LightProof1995 (talk | contribs) m →Proposed lead changes: added reflist |
LightProof1995 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
Just quick notes on sections that probably need to be added, or areas that need to be elaborated on. |
Just quick notes on sections that probably need to be added, or areas that need to be elaborated on. |
||
The following words aren't even in the text of this page (links at bottom don't count): [[mining]] (or [[Mining|mine]]), [[gemstone]] (or [[gem]]), <s>[[earthquake]], [[lithosphere]], [[isostasy]] |
The following words aren't even in the text of this page (links at bottom don't count): [[mining]] (or [[Mining|mine]]), [[gemstone]] (or [[gem]]), <s>[[earthquake]], [[lithosphere]], [[isostasy]], [[orogeny]]</s>, [[petrology]], <s>[[rock climbing]]</s>, <s>[[animal husbandry]]</s<, [[grazing]]/<s>[[overgrazing]] (can cause [[desertification]])</s>, [[property]], [[landlord]], [[earthworm]] (I did add [[mud]] though lol), and the mentioned-above [[landfill]] and [[litter]] |
||
The following may need entire sections: |
The following may need entire sections: |
||
[[Geomorphology]] with subsections [[Erosion]], [[Plate tectonics]], [[Volcanic activity]]. |
<s>[[Geomorphology]] with subsections [[Erosion]], [[Plate tectonics]], [[Volcanic activity]].</s> |
||
<s>[[Elevation]] |
<s>[[Elevation]], with subsection about [[Upland and lowland]]s.</s> |
||
[[Urban planning]]/[[Urban development]] with subsections on [[Sustainability]], and maybe [[Zoning]] of land? I realize it mentions [[Land (economics)]], but even that article doesn't get get into zoning. |
<s>[[Urban planning]]/[[Urban development]]</s> with subsections on [[Sustainability]], and maybe [[Zoning]] of land? I realize it mentions [[Land (economics)]], but even that article doesn't get get into zoning. |
||
<s>[[Abundance of elements in Earth's crust|Composition of Earth's crust]]</s> |
<s>[[Abundance of elements in Earth's crust|Composition of Earth's crust]]</s> |
Revision as of 09:12, 9 October 2022
Geology C‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Photo in lede
It seems inappropriate to have a photo that's mostly water in the lede for the article about land. If others agree, any suggestions for a better option? - Sdkb (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, and have substituted a picture with a better land to water ratio, although I am open to other possibilities. Perhaps this article could use a gallery. bd2412 T 17:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Land Cover Table - FAO Code and Type
I have looked reasonably hard to find a complete list of the "FAO Code" in the 1st column of the table in Land_cover#Types (table below the map).
The document pointed to as a reference on the 2nd column "Type" Land_cover#cite_note-8 of the table does provide a source/definition for the labels of each of the codes... but the codes provided in this document do not match the numbers in the FAO code column.
Can someone provide a source for the "FAO Code" and that these codes map to the labels from the reference for the type column? Thank-you --Aupward (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Lead paragraph definition fail
Icebergs and glaciers constitute "solid surface(s) of the Earth" and are "not permanently covered by water." So, do they qualify as land under the Michael Allaby, Chris Park definition in the lead paragraph? I'll stay tuned. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Land and soil
Difference between land and soil 2409:4064:4D18:664C:0:0:604B:770E (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Land includes areas of sand, swamp, and solid rock, which are usually not considered soil. BD2412 T 06:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Geography
Lands bio Biography 2409:4060:21B:EC22:0:0:2971:D8B0 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Geograph
Land 77.246.53.9 (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Land to GA
Right, this is tough. What section should we expand first? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- All of them. BD2412 T 06:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- Let's go then! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- I added several empty sections for adding contents. Some has hatnotes that link to the respective main articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Let's go then! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Land cover
I see nothing in Land cover that could not just be merged into that section of this article. The text is relatively short, and the concept is just a characteristic of land. BD2412 T 17:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this merge, though with {{R with possibilities}}. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Also agree with the mergeDFlhb (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)- Support Land cover basically fits right into "Land". Helloheart (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- We have an entire article just on land cover mapping, so I think land cover is a major enough topic to deserve its own article. small jars
tc
21:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)- The land cover mapping article seesm comprehensive and well-sourced and was likely contributed by a domain expert (user User:Yisaginath wrote 90% of it).
- WRT the Land cover article: I'm looking at the Wikipedia:Merging guidelines again for the criteria that allow page moves: criteria 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 don't apply IMO, but I'd like other responders here to argue based on these criteria. and whether anyone has time to do so. I supported the merge based on my impression that "short text" would cover the Land cover article, but short text apparently means just a few sentences; so wouldn't apply to the Land cover article. I think "semi-duplicate" is the strongest criteria that could apply to Land cover.
- It depends on what our vision for the Land article is. If the Land article will have sections covering the major biomes of earth, have a table of land cover percentages (like the Land cover article) and have a summary section on mapping (linking to the main mapping article), I think it might be appropriate to merge them, because then they would become duplicate. If the Land article is only going to have one section on "Land cover", as it does currently, then the articles should be separate. I don't think we should judge based on what the articles look like today; but based on what they would look like in a "completed" version of Wikipedia. Would there be 2 articles or 1?
- If I were a GIS expert I'd have a clearer opinion on that, but as it is I'm withdrawing my Support for the merge, and changing it provisionally to
Strong opposeComment (pending deeper arguments from others here, which I'm open to). The articles can remain separate; with a section on land cover here. To be very clear, it isn't so much that I oppose the merge, as that I don't think there are enough people participating in this discussion to be able to reach a consensus (yet); geography experts should pitch in. - Reflecting more widely, I frankly don't know what the Land article is supposed to stand for. "Land cover" is covered in the academic and scientific literature, making it notable and therefore deserving of an article (or at least a section in an article if it's a minor topic among geographers). "Land" isn't discussed in the literature as a topic of its own (since it's a dictionary term). Since it's not discussed in the literature, there really isnt't anything to go off on when it comes to what's relevant, what's not; what should be included, what shouldn't be. How far down the Earth's crust can we include things here? How do we avoid overlap with Earth's crust? Ngram is misleading since it covers all published books, not only scientific or academic books, and "land" is a common colloquial term.
- After thinking about it some more, we perhaps should ask for consensus from the wider Geography WikiProject for this merge, especially geography experts, who should debate specifically how best to delineate these topics, avoid redundancies, and be a well-organized encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, doesn't have a Land article (though it does have a Land (economics) article, different from this one). "Land cover", as a concept, probably should have a Wikipedia article. Should Land exist, should Land cover exist, what about Landmass and Earth's crust? Personally, looking at "what links here" for each and at page views, they should probably all exist, but seeing what belongs in each is a tough problem that I don't feel can be solved without domain knowledge. I don't know if the Geography WikiProject should be asked, ideally, rather than requesting consensus from the whole of English Wikipedia; ideally whatever results in the most domain-experts and the least Wiki-guideline-experts-who-aren't-subject-experts.
- We can keep editing "Land" whatever the outcome of this merge proposal is; but we should probably get clear on what Land article should cover (and maybe it's far clearer for you people than it is for me, in which case please go ahead and edit). DFlhb (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm geniunely stuck on this. I'm gonna make an RfC to get more viewpoints and input. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose because Land cover is a more specific concept, related to the mapping of land, e.g. GIS data. In that sense, it almost seems more related to land use, but the land cover article explicitly states they are different, and the article is correct -- both the land cover and land use articles should be fleshed out, along with this broad article on land. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
RfC: How should the scope of Land be defined
How should the layout of the article be defined? See also above discussion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- Merge with Land. I agree with comment above: "If the Land article will have sections covering the major biomes of earth, have a table of land cover percentages (like the Land cover article) and have a summary section on mapping (linking to the main mapping article), I think it might be appropriate to merge them, because then they would become duplicate.". I'm not a geographer or geologist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've had some more time to think about it.
- Re: my argument that Land is a dictionary term, and hard to circumscribe:
- If we keep in mind the "primary audience" for this article, it's likely elementary/middle school students learning about basic geology and biomes, layers (i.e. in the "Layers" section: how far down below the "dirt" do you usually find rock? what's the range?) and regular readers going down the Wiki rabbit hole to satisfy their curiosity. Our audience is obviously not limited to them, but we should aim for comprehensiveness and clarity.
- Re: my comments above about avoiding duplication with Land mass, Earth's crust, etc.
- I think my concerns were overblown. "How deep should we go?" is likely bedrock. There's obviously going to be small overlap between Land and other articles, but that's both necessary and perfectly normal for Wikipedia.
- Resources of use for improving this article:
- I was neutral on my own proposal (the one quoted above by User:Laurel_Lodged) and had only posted it here for comments; but I've come to support it. Merge, combined with an 'R with possibilities' would be appropriate (also, I should not have changed my vote to "Provisional strong oppose" but just struck out "Support" and replaced with "Comment"; what I did was unnecessarily confusing).
- I've found the National Geographic Education site to be a nice resource: [1]. I think we should have a top-level "Biome" section, with subsections: desert, tundras, etc. The articles on each of these biomes on Wikipedia are quite good and detailed, so it shouldn't be too hard to summarize them. I'd add the Biome section above "Layers". I think there should also be a Topology section. The sections can be short for now (e.g. put a short biome sections with mainly pictures across the full page width, gallery-style, until we can fill it out; or just mostly copy the respective article leads).
- The following Wikipedia pages might be relevant to seek inspiration from, whether a sentence or a whole subsection: Drainage basin, Bedrock, Continental crust, Landform, Topology, parts of Earth#Surface, and Terrain. The NatGeo search page I linked to above is also great.
- The textbook "Essentials of Geology, 13th edition" by Pearson is fantastic, especially the soils, running water, groundwater, glaciers, deserts, and shorelines sections. DFlhb (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Structure
I think some of the structure could be grouped into a "Physical science" section, for the same reasons as the Sea article. DFlhb (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Re: the physical sciences section: its contents may fit together a tiny bit awkwardly since these sections were mashed together, but I think they all belong there, and the section can be expanded quite a bit using Tarbuck, Edward J.; Lutgens, Frederick K. (2017). Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology. Pearson. ISBN 978-0-13-407425-2. Biomes should maybe be taken up an indentation level instead of being sub-subsections. DFlhb (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Land as a system; land's relation to climate
Good sources for the Climate section within Physical sciences:
- Tarbuck, Edward J.; Lutgens, Frederick K. (2017). Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology. Pearson. ISBN 978-0-13-407425-2. (textbook; already cited here), especially:
- chapter 1.4 The Earth System
- chapter 6 Weathering and Soils (not mentioned currently)
- chapter 16 Running water
- chapter 17 Groundwater
- chapter 19 Deserts and wind (already mentioned, could be expanded).
DFlhb (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Pollution
Reading through this, I felt the "Air" and "Pollution" sections (and probably even the Biodiversity loss section) don't fit, as they have nothing to do with "Land" and more to do with "Earth" which is a separate concept (Earth = land+water+air+life). I believe we should either write out how air and water pollution (and biodiversity loss) relates to land degradation and other forms of "land pollution" specifically, or just take out these sections completely and only focus on land-related environmental issues e.g. the specified land degradation. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- See citation 11, UN.
land is defined as “a delineable area of the Earth’s terrestrial surface, encompassing all attributes of the biosphere immediately above or below this surface, including those of the near-surface climate, the soil and terrain forms, the surface hydrology (including shallow lakes, rivers, marshes, and swamps), the near-surface sedimentary layers and associated groundwater reserve, the plant and animal populations (biodiversity), the human settlement pattern and physical results of past and present human activity (terracing, water storage or drainage structures, roads, buildings, etc.).”
- Water pollution only talks about land-related water, i.e. groundwater, rivers, etc, not oceans. DFlhb (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Even this definition doesn’t include “Air.” The article currently has the sentence “Water pollution is the contamination of lakes…” and I feel this needs to say something like “Water pollution of land includes the contamination of non-oceanic hydrological surface and underground water features such as rivers, streams, wetlands, ponds, aquifers, and groundwater." LightProof1995 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think air is included, since it's "immediately above the surface".
- Shouldn't lakes be included in land-water pollution? It's freshwater. The article currently reads
Water pollution is the contamination of lakes, rivers, aquifers, reservoirs and groundwater as a result of human activities
. According to the Essentials of Geology textbook that I've cited before, lakes are 20% of "surface water and other freshwater". It also says:- (paraphrasing to avoid COPYVIO) oceans are 97% of the Earth's water, "however, the hydrosphere also includes the freshwater found underground and in streams, lakes, and glaciers."
- In the chapter about Groundwater flows, it says groundwater flows to discharge areas, and that discharge also occurs at "springs, lakes, or wetland" (page 375)
- To me, these aren't strict delineations. We're talking about systems, which are closely connected. The textbook explicitly says land is part of all systems (hydrologic, atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere), the hydrosphere too. I do feel quite strongly that Biodiversity loss belongs; since for example aquatic biodiversity loss would belong in the Sea article. DFlhb (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Certainly there is also pollution that is strictly "on land", though. BD2412 T 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Right BD2412, I agree with you. Currently the Pollution heading has two subsections: Air and Water. It should at least be Ground, Air, and Water. I agree pollution of aquifers and groundwater counts as land-related water pollution. I understand why it is currently like this, as "Ground pollution" and "Life pollution" are perhaps too closely related to Land degradation and Biodiversity loss, although I feel Soil contamination is the true "ground pollution" and would probably be the focus of the Pollution -- Ground section. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
- Another issue I have with the "Air" section -- the definition of "land" may include near-surface air and its biological inhabitants, but it doesn't include the air above the ocean, nor the higher layers in the atmosphere. Currently this reads as as a general description of the pollution of all air, e.g. the mention of ozone depletion is important to the stratosphere alone. This is a problem because it comes across as not neutral, and I say this as a huge environmental science nerd[2]. Like, if an truck-loving Republican came to read this article, they'd want to read about mud and worms, (neither of which are currently on this article), but instead they are accosted by what reads as a liberal's very not-neutral point of view about how their truck is causing air pollution. Just because "air" is technically a part of the definition of "land", doesn't mean the section isn't currently being given undue weight. The Republican is much more likely to care about environmental issues (like they should) if the article presents them neutrally and relates them to the ground (which is the first AKA name in the article), i.e. "the solid surface of the Earth". LightProof1995 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Certainly there is also pollution that is strictly "on land", though. BD2412 T 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Sections to Add
Just quick notes on sections that probably need to be added, or areas that need to be elaborated on.
The following words aren't even in the text of this page (links at bottom don't count): mining (or mine), gemstone (or gem), earthquake, lithosphere, isostasy, orogeny, petrology, rock climbing, animal husbandry</s<, grazing/overgrazing (can cause desertification), property, landlord, earthworm (I did add mud though lol), and the mentioned-above landfill and litter
The following may need entire sections:
Geomorphology with subsections Erosion, Plate tectonics, Volcanic activity.
Elevation, with subsection about Upland and lowlands.
Urban planning/Urban development with subsections on Sustainability, and maybe Zoning of land? I realize it mentions Land (economics), but even that article doesn't get get into zoning.
LightProof1995 (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
- Simply brilliant; I'll start on that. Though I do think we should fit "physical science"-related things in the physical science section, and avoid excessive hierarchy depth if we can, because on Vector 2022 it just looks quite messy to have "subheading 2's". Sea has few of them. I'll add something on elevation within terrain (feel free to add a separate section if you want). DFlhb (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Lol you are too kind :) LightProof1995 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Outline question
I wonder if I made a mistake putting Biomes (and possibly Layers too, though that might be fine to leave in) in "Physical science". Seems like they could just as well be brought out than left in. I'm thinking we could dedicate "Physical science" to plate tectonics, the rock cycle, soils & weathering, erosion, volcanic activity,, topography, groundwater, and possibly shorelines. DFlhb (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Proposed lead changes
Sorry User:LightProof1995 but I just don't understand the changes you made in this diff. I've reverted them for now since I feel they make the lead less clear, but feel free to discuss them here.
The lead definition was from Allady (2013), which I just added back. I think we took it verbatim ("permanently submerged"), but I can't check right now. Tides are not relevant here since the coast is measured using its baseline (mentioned in 3rd paragraph of lead). This is a great book chapter on baselines, easy to read.
I was unclear in earlier discussions but "real" lakes don't count as land, only shallow lakes, so changing "water" to "ocean" doesn't quite work. I also think the UN definition of land is too complex to go in lead, and it's already covered in the Definition section. However, I agree both that definition, and the simpler "permanently submerged" one should be better explained in the Definition section. DFlhb (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks DFlhb. My reasoning for replacing "water" with "ocean" is we can't have the phrase "permanently submerged in water" as that definition also applies to wetlands, which are land. Baselines may dictate where the coastline is when governments define land, but not earth scientists. It's definitely going to be tricky to get the lead exactly right; my edits were just a start. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Re: the tides, I managed to get a hold of Allaby again, he defines land as
The solid, dry surface of the Earth, or any part of it.
(in the Oxford Dictionary of Environment and Conservation). The Oxford Dictionary of English defines it asthe part of the earth's surface that is not covered by water
. Removing "permanently" might better fit sources, though it would actually allow for less of the ambiguity of wetlands, shallow lakes, etc. to be included, which I feel would be a detriment since those definitely fit in this article. "Covered by ocean" doesn't feel grammatically correct to me, and would incorrectly include deep lakes as land (e.g. Lake Superior, Lake Victoria, etc.). - Re: wetlands, they seem to be usually defined as shallow water (see Ramsar convention), like shallow lakes" are. Both are interesting enough to talk about in "Definition", but too minor an exception to change the lead definition. Mitch et al.'s 2007 Wetlands also seems to define wetlands as an interface between land and aquatic ecosystems, not as purely "land". Tarbuck & Ludgens Earth: an introduction to physical geology (Pearson) has great sections on wetlands, including their recent rapid disappearance, so there should be a subsection on them here too.
- Cheers. DFlhb (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think it would be best if we separate out the "basic" definition from the "extended" definition of land, so only the "basic" definition is in the lead. The "basic" definition being, something like, "land is the solid surface of the Earth separated from the ocean or another body of water by a littoral zone"; and the extended definition being the UN/government definition and my mud sentence. The extended definition conflicts with the basic definition considerably which is why we are having such issues. My lead sentence was focused on the "solid" aspect of the basic land definition, more than the "dry/not covered by water" part, as the extended definition includes air as well. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any conflict between the two definitions, one is just wider. The plain one is colloquial (what this article focuses on most) and the wider one is a scholarly definition (which this article also talks about). I view this article a bit like Sea, which is mostly about the human experience and only partly about physical science. And I think we already separate the basic and extended definitions pretty well. I'm just not sure what your specific issue with the lead is. Earth scientists don't talk about land that much, they talk about ecosystems (which we lack a section on), but this article doesn't just focus on them, and I think the lead is fine since it's supposed to be general. It doesn't need to hint at all the nuances, that's what the Definition section is. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- The conflict is this...
- Rivers, shallow lakes, near-surface air, etc. are not solid features of the Earth.
- The basic definition is that land is solid.[1][2]
- Also, I should mention that not only do I have a background/degree in environmental science, but I also have experience as a wetland scientist. I had to take out the wetland source (not sure who put it there, or when), because from what I could tell, it described wetlands but didn't say anywhere they specifically are "land". Currently the statement that "wetlands" are land is unsourced, and I wrote it, and doesn't even sound accurate--I think your assessment of wetlands was better, i.e. that they are an an interface between land and aquatic ecosystems. So I might go put something like that in. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any conflict between the two definitions, one is just wider. The plain one is colloquial (what this article focuses on most) and the wider one is a scholarly definition (which this article also talks about). I view this article a bit like Sea, which is mostly about the human experience and only partly about physical science. And I think we already separate the basic and extended definitions pretty well. I'm just not sure what your specific issue with the lead is. Earth scientists don't talk about land that much, they talk about ecosystems (which we lack a section on), but this article doesn't just focus on them, and I think the lead is fine since it's supposed to be general. It doesn't need to hint at all the nuances, that's what the Definition section is. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- I think it would be best if we separate out the "basic" definition from the "extended" definition of land, so only the "basic" definition is in the lead. The "basic" definition being, something like, "land is the solid surface of the Earth separated from the ocean or another body of water by a littoral zone"; and the extended definition being the UN/government definition and my mud sentence. The extended definition conflicts with the basic definition considerably which is why we are having such issues. My lead sentence was focused on the "solid" aspect of the basic land definition, more than the "dry/not covered by water" part, as the extended definition includes air as well. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Re: the tides, I managed to get a hold of Allaby again, he defines land as
Change "History of exploration" to just "History"
"Exploration" is basically the same thing as "travel". I think the sentence of how exploration has led to conquest and colonization should've been left in. If we made this section just "History", i.e. so it is the "History of humans and land", we can fit topics such as war in it easier. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)