Talk:Earth Overshoot Day
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Earth Overshoot Day article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
this might be a less politically charged image edit
I think this image is probable less POV than the one on the page - unless someone can cite a source for the 0.8 HDI being the minimum for high human development.
What do you think ? EdwardLane (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Ecological Debt Day & Earth Overshoot Day edit
Prior to some recent edits, this article focused more on Ecological Debt Day. With those edits, the history of Ecological Debt Day has been replaced by a history of Earth Overshoot Day. It is not clear to me that these are the same. Please discuss here... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
translate article in german edit
Hi, I translated this article into german and was wondering how I can put it on wikipedia? also, how can I link the english page to the german page? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Global Footprint Network (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- See: de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Repetition, Clarity, and Additions edit
It seems as though this article could benefit from fine-tuning when it comes to grammar and sentence clarity. When referring to Global Footprint Network, it becomes repetitive. Perhaps refer to it as GFN or continue the paragraph in context relating to it.
Global Footprint Network seems to also have been mistakenly hyperlinked twice.
I would also recommend being more precise when saying things like "They admit..." or "According to them...", since they are claims, they need sources each time. Samsmith428 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
More content needs to be added to debunk this pseudoscience edit
This page is describing a pseudoscience concept that should be more clearly pointed out rather than making people believe it's a legitimate environmental data point. Ergzay (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)