Talk:Milankovitch cycles

"precession of the Earth's orbit resulted"

Precession affects the Earth's axial tilt in its rotation, not its orbit. AndroidCat (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

See apsidal precession. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 22:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it: the confusing part was a list of orbit and rotational effects followed by them all being ascribed only to orbit. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 03:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the large cycles diagram be on top of the article?

On certain display settings (non-fullscreen on desktop computers) this looks visually awkward: One quite narrow column of intro text next to the big, complicated diagram filling most of the browser window.

For all users the questions should be asked: Isn't this too heavy a dose of information to throw into the reader's face, right at the start? I find it easier to stomach if the first thing a reader sees besides text is something he can more easily relate to. Admittedly, the article subject itself is quite abstract; and a photo of a cliff wall that invites the reader to lock for patterns of strata in it is still a lot brainier, than, say, a picture of a cute-looking animal. But seeing the article's concept directly expressed in nature is much more accessible to me than an abstract diagram.

In short: I find that the suggested start of the article (beginning with a photo) is more approachable and accessible than beginning with a complicated diagram. Got reverted on this issue by SageGreenRider previously; opened discussion as requested. ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 11:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The article is about the sub- and co-cycles which make up the Malinkovich cycle. The diagram is appropriate. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 09:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with GenQuest. Let's not bury the lede. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The major component of the eccentricity variation is 405,000 years, not 413,000 years

Section 1.1 on Orbital eccentricity states that the "major component of these variations occurs with a period of 413,000 years" but the only cited reference says that this period is 405,000 years. See reference 2:.George Fergus (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Milankovich's theory revisited

I removed this recent addition [1]. It appears to come from https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1312/9/1/13/pdf, Jean-Louis Pinault. It might be a copyvio (though that does say "Copyright: © 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/)" but that journal does not look reliable to me, so I think this is essentially self-pub William M. Connolley (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Similar has been added elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• This has just resurfaced as a separate new article, Milankovich's theory revisited. Could people please have a look at the connected AfD? Leaving aside the technicality of what to with a possible redirect, should this be merged here? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, following a certain amount of technical kerfuffle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milankovich's theory revisited, the new article has now been moved w/o redirect to Milankovich's theory (once the editor stops recreating it under the old title) to get rid of the obvious POVFORK title. Now let's please talk about what to do with the content.

Proposed merge of Milankovich's theory

As noted, I'm getting the impression that this is a paradigmatic WP:POVFORK - a revisionist or alternate take on a topic, with a lot of targeted special argumentation. We Don't Do That in separate articles. If there is anything worthwhile in there, it should be integrated into the main article. As to whether that's the case, I'm somewhat out of my depth here. I will note that the main publication behind the editor's drift ([2]; authored by themselves) is published by a journal that we have down as "borderline source that often fails higher sourcing requirements". --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It does indeed look like a WP:POVFORK with a dose of WP:COI, and MDPI journals are iffy propositions at best. Language like the greatest mysteries of modern climate science and avoiding the many opportunistic assumptions intended to lift the veil on the many vagaries of the climate system is not encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Comment This appears to be a need for a merge of forked content and possible deletion of same. Plus, throw in a correction of the spelling of the article title for good measure. The additions to this and other articles appear to be made by the author of the journal article that he is inserting as references to his changes. Therefore, these changes must be looked at with COI and SPAM implications. The person making these changes appears not to be here to build an encyclopedia, but rather as an attempt to promote and legitimize his work published in a possibly unreliable source that has lax or no editorial oversight, and possible paid-for publishing. I am currently Neutral on a merge of the deleted article's redirect, but leaning Oppose. GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Comment I modified some details of the article “Milankovitch theory” to make it easier to read. I think this version is pretty much mature, being intended to merge with the “Milankovitch cycles”. I have not allowed myself to do so until now because I wanted the consent of the scientific community. Indeed, the merger of the two articles supposes some alterations of the host page, which I refused to do. This article does not question what is said in “Milankovitch cycles”, quite the contrary. It is intended to complete the Milankovitch theory to propose a straightforward explanation to the numerous pending issues raised by the theory of orbital forcing. Personally, I would like the discussion to focus on the substance of the article as well as the papers cited in the references rather than the form. Wikipedia indeed offers a great opportunity to confront the different points of view in a constructive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean-Louis Pinault (talk • contribs) 10:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support TNT of content and either redirect or preferable delete of title. I can't see much salveable in the text. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 - Mass "Citation Needed"

Any statement without a source immediately following it has been slapped with a "citation needed" flag, which in some cases seems like utter overkill and unnecessary. In other cases such a flag definitely seems fitting, while in other still different flags like the relevance of a statement might be useful.

For instance: "Axial precession is the trend in the direction of the Earth's axis of rotation relative to the fixed stars, with a period of 25,771.5 years. This motion means that eventually Polaris will no longer be the north pole star." - This has been hit with a citation needed template, but it really does seem unnecessary per WP:BLUE (or I suppose more specifically, WP:CSIOR) - The stars can and often are presumed to be fixed in location (relative to our solar system) and clearly are in this article (i.e. they are being treated as a fixed reference point to explain axial precession). If the earth's axis is wobbling around, then obviously something once 'above it' would no longer be exactly above it. 176.251.175.52 (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)