Jump to content

Talk:Planetary boundaries

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PearBOT II (talk | contribs) at 13:26, 29 September 2021 (Merge Talk header and Auto archiving notice per TfD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Flagged for Rewrite by AnomieBOT ??

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:


Article could be improved

The article overall is too wordy, it could be possibly tweaked with more inline references, and trimming down. prokaryotes (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

I removed a section containing a WP:LINKFARM or WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. For reference, though, editors may find it these sources offer ways to improve the text, so I'm leaving a DIFF to the archive version of the text here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]