Talk:Planetary boundaries: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:58, 31 March 2011

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environmental governance

I see there hasn't yet been any discussion about this article. Could someone explain why Environmental governance is related? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear like a rather obvious relationship. One discusses the limits of activities on the planet, the other the required measures to ensure these boundaries aren't violated. __meco (talk) 10:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Environmental management wikilink? 99.52.148.237 (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a better choice. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. __meco (talk) 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request translation into Nihongo

{{Expand Japanese|Planetary boundaries}} 99.37.87.203 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're requesting the Japanese article be extended, not this article be extended from the Japanese. That request should be made over at ja.wikipedia. If I'm wrong, and it's the other way, please at least point to the ja.wikipedia article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! 209.255.78.138 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Environmental management per above discussion, please.

Add Environmental management per above discussion, please. 99.190.86.194 (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Sustainability and environmental management ?

Also see Sustainability and environmental management ? 99.56.121.12 (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not if Sustainability or environmental management is linked in the article or in the See also section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add wikilink to Extinction.

Add wikilink to Extinction. 99.112.212.121 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit weak for "See also" alone. See if you can work it into the text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

extinctions per million species ... see Planetary boundaries: Rethinking biodiversity in Nature (journal) published online: 23 September 2009. 99.181.149.107 (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is Tg N yr?

What is Tg N yr? 99.190.81.3 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tg N yr-1 = Teragrams of nitrogen per year seems likely. Vsmith (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. 99.181.146.135 (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include link from each boundaries' corresponding wp article?

Include link from each boundaries' corresponding wp article? Suggest: Global warming, Biodiversity, Nitrogen cycle, Phosphorous cycle, Ocean acidification, Potable water, Land use per table + Ozone layer, ...

99.19.46.34 (talk) 03:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why link an obscure hypothesis (this one) to articles about real phenomena? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the cover articles of Scientific American obscure? 99.109.126.34 (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cover articles of Scientific American are unlikely to be scientifically accurate, and, there being hundreds of them, may be fairly obscure. Perhaps you're suffering from WP:RECENTISM. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Original Research User:Arthur Rubin, or please cite a reference for the unlikely scientific accuracy of Scientific American? 99.119.128.35 (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a reference where I can get to it at the moment, but I recall an editorial in Science apologizing for inaccurate cover articles, and promising not to do it again. A promise best observed in the breach, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reference please, User:Arthur Rubin. 99.181.140.94 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shortened the header for editing ease - we don't repeat our arguements as a header. Also the table is easily viewed in the article, why repeat it here? Vsmith (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a standard wp method for referring to the table, to decrease communication confusion? (Please Mr. Rubin let Vsmith only reply) 99.181.128.253 (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout: See the table in the article or as presented in the article or some such... being as the article is quite short and w/out sections. Vsmith (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, more obvious than I thought. Thank you again. 99.181.128.253 (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
 :Is there a standard wp method for referring to the table, to decrease communication confusion?  (Please Mr. Rubin let Vsmith <b>only</b> reply)  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.128.253|99.181.128.253]] ([[User talk:99.181.128.253|talk]]) 23:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 ::How 'bout: ''See the table in the article'' or ''as presented in the article'' or some such... being as the article is quite short and w/out sections. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] ([[User talk:Vsmith|talk]]) 23:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
+:::Okay, more obvious than I thought.  Thank you again.  [[Special:Contributions/99.181.128.253|99.181.128.253]] ([[User talk:99.181.128.253|talk]]) 23:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)