This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Planetary boundaries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The value for global freshwater use given in the Planetary Boundaries page (2600 cubic km) does not agree with data from other sources, such as: https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_other_inconvenient_truth_the_crisis_in_global_land_use (4000 cubic km) or XXX (well over 4000 cubic km). I am not a hydrologist so I flagged this in the hope somebody will be able to clear up the confusion. J.T.Biniek ( talk) 17:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the "further reading" section has become too long to be useful. I suggest to either cull it down to the main important publications (if they are not already used for in-line citations) or possibly delete the list altogether. Thoughts? EMsmile ( talk) 13:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
EMsmile ( talk) 12:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
As a casual reader, I am surprised that this thoroughly referenced and carefully sub-sectioned article, of high modern relevance, is flagged as "may need complete rewrite" .. How can this be petitioned and reviewed ? The notice of rewrite dominates the entry-experience for a new reader. Doesn't seem appropriate, overall.
20:59, 4 January 2019 AnomieBOT talk contribs m 108,888 bytes +18 Dating maintenance tags:
This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's
quality standards. |
This does not come across as thoroughly referenced, and Id agree with the suggestion that it may require a complete re-write. There are numerous questionable claims which are not cited, and overall the style is not encyclopaedic. This comes across as written by people in the field, writing for the press - which unfortunately does not match the requirements of an encyclopaedia. Overall it seems quite appropriate (to me). PrimalBlueWolf ( talk) 02:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
User:EMsmile the section that caught my attention was the "background concepts" section. Structurally, it's making a case, presenting an argument, bringing in supporting facts where necessary. Encyclopaedia articles simply present the facts, not an argument. If it's been written by experts in the field, this is perhaps a default form of writing, or lack of familiarity with Wikipedia?
This would normally be the point where I'd start making improvements, or make some suggestions of low hanging fruit, but the article subject is far enough outside my area of expertise that I don't entirely understand it after having reread the article several times. I don't know what the low hanging fruit is, or what could be removed, or altered. I'd like to change the opening to the section, but I don't see how, and I don't have the inclination at present to dive into studying the field to learn enough to devise an alternative way to introduce the same information. I'm open to suggestions, but part of the reason for commenting here is that I'm not myself certain of how best to proceed, else I'd go ahead with BRD. PrimalBlueWolf ( talk) 18:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
3.2Climate change 3.3Change in biosphere integrity 3.4Nitrogen cycle 3.5Phosphorus 3.6Ocean acidification 3.7Land-system change 3.8Freshwater 3.9Ozone depletion 3.10Atmospheric aerosols 3.11Novel entities (chemical pollution)
Each of these have their own Wikipedia articles, and a section heading "climate change" doesn't make much sense to me here. I think this could be drastically shortened by just converting this into a bullet point list, or omitting it all together and only focus on the debate about the planetary boundaries concept. EMsmile ( talk) 09:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
If someone has time: the lead needs to be reworked/expanded to become a better summary of the article. EMsmile ( talk) 14:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like there's a new planetary boundary proposed: green water. Please integrate this study into the article – it's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
Scientists propose and preliminarily evaluate a likely transgressed planetary boundary for green water in the water cycle, measured by root-zone soil moisture deviation from Holocene variability. [1] additional citation(s) needed A study published one day earlier integrates "green water" along with "blue water" into an index to measure and project water scarcity in agriculture for climate change scenarios. [2] [3]
Please also update these articles with brief info about/from the study if appropriate: Water cycle, Ecohydrology, Water scarcity.
Moreover, from a glance the article Effects of climate change on agriculture doesn't appear to be in a good state: the lead doesn't even mention water with the exception of "There will also be less irrigation water availability due to melting glaciers." Please also improve this article if possible.
The second study there "Global Agricultural Water Scarcity Assessment Incorporating Blue and Green Water Availability Under Future Climate Change" is licensed under CC BY so you could upload & add its images if you find them useful.
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Planetary boundaries article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The value for global freshwater use given in the Planetary Boundaries page (2600 cubic km) does not agree with data from other sources, such as: https://e360.yale.edu/features/the_other_inconvenient_truth_the_crisis_in_global_land_use (4000 cubic km) or XXX (well over 4000 cubic km). I am not a hydrologist so I flagged this in the hope somebody will be able to clear up the confusion. J.T.Biniek ( talk) 17:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I think the "further reading" section has become too long to be useful. I suggest to either cull it down to the main important publications (if they are not already used for in-line citations) or possibly delete the list altogether. Thoughts? EMsmile ( talk) 13:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
EMsmile ( talk) 12:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
As a casual reader, I am surprised that this thoroughly referenced and carefully sub-sectioned article, of high modern relevance, is flagged as "may need complete rewrite" .. How can this be petitioned and reviewed ? The notice of rewrite dominates the entry-experience for a new reader. Doesn't seem appropriate, overall.
20:59, 4 January 2019 AnomieBOT talk contribs m 108,888 bytes +18 Dating maintenance tags:
This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's
quality standards. |
This does not come across as thoroughly referenced, and Id agree with the suggestion that it may require a complete re-write. There are numerous questionable claims which are not cited, and overall the style is not encyclopaedic. This comes across as written by people in the field, writing for the press - which unfortunately does not match the requirements of an encyclopaedia. Overall it seems quite appropriate (to me). PrimalBlueWolf ( talk) 02:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
User:EMsmile the section that caught my attention was the "background concepts" section. Structurally, it's making a case, presenting an argument, bringing in supporting facts where necessary. Encyclopaedia articles simply present the facts, not an argument. If it's been written by experts in the field, this is perhaps a default form of writing, or lack of familiarity with Wikipedia?
This would normally be the point where I'd start making improvements, or make some suggestions of low hanging fruit, but the article subject is far enough outside my area of expertise that I don't entirely understand it after having reread the article several times. I don't know what the low hanging fruit is, or what could be removed, or altered. I'd like to change the opening to the section, but I don't see how, and I don't have the inclination at present to dive into studying the field to learn enough to devise an alternative way to introduce the same information. I'm open to suggestions, but part of the reason for commenting here is that I'm not myself certain of how best to proceed, else I'd go ahead with BRD. PrimalBlueWolf ( talk) 18:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
3.2Climate change 3.3Change in biosphere integrity 3.4Nitrogen cycle 3.5Phosphorus 3.6Ocean acidification 3.7Land-system change 3.8Freshwater 3.9Ozone depletion 3.10Atmospheric aerosols 3.11Novel entities (chemical pollution)
Each of these have their own Wikipedia articles, and a section heading "climate change" doesn't make much sense to me here. I think this could be drastically shortened by just converting this into a bullet point list, or omitting it all together and only focus on the debate about the planetary boundaries concept. EMsmile ( talk) 09:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
If someone has time: the lead needs to be reworked/expanded to become a better summary of the article. EMsmile ( talk) 14:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks like there's a new planetary boundary proposed: green water. Please integrate this study into the article – it's currently featured in 2022 in science like so:
Scientists propose and preliminarily evaluate a likely transgressed planetary boundary for green water in the water cycle, measured by root-zone soil moisture deviation from Holocene variability. [1] additional citation(s) needed A study published one day earlier integrates "green water" along with "blue water" into an index to measure and project water scarcity in agriculture for climate change scenarios. [2] [3]
Please also update these articles with brief info about/from the study if appropriate: Water cycle, Ecohydrology, Water scarcity.
Moreover, from a glance the article Effects of climate change on agriculture doesn't appear to be in a good state: the lead doesn't even mention water with the exception of "There will also be less irrigation water availability due to melting glaciers." Please also improve this article if possible.
The second study there "Global Agricultural Water Scarcity Assessment Incorporating Blue and Green Water Availability Under Future Climate Change" is licensed under CC BY so you could upload & add its images if you find them useful.
References