Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecoregions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ecoregions (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is supported by WikiProject Ecoregions, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of ecoregions. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on these topics. See WikiProject Ecoregions and Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Wikipedia:HighBeam[edit]

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
Wavelength (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Covering every plant in Gibraltar Botanic Gardens as part of GibraltarpediA[edit]

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 Ecoregions to be involved, you can find out more by clicking here.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Ecology of California[edit]

Ecology of California has been proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecology of California. Please feel free to join in the discussion. —hike395 (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete, redirect or task force? WikiProject Biomes[edit]

I have proposed WikiProject Biomes for deletion (see the MfD), but someone suggested redirecting it to here. Or it could become a task force in this project. Comments? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tropical Dry Forest[edit]

Hello Ecosystems experts:

This article has been submitted at Afc: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tropical Dry Forest.

Right now Tropical dry forest redirects to Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests.

I thought that you might want to check this out.

Anne Delong (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Starfish threaten Great Barrier Reef[edit]

A story in the BBC is blaming Crown-of-thorns starfish for the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Is this of interest to this wikiproject? XOttawahitech (talk)

I have started a new draft[edit]

Please feel free to contribute to Draft:Nama Karoo - a large xeric shrubland ecoregion in Southern Africa. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Peat Swamp Forest[edit]

We are rewriting the article on Peat Swamp Forests for a college project. Please see sandbox here [[1]] and add any relevant suggestions or commentary. Jboyar9 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Cape Verde listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cape Verde to be moved to Cabo Verde. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Stewart Island listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stewart Island to be moved to Stewart Island/Rakiura. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Issue 10 of the WikiProject X newsletter is here!

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:

CollaborationKit screenshot CreateCollaborationHub.png

23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


Are ecoregions important?[edit]

I am pinging user:Plantdrew and user:Graeme Bartlett because they seem to assess most new ecoregion articles. It is not clear what criteria are used to assign {{WikiProject Ecoregions}} importance ratings for articles that define ecoregions. The project's link to the importance scale leads nowhere. But see WP:Assessing articles. Different projects use different criteria, but the general idea seems to be:

  • Top: Essential to have an article
  • High: Important to have an article
  • Mid: Probably should have an article
  • Low: Does not much matter if there is an article or not

There are 867 terrestrial ecoregions. I would say the project goal should be for them to all have an article, making them all Mid importance to the project, whatever their absolute importance may be in the broader scheme of things. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: My general rule of thumb is that most articles within a project's scope will be of low importance. In my experience, the exact wording of the general assessment guidance isn't really followed; articles tend to get lower quality/importance assessments than what is suggested by the guidance. I don't mind rating all new ecoregion articles I assess as mid, but I do think it would be a little strange not to have anything rated as low for this project. Are there any articles you'd consider to be within the scope of this project and low importance? Plantdrew (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I am no specialist in ecoregions, but I can tag with the project when I find it listed as a new Geology page. Agreeing with the above, most would be low importance. The general few articles on the whole topic would be top importance. Famous or wide spread types would be rated high. The most significant in a country might be rated mid, and just about all the rest of the regions rated low. That is the rough idea I would use. Any way anyone from the project is welcome to change any importance setting that I set, as they probably have more idea. When it comes to the country projects that probably also apply for individual regions, low is the likely rating, or mid if it very important to that country. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
We cannot assess importance by country. England and Wales are fully contained in the Celtic broadleaf forests ecoregion, which also covers most of Ireland and Scotland. This ecoregion must be the most significant in England and Wales, since it is the only one. French Guiana has two ecoregions, but the same two cover most of Suriname and Guyana, and extend into Brazil and Venezuela. Both are, of course, very significant to each of the Guianas, which would be nothing without them. Temperate, dry ecoregions tend to be better studied (and more degraded) than the very hot, cold or wet ecoregions, but are they more important? The hot, wet ecoregions have greater density of biota, and the montane regions have more diversity, but some biologists would consider the cold desert regions most important because they have species that are pushing to the extreme limits of where life is possible. This all seems over-complex, comparing apples to oranges. We need a simple and uncontroversial way to decide how important ecoregions are to Wikiproject:Ecoregions. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Plantdrew and Graeme Bartlett: Generally articles get lower quality/importance assessments than would be suggested by the guidance, which does not help improve Wikipedia. Overly critical quality assessments and low importance ratings are discouraging both to newbies and to experienced editors. We could benefit from being a bit more positive, within reason. For this project, it is unclear what the importance criteria are. We could just follow the draft at {{Importance scheme}} which says all notable subjects, presumably including ecoregions and much more, are at least Mid importance. I would prefer a more tailored definition. A starting position could be:
  • Fundamental topics such as the criteria and debates about defining ecoregions, human and geological/climate change effects on ecoregions in general are Top importance
  • Broad topics such as overviews of specific realms and biomes are High importance. Lists may be at this level
  • All terrestrial and marine ecoregions are Mid importance – they are the bread and butter concern of WikiProject Ecoregions and should have articles
  • Very local subjects such as specific lakes, species, conservation units etc. are low importance. That is not to say that they are Low importance to projects on geography, biology, conservation etc., just that in general they are peripheral to the discussion of ecoregions.
Picking an article currently rated "Mid" at random, I would say Lake Bile is probably Low importance for this project. It seems to be in the Pontic Steppe (PA0814) ecoregion, but is just one lake among many, not necessarily representative or unusual for that ecoregion. A fairly thorough book on ecoregions might not mention this lake, although it would certainly mention the Pontic Steppe. But the description of Lake Bile is not completely unrelated to ecoregions, so Low. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the three eds to acknowledge the validity of this project - I have as part of the Australian project a vast number of potential articles untouched or uncreated as yet - Land types (Western Australian land type) which fit into this area as well - they would be low importance in this area JarrahTree 01:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Western Australian land types are much smaller than ecoregions, and seem to be mainly administrative concepts, defining allowed land use. I would see them as low importance to WikiProject:Ecoregions. They may be higher importance to other projects. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed assessment guidelines[edit]

Since there were no objections, I have gone ahead and implemented the change. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions/Assessment. If there are no strong objections in the next 10 days, I propose to add links to these guidelines from the project main page and from the {{WikiProject Ecoregions}} project template. The guidelines confirm that the project uses the standard quality scale and provide an importance scale, which was missing. The importance scale is very simple, and may overstate or understate the importance of a few articles, but should be good enough for the purpose of prioritizing improvement. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

When recovered from inactive status - the project was found to have few/little of the expected array of bells and whistles for a normal functioning wikiproject - lots of assessment and normal talk page template items were simply not there - anything added to help the project is welcome/wanted - please and thanks JarrahTree 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this project could use some work getting various project based tools and reports included. Adding assessment guidelines is a good start. Plantdrew (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Piney Woods listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Piney Woods to be moved to Pineywoods. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Ecoregions vs Biogeography[edit]

Is Wikiproject Ecoregions essentially the same as Wikiproject Biogeography or is another wikiproject more responsible for managing the multiple biogeographic schemes? It seems like the focus here is mostly on WWF ecoregions, si I wasn't sure if anyone was looking at other, non-WWF biogeographic schema.

I was examining the various Biogeography classification schema and the categories look like they could do with a good sprucing up. Take the floristic province, North American Prairies Provinces, the category graph looks like this [this]. Obviously things could be cleaned up for that article, but if you move up the tree, you see the Category:Ecoregions of Canada ((which goes to a disambiguation page for 3 ecoregion/ecozone schemes)), two of which seem to differ from the WWF regions, which are different from the floristic regions, not even to mention that the classifications schemes themselves seem to be up for active academic debate. -Furicorn (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The scope of {{WikiProject Ecoregions}} is defined as "a relatively large area of land or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities." The WWF ecoregion definitions differ from CEC, EPA and other definitions of ecoregions. I doubt that there will ever be a single "official" set of definitions. Wikipedia, and this project, can describe overlapping ecoregions / bioregions / ecozones / floristic regions / whatever. I do not see a {{WikiProject Biogeography}}. That seems a broader and more abstract concept than {{WikiProject Ecoregions}}, about the factors that cause a species to occupy a geographical area, rather than just describing a large area with a characteristic mix of species. Biogeography seems to have a more scientific slant, where Ecoregions are more about human impacts and conservation. Possibly, if there are enough interested editors, a {{WikiProject Biogeography}} should be launched. If that is done, {{WikiProject Ecoregions}} could perhaps become a sub-project of {{WikiProject Biogeography}}. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense. How would I figure out if there is enough interest for the broader category? -Furicorn (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I think a task force makes the most sense as a starting place, and then maybe eventually it could develop into a parent wikiproject. What are the steps for that? -Furicorn (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hm, reading that page, I have to ask myself if there are enough people participating in Ecology to even justify a task force. I believe you just recently revived this wikproject? I guess I'll canvass some other wikiprojects to see if it can make sense. -Furicorn (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)