Jump to content

Talk:Planetary boundaries: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 112: Line 112:
3.11Novel entities (chemical pollution)
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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 09:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
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. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 09:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
:: I've culled and condensed the "debate" section now. Also re-arranged the structure of the article. I understand now what you [[User:PrimalBlueWolf]] meant with it being overly academic: for example, the article used far too many quotes and quoted sentences. Also, it does a lot of "name dropping" and mentions authors of different publications - and thus reads more like an academic literature review. More work is needed to change this. The list of references quoted also seems excessively long in parts (probably some duplication and excessive detail there). Some of the content was straying too much into sub-articles which I have changed now, e.g. replaced the text about the [[doughnut model]] with an excerpt. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 13:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
:: I've culled and condensed the "debate" section now. Also re-arranged the structure of the article. I understand now what you [[User:PrimalBlueWolf]] meant with it being overly academic: for example, the article used far too many quotes and quoted sentences. Also, it does a lot of "name dropping" and mentions authors of different publications - and thus reads more like an academic literature review. More work is needed to change this. The list of references quoted also seems excessively long in parts (probably some duplication and excessive detail there). Some of the content was straying too much into sub-articles which I have changed now, e.g. replaced the text about the [[doughnut model (economics)]] with an excerpt. [[User:EMsmile|EMsmile]] ([[User talk:EMsmile|talk]]) 13:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:58, 25 April 2022



A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global freshwater use figure

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 https://www.wasseraktien.net/en/globale-wasserentwicklung/ (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)[reply]

Section on Further reading is too long

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)[reply]

I would support a suggestion to shorten the list to the main important publications, but I dont myself know which ones would be the primary ones to retain. Related to this, do we need References, Sources and Further Reading? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a bold move and removed the entire "further reading" list. I think it's way too long, and the article already has plenty of inline citations anyway. If anyone thinks that any of these are essential and need to be put back in please suggest which ones:

EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to references and sources, it's not my preferred citation style but it's the "short citation" style which some articles use (SeeWP:SFN), so I guess we shouldn't change that for now. EMsmile (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further expert comments

I have the pleasure of making some important improvements to this article especially thanks to input from Dr. Sarah Cornell (Stockholm Resilience Center) which is the home of the concept Planetary Boundaries. These improvements are being made from March 10, 2022 as part of the Wikipedia project Communication of Environment SDGs. ASRASR (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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)[reply]

Flagged for Rewrite - overall the style is not encyclopaedic

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 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)[reply]

Hi User:PrimalBlueWolf, I could have a go at changing over the language. I work with User:ASRASR who's recently made changes to the article based on content expert's inputs (see further below on the talk page). Could you please give us some example sections or sentences that you find particularly non-encyclopaedic, just to give us some inspiration? Or perhaps you could improve a couple of sentences to provide some good examples? Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks, User:PrimalBlueWolf, for these helpful comments. I think a section heading called "background concepts" is already a bit flawed for a Wikipedia article as it could balloon out into a very long text. Perhaps it's better to restructure it as a "history" section. Also there are the following sub-sections under "debate" which I find problematic:
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)[reply]

I've culled and condensed the "debate" section now. Also re-arranged the structure of the article. I understand now what you User:PrimalBlueWolf meant with it being overly academic: for example, the article used far too many quotes and quoted sentences. Also, it does a lot of "name dropping" and mentions authors of different publications - and thus reads more like an academic literature review. More work is needed to change this. The list of references quoted also seems excessively long in parts (probably some duplication and excessive detail there). Some of the content was straying too much into sub-articles which I have changed now, e.g. replaced the text about the doughnut model (economics) with an excerpt. EMsmile (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planetary_boundaries&oldid=1084603102"