Talk:Erosion

The Herald?

I was just popping in to fix a redirect, when I saw that this article is using a newspaper's interpretation of what the United Nations had supposedly stated on land degradation (section 4.1). That doesn't strike me as a very reliable source - if the UN had stated something, chances are you can find the document itself, and then cite from the horses mouth directly. Just thought I'd bring some attention to the issue. --$\color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}$$\color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}$$\color {Blue}t)$ = ? 17:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

For a relatively simple claim like this one, it probably doesn't much matter. One could even argue that the UN would be a primary source for this, and that the Herald, a broadsheet established in 1783, is a very reliable secondary source and thus would have been expected to do their own fact-checking on this. (That'd be a weak argument, though, as their only statement is that the UN made the claim, so not much fact-checking would have been necessary.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of weathering and mass movement processes

I have concerns about the following sections:

• Exfoliation: That's a weathering process. There is no external agent involved.
• Freezing & thawing: That's a weathering process. I've removed the second paragraph as it clearly references only the weathering process. The remaining one states that freezing and thawing is related to 'gravitational movement'. However,
• Gravitational erosion: Mass movement is independent of erosion. That was stated clearly in source 21.

I suggest removing them. Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Frost weathering shows that freeze-thaw should be updated as it is wronga s in articel now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.80.98 (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC) i agree a 100 % but i think you should or said how to remember weathering and eroshion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2369 lol (talk • contribs) 01:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Split proposal, Erosion/Soil Erosion

Just discovered someone (@Lappspira:) has spotted this article looks like it should be split. Here's a discussion space for it.

I agree it needs it, I think. The bottom half (2/3?) of the article is very specifically about soil erosion, and that's actually misleading - a lot of stuff said here isn't necessarily true of all erosion. Good catch, Lappspira. Looks like the putative soil erosion article will already be fairly meaty with an appropriate lede and intro. However, this article will become embarrassingly short for what looks to me like a high priority article in both geology and geography. We'll need to sort this out. DanHobley (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you DanHobley. I forgot to write here. Yes, the article will be short after soil erosion is splitted of. I will try to fill that with some geomorphology material. –Lappspira (talk) 06:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Lappspira, it seems that you have already split it. Normally you're supposed to give people a week to comment before carrying out the action. Otherwise, what is the point of starting the discussion? But I don't think you need to undo it unless someone objects to the split. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I am going to undo the deletions. This article is a level-3 vital article, a top- or high-important topic for three projects and is viewed about 1.4 million times a year, and now it looks like a tree that has been badly topped. If a split is done, it should be done with more care; someone should prepare a decent summary for the material before it is removed. After all, soil erosion is part of this subject. The split should also be properly documented. See How to properly split an article. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've undone the improper cut and paste of content to soil erosion, which was done with no attribution, and returned that to a redirect here. Vsmith (talk) 22:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "improper cut and paste of content to soil erosion, which was done with no attribution". I made several edits (as myself) to the soil erosion page earlier today, and spent a couple of hours doing these. Does this apparent change of mind regarding the splitting of erosion and soil erosion mean that I have been wasting my time editing the soil erosion page? I hope not... Dave F-M (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been a change of mind so much as a recognition that it wasn't done properly. The improper cut and paste was the one that created Soil erosion; the split has to be done correctly so the history of content before the split is preserved (see How to properly split an article). It wasn't targeted at your edits - you could use this diff as a basis for editing the same material in Erosion. Sorry for the inconvenience.RockMagnetist(talk) 22:51, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

However, you should leave out the top paragraph because it was based on a copyright violation that was added before the split (see my note at Talk:Soil erosion). RockMagnetist(talk) 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

One last note on procedure: an appropriate edit summary for a split is needed to conform with Wikipedia's licensing requirements (see Procedure), so it's not optional. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks User:RockMagnetist for explaing, I've been busy off-wiki for a bit. To Dave F-M, your changes/additions are still available in the history of Soil erosion and can either be added here or to that article should the split be properly done. Vsmith (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, have added my Soil erosion edits to Erosion as suggested above. Thanks for the guidance! In my opinion, the Erosion page should be split: at present it attempts to cover so many topics that it is not easy for contributors like me, who have some knowledge of one topic (soil erosion my case) to make broad-brush statements that are also true of all the other kinds of erosion discussed on this page (e.g. coastal erosion, glacial erosion, etc.) Just a thought... Dave F-M (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)