Talk:Bushland

Redirect?
The things you find! I think this needs to be carefully redirected or diambiguated. It is a better name for australian articles than The Bush. Easier to link and more descriptive, I needed it to describe where australian children play. Or delete. Fred ☻ 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What the???
I've just stumbled upon this page and have serious problems with it, for a number of reasons. The most serious issue is the assumption that bushland is synonymous with "sparse" flora and fauna. Australian landscapes may seem lacking in flora and fauna to European eyes (used to seeing conifer forests and herds of deer?) but this is not the biological reality. Bushland is not necessarily open country either - the impenetrable rainforests of SE Qld are just as much "bushland" as the drier interior. That said, Macquarie's Concise Dictionary has a number of definitions which encompass the definition of bushland (under the entry "bush") without actually defining it. What is one to do? Any ideas? BoundaryRider (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

African usage
I've come across many uses of the word in Africa, for example, the Southern Acacia-Commiphora bushlands and thickets. Should we also include that context within this article or limit this to Australia, keeping the wider usage of the term for the bush? - Shiftchange (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * To answer that question we need to first decide what this article is about.


 * I'm struggling to see anything obvious that distinguishes "Bushland" from a native vegetation community. If we are using the term synonymously with "Native vegetation community" then all this should be put into an article of that name, rather than into an article with a usage limited to just Australia.


 * At this stage, the term seems synonymous with "Native vegetation community", and a such should include any communities that fit that description, regardless of whether the term "Bushland" is actually used to describe them. If the two terms are not synonymous we need to explain why that is.

Peculiar focus on one project
The article says that bushland preservation "has become the focus of some conservation efforts", right after it notes legislation aimed specifically at bushland preservation that spans 1/8th of the continent. This is hardly "some conservation effort".

It then goes into considerable detail about one tiny project in one city on one continent, including listing the numbers of a single mammal species. I can't quite see why this is in any way notable. It's certainly less notable than the efforts that went into the production of the native vegetation preservation legislation that operates in ever state and territory on the same continent, or the ongoing work to monitor and regulate within that legislative framework. It's not even on the same scale as the ongoing efforts to preserve the Amazon rainforest or the Tarkine which, by the definition given, is also bushland.

I'm struggling to see why this tiny project meets Wikipedia notability requirements within the scope of this article.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't focusing on one project. It is just an one example of an established bushland preservation program and an explanation of its significant which has been covered by reliable sources.  There is no need to include every preservation effort or bush care group.  It provides an example of what local government is doing to preserve bushland and why its important.  Three sentences can hardly be considered considerable detail.  I think it is perfectly legitimate to include a few examples of similar activities. Unless other editors agree with you and there is a consensus to remove it, can you just let it go? - Shiftchange (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Unless you can show why it's notable within the context of this article, it seems like a hobbyhorse, especially at this level of detail. Noting that there are worldwide efforts to protect bushland for a variety of reasons, with references to that effect, is well within the scope of this article. Detailing the specific number of animals in a tiny corner of the world is incongruous. But i htink this will become much easier to decide on once we decide what this article is actually about.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)