Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecology/Archive 1

Notice of Peer Review Request
Peer review has been requested and reviews will be appreciated for the article Globalization.

International Tree-Ring Data Bank
Here's another that may interest you. International Tree-Ring Data Bank

2004 participation notes
Hi - this looks interesting - let me know what I can do! Mark Richards 18:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you'd like to be part of the project please add your name to the participants list. There's now a long list of open tasks too to give you an idea of what can be done. I'm hoping to make Wikipedia a really valuable resource for sustainability and ecology.

Thanks for your interest!

--Pengo 10:58, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

missing articles and stubs
I just removed a couple entries from the broken links section. I left some things in that link to (sub)stubs. These need to be expanded upon, so they should probably be listed somewhere. But would it make sense to have a separate listing for ecology related stubs separate from broken links? Jmeppley 18:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re-writing the series
The Ecology and related articles are in serious need of a re-write. As Jmepply mentioned above, there are lots of stubs and sub-stubs that radiate out from the articles in no particular order. Some of the existing ones should really be subsumed within larger topics which, as it so happens, don't exist. Also there is no sense of hierarchy - the list of sub-fields, for example, does not convey the sense that there is any difference between the fields; thus, Ecosystem Ecology (one of the major subfields in ecology) is a red link which is on par with everything else. In addition, regional "flavours" of ecology (tropical ecology, polar ecology) are simply mixed in with the rest when they represent very different (though important) levels of organisation: you can, for example, have ecosystem ecology studies in the tropics, or theoretical polar landscape ecology. I don't have a better fit, but I don't think the list does a very good job of conveying knowledge (as opposed to just spitting information at readers).

I am interested in contributing to a major-reworking of the Ecology articles, but I am not quite sure how to go about it, and how to establish concensus on the final product. It would need to be done in a /temp folder, I suppose - I think many of the sub-articles should be merged or deleted, but I would not want to simply offer changes up one at a time...that would just result in chaos. While many of those articles have very little in terms of histories, some do, and these would have to be preserved in some way (I am pretty ignorant still about how these things really work in Wikpedia). So - thoughts? Guettarda 22:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I have not fully explored the ecology pages, but I do agree that what I have seen could use some re-organization. I made a small push last month to clean up the biological interaction pages last month.  I opted for the incremental approach with those pages, but there are only a handful of pages there and I didn't know you could create a temporary area.  I don't feel like I know enough about the field or Wikipedia to pull it off myself, but I'm happy to help. Jmeppley 22:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biology portal
I encourage you all to help with maintaining the biology Wikiportal connected with this project! Ausir 23:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Energy development
Hi! We seem to have some parallel efforts starting here lately. You may not have noticed the ill-named WikiProject Energy Related Development by Civilizations. It seems to me there should be a single umbrella project that includes Hubbert Peak, Energy development, etc. But the name Ecology seems a little funny for a project name. Why is it not Sustainability? Or am I knocking on the wrong door? Can I think this through with somebody? Thanks a million. Tom Haws 22:51, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand. Tom Haws
 * This project is a child of the biology project.
 * Sustainability project redirects to this ecology project.
 * Energy development and Hubbert Peak probably go under sustainability.
 * Therefore Energy development and Hubbert Peak are children of the Biology project?

I think we need to figure this all out somewhere central. I am driven by two needs here: 1) Topics like Hubbert Peak, Solar energy, Wind energy, Fuel cell cars, Hybrid cars, Energy development, Nuclear energy, etc. need a central place where relationships, policies, organizational hierarchies, and issues can be centrally discussed; 2) It is good to have people of different POVs working on the same issues; we should avoid splitting projects on POV lines. My gut feel is that Sustainability should be a separate project from Ecology, and Sustainability shouldn't be a child of Biology. But that may be wrong. Whatever Sustainability (including Hubbert Peak and Wind energy) goes under, I think it needs a central place to discuss organizational and presentational issues.Tom Haws 17:09, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
Agricultural subsidy is currently nominated on This week's improvement drive. You can vote for it if you want it to be improved.--Fenice 13:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Land trust
Hi, I thought this would be the best place to mention that the Land trust article needs improvement. I would be glad to help out, just drop a note on my talk page :) --JJF 06:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ecology is not the same as Environment
I feel that the scope of this project is not correctly focussed. It seems that Ecology is being confused with Natural Environment. Ecology is generally the study of the interactions of species within a habitat and excludes the effect of over-population and technology. Environment on the other hand, or perhaps qualified as Natural Environment, is topics on the effect of human activity on ecology or the environment in general. Alan Liefting 08:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have started a WikiProject Environment for environmental articles. Alan Liefting 06:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Alan, thank you. I agree with your comments.  Ecology is a science, and a big one at that, and this wproject should be concerned only with the organization of the many subdisciplines that compose it.  That is a big job in itself, and does not need to be hamstrung by confusion with other topics.  Ecology is still commonly confused with environment, environmentalism and the like in popular use.


 * So, let's please have a discussion of the topics that should be managed under this wproject, and those which should be managed under the new WikiProject Environment project. Jeeb 19:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

AfD articles
Hi, I stirred up a ruckus by nominating


 * Articles for deletion/Principles of energetics
 * Articles for deletion/Maximum power
 * Articles for deletion/Energy quality
 * Articles for deletion/Maximum empower

It seems that most of these will survive the vote. They are articles dealing with concepts advanced by H.T. Odum, but were so questionably written that they got nominated for deletion. Can anyone here take a shot at cleaning these up? linas 04:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
Frog has been nominated to be improved by WP:IDRIVE. Help us improve it and support Frog with your vote on WP:IDRIVE. --Fenice 07:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Open tasks list
Please help to keep the Biology portal's Open tasks list up to date. This is one of our main communication methods to help get newcomers more involved in editing articles. It contains a list of articles that need improving, articles that need creating, articles that need cleanup, etc. And of course, if you have the time, please help and work on some of the tasks on that list! -- Cyde Weys 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Images on Chinook wind
Hello, there is currently a discussion on Talk:Chinook wind regarding which image (or images) best convey a chinook arch. Please join us to express your opinion. Thanks. -- JamesTeterenko 21:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Kibbutz
Kibbutz is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Tea
Tea is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Gap analysis
I created an entry for gap analysis. Perhaps someone interested could take a look and improve it? AppleJuggler 09:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

categorization / category diffusion
Hi -- the categorization in Category:Ecology is a bit of a mess right now -- there are many, many articles not subcategorized, and it extends to three pages. I created a few of the standard subcategories that help organize articles in other science hierarchies (Category:Ecology lists, Category:Ecology literature, Category:Organizations), but that only pulled out so many articles; most of the rest require subject categorization. Anybody else (more subject experts) want to help work on this? --lquilter 21:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've worked on this a little myself - some include Category:Community ecology, Category:Biological interactions etc. Richard001 09:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A bunch of AfDs on people in the field of eco-cemeteries
I recently filed AfDs on articles about five people, who all have something to do wiki eco-cemeteries. Maybe people with an interest in ecology would be interested in taking a look? // habj 19:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Billy Campbell (doctor)
 * Articles for deletion/Mary Woodsen
 * Articles for deletion/Tyler Cassity
 * Articles for deletion/Mike Salisbury (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Joe Sehee

AfD on Natural History of South Asia mailing list=
Discussion now in process at Natural History of South Asia mailing list (2nd nomination) DGG 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Banner
I have recently created a banner for WikiProject Biology which has assessment parameters. I was not able to determine whether this project has its own existing banner does not. Given the amount of overlap in the biology sector, and the concerns expressed elsewhere about the proliferation of project banners, I was wondering whether the members of this project would be interested in perhaps utilizing the Biology banner, with a "drop down tab" for this project, perhaps similar to the WPMILHIST banner. Doing so would permit for individual assessment for each project, as that is something the Military History banner does, while at the same time reducing the amount of banner "clutter" on talk pages. If you would be interested in such an arrangement, please let me know and I will work to revise the Biology banner to include the "drop-down" tab and make the other arrangements required for your project, as well as theirs, to have assessment data available. Thank you. John Carter 20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note on this: I created a separate one myself a little while ago, see Template:Ecology. Richard001 09:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Heads up on some controversy
Not really my area of expertise, but user Wiki Skylace has made a number of edits suggesting that there is no such thing as an invasive species or a damaging introduced species. From the narrow confines of my field (introduced mammals and birds in New Zealand), I know this to be complete garbage; the role of introduced species as a bogeyman has been overplayed for sure but that doesn't mean they are harmless. The Wiki Skyklace also adds links to a site with a POV essay about the subject, but the site is mostly a comercial site selling seeds (can't imagine why someone who sells seeds might argue that they are harmless). Anyway, this isn't an area of Wikipedia I know much about but I'm concerned about POV pushing. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  04:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please someone fix this terrible page
Optimum population - Totaly unreferenced. An OR nightmare. Please someone with an interest or knowledge of the subject (that rules me out) fix this. Willy turner 15:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Plantesamfund
This is an ecology article that could use some attention, particularly from plant ecology folks. KP Botany 04:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Fallon, Nevada
It has been mentioned that the content of the Cancer Cluster section of this article seems to rely entirely on one source. In fact, a recent article in a local newspaper here writes "'Arsenic in the water, tungsten in the air, polonium in wells, underground atomic testing to the east - all have been reported by the media. The entry for 'Fallon, Nevada' on Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia, mentions the leukemia cluster. It's no wonder some outsiders unfortunately perceive our community as unhealthy.'"

If you have access to any further information regarding this subject which might be relevant to this article regarding this subject, such as perhaps contrary opinions and/or further research, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 14:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Seed for ACID nom
I've nominated seed for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Since there is no Plants COTM, please vote!

More importantly, help if you can. There are several sections on ecological aspects of seeds, including seed dispersal, seed dormacy, and seed set. This basic article really should be up to "Good Article" quality or better. --EncycloPetey 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Phagy

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * updated --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice of List articles
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Contents subpages (not by me). This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * List of basic ecology topics

Pelagic Ecology of the Low Salinity San Francisco Estuary
Not sure if anyone in this WikiProject noticed this article but it definitely needs a thorough examination to see if it complies with the MOS and wikipedia policies. Just thought I'd let you know! --Rkitko (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project
Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Parasite v. Disease
I've been editing parasite articles a bit and have noticed that there seems to be a re-occurring debate. Should parasitic diseases be the same article as the organism that causes them? Should malaria and plasmodium be the same article? Parasites obviously are important simply for being alive, but they also impact organisms, and this might be what makes them significant to the average reader. However, how much are we willing to repeat ourselves? Where do we make the distinction between which information should be where? Plcoffey (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the case. For something like human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immune deficiency syndrome we definitely want two articles, but for less important diseases one might be acceptable. For the diseases you're going to be looking at things like symptoms, treatments etc, whereas with the causal pathogen/parasite you're looking more at its biology etc. There will be some overlap but not too much to render two articles superfluous. Richard001 (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they shouldn't be the same article. There should be enough about malaria in the plasmodium article to be useful to the reader (i.e., more than just a teaser) but not so much that the articles are the same.  But, of course, if both articles are very short, it might be useful to merge them (at least for the time being) and make one redirect to the other.  Guettarda (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Userbox WikiProject Ecology
Hello !

I'm a new French user of the English Wikipedia. I have recently joined the Project Ecology, but I haven't found any userbox for it...

That's why I've created one :

What do you think of it ?

Shouldn't I make it available on the WikiProject Ecology page?

PS : Don't hesitate to talk to me if you need someone to create articles about France, or to translate articles from French, Spanish or Italian into English...

Bye!

JeanSolPartre Talk page 11 May 2008, 23:37 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Yes, please include it on the project page. —Pengo 02:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - rampant ?
Out of curiosity I have been watching pages like Grassland, Savanna, Desert, Forest, Swamp, etc., for the last few weeks. They seem to be subject to continuous vandalism. May I ask why they have not been semiprotected ? Ronnam (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They do seem to get a bit of vandalism, perhaps because they are used by school children a lot. Pages don't protect themselves, you have to ask for them to be protected at WP:RFP. They aren't protected because nobody has asked or the request has been turned down. What would be better is a water tight net that would ensure vandalism is quickly removed from each article, but there is neither enough editors at the project nor the political will to create such a net. Richard001 (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Richard. Yer, I figured possibly school kids too.  I did know that protection had to be requested.  I suppose the real reason I asked my question above was that I was thinking of requesting it myself, but was wondering why no one else had when so much time and effort seems to go into cleaning up all the time ? If I do request protection, it would be to stop only unregistered editors. Ronnam (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox and 'linking' templates for ecological areas ?
Folks,

I note on your project page that the Things you can do to do list includes matters relating linking of soil types, ecoregions, biomes, climate, etc.

There seems to be no infobox for an ecological area in Wikipedia ?

I have some ideas for an infobox, for example which include:
 * ecological classification
 * conservation status
 * anthropomorphic status
 * age, area, date defined / designated
 * major physical features
 * major geological events
 * typical image
 * typical eco structure schematic

This tempalte would cover from ecozone down to ecotope.

The infobox template would also do wikilinking for you, and do intelligent categorisation automatically to 'link' articles on the same meta subject, etc.

I note that there are multiple classification systems for some of these characerists. If useful, the template could allow for multiple parallel classification schemes for relevant characteristics.

If such an infobox template would be useful. I could have a first cut ready for comment by the middle of next week.

Cheers. Peet Ern (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a first cut of an information box template for ecological areas available at User:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Infobox Ecological area. Can people please have a look at it and let me know what they think.  Please provide comments, suggestions, and criticisms at User talk:Pee Tern/Sandbox/Template/Infobox Ecological area.


 * The bad / clunky hide show expansions are to be fixed.
 * Some of the main issues I need feedback on are:
 * Should multiple classification schemes be supported by the template for things such as conservation status, anthropomorphic status, biome, and soil group.
 * What should the legend colours be for the options for each of these?


 * Please note that I will not have any easy Internet access for the next three weeks, so it might be a while before I can get back to anyone. In the mean time, if people could have a look at the proposed template and provide feedback please.


 * Peet Ern (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ecology expertise needed at FPC
It seems we don't have the expertise for judging this picture. Maybe you could take a look at Featured picture candidates/Forest in Autumn. Thank you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 09:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ecological Vegetation Class
Article (actually just a little stub) is in the list of those to be wikified from June 2007 and although it has a reference to an Australian government site I don't know enough to decide if an article on this topic is necessary or if it can be merged. Capitalisation in the title would seem to be wrong. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland
I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Ecology
A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 02:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Office of Conservation Science and Wild Resource Conservation Program
These are overly promotional articles created by somebody within the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, hence have major COI issues. They could do with some major cleanup. McWomble (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeking input on Nk'mip & Okanagan "Deserts"
I'm seeking input on what to do about two "deserts" in British Columbia which are actually shrub steppe, with each boasting/claiming to be "Canada's only (true) desert" - and with or without the true it's not a valid claim, even if they were deserts, because if their definitions of desert held true, then other parts of British Columbia -very large parts in fact - would also be classed as deserts, and they're not (the Fraser Canyon from Lytton or Lillooet northwards to Williams Lake, parts of the Thompson Country, and around Keremeos, and perhaps also parts of the southern Palliser Triangle south of Lethbridge. My own opinion is this is a p.r. gag meant to help sell Osoyoos' very hot (in summer) sunny climate, which is the main attraction for the tourism industry there other than Osoyoos Lake and a new pitch based around vinyards....so anyway as you'll find on Nk'mip Desert the "propreitors" of that "desert" claim to be the only one, and in fact limit it to a very small number of hectares on their property, which is that of the Osoyoos Indian Band, who operate Nk'mip Vinyards and its associated resort hotel and tour/dining/winetasting complex (and 9-hold golf course...) and the attacked Nk'Mip Desert Heritage Centre; both done up in faux-New Mexico architecture; they base their definition on the presence of certain species of plants and certain animals, a particular lizard subspecies or whatever. Now, it so happens, that on the other side of the valley, on the other side of Osoyoos and Osoyoos and Osoyoos Lake, there is the Osoyoos Desert Centre which also makes the "Osoyoos is the only desert in Canada claim" but isn't as specific in limiting it only to a few small hectares of land, presumably their eco-definition is somewhat broader; I should mention that it's not native-owned and is also in faux-New Mexico design and is attached to the municipality (the Town of Osoyoos) but also a non-profit organization. Both have nice gift shops, and room for tour buses in the parking lot....now, the silly part is to the naked eye one bunch of dry land covered in scrub grass and patches of ground-clinging prickly pear look much like any other, but as you drive north up the Okanagan Valley there are other spots, such as around Vaseux Lake and Okanagan Falls and up Okanagan Lake there's just as much dry land, sagebrush and the occasional patch of cactus, and lots of lizards and such, and the whole area is known for crotalus oreganus (the Pacific Rattlesnake, aka the Timber Rattler). I'm from Lillooet, which is at least as dry and cactus-y and has way more sagebrush (but no vinyards and only one Santa Fe-type building, but actually also has some authentic adobe buildings dating back to pioneer times....), but makes no formal claims to being in the "desert", though recently the Thompson-Nicola Regional District has designated an area on the north side of Kamloops Lake as the Copper Desert Country, as part of a real estate development-pitch....I think you see what I'm up against; "most common usage" flying in the face of definable ecological/biogeoclimatic truth, as well as popular sentiment. There is as yet no article on teh Osoyoos Desert, or wasn't last time I looked, but as with Nk'mip Desert I think perhaps both titles should be changed to that of the museum/heritage centre promoting them, rather than continuing to presume/claim in their titles that they're deserts. Granted, Osoyoos Shrub Steppe Heritage Centre doesn't have as nice a ring to it, which is understandable in marketing terms, huh? Anyway this being largely an issue of what to do with definitions of what a desert is, based on the presence of species (as it's not entirely about climate, or nearby Oliver would have one of these "desert" centres too, as would Keremeos....so what to do? I'd had this issue listed at WP:WikiProject Canada's rename section for a while, and nobody bit and I'm in a quandary about retitling them, or what to call them if they're not deserts....Nk'mip fake desert, Osoyoos's not-really-a-desert??  The safest thing may be to convert them to museum articles...I think I already changed the "desert" categories to Category:Shrub steppe but that may have been changed back....oh, one other thing, the town's and Indian Band's bumpfs talks about being the northern extremity of the Sonoran Desert....they seem to not understand that the Mojave and Great Basin Deserts are in between....Skookum1 (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, meant to add that "Okanagan Desert" seems like a compromise to combine Osoyoos Desert and Nk'mip Desert....if only it were a desert....what about Okanagan "Desert"?? Curiously, Omak, Washington less than two miles away makes no similar claim, even though it's fartehr south (and hotter).Skookum1 (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. &mdash; Delievered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New WikiProject Proposal: Forestry
Afternoon, I've created a new WikiProject proposal for the subject/profession of forestry. I'm telling you all here as I noticed that you have Agriculture/Agronomy listed as one of your focuses; perhaps one would consider forestry similarly? Input appreciated either here or on the WikiProject proposal. Thanks minnecologies (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now open for business at WikiProject Forestry. Guettarda (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories for deletion

 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_5
 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_5. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bray Curtis dissimilarity
New article Bray Curtis dissimilarity - could someone take a look at that please? Rd232 talk 12:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Maritime forest
Hello, I just started a new article for Maritime forest if anyone here wants to help expand it I would be much obliged. J04n(talk page) 01:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alpine Zone / Alpine zone: Bad redirects need fix
Alpine Zone redirects to Tundra. Alpine zone redirects to Alpine climate.

IMHO this is seriously broken behavior. Both of these should redirect to the same article (or we should have a standalone article on this topic.) It might be a good idea to merge some existing content from these articles. Your thoughts? -- Writtenonsand (talk)


 * Well, if you want a quick fix I'd probably make them both go to Alpine climate. I'm not keen on creating yet another article; at least to my eyes there is already a fair bit of overlap between the ones we have (and to a certain extent others like Tree line). But I won't claim to be any sort of expert, nor have I researched it much, so I'd be open to other ideas. Kingdon (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a bad situation, and that as a quick fix, they should both redirect to alpine climate. Tree line is a separate article about the ecotone (the boundary between alpine and subalpine), while the Tundra section and alpine climate are both about the ecozone itself. I can see a combined article about the ecozone, probably called alpine tundra, which alpine zone could redirect to. In this case, alpine climate would be a pure dab page.


 * If such an approach achieves consensus, I would be happy to take a crack at a new article, and fix the redirects. What do people think? —hike395 (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Later: created a draft combined article at User talk:Hike395/Alpine tundra. Comments welcome. I also moved material over from alpine climate to polar climate, because it was more appropriate there. —hike395 (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Later: moved draft article to alpine tundra, fixed redirects to point there. I'm reluctant to move or merge alpine climate, because so many articles link to there. I'm mostly happy with the current state: I've proposed merging alpine meadow with alpine tundra, and sub-alpine meadow with subalpine, but that is relatively minor. —hike395 (talk) 10:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge Wildlife corridor into Habitat corridor
When u get time kindly improve and help merge these articles. Thanks

mrigthrishna (talk) 15:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Homogeneity (ecology)
This looks like a good article, but it appears to contain speculation (WP:Speculation), and also has the apperance of WP:OR. It also seems that most of the content and references are not specifically related to the title of the article. The content and references appear to be about general topics in ecology.

I am writing this here in the hopes that the project members can look into this and provide a different focus for this article. I have looked up homogeneity, as related to ecology, and it seems to be a tool for research, classification, and measurement (in that domain). This article is different from that. From the dearth of information that I came across in a brief search, including Google scholar, it may be that the topic of "homogeneity (ecology)" is really a minor topic. As such, it may only belong in a section of one of the Ecology articles. That is just a suggestion. In any case the name of this particular article might need to be changed to reflect the current contents. Thanks in advance for looking into this. I am also going to put this on the article talk page. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No article for target population?
I was working on excerpting part of American bison to create the new Bison hunting, and I realised there's no article for target population. Is there any interest in creating such an article, whether or not it's veracity is widely endorsed or no? I'm not a biology/ecology guy, but just stumbled across it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Altitudinal zonation needs an expert
The article really needs a restart, I think. I don't know enough to write a good article from scratch. Are any WikiProject participants interested? —hike395 (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A tricky article namng issue - deforestation vs forest management
See Talk:Deforestation_by_region. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Missing ecology topics
I've updated the ecology section of the list of missing biology topics - Skysmith (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Forest - is bamboo forest a forest?
Forest does not mention bamboo, yet on bamboo, it states it as a forest. Are bamboo forest a forest or just a grassland with the word forest on it? Thanks, Marasama (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ecology articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Ecology articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Association (ecology)
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and may be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, what's there right now isn't particularly valuable. Although I'm hardly an ecologist, I'm not convinced that separate articles is the way to make the kind of distinction described there, as opposed to discussing different classifications or levels of detail at an article like Ecosystem or Biome or (probably others we have). If so, Association (ecology) would want to be a redirect (although, if so, it isn't completely clear to what). Thanks for tackling this backlog! Kingdon (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Improving Wikipedia's coverage of Historical Ecology
Hello! We are new to wikipedia and invite you to join our proposed wikiproject: Historical Ecology. Annadestinmccown (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Morisita's overlap index
Morisita's overlap index has problems. I've commented at talk:Morisita's overlap index. Some of the math is confused.

Also, the article is orphaned. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Bad science guideline needed re false-RS cites
A WikiProject Wine editor has taken their campaign to redefine North American geography and ecological science so as to support a British Columbia wine region's claim to be the northern extension of the Sonoran Desert, citing scads of travel and wine articles as "reliable sources". There needs to be a guideline on WP:Bad science and/or WP:Bad geography and the like to deal with situations like this. There will be cites out there, too for "the world is flat" and "the sun revolves around the earth" and "there are monsters under my bed", but it doesn't make them true either. I dno't mean to WP:Poll, I'm just wondering if there's a particular guideline out there about bad science/bad geography as "unreliable sources"....this ongoing catfight is getting to be a real waste of time, and it also calls into question the viaiblity or utility of current definitinos of reliable/verifiable sources. If a cite says something that is patently untrue, how can it be either reliable or verifiable?Skookum1 (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

New article in WikiProject

 * Phoresis (biology). AshLin (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as citation, cite journal, cite web...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place id (or worse http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use 0123.4567, likewise for id and http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 &rarr; 0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):



Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ecology for GA
The central article for this project, Ecology, is now being reviewed for Good Article. The main writer and nominator has been missing for quite a while so it would be very good if the community could step in and make the improvements that are still needed. Please see Talk:Ecology/GA3. --Ettrig (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Student project that could use some help
Hello, I think the article Nitrogen Flow through Metabolism is a student project, but it seems like the article isn't a very well defined topic and could really use some additional input on how it should be named/advice on if it should be moved somewhere. If anyone could provide help that would be great! I am not sufficiently steeped in this kind of biology to make a good call, Sadads (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Food web
Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Contributions will be much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

New category and nav box naming woes
The articles plankton, nekton, benthos, neuston, pleuston,psammon, each describe a group of organisms by their habitat/lifestyle. I'm unable to pin down a short name to hold all of them together in a category/Nav box. I've thought of Aquatic organisms by habitat. how does this sound? what about a category for arboreal, fossorial, troglobites etc?Staticd (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are already two navigation templates cutting across aquatic habitat/lifestyle, plankton and aquatic ecosystem topics --Epipelagic (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about this article
I am having a discussion with the author of Dominant group (evolutionary biology). I'm not really an expert so I don't know if this is really a notable topic in biology. I don't want to nominate the article for deletion if it is. BigJim707 (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * People, bands, books, and breakfast cereals may be notable or not notable. Scientific terms and topics don't require your scrutiny. Nominating it for deletion would only lose Wikipedia more editors. —Pengo 03:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had the same concern. There is a whole family of articles on the topic of Dominant group, all seem to be by the same author -- not that that is a bad thing in itself.  Still the wording could be improved so the meaning is more clear to a general reader, not a biologist. BigJim707 (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am considering nominating the whole group of articles for deletion. Due to the concern you mentioned I have left a message for the author to make sure he would not take this personally. I have a feeling that, although the articles are not really up to WP standards now, the concept is a notable one and people will be riled up by the AfD's to try to save the articles. However as the articles are I don't think they are acceptable on WP since they do not establish the meaning of the topic clearly. Thanks again. BigJim707 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The editor seems tough enough so I will go ahead with the AfD's. BigJim707 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * On second thought, not. Since First, do no harm. BigJim707 (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Future of Earth FAC
Future of Earth is up for featured article candidacy. Please add a review if you have an interest. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Ecology2 up for deletion
Ecology2 has been nominated for deletion as being unused. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

An article for Faunal province?
The encyclopedia could really use this, it could be linked to hundreds if not thousands of articles. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Ecology will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Ecology's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Wildlife corridor and Habitat corridor
A merge of Wildlife corridor and Habitat corridor was proposed in 2009, but the conversation never really went anywhere. There was some disagreement over the primary topic/name. Please discuss is a merge is appropriate and the best title. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support merge as proposer, and support "Wildlife corridor" as the common name (since 2000, 4:1 uses on Google Scholar, 5:1 on Google Books, 22:1 on Google News). Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Biodiversity of New Caledonia, paleobotany forgotten
Hello, could you to work on this article, please? Biodiversity of New Caledonia. It is a very important archaic species group in Paleobotany and evolution. I am a spanish speaker, so, I cannot copy edit this article well. My native language is Spanish, so I have mistakes with English language, and I cannot correct the article myself. Could you please make some grammatical corrections that have been this article incomprehensible? This Island has many bizarre vegetal species, that can be considered living fossils. I am from Spain, I have not travelled there, but many botanic books speaks about New Caledonia species and refer about botanical interest. The area is not having fans, so, this article is abandoned. You can try to find a support group for help you, maybe. Please, this article is abandoned years ago. 85.251.99.49 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam
HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. —Wavelength (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Globalization proposal
Hi WikiProject Ecology members, Several of us are trying to get a WikiProject Globalization up and running. Members of this project would work together to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia on Globalization, global issues and related topics. If you're interested in globalization, please come by and check out our proposal. We'd appreciate feedback about our ideas, and of course your support if you were interested in lending it. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Related: The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Ecology members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest.  Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject.  Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject Globalization
WikiProject_Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Meclee (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Category for discussion
There is a discussions for the category: Ecology terminology, that could do with your input. Brad7777 (talk) 10:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Covering every plant in Gibraltar Botanic Gardens as part of GibraltarpediA
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 Ecology to be involved, you can find out more by clicking here.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

ecology classes editing Wikipedia, need help from experienced editors
There are a number of ecology and related classes working with the Wikipedia Education Program that are starting up around now, and several could use the help of experienced editors. If that sounds like something you want to do, you can become an Online Ambassador. If you're interested, let me know, or if you've got questions about the role, please ask. In any case, the work done by students in these classes may be of interest

I listed some classes at WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Neuroscience. In addition to those, here are the most relevant:


 * Conservation Biology
 * Prokaryotic Diversity (needs an Online Ambassador or three)
 * Readings in Environmental Studies
 * Tropical Wildlife (no course page yet, needs an Online Ambassador or three)
 * Behavioral Ecology (needs an Online Ambassador or three)
 * Evironment and Society (needs an Online Ambassador or three)

You can see the other courses in the United States and Canada programs here: Canada, US.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Wikipedian in Residence: Natural History Museum, London
Hi all,

A little tangential, but hopefully of interest! The Natural History Museum in London is advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence, working jointly there and at the Science Museum next door; it's a paid post for four months, and applications are open until 10th February. I've worked with Ed Baker at the NHM to define the scope of the program, and it looks really promising - there's some real opportunities for interesting projects here. Details are available on the National Museums site, and there's some details about other upcoming UK residency programs here.

Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested, and feel free to get in touch with me if you've any questions. Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Great Plains Ecoregion
There's a new article in the Afc queue, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Great Plains Ecoregion that ecologists might want to look over.

&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pre-spawn Mortality in Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) might be of interest. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And another one. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We're bombarded with these: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fish Acute Toxicity Syndromes (FATS). FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Cooperative WikiProject
WikiProject Globalization, with assistance from Outlines WikiProject, has drafted an Outline of globalization. We welcome your input, additions, and comments. Meclee (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page
I have updated Missing topics about Biology and related subjects - Skysmith (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Archived a few threads
I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Silent Spring peer review

 * Peer_review/Silent_Spring/archive1

Important book in the history of environmental regulations, history of pesticide usage, and environmentalism. Please offer your thoughts. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Ecology At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project? We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply. For more information, click the link below. Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC

Leaflet for Wikiproject Ecology at Wikimania 2014(Updated version)
Please note: This is an udpated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014 For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: Project leaflets Adikhajuria (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

npp for category tool
Please comment. Gryllida (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)