Talk:List of terrestrial ecoregions (WWF)

Replaced with sortable list
I went ahead replaced the list with a sortable table. My reasoning was that the table would make tasks like finding all the ecoregions in a country trivial. Although I must admit the table is a little huge and unwieldy.

The table was generated by a Python script I wrote. You can download, run, and modify the script from GitHub.

I tried my best to get the country-ecoregion correspondences correct. If you find any problems, please correct them. Even better, check out and update the Countries by ecoregion CSV file and regenerate the table. Miguel.v (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Gotta say Miguel, I like what you're aiming to do here (have a sortable list) but it is unwieldy. Is there any other way to do it? Istanbuljohnm (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that there's just so many ecoregions. The page should at least make it easy to see which ecoregions are in a country and which countries are in an ecoregion. I couldn't think of a better way to do it. We could split it into smaller tables (by continent? by ecozone?). Or maybe remove some columns. Let me know if you have any ideas. Miguel.v (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Organization
Seems like the organization issue was never really fixed. I'd like to look at a few of Miguel.v's suggestions and see if we can find a good way to organize this page. Something that may solve our problem is this List of lists of ecoregions by country which already exists! (That rhymed in a weird way...) This means we should not organize by country in this article; rather we can easily add the link to the header or to a See Also section. (It is not clear if these lists contain only WWF classifications. How important is that?) However, there does not appear to be a list of countries by ecoregion, which may be where this article can fill in the gap. Since organizing by country isn't necessary in this article, would it be possible to group all of the countries that contain the same ecoregion into the same data point? That could cut it down a good amount.

Now, looking at the other lists of ecoregions, they have the advantage of the utilizing the Table of Contents (TOC) to allow for quick skimming (well, they're pretty long too) which this giant table doesn't allow for. I think it could be a good idea to try and split this into some smaller tables under different headings to make the whole article easier to navigate. The question then becomes, what are the categories we want to use to create headings (and thus a TOC) and what do we want to leave in smaller tables? If we choose too many headings and subheadings, then we'll end up like the other lists that are still a little too hard to navigate, but if we choose too few than the tables will prove unwieldy.

These are just the thoughts I had, but I'd love to discuss any other ideas. If all goes well with what we end up with here, maybe we can spread the new method to the other articles! Helixer ( hábleme ) 04:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)