Talk:Milankovitch cycles

message: I removed this recent addition . 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)
replies: text: 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 (; 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)

text: It does indeed look like a WP:POVFORK with a dose of WP:COI, and MDPI journals are iffy propositions at best. Language like  and  is not encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milankovich's theory revisited 

message: 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 (; 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)
replies: text: It does indeed look like a WP:POVFORK with a dose of WP:COI, and MDPI journals are iffy propositions at best. Language like  and  is not encyclopedic. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge of [[Milankovich's theory]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  April 2021 - Mass "Citation Needed" 

message: Consequences of Milankovitch cycles are not restricted to variations in glaciation.  Glaciation is present in only a fraction of Earth's geological history, yet the 7th order insolation variations that these Milankovitch cycles occur continuously throughout the Earth's existence regardless of the climate changes dominated by the higher order causes. 
* 
* 
* 
** 
** 
** 
** 
IveGoneAway (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for expansion 

message: The graph at the top of the page and the description/key, which is supposed to be underneath, look terrible on a mobile device. The image is too wide and the text is overlapping and barely legible. nagualdesign 01:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: I see at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/14/8/1244 that Milankovitch cycles are proposed by one Stuart A. Harris () as a better explanation of climate change than anthropogenic CO² emissions, if I understand aright. Is this a common thesis, and should this page say something about it? PJTraill (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milankovitch cycles and climate change