Talk:Precipitationshed

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:Precipitationshed is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Ecology Low‑importance

	Ecology portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Request for comment

(non-admin closure) Consensus is that the term "precipitationshed" is a neologism and therefore should not be given its own Wikipedia article (though it does not need to be removed from direct quotations in other articles). The only sources offered here indicate that it has not come into standard use in English. Patrick Keys (Pkeys1018) states that he believes that will change soon. I recommend revisiting this issue when and if that happens, perhaps in a year or two. One of Wikipedia's advantages is that it is more easily updated in response to new information and shifts in style and usage than other encyclopedias. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I can't tell if this is a neologism or misspelling. All of the sources talk about watersheds. There are some articles on google about precipitationshed as a singular word, but many seem related to articles published in Sweden (ex http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/news--events/seminar-and-events/whiteboard-seminars/9-27-2012-what-is-a-precipitationshed.html) and the author. Google even asks if I meant precipitation shed as two words. Another one uses it as a twitter hash tag (https://plus.google.com/+JeanBaptistePichancourt/posts/dSajj7daiii). Results from older literature use precipitation shed as two separate words, and start showing up on page 3 of google results (https://books.google.com/books?id=oh1aAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PR5&lpg=RA1-PR5&dq=precipitationshed&source=bl&ots=JIY4yRhZU_&sig=1WR9_aPHYjG8tcIR7X8F8pDdKCU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FAPWVPmOGoirogTz9oHwCw&ved=0CCYQ6AEwBTgU). The earliest source I see is from 2011, while older sources all (as far as I can tell) use it as two words. Expert opinion on the matter is required. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 12:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A google scholar search [1] on this term suggests that it is a very recent concept and is mainly (but not exclusively) used by Keys, van der Ent and their coworkers. Quoting from Keys et al. 2012 "The concept of the precipitationshed can be thought of as an “atmospheric watershed”. The precipitationshed is for precipitation dependent ecosystems what the surface watershed is for surface water dependent ecosystems (Fig. 1), and it is defined as the upwind atmosphere and upwind terrestrial land surface that contributes evaporation to a specific location’s precipitation (e.g. rainfall)." Mikenorton (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it is a valid concept - don't know if perhaps a better name for the concept exists. I've tweaked a bit - finished a sentence and added the Keys et al. 2012 ref, chopped excess empty sections and rather irrelevant categories and see alsos. Vsmith (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Patrick Keys, and I started this article today. The word is a neologism, not a mis-spelling. The concept did not exist prior to its formal publication in 2012. Since its first publication in 2012, its been mentioned and cited by scientists working on similar topics (evaporative source region analysis, moisture recycling, etc). It is still a relatively new idea, however, which means that there may be a lag before the broader community picks up the concept. I am hoping to edit this over the coming week to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards.User:Pkeys1018

Thank you for your honesty Patrick. You may want to look at WP:NEO for guidance on whether or not it is time yet for the article, or where you may improve. Specifically "Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources." To be honest I do not know why you are trying to coin this new word, when precipitation shed as a two word phrase seems sufficient enough. But again, I am not an expert on the field. You may want to find sources unrelated to yourself for inclusion in citations, if you are editing the article yourself to avoid conflicts of interest. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a neologism, a very clumsy construction used by a few authors to avoid the word "water" in "watershed". Kind of nonsensical, because although "precipitiation" consists of e.g. snow as well as rain; ultimately the snow melts and it is water that flows either side of a watershed (as drainage divide) or into a watershed (as a catchment area). --Bermicourt (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[The above comment by Bermicourt was moved here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers, where it was originally placed in response to notice of this RfC being posted there. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)][reply]
Merge: Yeah, that looks like a bad band name. There are some cited sources that use it, but I'm having a hard time thinking of any reason not to merge this stub into the Watershed article, and just note the alternate, klugey term in that article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.