|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Environment page.
|The Environment Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.|
|Current status: Featured portal|
|WikiProject Environment||(Rated Portal-class, Top-importance)|
|Daily page views|
- 1 Portal peer review
- 2 Scope
- 3 List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
- 4 Move
- 5 Selected articles
- 6 Fuel synthesis?
- 7 Introduction: An Idealized View of Nature?
- 8 Hydraulic fracturing
- 9 Covering every plant in Gibraltar Botanic Gardens as part of GibraltarpediA
- 10 Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies
- 11 Please help! Edit war at Natural landscape
- 12 Your project's image was broken...
- 13 Energizer Battery Packaging Plastic Type
Portal peer review
Thoughts for peer review
- It looks great! Fantastic work.
- The central question for me is, what differentiates an environment portal from a water, weather, earth sciences, or atmospheric sciences portal? In my mind it can only be that these other portals organize articles about wind or weather as objects of study, whereas the environment portal organizes articles about them as objects of conservation, objects under threat. For this reason I think it is not only acceptable, but necessary that the portal make this explicit. The most important way to do this is to establish the existence of these threats in the portal text. At present, the portal text works mostly to define "environment"--I think it needs to
- Define "Environment" (maybe from an ecological angle i.e. "space in which living things grow and interact" etc...
- Define key ecological threats. It'll be difficult to be concise about these. What, in just a few words, are the key threats? Climate change, Land use, pollution?
- Define the portal's purpose, which is not only to better understand what is meant by "environment," but especially to understand what issues arise from our impact on the environment.
Let me know if any of this makes sense? I think the portal is a great idea that will substantially improve accessibility to the facts about environmental issues. Keep up the great work. Cyrusc 18:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Cyrusc. Here are some thoughts I had in response to your comments. Besides looking at which articles, pictures, quotes, etc., that are "Selected," the "Categories," "Topics," "Projects" and "Things you can do" sections usually are used to identify the scope, and emphasis of a portal. Writing "about the portal" in the portal would be a "self-reference," which isn't acceptable form, since portals are considered to be a portion of the encyclopedia, rather than a portion of the project. Expanding the Categories and Topics sections (with subheadings as appropriate) to cover the issues considered central to this portal would be a good way clarify the points you bring up. RichardF 20:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- p.s. What you're suggesting sounds more like "The Environmentalism and Conservation Portal" to me. If that's what you all really want, why don't you just go ahead and change the name. Then reorganize the content accordingly? The current portal is "brand new" anyway, no one will mind...too much. :-) RichardF 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, its a great looking portal - the related portals section is very comprehensive, important as the increasing number of portals is leading to some overlap betwen them as your reviewers have already pointed out. I don't think this is a big problem, what differentiates this portal is its focus, and the focus of a portal to some extent reflects the interests of the people editing it as much as its title, so I agree with RichardF, there is scpoe for a name change if you want it, good work sbandrews (t) 12:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yah, I noticed there's some overlap to other portals such as Portal:Sustainable development. I created this portal basically for WikiProject Environment but technically sustainable development is within the scope of WikiProject Environment as well so most likely I will keep the current name. OhanaUnitedTalk page 10:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sustainable development's scope goes beyond the scope of environment. It's not a subset. They simply overlap. The question then becomes, how do you plan on addressing the concerns raised by Cyrusc? RichardF 19:42, 28 June 2007
- The following is a comment left on OhanaUnited's talk page regarding the portal.
I reviewed the portal. I think its very good: one of the best I've seen. I have to spend more time to see if I can find any problems with it, such as navigation, but so far, I'm impressed. Richiar 13:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I know, and I admit, that this portal overlaps at least 2 other portals (ecology and sustainable development). In fact, this topic is so broad that if you stretch things a bit, it falls into multiple disciplines (science, philosophy, business, laws & politics, etc.) I will be using the Scope of WikiProject Environment to answer Cyrusc's questions.
A) Define "Environment" (maybe from an ecological angle i.e. "space in which living things grow and interact" etc...
- Topics that are covered in this portal include
- Conservation movement
- Environmental Science
- Renewable Energy
- Waste & Waste management
B)Define key ecological threats. It'll be difficult to be concise about these. What, in just a few words, are the key threats? Climate change, Land use, pollution?
- I will pick more selected articles to identify other key threats in addition to global warming and climate change.
C)Define the portal's purpose, which is not only to better understand what is meant by "environment," but especially to understand what issues arise from our impact on the environment.
- The purpose of this portal is (almost reciting what Cyrusc said) to raise more awareness on the destruction of the natural environment, and also how people can do in their daily lives (such as changing some of their habits) to minimize the impacts on the environment. I will add more selected biographies within a couple of days.
And final few words. I want to thank everyone for their time in participating this portal peer review. When the enhancements are done, I will submit this portal to review to become a featured portal. I hope to see you guys casting your votes to support that nomination when the day comes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- OhanaUnited, you are making great progress on this portal, but I have a word of caution that might sound like a broken record. Be careful you don't turn the portal into an advocacy platform. The scope of a portal primarily is defined by the content of its articles. Inclusion of project work is secondary, and promotion of any advocacy agendas is prohibited. I know it's a fine line to walk, but if you stick with what's actually contained in the encyclopedia, you should be fine. :-) RichardF 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, what I meant was I hope more people will read more articles and information on the environment, that's all. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
At present the portal has articles about environmental issues and science Rather than having overlap with other science portals I feel we should narrow the focus down to anthropogenic effects on the natural environment as given in environmental issues. Alan Liefting 11:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please feel free to edit any section in the portal, especially the intro. I think there's many parts in the intro that we can improve. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Are you aware of this article? Aside from the fact that the lemma itsself might be somewhat questonable, it might be important that people being well versed in the topic monitor that list, because otherwise it is likely to accumulate outdated and/or rectracted claims by various scientist, just to create an impression of a large scientific dissent regarding global warming.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Portal:Environment → Portal:Ecology — The term environment portal is incorrect, "environment" refers to a physical/geographical location ie the surroundings. Correct is ecology portal. Please move. User:KVDP 17:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- Someone is on a campaign, it seems. Please note WP:POINT, and adjust accordingly to ensure that WP:DISRUPT isn't occuring. I oppose this move for the same reasons that I oppose the move at Talk:Environmentalism.
— Ω (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please AGF. I disagree with KVDP's suggestion, but it's adequate to point out that article names are based on common usage.
- I've removed the tag. I suggest we just call the discussion closed. (This conversation was deleted quickly after starting, which was inappropriate, and I've just restored it. So there wasn't much time for discussion, but we can reopen if someone thinks there's a case for the move. I think the proposal has next to no chance of succeeding, so I'm happy if we just drop it.) --Chriswaterguy talk 08:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that all Selected articles now be of GA or FA standard, as we have plenty of high quality environment articles to choose from. And also suggest that many of the very short Selected article summaries be expanded into something more substantial. If there are no objections, I will revise accordingly. Johnfos (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
- We currently have 27 selected articles, covering a diverse range of environmental topics. Of those, 6 are now FAs and 14 are now GAs, which means that the quality of the selected articles overall is really quite high. A more extensive summary of each of the articles has now been provided for readers. And the Current events section has been updated. Johnfos (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Introduction: An Idealized View of Nature?
I'm struck by the idealized and one-sided view of the 'natural environment' as (re)presented in the introduction to this portal. It is as if the last 30,000 years of human history have evaporated. We humans, flesh and blood, are part of nature, not apart from it. Can we get beyond such a dualistic (humans <=> nature) perspective? Not easy, but I would argue, important. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Covering every plant in Gibraltar Botanic Gardens as part of GibraltarpediA
I help run a project called GibraltarpediA, we are trying to cover as much as possible in Gibraltar in as many languages as possible. The project is based on MonmouthpediA, where we created 550+ new articles in 30 languages in around 4 months, Monmouth became the world’s first Wikipedia town.
As part of GibraltarpediA we aim to cover every plant in the Gibraltar Botanic Gardens and create QRpedia codes (a type of bar code your phone can read through it's camera that automatically takes you through to a Wikipedia in your own language) in the garden to give people easy access to the information. As far as I know the first botanic garden to do this. A full list of the plants is available here, I would estimate around half already have some information in English but many have an article in other languages already.
We’ve started the Gibraltar Challenge to reward contributors where you can win books and tshirts etc. We’d really love people from WikiProject Environment to be involved, you can find out more by clicking here.
Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies
Due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest concerns I have started a Request for Comments on engineering sustainable development. Tim AFS (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Please help! Edit war at Natural landscape
Natural landscape has come under attack by someone who is intent on destroying the natural in [Natural landscape]. I am confident that the encyclopedic definition of Natural landscape will be upheld. In the last few days the same individual has returned with an agenda it would seem. The agenda seems to indicate that there is no remaining natural landscape and therefore the entire Earth is a so-called place to be groomed for resources. I'm not saying that that is completely without merit, but the evidence is that there remains a lot of natural landscape on the Earth and therefor Natural landscape is a proper term that cannot and must not be diluted. Please, part of the problem is the lack of qualified editors for Natural landscape. Natural landscape is listed as included in the Environmental Portal. Thank you. I will now return and try to correct the damage to Natural landscape using the Help Desk as best I can. Rstafursky (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Your project's image was broken...
Energizer Battery Packaging Plastic Type
What kind of plastic is used for the packaging of Energizer batteries? Specially I'm wondering what is the recycle code for the packaging of energizer batteries? Is it 01-PET? 05-PP? 06-PS?
I figure those are the most likely types of plastic. It is far too transparent of a plastic to be 02-HDPE and I don't think it would be 04-LDPE.