Talk:Nature writing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Literature (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Environment (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

[Untitled][edit]

This article is all too typically Americo-centric. Is there no nature-writing outside America? What about Lamarck? Darwin?

I agree that there is SO much more to be written on this topic. By all means please add, edit, delete, whatever. I thought that was the whole point of this elaborate Wikipedian exercise! Tea&magpies 03:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What is "contemporary" defined as, for the purposes of the "List of contemporary American nature writers"? Still living? Born in the 20th century? Should this be spelled out, to avoid future confusion or POV conflicts? (Unless I'm just unfamiliar with an objective standard for what "contemporary" means, which could be the case...) --Ds13 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)\

I had the same question. I would consider Edward Abbey "contemporary", but presumably he is not listed because he is not living.

I was thinking in terms of folks currently working in the genre, but I have no particular investment in the word or even the list itself. I think ultimately a more comprehensive list organized by chronology, subgenre, or whatever would be the ideal. Tea&magpies 00:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to Category[edit]

Wasn't sure (and couldn't find out) how to link to a category in order to expand the world-view of this article. Feel free to correct if I've done it wrong. Tony Holkham (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on inclusion of writers' names[edit]

A name was included in the list of UK writers which I undid as the writer did not have their own article. The write was re-added by the same editor. Is there a guideline or consensus on whether non-notable writers should be listed (the editor chose not to discuss the inclusion, but re-inserted the writer)?...Tony Holkham (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tony.
You deleted my edit about Ann Palmer on the basis she hasn't got a Wikipedia entry. I did work up a page on her about two months ago and left it as a draft, because (a) I had to go away (hip revision) and (b) needed to look up some references. Now I'm back I find (a) I've lost my list of user names and passwords and (b)therefore can't find the draft to work it up for approval and final posting.
Secondly, it seems the qualification to get onto the Nature Writing page seems a little harsh - apart from her two published books Ann Palmer has won and been placed in various nature writing poetry and prose competitions, both within the UK and the States.
If you could find my original draft for me (or tell me my original User name and password) that would be really ehlpful, as it wil lsave me a great deal of work to work up the material again. Thank you for your time. Look forward to hearing.
Peter LyonsPlyonsgress. (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Peter. It's not a qualification, just my opinion that red links (while useful to help suggest articles for creation) can spoil an article that's supposed to be helpful to researchers. It's a bit of a contradiction to juggle with. I left your second edit because I found the sandbox in which you (I presumed) were creating an article. The page you're looking for is User:Shortofalength/sandbox. You'll need a few independent inline citations to verify what you want to write about her - the Heijira reference is a dead link - or the article won't have a long existence. My personal view is that she is notable, but the article ought to be under her real name, rather than one of her pseudonyms. You'll need to get it up and running before someone else deletes the name from Nature writing.
Hope you don't mind if I also point out that (a) it's helpful to indent successive responses in Talk sections with increasing numbers of colons so the discussion can be followed easily and (b) you should hardly ever mark edits as minor (see WP:MINOR).
Let me know if you need any help with the article before creating it - getting to grips with how Wkipedia works is a long process but worth it in the end. Good luck!....Tony Holkham (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
There has been a useful discussion on Village Pump "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_114#.22Notable_residents.22" now archived, which can be found by searching for Notable residents in the archive. Taking the view that people on lists should be sourced, I intend to remove Gaia Dance/Ann Palmer shortly.SovalValtos (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Shortofalength has not advanced the planned article since May. Tony Holkham (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


Unsourced name now removed.SovalValtos (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Lists too long?[edit]

As this article is about nature writing rather than nature writers, I propose removing the lists of writers (which are getting longer) and creating separate lists where they don't already exist. I'll leave it for a couple of days in case anyone has any comments. Tony Holkham (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree the page should stick to the point. I am not quite sure what is meant by "creating separate lists where they don't already exist". Do you mean a new page containing the lists, perhaps List of Nature Writers or something else? It would be a shame to lose the lists altogether. An interim solution might be to collapse the lists in place on this page. I am sure there must be a convention for dealing with situations such as this, but I do not know what they are.
Having read the page for the first time, what really jumps out is that there is nothing from the 17th century or earlier; only modern writing. How about the Romans or Chinese?SovalValtos (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

SovalValtos (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the list of American writers and referred to the category. The same needs to be done for other lists in this article. Working on it. The article itself needs some work.
Agree also that there needs to be some historical perspective on the subject of the article. Tony Holkham (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Criticism and counter-criticism[edit]

Steven Poole criticises nature writing as whimsy and borgeois escapism here and Richard Mabey refutes it here and both articles contain historical and topical references that are worth examining to make this article better. There is also this article referring to the early days of nature writing. George Monbiot could also be mentioned in this context. Just thought I'd log these so they don't get lost. I haven't, however, found much about nature writing earlier than the 18th century. Tony Holkham (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)