Talk:Geodesy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Section Definition should be entirely rewritten
The section "definition" does not represent the common definition of Geodesy. See for instance Physical Geodesy (2006) Hofmann-Wellenhof and Moritz or Geodesy (2012) Torge and Müller or Geodesy (2015) Vanicek and Krakiwsky. This section should be entirely rewritten. Bpshop99 (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Difference from Cartography etc.
Could someone with sufficient knowledge add to the lede and/or Definition section a clarification of the differences between Geodesy, Cartography, and perhaps Geography and Surveying and similar fields? My impression is that the purpose of contemporary geodesy is to produce an accurate mathematical description of the planet as a body moving through space, while the purpose of cartography is to produce maps. I suppose geography is broader, the study of the planet and our settlements on it. PJTraill (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
GA nomination
This article is about geodesy - the science of measuring the earth and other planets and their moons. Its main purpose is to collect data reliably for mapping, navigation, natural resources exploration, and scientific research. Geodesy is so important that virtually entire world depends on it in everyday activities, from positioning and transportation to timing and trade. Tinterest (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Geodesy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TompaDompa (talk · contribs) 06:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This is a WP:QUICKFAIL based on criterion 3 (It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags.
) and criterion 1 (It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria
), specifically WP:GACR 2b (reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)
). The current version has several uncited paragraphs. I'll add some maintenance tags to the article itself. TompaDompa (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Merge Physical geodesy into Geodesy
These pages seem highly redundant and both have templates calling for more sources. By merging them together, it could be possible to improve the source situation. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: this article already unduly duplicates the content of other articles, such as Gravimetry. The reorganization, if any, should be in the opposite direction. See WP:Summary style for guidance. For example, Space geodesy could be enlarged with content currently here. fgnievinski (talk) 06:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
External links
Hello, I suggest adding a new "External links" section with the new IAG website: https://geodesy.science. The site provides a good introduction to geodesy (https://geodesy.science/about-geodesy/) and information about products (https://geodesy.science/ggos/products/) and observation techniques (https://geodesy.science/ggos/obs/). (Note: I work in geodesy and am affiliated with GGOS/IAG-related activities, so I am posting this as a COI disclosure.) MarSehnal (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not usually a fan of external links on pages like this. They tend to look promotional in nature. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 14:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- However - I expect the IAG would count as a reliable source, therefore - in my view - information from these sites could be used to enhance the WP page with suitable paraphrasing and inline attribution. ResonantDistortion 14:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)