Talk:Montane grasslands and shrublands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Russia / Physical geography (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.
 

Could we separate alpine tundra from arctic tundra ? Anthère

I think most ecologists would lump them together. Check out [1][2][3][4][5]. The reasoning: they have many more similarities (weather & flora) than differences (permafrost).
Is there some way in Wikipedia to have a redirect point to an anchor point within a page? (i.e., have this redirect into the middle of the tundra page)
One other possibility is, if you want to maintain the purity of the WWF ontologies of biomes is to keep this page as a stub, but have it point to tundra.
Upon reflection, my feeling is that there isn't enough material in tundra to warrant two pages. Individually, they would be too stubby for my taste. And we would lose the fact that both arctic and alpine tundra are often considered the same biome.
If someone could flesh the article out into a big article, then it may be worth it to split it. At least IMO. --- hike395

I am nearly done with a long email to WWF to try to get permission to use some of their stuff. At least the images of the ecoregions. If they agree with this, we will need to keep the two biomes separated for consistency. If they do not, the ecoregion project is impossible anyway, so keeping the biomes separated is likely not a major issue, we can just delete WWF biomes naming scheme, and redirect the alpine tundra to the tundra. Meanwhile, I would prefer that we keep this page and make it point to tundra would be just fine. Is it ok with you ?

For anchor, just add #blabla in the link, blabla being the aimed section.

Anthère

OK, this sounds like a plan we can agree on:
  1. Add section headers to tundra
  2. Keep this page
  3. Point this page to tundra#alpine tundra
  4. Redirect alpine tundra to tundra#alpine tundra
I will do this now. If this is not what you think is right, please let me know. -- hike395
Looking at this, I'm a little disturbed at the overlap with tundra#Alpine tundra. But, I know how to fix this --- we can explicitly say that this is a official WWF biome designation. -- hike395


That is a good idea. I'll do this on other WWF biome as well.
Thinking about that. I simplified in naming all these biomes, but WWF actually call them major habitat. I think it less clear, but perhaps we could identify them all by this name, with a link to biomes. In any case, there is no real fixed list of biomes. ant

The WWF article on this biome is describes subalpine and montane vegetation, and includes several ecoregions with woody plants, including montane savannas. It is probably fine to keep the description of alpine tundra where it is; this biome includes more.

Dubious about the table re-formatting; it is not more compact, and the gridwork of black lines are unnecessarily busy to my eye. Perhaps the energy would be better spent adding to the substance of these articles...Tom Radulovich 07:00, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tom: I'm not sure which browser you use. The previous table formatting (under IE6 on my computer) looked like this:

Angola
montane
forest-
grassland
mosaic
(Angola)
Angolan scarp
savanna and
woodlands
(Angola)

which was quite terrible and unreadable. -- hike395 13:12, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
That does sound like a problem. I have a Mac and use Safari, where each line reads across the page quite nicely. I looked at it with Netscape on this machine, and it looks fine too, but IE 5.2 does strange things to it. The table at Australasia ecozone is virtually the same, but another user did a slight formatting tweak that makes virtually no change with Netscape and Safari, but looks great with the IE for Mac as well. I don't have a windows box, but I am curious if that table looks any better on your machine. I would rather that all of the tables in the terrestrial biome and ecozone articles have a consistent and readable format, whatever that format turns out to be .Tom Radulovich 16:41, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The table at Australasia ecozone looks fine to me (on IE 6, Win XP). On that machine, the cell boundaries are light gray, not black. I'm not enough of an HTML wizard to make things look better for Mac users. Right now, I can suggest two different ideas:
I like multiple columns. It allows readers to quickly scan down the columns looking for stuff. Right now, I can quickly scan down and look for all of the ecozones that occurs in Canada, for example. Also, there may be more interesting stuff than simply country, per ecozone. The extra interesting stuff would become columns 3,4,etc... I think it would be cool to point to more specific articles than just countries, e.g., Ruwenzori Range.
Or, if you really don't like columns, can I convince you that a Wiki list is more appropriate than a table? A table is really hard to edit. Wiki lists are lightweight. We can be pretty sure Wiki lists render in a nice way, while
in tables may do odd things in uncommon browsers. If you don't like separating out the country from the ecozone, I would suggest the following:
This is pretty standard in Wikipedia. What do you think? --- hike395 22:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)