Talk:Mizoram–Manipur–Kachin rain forests

Protected areas
I am trying to collect a list of protected areas within the Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rain forests. Here is my pre-liminary list:


 * Phawngpui National Park
 * Ngengpui Wildlife Sanctuary
 * Shangu-Matamuhuri Wildlife Sanctuary
 * Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary
 * Bogakine Lake Wildlife Sanctuary
 * Pablakhali Wildlife Sanctuary
 * Khawnglung Wildlife Sanctuary
 * Blue Mountain National Park
 * Tawi Wildlife Sanctuary
 * Murlen National Park
 * Lengteng Wildlife Sanctuary
 * Kaibul Lamjao National Park
 * Indawgyi Lake Wildlife Sanctuary
 * Bumhpabum Wildlife Sanctuary (see Bumhpa Bum)
 * Namdapha National Park

I hope someone more knowledgeable than me, may help sorting out which of the protected areas is actually a part of the ecoregion.

RhinoMind (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is the move discussion?
You mention a requested move discussion at RM/TR. Do you have a link? I have never heard about this discussion. And excluding "ecoregion" in the articles title is wrong. RhinoMind (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP:RM/TR isn't for discussions, it's for noncontroversial moves. Since this move is contested I will revert the move and open a discussion. buidhe 00:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. RhinoMind (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus, so it will remain at "Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rainforest ecoregion" buidhe 01:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rainforest ecoregion → Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rain forests – Originally suggested by, contested by RhinoMind. I have no opinion. buidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 00:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe Tom should start with his thoughts on this? RhinoMind (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Well, he might not be reading this for a long time, so I can explain my concerns to start with anyway, I guess? The article is clearly about the ecoregion, and not limited to what might be left of the rain forests themselves. Ecoregions are geographical terms and includes large areas that under current conditions does not host the original and natural biome and nature types. This is an important difference. Dealing with the ecoregion, requires information on how degraded the original nature type has become and how much of the nature type is still intact or relatively intact.

Also, I don't think any rain forest named "Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin" exists. The name just reflects the geographical area that the ecoregion has been defined to cover. In fact, I believe the remaining forests in this ecoregion has many different names, depending on local cultures and their history.

These issues does not limit themselves to this ecoregion-article. They are relevant for all ecoregion articles. It seems, the mistake of equating ecoregion names with the actual nature types present within the area is a common one. One way or another this mistake needs to be fixed. RhinoMind (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Support. Wikipedia's policy on article titles (Article titles) says "The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. Because no two articles can have the same title,[3] it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name. Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources."

"Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rain forests" is what WWF calls this ecoregion, and the hundreds of other ecoregion articles use the WWF names per Wikipedia's naming conventions. There's no reason this article should be different. The first sentence explains that this article is about an ecoregion. It's only necessary to append "ecoregion" to the title of an ecoregion article when the ecoregion's name is the same as some other commonly-used name that means something different - for example Sahara Desert (ecoregion), because the ecoregion is limited to the hyper-arid center, but Sahara Desert, as commonly used, refers to a larger area that includes several other ecoregions. That's not necessary here; there is nothing else called "Mizoram-Manipur-Kachin rain forests" from which it needs to be distinguished.Tom Radulovich (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * But when there is an official name, I don't see any good reason to not use that official name. The reason that WWF does not write "ecoregion" explicitly all the time, is because the info is presented within the framework of ecoregions. That same policy could be applied here as well: ie. to use the term "ecoregion" in the title and just omit it in the article itself. The other way around creates confusion. Unnecessary confusion.


 * Just because a mistake has been repeated, doesn't make it right at all.


 * You don't relate to the most important concern in your post: Large parts of the ecoregion might not be forest or rain forest at all. It can be deceptive to describe the entire area as rain forest, even though its in the ecoregion name. In some ecoregions, the original nature type has been cleared to almost extinction or changed by human intervention. But that doesn't change the ecoregion name or the character of the original nature type. Characterising everything within the ecoregion as forest, mangrove or other nature types, is just wrong. Take Meghalaya subtropical forests ecoregion for example. Large parts of this ecoregion is not subtropical forest at all. Another example is the Baltic mixed forests ecoregion. For these reasons it is very important to have "ecoregion" in the title and not just the original nature type that was used to characterise the ecoregion. RhinoMind (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.