Talk:Ecology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Ecology has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Ecology:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Priority 1 (top)

Population Ecology formula[edit]

The rate of population change formula is incorrect, or at least imprecise. The "B - D" expression cannot be correct as defined because there is no time normalization. It could be corrected with a "delta t" denominator, however I don't see what this expression contributes, and so I've removed it. Ggpauly (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


The ecology of Sound-pressure waves need to be added[edit]

Explanations:

Currently, I am taking one advanced course about critical listening online for further training. Through our discussions, we found ball-liked sound-wave lying upon Space & Time is also following some principles of ecological complexity and in its sub-categories. The ecology of sound-pressure waves have three levels in its channel which have the relationships with the whole atmosphere-environment from physics-ecology to the ecology of subjective perception: The first level is about the diverse properties produced by the structured ears including multiple-channels internally - which are reflecting the environmental complexity outside, The second level is in the atmosphere - the non-linearity pressures and multiple-layers spreading in some layers of intermedia, such as air and water etc. They - sound-wave and its on-going layers of intermedia are forming a huge ecology influencing the effectiveness of sound-wave's extending, throughout-ly. Indeed, they are the interactions of multiple energies and their channelling-out intermedia, but felt as air-pressures or certain intermedia's pressures' changes ball-liked wave by wave and in the middle. Finally, the nature of sound-waves’ diversity, complexity and harmony (or accumulation) root in the diversity of sound-sources - because of the differences of sound-sources' materials and qualities, then the energies submitted out are of the differences and what heard by us are of the multiple-layers and multiple-channels as a huge portfolio. Sound-waving is real air-pressure waving and real Space-Time's waving. Deeply hiding behind, the fact should be Energies-sources' transmissions, transformations, spreading, extensions, acceptance and meta-analysis, which belongs to and is quite in the research interests of ecology. Hierarchically thinking about the whole procedure including the three staged levels, we would find there are also an ecological video.

Following this idea, I had reviewed the part 'Relation to the environment' and found in either 'Physical environments' or 'Radiation: heat, temperature and light' of the bigger category - 'Relation to the environment', it should add one sub-category named 'Sound in ecology', because that especially: in 'radiation, heat, temperature and light' - these expressive formations of energies, sound' nature indeed is the same as them and locating among them. Why was this lack, in human being's sensory, made - as not in encyclopaedia? In my opinion, this is caused by the thinking of human beings is usually directly focusing on visual resources - they are vivid or somethings which would give us the direct touching feelings - such as warmth or potentially harmful senses - such as radiations; but when it comes to normal sound-waves, we usually didn't want to think it as one ball-liked formation of energy and spreading throughout environments. Then, we might just put it into the mental reasoning sensory without thinking of it as two origins' ecology coherently - objective and subjective ones linked by ecological channel, between. In other perspective, biological diversity, as producing sound resources, then integrated with matters' sound-waving instability, are also reflecting environmental complexity and ecological continuity. After all, I thought this part 'The ecology of Sound-pressure-waves need to be added' is needed to put in.

Thanks to the enlightenments and new knowledge above gotten from my learning through an online course. Here, I would like to put a reference for the above: FutureLearn (2016) 'Week 1' and 'Introduction to Week 2 2.1' in Critical Listening for Studio Production Queen's University Belfast. Queen's University Belfast: FutureLearn (Web-address). [Online] Available at: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/critical-listening-for-studio-production/2/steps/39672. (accessed: 2nd October, 2016)

Jason M. C., Han (talk) 14:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia presents reliably sourced, well-established information in a condensed form. I fear your suggested addition qualifies in none of these criteria.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, Elmidae, my frield, really thanks for your suggestions. But, why did you say it wasn't the reliably sourced in formation in a condensed form? Please give the evidences which sentence should be critiqued, wasn't right or correct - especially putting some evidental references. Really thanks. If not, your stance cannot stand loudly, even with some mistakes. In my opinion, Wikipedia presents not only some well-published information in the reality or online, but some advanced research tendencies, some summeries and some pieces of new common knowledge which have already been recognized and even some true facts always being oral presented out generations by generations, but didn't be published before. There is a Chinese saying goes likt that: Black cats or white cats, even if they can catch mice, they are good cats. Oh, dear friend, I have to say: Who did give you some authorities that you can critism and judge some new tendencies and pieces knowledge which certain groups of people paid energy and time to research,summerize and proof out even in virtual classrooms, without totally investigating in the true situations, without presenting the practice of learning, tutoring, teaching, or researching in this fields, without reviewing the articles and references, and without making some practises all around the worlds? So, friend, you know. If you can't give some evidences that they were in 'none of these criteria', your suggestion cannot stand. I have to say: my friend, this is free disscussion part with freedom, don't make some judgements so earlier. About this case, What we really need to do is to assess which sentence above are not correct through reading information online, which sentence has some lacks; and then give some evidental suggestions, rather than emptily taking and denying. This is a good attitude which a wikipedia writer needs to obtain. We need to disscuss the possibilities of this tendency widely and try to learn more from this field in future, in order to give reasonable disscussions and comments. Wikipeadia also has some creative copyrights, which belong to all the commons arround the worlds. Common peoples' encyclopedia need to be read, reviewed, researched, supplied, modificated, up-dated and developped by commons ourselves. If after reasoning, investigating, life-seeking, and practising, we will find some principles and facts are quite right, even without somr reasons founded currently, we can still record these pieces as common's knowledge for commons. The more reasonable steps should be: firstly, we need to create a dissicussion and put all of the right parts about this field together; and then, we can produce much widely disscussions accordingly. Finally, after a period, if we found these pieces of knowledge are still standing strongly, we have to recognize them, give them a place and have the responsibilities to associate them by pushing on a writing summerizing all the right parts. No one wants Wikipeadia will become a out-dating and old-fashioned and yellow-paged book once, without era supports; but what we want is that it can be a digital book with creativities and new views about new developments up-dating. Post-digital era needs to be totally digitalized and posted, with every indications' supports online even if some tiny details as comments, talks online. If they are reasonably enough, they can be supported. Meanwhile, no one wants Wikipeadia became certain persons or certain groups' individual book with old authorities allowed by some 'so-called recognized formal-organizations' only, or even money or some other unnecessary issues' controlling, and without listioning to commons' and life's voices about some real truths. Indeed, these sentences above about sound-pressure-waves' evironmental ball-liked spreading as an ecological channel, have plenty documentary supports to be a sub-category of ecology. Just, no one organizations before want to recognize this fact. However, to be honest, my daily energy and time are really very limited with plenty learnings, teachings and tasks, which caused the volunteering collecting-jobs put in this field will be really small. There were lots of things need me to do and identified; but, my time isn't allowed. So, sorry. You knew, it's not to say that a huge project will have all been done by the person who saw it. Therefore, through my and my team's educational researching, listening experiments through educational approaches, careful studying and learning, we found it and would like to present a widely talk here waiting one day it would be muture, then pushing out it as a whole online.

All in all, friend, really thanks, though I can't quitely agree with your ideas. Evirimental Sound-pressure waves upon Times & Spaces and its energy submitted surrounding as in a whole ecology and as its very important part composed, should be a sub-category added in, about which we can produce future disscussions. If not and this part's lack is still existing, some accross-discplinaries subjects and schools, in this field, will lose their fundations and interests, and their researches cannot be accepted totally by main developping tendency; meanwhile, some true facts about sound in ecological evironment will still be hidden behind; and more importantly, commons will not know and share this new one and its pathways, which would bright some benifits to their daily living, learning and working. Again, Hoping more considerations would be made in this field. Thanks!

Jason M. C., Han (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Autecology[edit]

Missing - should be added: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=autecology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.102.86 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ecology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

good job, Botty McBotface. GangofOne (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)