Talk:Planetary boundaries

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)

Environment (biophysical)?

Add Environment (biophysical) wikilink? 99.181.134.6 (talk) 06:45, 18 November 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)

Add 350 ppm planetary boundary to Climate change mitigation scenarios

See Climate change mitigation scenarios#350 ppm ... an example ...

Johan Rockström, in a 2009 report, states 350 ppm is one of the planetary boundaries for CO₂ in the atmosphere.

99.109.124.130 (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)