Talk:Biogeochemical cycle

Untitled
This section that attempts to summarize the nitrogen cycle really needs to be re-written. It seems that someone for whom English is not a first language has composed this. Hats off to them for getting some seemingly useful information posted, but however this really should be cleaned up. I am an environmental scientist who has some background in biogeochemical cycles and really no authority in the area of nitrogen cycling. I made a couple of small edits but realized that there is more work needed than I am capable of or have the time for.

Why does this page have a section on the nitrogen cycle but not other cycles? Why does that section seem to be referring to something above that doesn't exist? Why does the article just suddenly stop?

Also it looks a bit odd at the end where it says "certain denitrifying bacteria are NOT responsible." The person who added that said in their edit comment that blue-green algae are responsible instead - perhaps someone who knows should edit it so it says that, or else revert it?

139.184.30.131 17:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am thinking about merging this page into biogeochemistry (I also plan to work on further developing the biogeochemistry page.) Does anyone disagree or agree with this idea? Sinusoidal (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Biogeochemistry refers to the entire subject matter - such as the historical development and discoveries within the field. There are enough biogeochemical cycles to justify its own page. This page wouldn't go into the history (for instance), but can go through each major cycle. I created another page: Recycling (ecological) and I am thinking of changing its name to nutrient cycle. The nutrient cycle (or [mineral nutrient]) is a very important kind of cycle - because of its ties to agriculture. Currently, nutrient cycle links to this page - but this page needs a paragraph that sub-links to the main article I've created. Elemental cycles, such as Sulfur, Phosphorus, Carbon, and so on can each be listed and described on this page separately. Hope to see you back here soon to hear your thoughts!Thompsma (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please edit this page if a mistake is found

The lead must summarize, not just function as a teaser section
Previous: There are biogeochemical cycles for carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, and water; and there are human-induced cycles such as those for mercury and atrazine.

Current: There are biogeochemical cycles for the chemical elements calcium, carbon, hydrogen, mercury, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, selenium, and sulfur; molecular cycles for water and silica; macroscopic cycles such as the rock cycle; as well as human-induced cycles for synthetic compounds such as the herbicide atrazine. Most of the elemental cycles are natural, but the mercury cycle is to some degree human-induced.

I composed this by spelunking Category:Biogeochemical cycle.

(Note that I have no idea whether that last sentence is actually true, even though it's a weaker form of what the previous version implied.)

If it's important to distinguish the mercury cycle as man-made, it probably should be treated as more than an afterthought.

I was tempted to write "macromaterial" instead of "macroscopic". There's probably an even better word than either of these that I couldn't think up. &mdash; MaxEnt 22:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Spelunking a category is a novel approach! Manual of Style/Lead section actually says that you should summarize the article in the lead. So it's better to establish the facts in the body of the article first. However, aside from preferring the tags be placed in the body, I don't have a problem with your changes. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I do have one objection. Probably all of the cycles are "to some degree" human-induced these days. That needs refining, and I have removed it for now. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. I don't read the MoS as taking a position on the chicken/egg problem. Yes, the lead and the article should converge to such a state, but when a category with a coincident name to the article is a more complete overview of the subject than the article (not a common occurrence), I think that speaks to the article, not the lead. There's another principle that editors should scratch their own itch—the underlying principle of participatory efficiency in open source. My itch is almost always that the lead provide a quick and useful entry point. My secondary itch is that the vector of editorial need is sharply drawn, so that the next person who comes along can immediately make an effective contribution. Worst of all, when the editorial need is murky and occluded, because what's visible is congruent under the MoS, yet the omissions are serious and hard to spot, so the article languishes in mediocrity for a long time. I have edited article text from time to time, but I'm most comfortable doing so for computer science, where I have something close to a 360° view. It's very hard to judge when a statement is phrased too narrowly or too broadly when you charge into a subject from a 15° gun turret, so my article work be slow (either because I'm second guessing myself, or opening 50 tabs on the side so as to not second guess myself) and even then, there would be a dubious residue, which I dislike. I actually prefer it when the lead follows, but there are cases such as this one where I felt the lead needed to lead. &mdash; MaxEnt 00:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I don't entirely agree with your point of view, I find your metaphors entertaining, and the bit about opening 50 tabs strikes close to home. But all too often, I see Wikipedians in long debates over the exact wording of the first sentence while the rest of the article remains threadbare. But you're right, we all need to scratch our own itch. My way of getting a 360° view is to read the general refs in Further reading, and my itch is to expand the coverage of the individual cycles using summaries of their articles. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ozone–oxygen cycle
Any thoughts on whether the Ozone–oxygen cycle should also be listed here? -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 11:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Science
Bio geo chemical cycles relate to punjab 2405:201:C01D:9BAA:A51C:9B36:5F5F:AEA1 (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)