Talk:Environmental preservation

Preservation and conservation[edit]

Preservation is a type of conservation. Conservation also has little to do with sustainable development. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental technology template

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwanders^Talk 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics vs. economy contradictions[edit]

The definition used here is contradictory. It implies that aesthetic value is outside of the realm of economic valuation AND that lands that have been preserved are universally unmodified for economic gain. On the first point, preservation for aesthetic purposes is usually from an economic perspective, justified by increases in tourism revenues to offset losses in resource extraction. On the second point, take the case of US National Parks which are generally considered preservationist projects, yet vast ares have been developed (roads, trails, visitor centers, tourist facilities, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.187.208 (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

The way I've heard the word used it seems to be 'preserving the environment from human use' or at least use deleterious to aesthetic value. But it could also mean preserving the environment for the environment's sake; the current definition is just one among others. This is different from the uses of conservation I've heard. I don't think this is synonymous with any other term, so a redirect might not be the best idea. Environmental movement would probably be the best target if it has to be redirected, as that is a fairly broad topic.

The article has also been cut down a lot recently, although in the past it was basically unreferenced. Richard001 (talk) 10:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not cut down, it was re-written by Alan Liefting, apparently without consensus. As it stands, it's not even a stub--it's a simple definition. We can leave those to Wiktionary. If we cannot come up with more information than is on there, it should be deleted. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a complete rewrite. Initiially I was going to put it up for deletion but then decided a rewrite would be a better I idea. I fail to see why I need consensus to rewite a poorly written and maintained article. If the article remains as it is rather than reverting it we can assume consensus. Surely you would have to admit that a stub that since it:

has its nuetrality disputed
contains irrelevant templates, portals and external links
is not referenced

it is worse that a shorted stub that is referenced. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of it as a article on WP is of limited use especially in its current state. The phrase gets very little mention in enviro encyclopaedias but the phrase is used in academia. With more digging it may be possible to get enough info for more than a stub. I feel that even with my rewrite that it has a little too much info to be sent off to Wiktionary. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 23:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly don't need permission to rewrite, though for such a small article with few if any people watching it closely you shouldn't take a lack of change as 'consensus' either. It probably has potential, and is probably slightly too detailed to move to wiktionary already (and if not it shouldn't be hard to expand it slightly). It's really a question of whether 'preservation' is a distinct idea and whether enough can be written about it to make it sensible not to merge it into a higher level article. Richard001 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Alan, we keep butting heads for some reason. ;-) Take a look at this. If the section in a related article has more information than this, we don't even need to merge it into the article--we can just delete it. I found a couple possibly useful websites ([1], [2]). If we can get information from these and work it into the article, then I believe it can stand alone; otherwise, we should redirect it to Environmental Movement or some other relevant article. Let me know what you think. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As articles are at present, I think redirecting to the section you linked above is probably best. Richard001 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sit around and see what you guys are planning to do. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could be redirected to Environmentalism#Preservation and conservation but that section is poorly sourced. Environmental movement would be the more approp page for a redir if info on Environmental preservation was written into that article. Environmental movement is a bit of a mess though. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 08:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]