond is the largest by surface area. Is this correct? If so, should we clarify for quiz teams? Dbfirs 22:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to further clarify (and I also believe Loch Ness to be larger in this respect) that it is the largest by volume of fresh water lochs/lakes, ie those inland - not sea lochs. Hope that's not too pedantic.Greynolds999 16:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Loch Ness the largest by volume in the UK? I've looked on here and the Lough Neagh article and it isn't clarified. Maybe it could be added if someone knows the answer. 212.140.167.99 00:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we call it "loch"[edit]

Can't we just say "Loch Ness (Scottish Gaelic: Loch Nis) is a large, deep freshwater lake in the Scottish Highlands?" Does calling the lake "loch" make the article more mysterious? :)

--Zealander 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean it should be renamed to Lake Ness then? Probably not. - M0rphzone (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, he didn't say that. You should learn to read before responding.213.42.95.234 (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@213.42.95.234, please see the section 'Loch vs. lake' at the bottom of this page. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 13:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Loch is the word for lake in Scottish English as well as Scots and Scottish Gaelic. It seems to me that it's customary to refer to lakes in Scotland as lochs within British English generally. Similarly lake in Ireland are referred to as loughs, and perhaps those of the northwest midlands (Shropshire and Cheshire) as meres. Lavateraguy 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. But still, this is English encyclopedia, not Scottish. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use English word "lake" instead of Scottish "loch?" --Zealander 06:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia explicitly does not adopt any national variant of English. Editors are allowed to use there own national standard. (I suspect that the motiviation was to avoid edit and flame wars over English versus American spelling.) Lavateraguy 08:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. --Zealander 00:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's some political correctness. Like when TV reporters use those exaggerated rolling r's with Mexican names or terms even though the discussion is in English. It's basically form of kissing up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.32.84 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   an interesting name for an interesting lake.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analeana (talk • contribs) 18:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually Dating?[edit]

It is a crannog, an artificial island usually dating to the Iron Age.

What, it has the ability to vary its own dating? ...and thus only "usually" dates to the Iron Age? rowley (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily the best of phrasing, but I presume the intent is that most crannogs date to the Iron Age (and perhaps also that the date of the one on Loch Ness is unknown). Lavateraguy (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

It's good that there is map on the article page, but perhaps it would be better not have on at all, than to have the terrible one that's there at the moment. It's not to scale, and it implies that Edinburgh is near the Loch. -Tpacw (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supervolcano[edit]

Thought to have been constructed by glacial activity, the loch is now thought to sit over an active supervolcano. Since the lake was discovered to sit over the Great Glen fault line, researchers have been curious of the lake. Recently, thermal vents have been discovered at the bottom of the lake, leading to suspicions of possible volcanic activity.[1]
  1. ^ http://www.lochness.co.uk/exhibition/supervolc.html

I moved the above section here from the article as it needs additional references. -- User:Docu

lochness.co.uk looks to be a joke site. Anyway, Loch Ness as the site of an active supervolcano is silly. Supervolcanoes have calderas, and the absence of a caldera is readily visible. The last volcanic activity in Britain was about 60 million years ago, in Antrim, Arran, Mull, Skye and St. Kilda. (There might have been something more recent in the middle of the North Sea.) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I just read here that Loch Ness may be the site of a potential supervolcano: http://www.armageddononline.org/Super-Volcano.html

Any more info on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.68.95.79 (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax - the professor cited does not appear to exist, and it just makes no sense from a geological point of view. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.... Le Deluge (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New species?[edit]

I was just on Youtube watching something about Nessie (I know, I know), but they said that some scientist just discovered a new species living in Loch Ness. It was an orange glob thing. Any idea what I'm talking about? And was it 'a new life form' as they claimed, or just a new species? If anything at all? Ever curious, Masternachos (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting Depth[edit]

Just looking at this page the intext gives a maximum depth of 755ft, yet on the side part the maximum depth is 812ft. Which is it?? I see from an above post that the reference you have chosen to be best gives 754ft, but where does this 812ft come from? MrRipperKing (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording a line[edit]

The loch's murkyness and depth may be one of the reasons why the Loch Ness monster's existance has not yet been proven.

Am I the only one who feels this line gives off the impression that the Loch Ness Monster exists and will be proven to exist eventually? I'm not sure how else to word it really, but maybe if we added "or disproven" to the end of the sentence?

I didn't edit it myself because it could just be me misinterpreting the line. What do you think? Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd just remove the sentence. It's a recent edit, and I was tempted to revert it at the time. Apart from the subtle(ish) point of view pushing (WP:NPOV), it's a point better covered in the Loch Ness Monster article. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it. We'll just wait and see if someone reverts it back in there. Anoldtreeok (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loch vs. lake[edit]

Recently User:213.42.95.234 changed the first sentence in the article from "Loch Ness is a large, deep, freshwater loch..." to "Loch Ness is a large, deep, freshwater lake...".

My personal preference aside, the consensus reached in several discussions on this can be summed up as: "loch" is the common noun for "lake" in Scottish English, and per WP:ENGVAR "loch" is thus preferred to "lake" in use in Scottish related articles. I will revert the change now if its still live. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 13:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a matter of spelling. You've Wikilinked to an article about a word, instead of the general thing Loch Ness is (and the word represents). At the least, it should be a piped loch. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to mark the edit as minor. Just habit. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
For the record, I simply reverted to the previous version, though admittedly I did so without considering how it was linked. So you are absolutely correct and thanks for the catch. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 02:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assumed that by putting your personal preferences aside, you were operating without a sense of self and would take it as a collective "you". "Vous", as they say dans la Lac des Chats, the omnipotent Wikihive. Guess not. No blame intended. Always just the content I'm after. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 05:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loch Ness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Swim of the length of Loch Ness[edit]

The article states incorrectly that when Brenda Sherratt became the first person to swim the length of the loch, she did so during her eighteenth birthday. She did her birthday swim at Windemere in England, as part of her training for the Loch Ness swim, as indicated by the footnoted source. 97.127.15.92 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Loch Ness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive[edit]

Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this week's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborate effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to seven days, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

Thank you! -- ferret (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Possible source[edit]

PHD thesis on a sediment core from the loch:

https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/2030

©Geni (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some editing[edit]

Both the introduction and the Geography section include references to peat, water volume compared to the rest of the UK, and depth (second most). It looks like someone lost track of what they were writing and put the same content in twice. If I had the time I'd take the details out of the introduction. If you want a better article, you will MarkinBoston (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is suppose to summarize the body of the article, so there will be some repeated facts within it. -- ferret (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loch_Ness&oldid=1195063465"