Talk:Planetary boundaries/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Why is there a wikilink to the mathematics article Catastrophe theory's "tipping points"? No citations, and doesn't seems to add anything.

Why is there a wikilink to the mathematics article Catastrophe theory's "tipping points? No citations, and doesn't seems to add anything. 99.190.87.28 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Because it relates to the general concept of a tipping point, for which we don't have an article. (I tried to write it, but couldn't put the pieces together into a coherent article.) The closest we have is the section in catastrophe theory. It does not relate to tipping point (climatology), which you have been repeatedly adding, except in regard the first boundary. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Which "biota"?

Which "biota"? [clarification needed] [disambiguation needed] 99.109.127.11 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Done now. (",) 99.56.123.175 (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary information

This article is mainly about planetary boundaries. The Limits to Growth has its own page. The pertinent place for arguments dismissing or reinforcing this concept is indeed that page. So I propose to replace "Subsequently, the report was widely dismissed.....In 2008, Graham Turner......has only become more relevant."

By this "Subsequently the report received criticism and also approval, so that a controversy on the subject exists. This can be examined in The Limits to Growth page".--Auró (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you could, but that paragraph contains material that is not in The Limits to Growth article. Also, I doubt it is accurate to say, at the present moment, that "a controversy on the subject exists". The Limits to Growth argument was attacked with some passion by businessmen and economists and sidelined for nearly forty years. Turner's refutation seems definitive. It has subsequently been endorsed by other authors, and as far as I am aware has not been challenged. Planetary boundaries is, in effect, a reignition of that debate, reframing the concept in a fresh way. The paragraph in question, which is not a long one, gives an important historical context within which the concept of planetary boundaries should be viewed. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
My proposal is aimed at reducing some volume. The sentence may be changed, and the Limits to Growth article upgraded. But I will not push.--Auró (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'm happy with you doing that if you upgrade the Limits to Growth article so it reflect the current position in a more balanced way. "Balance" does not mean giving equal weigh to both sides when one side lacks weight; it means making sure that both sides have been accurately represented. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I will try.--Auró (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested wikilinks: Atmospheric circulation and Monsoon.

Suggested wikilinks: Atmospheric circulation and Monsoon. 99.112.213.29 (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

They are there. 99.190.86.162 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Link carbonic acid ?

Link carbonic acid ? 99.181.131.237 (talk) 05:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Been done. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Add Ocean chemistry wikilink for "ocean chemist"

Add Ocean chemistry wikilink for "ocean chemist". 99.181.140.243 (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This has been done also. 216.250.156.66 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Biodiversity loss

I'm at a loss, Auró, about why you removed:

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 concluded there is an accelerated loss in biodiversity which shows no evidence of declining over time, but could be slowed, without compromising agricultural productivity, by appropriate interventions to enhance habitat and build connectivity. However, it is not clear that a boundary based on extinction rates is the best approach here.

In your edit summary, you said it was "misquoted" and "out of place". It's not quoted, it was paraphrased. Do you mean it was paraphrased inaccurately? And although you say it was out of place, it is a summary of the response to this issue by the Stockholm Resilience Centre. The Centre hosted the development of the planetary boundaries proposal, and its director is Rockström , so I think we can take it that this accurately represents Rockström view. It is a summary of the recently concluded, massive international Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, whose entire reason for being was to assess the current state of biodiversity. Can you explain to me how the passage is a misrepresentation, and why you think it is out of place. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It may be that I should have discussed the subject prior to make the change. I made it because it offered no doubts to me, but let’s analyze it in some detail.
It seemed to me to be out of place because it was a reference from the Stockholm Resilience Center, and being the authors of the Planetary Boundaries proposal, the more logical place to have it would be in the exposition of the theory, not in the debate.
As for the paraphrase, let’s consider the quotation: "Further research is needed to determine whether a boundary based on extinction rates is sufficient, and whether there are reliable data to support it." I understand that it says the boundary based on extinction rates alone may be not sufficient, but this does not imply a consideration of being inappropriate. As for the “reliable data”, I think it makes reference to the data on which the numerical value of the boundary is based.--Auró (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Of resource book interest? Driven to Extinction: The Impact of Climate Change on Biodiversity (American Museum of Natural History) ISBN 978-1402772238 by Dr. Richard Pearson scientist with a PhD from Oxford University regarding the effects of global warming on biodiversity, funded by grants from NASA and the National Science Foundation, published in Nature (journal) amoung others. http://www.amazon.com/Driven-Extinction-Climate-Biodiversity-American/dp/1402772238/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310072015&sr=1-1 99.181.135.85 (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Include Portal:Global warming as it is one of the Boundaries (#1) and its Control variable(s) are directly connected to others ...

Include Portal:Global warming as it is one of the Boundaries (#1) and its Control variable(s) are directly connected to others, #2 biodiversity loss, #4 Ocean acidification, and associated with #8 Atmospheric aerosols and #9 Chemical pollution by way of Industrialization and Fossil fuel power stations.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Control variables???? We don't have any control variables named, only resultants. That being said, it probably should be left to a consensus of editors active in the Portal, rather than editors active on the article. As neither of us fits in that category, we should leave it out, until some editors that decide whether it's appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I haven't bothered to check the IP address locale but the style (imperative verb followed by one or more links, etc.) is certainly of the Kalamazoo Kid. As his post lacks, as usual, any substantial comment I suggest that, as usual, we just ignore it. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Art, see second column of Planetary_boundaries#The_nine_boundaries. An odd name maybe but it is called Control variable with a reference (currently [32]). 64.27.194.74 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Most are not "control variables"; they're other markers for the phenomenon in question. Some are, in a sense, "closer" to the control variables than the actual observations. For example, 350 ppm CO2 concentration is closer to being controlled than 2 °C, but neither is really a control variable. Net anthropogenic CO2 emissions might be considered a control variable.
Furthermore, the reference uses "controlling variables", which deserves one of your {{what?}} templates, as the term is not used elsewhere. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
..."the term is not used elsewhere". Unchecked fantasies are so much better than tedious facts, aren't they Rubin. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
<redacted; I missed that you misread what I wrote, and I had assumed that I had written what you said I did.>You still haven't read what I wrote. I said [32] used controlling variables, and that term is not used elsewhere. The term control variable (with rare synonym "controlling variable" does exist, and is used in control theory to mean something entirely different. The fact that these researchers, presumably familiar with control theory, use it to mean something like "controllable variable", might have some significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I've been bothered by that potentially confusing terminology. Only "controlling variable" is used in "[32]", which is less confusing.
In formal experimentation, for example, it is impossible to have a "Control" and a "Variable" for the Earth. A non-experimental example that is somewhat similar is a Variable (computer science). The word "variable" from my background would mean it is what is not controlled. In this article's topics situations, these aren't "controlled", but rather effect or influence the Earth-system process, presented as a key indicator, a metric, a way to monitor progress. ... rewording appears to be needed. 99.181.128.152 (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The magnitudes of the universe may be constant or variable. Constant magnitudes, or constants, are very few, like Planck Constant, most are variable magnitudes, or variables. It is only a question of convenience and meaning to choose a particular variable magnitude as a "control variable". I do not see any problem in using "controlling variable", in place of control variable, as I see them as quite synonym.--Auró (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I've changed it to "Controlling variable", as that seems to be the agreement for now. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You do not have agreement on this original research. The term "controlling variable" is nowhere used in any of the seminal papers and hardly anywhere else. Compare. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The only place where "control" is in (reference [32] in the table) http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/researchnews/tippingtowardstheunknown/thenineplanetaryboundaries.4.1fe8f33123572b59ab80007039.html ..., excerpt ...

The ocean acidification boundary is a clear example of a boundary which, if transgressed, will involve very large change in marine ecosystems, with ramifications for the whole planet. It is also a good example of how tightly connected the boundaries are, since atmospheric CO2 concentration is the underlying controlling variable for both the climate and the ocean acidification boundary.

99.181.134.238 (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Since the original report by J. Rockström & others uses mainly the term "control variable", it seems more appropriate to follow this. Though "controlling variable" is a synonym, and sometimes it can even be a more appropriate term, as in the paragraph above quoted, I do not see any advantage by preferently using it, even less exclusively.--Auró (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Planetary boundaries in the news and literature

Recently there has been shifting grounds in the news and literature on how environmental issues should be viewed. The limits to growth argument has been reexamined from more confirming standpoints over the last two years, though the Wikipedia article on limits does not yet reflect this properly. I'm reluctant to update the article, because I imagine Rubin will obstruct every millimetre of the updates, which gets disheartening. Here are a number of recent high profile book reviews of The God Species for you Rubin, which you may find congenial: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Perhaps this book warrants its own article. Notice Mark Lynas thinks that "despite the similarities with the Club of Rome… boundaries are not limits to growth", a view which I will work into planetary boundaries somewhere, if someone else doesn't (not that I agree, it's opinion not science). Here are some reports from news outlets over the last few weeks on planetary boundaries: [6] [7], [8] [9] [10] --Epipelagic (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Fred Pearce?

I have a question regarding the eight Fred Pearce citations from New Scientist. These were done up as separate sources, but they are really only sections of a single "article" (New Scientist in rather loose in that regard). I think they should be done as sections or chapters, such as: "Acid Oceans", in Pearce, "Earth's nine life-support systems", New Scientist (etc.). Otherwise the prominence of this author and article (which really are not that significant) are inflated, raising a possible due WP:WEIGHT problem. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

P.S. And as is, they would have to be linked as Pearce (2010a), Pearce (2010b), ... Pearce (2010h). Rather cumbersome for such petty pieces. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the way I cited Pearce is awkward, and you should change it as you suggest. I did it that way because the original format in the journal cited makes it so difficult to locate the relevant sections, but doing it that way just inflated the citation way out of proportion. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... sorry, I didn't address your issue properly JJ. Yes, I agree Pearce is lightweight and a weak source, and probably should be omitted or confined to an external link. As I recall, it was convenient to use him as an aid when structuring the article in the early stages of expanding it. He could be removed now as a source, but that might entail quite a lot of energy rearranging the article. I'm reluctant to put too much energy into this article until we see which way the wind is blowing. In a few years it might just be a dead end. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I beg to differ, I thought you addressed the issue just fine!!! (You wanna' fight? :-)
In a few years, fine, we make adjustments, but I think it is worthwhile to make good what we have now. Yes, Pearce's piece is so lightweight that it hardly suffices as showing current discussion (far be it from being science!!), and no argument from me if it gets dropped. I haven't analyzed the article in terms of its sources; hopefully it doesn't rely much on Pearce (or Foley, et al.), nor rely on commentary as sources of facts, etc. But for now I want to focus on fixing the forms. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In the table, for more clarity, should it be "anthropogenic nitrogen removal" instead of "anthropogenic nitrogen removed"?

In the table, for more clarity, should it be "anthropogenic nitrogen removal" instead of "anthropogenic nitrogen removed"? 99.181.145.108 (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixing references

Discussion

References are messed, as it would be expected in such a lengthy, complex article referring to articles with such lengthy lists of authors, published in PDF format &c. The formatting is anything but consistent. Just check the overlength lists of authors, the missing details, wrong hyperlinks, bad typography and so on which I fixed. I am tempted to leave it bad as that as I have been called foul for that, but I already fixed some of them by using templates, which are the only way of reaching consistency in such a situation. Feel free to revert and try to fix the issues otherwise.

— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 03:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of your changes are unhelpful, and you have not followed the guidelines. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
For instance? All of them resulted in better formatted references with more relevant details.
— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I see you have reverted my reversion, not honouring the undertaking you gave above. You have already expressed a wide sweep of highly judgmental views, here and on your talk page. I have no interest in spending time discussing your judgements, since I am sure you hold them very strongly and the discussion will go no where. Please stop edit warring, conform to the guidelines which clearly state that you may not just barge onto an article written by other people and change the citations to suit yourself, and find someone else to bully. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Cool it, guys. I think Leandrod has the right idea generally, but for sure there are some issues of implementation. (I begin to regret I don't have enough time to do more of this.)
Leandrod: how about setting up citation templates as you were doing, only put them in a "References" section (after "Notes")? With that we could straighten out any problems (or issues) with the references without disturbing the text. When all that is satisfactory we can go through the text and replace the in-text bibilographic details with Harv links. Would that be agreeable to both of you? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Leandrod, are you still with us? I think we should set up a references section. Only I am modifying my orignal proposal to suggest that we do this here (on the talk page) until we have something generally satisfactory. (I've run out of time today, but may start it tomorrow.) - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I have started the References work area (below) with a proposed model citation. The template parameters are structured in a form I have found useful. Comments? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
It appears Leandrod is not returning. I am going to start on getting the rest of citations. Epipelagic, do still prefer the condensed initials (such as done in Nature)? I would like to drop the "format" parameters for pdfs, as I think the icon at the end of the url is adequate. Okay? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, my objection to Leandrod reformatting the refs was not at all to the idea of reformatting them, but to the non-negotiable way he was going about it, particularly after he damned the article as bad science. I'm fine now with using the extra periods and semicommas, since the condensed form only works for surnames and initials. And yes, adding "PDF" is unnecessary. I'm also happy, as I said earlier, for you to use Harvard. One of the big advantages of Harvard is it makes article maintenance a lot easier. And while I don't like using templates in the body of the source text (that really makes maintenance a nightmare when there are a lot of refs), that objection goes out the window if Harvard is used. And if you can show how to make Harvard work well with the diversity of source types used in the article, I will be a grateful convert to your cause. If you would like help, please tell me how to do it so I don't get in the way :) --Epipelagic (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that sounds good. As you can see (below) I've been busy pulling out citations (and, yeah, some of them are pretty messy). And, oh yes, we won't be putting templates into the body (text) of the article!
As to the names, I see three options: condensed initials, expanded initials, and full names. The first is the style used in Nature, so I have no great objection to it, but the others are also fine. Actually, we don't even need to resolve that for now, because I always separate first and last, and collapsing or expanding can be done later. I suggest that we ignore that for now, just build the citations with what's there and make them consistent (one way or another) later.
Several things can be done now. I'm about out of time today, so I'll just mention two: 1) some of those naked urls ought to be investigated, to find the author(s) and other bibiliographic details; and 2) perhaps you might look around for one of those citation generator tools. Oh, and I'll go back in and make a bare-bones template for copying and filling in. I might by busy the next couple of days, so have fun! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Turns out I'm here after all.  :-)
I am taking a wide turn on this, and looking tools that might be useful in this exercise; see User:J._Johnson/Citation_tools for what I have found so far.
Something that needs to be done sooner or later: putting the references in alphabetical order. I am also going to put the bare urls at the end; they will need to be investigated for additional details. One of the citation tools might help with that.
P.S. I added the 'cite doi' templates where doi was present. 23:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hard at work here. And, yes, those citations are a MESS. To document what I am doing: where DOIs were included I have put them in {{cite doi| xxxx}} templates. They don't seem to be automatically completing, but no problem: just click on "jump the queue". Then click on the "edit" link, and, bingo, a filled in template. Then I open the section in a different browser window, and replace the {{cite doi| xxxx}} with the filled in template. I move the doi field to the bottom (where I prefer it) and add a url field (if that's available), may make a few other minor edits, and there it is. For the moment I am leaving the original citation in, and indenting the new one, to faciliatre comparison. And now I am going to start alphabetizing the list. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Epipelagic: Take a look at the new citations (below and indented from the originals) and see how you like them. In many cases the differences are slight, such as italicisation, but there are also corrections and emendations. Note how the markup is simpler (clearer to read) letting the template do the special formatting. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks JJ, that's a good job you're doing and I'm fine with the changes. What you call "bare urls" relate to sources such as reports from government, organizations and news sources, and magazines. That is partially what I was referring to earlier, when I said I though there might be problems with Harvard, because the article did not draw on sources confined to research journals and books. The "Further reading" section contains sources that ideally would be worked into the main body. As an aside (an implementation issue, not an issue we can do anything about here), I wonder whether the template really needs to display the full doi. They look untidy. It's just a software address, carrying little information of interest to the reader. Would it not be tidier if the template just displayed "doi" as a blue link when the doi field is filled (you would still click on it to go to the article, maybe hover over it to see the doi address)? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I think your idea would be a better way of doing the DOIs. But that is not how they are implemented, so short of more involvement we are kind of stuck with them as is. I certainly would not leave them off, as having that link is important for verifying the citation.
I am unclear regarding these problems you see with the non-journal sources. Are you thinking that the "author-date" system that Harv implements fails for lack of an author? Not really. Ways of dealing with such situations have been devised, and Harv is capable of implementing them.
And hopefully you have noticed how much clearer the data is in template form compared to being explicitly formatted? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the seeming inflexibility of the "author-date" system was one of my issues; so if that's not the case then it's looking good. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the author-date system does have flexibility for handling seemingly authorless sources. But that actually raises a different question: is any source truly "authorless"? Even if some material was written anonymously, or was a collective effort, there still was some kind of author. Identifying that "author", or giving it some kind of name, can be an issue, but no material is truly "authorless". And being able to identify some kind of author -- and more importantly, to see that author's reputation -- is an essential part of WP:RS. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  1. P.S. Before I start removing (soon!) the explicitly formatted entries I want to be sure that you have compared them with the templated form. In display mode they are often almost identical, differing in where the date is placed, or little details like "some work in another work" (instead of "by" the editor). These are the kinds of differences between editors (or even the same editor at different times) that are not so much differences in style as just inconsistencies. That is one reason for favoring templates -- they (which ever one you chose) handle the details, consistently.
  2. Similarly for explicit formatting: doing it right can be challenge, and it really is easier to let the template handle it.
  3. As to the effort of typing in the template form (no!): so far I have not had to do that. All (but two) of the templates I have added so far were created using {{cite doi}}, which I just copied, and sometimes modified. The exception was where some error in the original data caused the template to fail, so I copied the Bibtex citation into vi and modified as I have previously described. Although all of this has involved quite a bit of jumping around, I would say it was less typing -- and less prone to error! -- than manually typing the original, untemplated entries. And where I will have to create the template myself (the Pearce articles), I will copy the blank template, fill in the common parts, then copy for each instance and augment. If using a template seems too much effort, it is probably due to not knowing how to use them.
  4. In edit mode I think you will find the templated forms are clearer for not being obfuscated by all the formatting markup.
  5. Finally, having each datum clearly identified with the metadata (e.g., "last1 = Jones") makes it clearer when something is missing, and less prone to errors (which I have found) of confusing first and last names.
If all that is clear I will start removing the extraneous entries. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It's good what you are doing JJ, and I accept your move to Harvard. 'Tis a useful exercise looking at reference formatting, which has bothersome issues. It's not so much that I don't know what Harvard is (I often use it myself). It's that I'm not sure Harvard is the best format for this particular article; so I will be interested to see what you come up with. Anyway, to set down some remaining thoughts and reservations... Harvard has a nice plus of placing references in the alphabetical order of the authors. I suppose that reports by organisations not normally referenced with authors can be listed using the organisation itself as the "author". Harvard also has the (very) nice advantage of taking most of the citation bulk out of the inline source text, which can make article maintenance easier (though I guess you are aware of the citation group which achieves the same effect). Harvard involves a double-redirect; instead of going directly to the reference you want, you go to an entry that lets you look the reference up on an alphabetical list. Now this is fine in the case where there are many references to the same book. Harvard then lets you reference the page number in the main body. There are other ways of doing this, such as the way currently used in this article; but as you can see from here, some readers do not really understand this notation. So Harvard is clearer. But, if the article does not multiply refer frequently to different pages in the same books, as is the case in this article, then the Harvard method becomes cumbersome, because the list of redirects is now almost as long as the list of references it refers to. I really like the way you are leveraging the available software assistance, and perhaps we might be supporting and encouraging the guys that write that stuff. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Quite so. And your thoughts on handling "authorless" sources are anticipated in most (all?) of the style guides. Even where a source is effectively authorless -- or more likely, irksome to use -- Harv has a way of handling it. I have also had a couple of cases where (for complicated reasons) I wanted to refer to a source in two different ways. No problem!
The only quibble I have is whether Harv is cumbersome (or inefficient) for single-use citations. The alternative to Harv is placing all the bibliographic details in the text, which I am totally against. (For all the reason which I think we agree on.) So even if I was planning an article where I knew all the citations were single-use (unlikely), and could be guaranteed to stay that way (highly unlikely, and actually guaranteeing only a big mess in the future redoing them -- as I am now), I would use Harv. Indeed, I suspect a lot of the general referencing mess starts with one citation, which the initial editor finds easiest to implant right on that spot in the text, which then leads all future work downhill in the wrong direction. Yes, Harv is another layer of complexity, but very worthwhile. Much in the same way that domain names cushion us from having to us IP addresses.
Enough chit-chat, back to work! - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
For your delectation, test links to some "authorless" citations:
- J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


The Big Move! The citations below have been cleaned up and copied to the new "References" section in the article. (And any further changes or additions should be done there.) The next time around I will start replacing the in-text citations with Harv links (which will make the raw text much more readable!). - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And one of the BIG reasons I hate having citations in the text: it is very difficult separating them from the text. (As I clear out the underbrush I keep finding citations I missed on earliar passes. Which I can't pull out until I have a reference prepared.) Unwinding named refs from all over the article is not much fun either. Well, it was long slog today, and more still to do. Hopefully no one will jump in and start "fixing" things. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments on various details

Various details need addressing. For one, although I have split up all the 'named refs' (though there may yet be singleton named refs), beware: there is a bot that looks for identical refs and merges them (!!!!!!!). This can be circumvented by having each citation reference a specific page (or section, or such). Which as actually a very good idea, as citations should (as in really ought to) be as specific as possible to locate the materiel referenced. (This gets sticky when trying to replicate named refs, which leads to the quite inelegant "rp" trick, which all should be yet another reason to avoid named refs!)

Note particularly the multiple instances of "Turner 2008 p. 37". The p. 37 probably was specific to the first instance; the other instances need to be corrected. This kind of specification really should be done in each instance by the original editor -- because it is where s/he found it, which subsequent editors can only guess at.

Note also the curious case of Shiklomanov & Rodda 2003. These are really the editors of a collection of papers. So which paper is being cited?

I changed the citeref so the key Rockstrom-Steffen paper in Ecology and Society is cited as "Rockstrom, Steffen, and 26 others, 2009". This should help to distinguish it from the similar paper in Nature.

And that should be enough for today. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You've done a beautiful job there, JJ. Well done! --Epipelagic (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; glad you like it. See, {{Harv}} works real good!
The difficulties have been mainly in the references them selves, such as links to unattributed web pages (e.g., "Underlying Causes of Deforestation"). I have also spent much time in verifying and correcting the references, which should have been done originally. There still are deficiencies to fix (my purpose here is not to fix everything, but to show that Harv works real good); once I fix the IPCC refs I will be pretty much done here.
I will be cleaning out all the cruft below, so give it a look over if want to compare hand-formatted vs. template-formatted, etc. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I did the IPCC citations, and that pretty much wraps up what I am doing here. (Still a lot of things to fix, especially in citing the specific page or section where the material comes from.) And the payoff is: now you, also, are a fanatic Harv proponent? - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Junk "citations"

These are citations pulled from the article that are rather useless. Also, several of the citations are to a whole work, and lacking page numbers do not provide the WP:verifiability which is the whole point of doing citations; these should be tagged with {{page numbers needed}}. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


This is the overall title for a set of commentaries; it has not content.
This is a useless url; it does not link to any statemenbt, nor provide any verifiability.
Used as a general reference, not a citation.
Junk. A web page purporting to be a copy of a UN report, but no identification of what report.

CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries

CANVASS CALL - Proposed policy about overlinking in edit summaries

FYI I have proposed a policy about links in edit summaries; Since this page is often the subject of improper overlinking in edit summaries by various IPs, I thought readers of this page would be an appropriate group to canvass, in case anyone has a pro or con opinion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: The proposal failed and voting is closed, though I'd be grateful for comments on my talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikiettiquette issue from 97.87.29.188

IP User 97.87.29.188 frequently tags a wikilink to this article on unrelated edits made to various pages. It's easy to believe they just don't know about Help:Edit_summary so I left them a polite warning on their talk page. But editors here may be interested to know about that improper linking to this page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, excessive linking has been a recurring problem. Thanks for the heads up. It might be worthwhile to check this account's contributions. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On-going problem with this user, who tried again to add a portal link (reverted by Arthur), without discussion, though the issue has been raised before. I don't know if the guy has a long-term memory problem, or is deliberately obtuse, or what. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And again, twice, under one of his 99. aliases. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The anon wants discussion on this talk page, of why Portal:Global warming should not be here. I think it clear that it shouldn't, but he claims to think I'm a troll. Perhaps others could explain? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Page references

JJ, I notice you have added a tag saying this "article cites its sources but does not provide page references". My understanding is that it is usual to provide page numbers when citing a book, but not when citing an article. Would you please clarify what the problem is. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of standard practice in the journals, which (their space being very costly) leave off a lot of stuff they figure the competent reader can find himself. (Besides which they have greater trust in their authors.) Wikipedia editors often leave out the specifics, which is deprecated because it makes it really hard to verify. I also used to leave it out, but in going back to check some stuff I discovered just how really, REALLY hard it is to find stuff, even for short sources. So you could argue that leaving it out is "standard" (in the sense of common), but then I would argue it is sloppy, and condones sloppiness, and not what we expect of experienced Wikipedians. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Well I agree it is a good idea, so I'll do that myself from now on. But is this set out somewhere in the guidelines as an expected practice on Wikipedia? I'm reluctant to retrofit this article, since as you point out, it can take a lot of time. It's too early to say whether the framework described in the article is going to survive the test of time, and there are countless other articles needing work that are going to survive. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
You will notice that I am not jumping up and demanding that the article be deleted unless the page numbers are supplied instantly. :-) And while I agree that countless other articles need attention, I have no objection if someone wants to work on this one. The point of the tags is to show other, possibly less experienced or less confident, editors what needs to be done. (And it shouldn't be that hard. Assuming that the cited does exist in the given source, all they have to do is search through it.) Even if they are not corrected, leaving the tag in gives notice to other editors that it is a deficiency.
As to whether page numbers are really needed: there was a GA discussion a while back that if an editor can't be bothered to put them in it should be an automatic GA fail. (Yes!) Don't forget that Wikipedia's primary criterion of inclusion is WP:V. Like many guidelines it gets scanted a lot. If it was done more often I think there would be no doubt about needing page numbers. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The point of having the "page numbers needed" tag is to show that page numbers are needed through out the article. Do you not agree that these (or similar specification, such as section numbers) are needed to aid verification? Do you not agree that this lack is endemic through out the article (even if each instance is not tagged)? You suggested earliar that providing page numbers is "not usual" when citing articles, and in a certain sense I would have to agree, in that page numbers are much scanted in practice. But that hardly excuses continuance of the deficiency. And the lack of page numbers here does extend to books and reports, which certainly should have them. The point of having the general tag is to avoid having to tag each instance, which I think they are pretty obvious, provided there is a general tag to give notice.
Right? – J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I didn't remove the tag, I just repositioned it above the "Notes" section. In my experience, it is most unlikely someone else will read a tag like that and actually do something about it, particularly since in this case it is going to take a lot of time. So unless I put the time in and change things the way you want the tag will probably stay there forever. Nor do I think it is the right place positioning a tag like that at the top of the article, where it gives the impression to every reader that the article is not reliably sourced, and that no page numbers are provided. My main problem is that I'm not really clear about what it is that you want me to do, and your rationale for that. My understanding is that
  • for a journal article you give the page range for the article as a whole
  • for a book you give the page or page range relevant to the text you are citing.
  • for the special case where a book consists of a number of chapters and each chapter is a standalone article written by named, and often invited authors, you treat them like journal articles, and give the page range for the chapter or article as a whole.
And that is what I usually do, and as far as I know (I haven't checked every citation) that is what I did here. My impression above is that you are saying that you want the precise page or page range relevant to the text that was being sourced to be added to the journal article citation, instead of just the page range for the article as a whole. The same article can be cited multiple times, with each citation needing different page referencing. In this way, citing article becomes like citing books. It is possible in Harvard, but could make the citation list very long. I would not be opposed if this is becoming an established practice, but I would be opposed if this is not an established practice.
Anyway, can you please straighten me out. I would appreciate it if you can give me a link to the GA discussion you mentioned above, as well as to any relevant passages in the guidelines. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I had failed to notice (my apologies) that you only moved the tag to the Notes section. Yes, I think that is the better location, giving the notice I desire without intruding so much into the article.
Regarding page numbers, and particularly page number ranges, it is helpful to distinguish between the bibliographic reference -- not necessarily what goes between <ref> tags! -- of a whole "work", and containing all of the bibliographic details useful in locating and identifying a work, and the citation, which is a pointer to a specific location, such as a page or section number, within a "work". Where a referenced "work" is included in a larger collection (your special case, above) page number ranges are sometimes included to delimit which part of the larger collection constitutes the referenced work. (This is the proper use of the "pages" parameter in the citation templates.) Note that this "special" case (of independent chapters in a book) is essentially the same case as an article in a journal.
Such use of page number ranges should be distinguished from the citation of the specific location of material within a work. The confusion here -- and the notion of treating journal articles differently from books -- arises from the practice of the journals to maximally condense. They assume their authors are professional enough to be trusted to responsibly cite, and that journal articles are usually short enough that they are not too much to slog through. My argument is that such abridgments (similiar to abbreviated journal titles) is neither necessary nor suitable for Wikipedia, and that the overwhelming need to facilitate verification rather mandates such specification.
As to GA discussions, there are some comments in a long, rambling discussion here (though that seems to have been more about removing non-compliant citations), here (more on FA), and here. The GA criteria don't seem to mention page numbers specifically, though I have seen statements that (e.g.) "GA's now require page numbers to be cited." There is WP:CITE#Journal_articles that "Online citations usually also include specific page numbers, as described above for books." And of course there is WP:V, specifically for anything that might be WP:CHALLENGED: "Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." Which all doesn't say that specific page (section/paragraph) numbers are required in all cases (though it should?), but that it is a standard to aspire to. As to whether this is an established practice: well, I say it is more of a desired standard that is insufficiently observed. Spend any significant time trying to verify non-specific citations, and I am sure you would find "desired" to be an understatement.
Please note that I am not suggesting that you, or even anyone, should immediately fix all of these. Mainly I see the tag as 1) recognizing that non-specific citation is not up to standard (even though it is condoned), 2) identifying work that someone might want to take on.

resource?

Acidifying oceans helped fuel mass extinction; Great die-off 250 million years ago could trace in part to waters' change in pH by Alexandra Witze October 8th, 2011; Vol.180 #8 (p. 10) Science News 99.35.15.199 (talk) 00:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Time (magazine) resource for potable water (drinking water)

Why the World May Be Running Out of Clean Water by Bryan Walsh Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2011; excerpt

A parched lake in Texas illustrates the effects of a record-breaking drought that hit the state and much of the American Southwest this year

97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the article would be relevant if it discussed fresh water in the context of "planetary boundaries", but it doesn't. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Arctic ozone loss in 2011 unprecedented Science News resource

From Talk:Ozone depletion ... http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/334855/title/Arctic_ozone_loss_in_2011_unprecedented "Arctic ozone loss in 2011 unprecedented; Report describes ‘hole’ comparable to early losses above Antarctica" by Janet Raloff November 19th, 2011; Vol.180 #11 (p. 11)

Does this imply this article's table is outdated? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's worth a mention. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
You are most welcome.  :-) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers

Epipelagic: oops, sorry, forgot that we had been here before, and while I was checking the notes I didn't note the tag there. Okay, I'm fine with you removing the tag from the lead. But perhaps the issue should be raised again. In the first place, it's not a "hobbyhorse", but essential if there is to be any hope of WP:Verification. Second, that no one has stepped up to fix any of that could be due to lack of prominence for the tag, so moving it to the top should be considered at some point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Biogeocemical

The quote from Robert Howarth contradicts it's self by first claiming one should convert from row crops to pasture, then stating that meat consumtion should be reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.166.16.205 (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No contradiction, only a list of options to reduce nitrogen. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Tried to make a correction to a reference

I am new to Wikipedia, so please excuse me: but I tried to correct the URL to your reference number 30. It should be: http://www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/705

The reference is: Ulrich, A., Malley, D., Voora, V. (2009). Peak Phosphorus: Opportunity in the Making - Why the Phosphorus Challenge Presents a New Paradigm for Food Security and Water Quality in the Lake Winnipeg Basin. IISD

Sorry, but I think I didn't manage properly to make this correct. EvM-Susana (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. What you wanted to do is update the url for the source in the "full" citation (with the full bibliographic details for the source), which is located in the References section. Where you added it was before the "short" citation (in the {{Harv}} template), which links to the full citation. If you had a more specific url — like the section or page where the material being cited came from — then that could be added after the short cite. But a url referring to the source as a whole should go into the full citation. I have gone ahead and made those changes. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thanks for this. I am still confused, as I normally only work with references but not with notes... Also I find it gets messy when copying references across from one article to the other. I must really learn how to do it properly. Meanwhile, would it be possible that you check what I have just inserted now (it only turns up in the notes section but not in the references section). EvM-Susana (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Improvements needed to the part on biogeochemical boundaries

I think the part on nitrogen needs to be improved (e.g. made more focussed) and the part on phosphorus could be expanded. Or perhaps it is sufficient to refer across to the article on peak phosphorus which I have done now.

I think the part on nitrogen fails to make it clear what the limit is regarding nitrogen, given that it is available in abundance - only takes energy to turn it into fertiliser for example. EvM-Susana (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Make it clearer of you think that is needed, but try and avoid straying into original research by referencing your changes with sources that are focused on nitrogen as a planetary boundary. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I have unfortunately not enough knowledge on nitrogen as a planetary boundary - didn't even know it was considered a planetary boundary before reading this article. I just think it (this section) is not well written, not really focused but talks more about the nitrogen cycle in general. I know a bit more about phosphorus which to me is more clear cut (hence the link to the article on peak phosphorus). Hoping that someone else out there could do some editing work in the nitrogen section... Sorry, can't be of more help for now. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Plot differences

WRONG Plot of the planetary boundaries I recently added that plot of the boundaries. It differs from the one in the Nature paper though. I mean content-wise. There aren't even the same number of boundaries broken in the two plots. As I used the data from the table in the very same paper, this is confusing to me. I didn't read the whole thing though so maybe someone can help me out here and explain to me, how the discrepancy came about. I want the data to be accurate. --Mudd1 (talk) 12:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we presume their data is accurate (who are we to contradict those eminent scientists? :-), and what you want is for the chart to accurately reflect the data (right?). So are you saying the original image doesn't reflect the data? Errors do happen, so the first thing to do is check for an erratum in a subsequent issue. I don't know how Nature handles these, but if you can get to the on-line version it probably incorporates any corrections. And you should read the whole article, just in case there is some explanation. Also check for any "supporting on-line material" that wasn't included in the article itself. And see if the Stockholm Resilience Centre has any similar images. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Nah, I had a closer look at the data and I partially got where I was being stupid: take ozone depletion for example – the measure given in the table is not actually depletion but ozone concentration. This means that more is better and the scale gets inverted. However, it's not that easy to fix as I don't know what scale to use instead. Especially the origin used is unclear. [11] corresponds to Figure 6 in their paper but I can't find any detailed description of the individual scales used. I'm going to try and contact the authors. Until then, I'll take down the figure as it's plain wrong. --Mudd1 (talk) 12:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much Mudd for the work you are doing on this alternate graphic. It is difficult to come up with a really satisfactory way of doing this. The original diagram by Johan Rockström et al. introduces a distortion by using a circle segment to represent the control variable for each boundary. This means that as the control value for a boundary increases, the graphic displays an area increasing as the square, which visually overrepresents higher control values.
By contrast, you are displaying the area with a triangle whose base is on the surface of the earth. If, like Rockström, you ignore the curvature of the earth, and use straight lines for each segment of the earth's surface, then the area by which the control variable is exceeded (or not) varies in a linear way with the variable, rather than as a square. This is an improvement over the Rockström representation. However, in other ways your representation is not as simple and intuitive as the Rockström approach. Still, I think it is a useful alternative way of representing the boundaries, and you should stick with your approach. I also like the way you have added the curvature of the earth so you can overlay an image of the earth at the center of your diagram. This introduces small distortions in the way the area represents changes in the control variable, but is justified by the visual aesthetics.
I don't see the problem you have with the ozone level, though it's true you got it the wrong way round. The control value 276 has reached 97.5% of the allowable value 283. The apex of your triangle for ozone should lie inside the earths surface at 97.5% of it's radius, rather than outside as you have drawn it. You say you are worried about the origin for the Dobson units used as a measure of ozone. I don't see a problem. It is roughly a linear measure of the amount of ozone on the atmosphere, and it's inverse is roughly linear over short distances. Even if there was issue with the origin, it wouldn't matter much given the small distance of the ozone value from the critical boundary value.
Generally this approach to graphically representing boundaries seems useful to me. You can refine it piece by piece over time. I think you should offset (rotate 22.5°) the red segment lines so they properly form the base of each triangle (or, better, you could remove them altogether). You are also drawing lines directly from one boundary to the next when you should be bringing them back to the base corner of each triangle. For example, the line you have drawn from climate change to acidification should be in two segments, returning to the surface of the earth halfway in between. You could play around with tinting to indicate safe and unsafe areas. It seems okay to me to include only those boundaries that have been quantified (though that should be mentioned in the caption). --Epipelagic (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your inspirations, Epipelagic. So you suggest replacing all values by that have no natural point of origin and whose unsafe range would otherwise be beyond when normalized. I'd have preferred to learn how they did it in the original figure but since Rockström did not reply to my email I guess we have to find a way to make do and this suggestion seems reasonable to me. I'll update my diagram when I find the time and upload it. I'll also see which other suggestions of yours are reasonably easy to implement.
I'm not sure about segmenting the triangles though. They would have to go back to the center of the earth, not to the surface as the base of the triangles is in fact a line through the origin parallel to the tangent, not the tangent itself. For the same reason, the unit circle is the circumscribed circle of the red octagon. I agree that this is confusing though, especially since the earth is mimicking an in-circle. --Mudd1 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Finally I took the time to make those changes to the image. I fixed the axes and obviously introduced some color. I'm not 100% sure this is a good thing but since it's an SVG, it's easily changed by anybody who doesn't like it. I also made the Earth larger so that it's now the circumscribed circle of the octagon. I did not rotate the octagon however. The red octagon is how the plot would look like if all eight values were exactly at their respective boundary. I also didn't implement any kind of returning to the origin or boundary or whatever of the spikes since we didn't finish discussing that. Thanks again for your input Epipelagic and maybe you can improve on the graphic if you have some more good ideas. --Mudd1 (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
There's a typo in the graphic. It should be Ocean acidification, not Ocean adidification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.152.41 (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Atmospheric CO2 level needs updating

The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is currently at 401[1] and not 387 as the table listing the boundaries shows. It needs to be updated. Metanish (talk) 19:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://co2now.org/
Thanks. I've updated it. SmartSE (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Planetary boundaries. 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) 16:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Planetary_boundaries/Archive_2&oldid=1143300054"