|WikiProject Ecology||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
Rather than attributing the 867 smaller regions generally to the science of ecology, tell us the name of a scientist or organization which specified that number.
The 8 major regions, however, might be a generally accepted division. User:Ed Poor, 22 March 2002
- Thus the main organization is under ecozone now. But the 867 are not challenged, so it's time to consider a standard way of indicating which ecoregion a plant or animal species is found in, since exact borders shift but ecoregion in which each is found is stable. See meta:Ecoregion_DTD. -- 7 February 2003, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs).
- I think they're both the product of very wide consultation on the issue. National Geographic Society, World Wildlife Fund, published the map... and I think they are the recognized top dog authority on this.
- Really? I'd question they were even players. I think Ecoregion is a buzzword. I find the definitions given here real weak. Is there any literature on this topic? - Marshman 05:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Glad to see attribution of views, 24. User:Ed Poor, 22 March 2002
- Yes. He or she is definitely working their way towards NPOV. Progress! The Anome, 22 March 2002
Greens hate progress. ;-)
And maybe everyone hates Greens because we shove all this complexity in their face...?
You know, some of this stuff is fiendishly interconnected, like ecology itself.
For instance it's not obvious that a watershed commons like the Great Lakes Commission is ecoregional unless you read the WWF definition quite carefully. And it's not obvious it's a democracy but not a state unless you think about it... since the term "democracy" refers to principle and process not any political structure in particular.
So, I am starting to understand why these things ran into resistance at first, although they seem obvious to me, guess I've been doing it too long... -- 22 March 2002, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs).
Someone is editing "Nearctic" back to the old definition obsoleted by the new map. Some zones drastically expanded, some drastically shrunk, so pepole who don't know the new map are going to be stomping all over the accurate new definitions... grrr... how do I request that someone look at a given entry? -- 22 March 2002, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk • contribs).
- Done. Minarchy is fine. Social means are best for governance while they are not too high overhead.
- I despise the term "ecology" abused to refer to non-body stuff, though - that is one meme I would like to kill. It's a science that happens to also be the universal metaphor (if you're a Green) or sacred (if you're a Gaian) so it's quite easy to describe anything as an "ecology" - implying it's all just as valuable as real living natural ecology.
The partner of the WWF on that matter seem to have changed (it was before the National Geographic). According to  it is now funded by German's Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
Anthere 07:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
It is suggested that all relevant material from Freshwater ecoregion be merged to this article, and then Freshwater ecoregion be redirected to this article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. The WWF defines terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecoregions. No need for each to have its own page; they are all ecoregions. (By the way, should Marine ecoregion also be merged then?) Pfly 03:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- agree merge, also Marine ecoregion all of which is in Global 200 and subsidiary pages. Abtract 10:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
This article needs to have the Omernik and Bailey maps incorporated and displayed.
Other classification systems
Not that I don't like the WWF's delineation of the ecoregions, but are there any other ecoregion classification systems in use out there? If there are any significant others, maybe we should mention them as well. Bengrin85 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I've recently created these articles.
- List of ecoregions in North America (CEC)
- List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA)
- List of ecoregions in Oregon
- List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA)
- There are another 120 or so North American ecoregion articles that could be created following this structure. I've just started with the Oregon ones because that's my particular interest. The EPA classification is now the standard in the United States. Notes on the series are at User:Northwesterner1/notes. I've tried to structure these new articles cleanly, but I haven't gone through to clean up the WWF articles yet or to clean up general ecoregion articles like this one. Anyone who wants to help out, I'd love to see what you do with it. Northwesterner1 (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
New Section Suggestion: Threats and Protection of Bioregions
I noticed that there is no mention of the threatened status of many bioregions around the world, nor the efforts to protect these regions from further damage. Although this topic is huge, I think its important briefly talk about the basic issues and the efforts to monitor, remediate, and protect bioregions by adding a section called "threats and protection" (or some title of similar nature) that can briefly describe some of the current threats (giving a few examples) and the political efforts around the world to protect entire bioregions (giving a few examples) and mentioning the role that biologists and groups such as the WWF to categorise different bioregions for the purpose of conservation and monitoring. Any comments, objections, criticisms? Nnoell (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)