User talk:GabrielVelasquez/Planetary human habitability

Precedents for article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colonization_of_Mercury

Starting tasks

 * Make sure you're familiar with the guide to starting an article.
 * Collect reliable sources to use for creating the article. You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, but all substantial research needs to be cited.
 * Remember, these have to address the topic of human habitability directly in detail.


 * Decide the angle of approach. We can:
 * Start a new section on the Planetary habitability or Space colonization articles.
 * Pro: It's the most commonly accepted method of article creation when a parent article exists.
 * Pro: When the section is split off into its own article, it will be harder to delete/merge/redirect because it isn't coming out of thin air.
 * Con: Since Planetary habitability is already a Featured Article, there will be a lot of resistance to a substantial change like a whole new section.
 * Start with a stub article.
 * Pro: The Planetary habitability article is already about 59 kilobytes, which is well over the recommended article size. Space colonization is up there too, at 46 kilobytes.
 * Con: People will see an article where an AfD previously said "redirect" and their first reaction will be to uphold the old consensus even if the situation has changed. There's a good chance it would start a redirect vs. article dispute, or even go straight to AfD.

Discussion
Alright you have my attention; interesting template, do I guess correctly that is a "Userify" template, I've never seen that before. I have a copy of the article in a sandbox page, what is the difference? First off, I want to know what you found valuable about the article? I also believe that it is going to take some work to make sure it doesn't look like Original Research, though we are talking about basic human environment things, do you have any thoughts on that? GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would solve a big problem if the "Planetary" dropped from the title and it was just called "Human Habitablility." GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

-- E x p l o d i c l e TC 13:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no real security in the sandbox. People can add whatever they want, admins can practice deleting stuff... it's pretty much anarchy.
 * I think the old article can come in handy if we're unsure what has gone uncovered - what sort of references we need.
 * To avoid OR, we need to rely primarily on sources that address the subject "directly in detail". Preferably something on the web that is purely about the topic at hand. We can use other sources for elaboration, but only on ideas expressed in our main sources.
 * Dropping the "Planetary" makes sense. I'll move this subpage. On second thought, how should we distinguish that we mean "in space"? Googling the term brought up a lot of sources that discuss human habitability at a few Earth locations.

I just noticed that the second chapter of HPfM is titled Human Requirements, which suggests a good title for the article. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Human Habitiability Requirements.


 * Please remove the "Planetary" from the link before you post it on article talkpages requsting help as you'll just provoke attacks if you leave it.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think of "Human Habitability (Planetary)" for a title and redirect?? - Then every dimension of human habitability could be covered, like space stations, underwater cities, tenancy, etc. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Article outline
Moved previous contents to "article" tab. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Explodicle/Planetary_human_habitability

"Human Habitability Environtmental Requirements" sounds a little long for now, I'm going to try to think of something a little more concise.

Direction for article creation
So far it looks like there are only two sources for human habitability. I doubt a stub with just these sources would survive AfD, and we'll get more help from other editors if this goes on the mainspace sooner. I think our best bet is to add it to Planetary habitability. We could make a post on Talk:Planetary habitability asking where they think the topic should be covered (in the existing sections, a new section, different article, etc) and go from there. Gabriel, do you concur? -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC) That article as many more. so it is a lot more than three. This is an important topic and has the potential to be huge. It is only in stub form at the very present. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't; I have seen heavy resistance to modifying that article. And althought it does seem like a difficult and large topic, to shink it to a paragraph in that article is not doing it justice. I say leave them and their article to bacteria and ETs. There are only three direct sources as of yet because as before I have been taking my time, and I'm not connected at home. I don't see what putting it out there has to do with getting it done, unless you are refering to a link to this work in the talkpage of Planetary habitability. But that kind of request for help doesn't have to be limited to that article. There is the Colonization of the outer Solar System article talkpage for example. There is more popular extra solar planet's individual articles, like Gliese 581 c, or HD 108874 b. I'll look for others.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also your missing a lot of references if you are counting the old Planetary Human Habitability article as one references.

I need to ask you have you taken the time to read the Dole-Assimov paper called "Planets for Man" ?
 * I've skimmed it but haven't read the whole thing. Is there something in particular I should look at immediately? -- Explodicle (T/C) 12:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to gauge what input you intend here, I am still suspicious of your motives. If you have skimmed it you must have taken more time on the "Human requirements" section. There is a good check list of conditions and parameters there near the end. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm mostly interested in making sure whatever gets produced is up to Wikipedia standards so we can keep it from getting deleted when it eventually goes live. I hate to see good work go to waste. I only contribute for fun, so the article will probably get written at a snail's pace if you rely on me for the research (which I suck at anyways). In this two-man operation, you're in charge and get final say. I still think the topic's best bet against deletion is a section on Planetary habitability until it gets expanded, but like I said, you're in charge. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at my edit history recently, I wish I could focus on this article but there are a lot of other things that take my attention. I will get working on this more and get other help for it soon. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. There is no deadline, and it's not like anyone needs to know this right now anyways. -- Explodicle (T/C) 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, If I didn't think it was needed...(Talk:Habitable_zone)... I wouldn't be working on it at all. This "habitable at 100 degree celsius" business because "water is liquid" has to be addressed. I find it bizarre that I seem to be the only one who effectually cares. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "(Wikilinks can be in text without a citation, making number that will quickly change more vague)" - I added the wikilink as a reference because in the first attempt of the article there were many wikilinks for almost everything and in the delete arguments most people said there were was no referencing to the article. So I believe that if it is being used as a reference it should be formated as a reference. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We can't use Wikipedia articles as references. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your clean up and taging would be expected were this going to be posted as a real article right away, but I want to be clear that what I am doing with the lists is building a solid outline for the article, and so with the backbone only it is not going to look like a piece of proper prose. please ease up on the taging in light of this. I will add more exposition to the points as I get more clear/certain of what all the points are. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me know when to resume tagging. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Did I read correctly you wrote there should be one main source and the other links should support that one? because I see that so far I am heavily referencing the Dole & Assimov paper, is it just a matter of finding other supporting links for each point from "Planets for man" GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you can use as many main sources as you want. The more the better. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to undo your referencing correction edit but I thought you should know that you erased the reference to the original work "Habitable Planets for Man" by just Dole himself, which had the referencing for the algae that can survive extremely low temperatures. The second version or update or revison (which does not have this info) is called just "Planets for Man" by Dole and Assimov, and so far is the reference for all the others. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. I'll be more careful, sorry. -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, --Cool Piplup (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I fixed a few grammar errors in the text, please contact me if you have any questions.


 * Hello, I wonder the reliability to rely so heavily on the Dole/Asimov source, as it is planetary science as understood in the 1950s, and we've gone a long way since then. Not a critic but an observation. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the the first paper on the subject and the last paper on the subject. Other papers on more specific areas can be used to update or supplement it. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Try to find the right Introduction

 * I added as much as I thought was relevant in the intro but I see that it lacks focus and is too convoluted. I intend to reduce it to the bare minimum to start and cut the other stuff over here. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC) :


 * Originally the objective of general planetology was to obtain better understanding of our own planet and an appreciation of the combination of factors that makes the Earth a comfortable place to live.


 * The Moon is at the same distance from the sun as the earth is in the middle of the so-called "habitable zone", yet it is in all ways uninhabitable


 * Another dimension is that currently only one planet supports all of humankind; it would only take one planetary catastrophe would wipe out all of humankind!


 * Ecological use of the term "habitat" was originally defined as the physical conditions that surround a species, species population, assemblage of species, or community (Clements and Shelford, 1939).


 * ...not in need of a... life support system for space stations and colonies typically through controlled closed ecological systems, such as the BioHome, BIOS-3 and Biosphere 2.

As such, it has become definitively necessary to contrast the survivability of something like (see extremophile for a full list) the blue-green algae cyanophyta (Mastigocladus Laminosus), which can thrive in temperatures -18.8 °C <ref or "Strain 121," a single-celled microbe, of the domain Archaea, a hyperthermophile able to survive  at 130 °C, with the more fragile human beings which would easily die exposed to such temperatures. In any case, exotic life, such as Silicon-based life or ammonia-breathing life etc. are still part of the domain of science fiction, so "habitable" can not be considered synonymous with "life-bearing"
 * Habitability was a term origially intended to describe a living space for people that exluded rodents and disease, so it is ironic that today's scientists use the term to include anything that might survive outside of the protection of the Earth habitat by simply adding words like "zone" or "planet" and redefining it.


 * Human beings have lived on the Earth for a relatively short period of time. Yet in the last century, in both science and literature, there has been an increasing interest in travel off-planet and to other worlds. This interest has become more of a reality with the discovery of hundreds of extrasolar planets. Since the planet Earth itself does not have a perfect habitability for human beings from pole to pole, the idea of what is habitable has become increasingly important to define if people are to realistically discuss inhabiting other worlds.

Human Ecology aspect
I started this article with the hope that it would help clear up the idea that we have limits as human beings that bacteria or algae do not, and we can't just keep using the term "habitable" in writing when different people take different meanings for that word and are misled down the rosy path by the false connections that a "Habitable Zone" means that there is a "Habitable Planet" which in turn means there is "Life" on that planet and by insinuated extention WE can start moving in as soon as we get there. The main reference for the article is "Planets for Man" (written at time when Man was used as a synonym of Mankind) previously titled "Habitable Planets for Man" and I think the other references should back up this nearly complete work on the topic. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Space Colonization
Browsing around, it looks like WikiProject Space Colonization could be a very useful resource. I bet the people there would be a lot of help - once we have a few good sources I think we should post there and ask for input. -- E x p l o d i c l e TC 14:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not entirely certain that something so fundemental belongs under the umbrella project area of colonization, but I can't think of a better one as of yet. It falls under "medical" to a strong degree (or will refer to it a lot), and in some sense it's like saying for example "Oxygen tanks" should fall under colonization... Now that I am fully awake I see you just meant help from that project area (Red bull takes about 30 min to kick in). Yes-yes, they are a good resource. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, a lot of articles fall under multiple wikiprojects. -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've posted on the Wikiproject's talk page notifying them of our work, so we might get some outside opinions soon. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gliese 581 g.
Gliese 581 g may be class C (tidally locked). Why must it be class H? 95.209.25.234 (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg