Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Archive 2

Merging inactive projects
WikiProject Climate change has become almost stagnant in the last year. I suggest either we revive it or that it is deleted and its duties taken over by WP:Environment. I think this wikiproject can still do a lot but i cant do it alone. What do you think? Seddon69 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a lot of the interesting activity is taking place at the Env. Records Task Force page, although there certainly should be more activity there! Benzocane 18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Should we propose a merge? Since I went to their project's talk page and found that the last time someone made a response to a comment was in February 2007. It seems like people post comments there, but nobody replies. Also, the scope of climate change project completely falls inside this project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also proposing merge with WikiProject Energy development since the scope is almost identical and the project is inactive. The project is quite small in terms of participants and # of participants shrink over the 3 years of the project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. I think merging the inactive projects, as Ohana has suggested, is a good idea. Johnfos 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally believe they're inactive for a reason, so I doubt merging them will do anything meaningful. Of course, I don't oppose a merge at all. If you can make something out of the merge though, I would support it. ~ UBeR 20:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the merge will be very likely to occur, scope of this project will be changed to include the merged projects (if it isn't covered at the moment). OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you all wanted to turn the merged projects into task forces, with separate assessments, let me know and I could at least set up the banner to basically give separate assessments. John Carter 21:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently they don't have assessments, so after they are merged, they can be under the project's task force or just incorporate them into the main project. I don't think we need to setup more assessments when the current project's (WikiProject Environment) assessment is good enough. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge is completed. But I still need to convert climate change and WikiProject Energy development into environment <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 21:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

♠ The Climate Change/Global Warming issue needs its own project run by a committee of equal numbers of pro and anti human-cause global warming editors. It seems every article related to this subject matter is run by fanatics. You make a change and they'll undo it within five minutes. It looks like an edit war. These articles will devolve into very low quality material if something isn't done.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Mineral resources
I note that we don't have an article on this important topic. Perhaps someone here would be willing to work on one - it's surely among the top 20 or so most important topics in environmental science. Richard001 07:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Santa Barbara oil spill
I've just made a rather shocking and very dismaying discovery: There's no article about the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. In fact, on all of Wikipedia, there are no more than a handful of passing references to this event. It's not even mentioned in the List of oil spills. Yikes! How on earth is this possible??? This is mind-boggling. In all seriousness, this is undoubtedly the most glaring omission I have ever found on Wikipedia (and, believe me, I've found more than a few). We are talking about the single event that was most directly responsible for launching the modern environmental movement on a mass scale. It's no mere coincidence that Earth Day 1970 took place just months later.

Especially with two oil spill eco-disasters currently under way, I hope I'm not alone in feeling that creation of this article should be a very high priority for this Project. I am in the middle of some very time-consuming things elsewhere on Wikipedia right now, but I promise that I will join in on a collaboration to write this article. Please reply here, and leave a note on my talk page, if you are interested -- especially if you've got good sourcing material. Regards, -- Cgingold (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw your comments and I appreciate your suggestion to make an article on this oil spill accident. Most likely, I will start an article on this on coming Wednesday. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 13:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Crated a stub at Santa Barbara oil spill. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 21:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Updated and moved to 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill. --Drh08 (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Environmental effects of oil shale industry
Environmental effects of oil shale industry needs expansion. Thanks. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

FAR listing for Plate tectonics
Plate tectonics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Judaism and ecology could use some work.
Judaism and ecology is IMHO a good start but could use some work. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open
Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.


 * General information about the project: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
 * Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Free market environmentalism
Would anyone be interested in collaborating on the FME article? I think it would be good to get it to FA status in time to get it posted to the Main Page as TFA on April 22, 2008 (Earth Day). I know the basic principles of FME but will have to do some more research to become the mini-expert on the subject needed to bring it to FA status. If you want to learn more, a good starting point is http://www.perc.org/. I just got done writing another FA almost singlehandedly and it was a rather arduous experience; I decided it's probably much more fun to have a co-author(s) to bounce ideas off of, share the gruntwork with, etc. If I hear nothing, I may delay it till Earth Day 2009; we'll see. Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The environment?
Perhaps this project should clarify what is meant by the term 'environment' at the top. An internal link would be a good idea. Richard001 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Low-Carbon economy: neutrality challenged
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Low-carbon_economy

In the first section of Low-carbon economy the writers engage in a defense of Nuclear Power as a means to bring about a low-carbon economy.

In my opinion the merits and negatives of Nuclear Power have no place in the description of what a Low-Carbon Economy is, and this damages the neutrality of the article.

All reasonable means of bringing about a low-carbon economy should be mentioned equally and without bias. The defense of nuclear power against the "traditional 'environmentalist' movement" is totally unjustified.

I would make the change myself, but it would be a significant alteration and wish for some consensus on this matter.

Thank you.

Krishyaanis (talk) 06:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sustainable city
Could members of this project take a look at this article, and the four other articles it is proposed to merge into it? Frankly, Wikipedia's organisation of articles relating to sustainable cities/eco-towns/ecopolises/blah blah whatevers is a complete shambles and needs thoroughly reorganising. The use of different terms in different countries seems to have resulted in a proliferation of articles about similar but subtly different localisations of the concept. Cheers, DWaterson (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Environment and society
I have created a Category:Environment and society. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 07:41, 29 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 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lists of environmental topics
Lists of environmental topics and the associated pages have been renamed and a TOC template has been created. I have made a start on reducing the list of links on the pages to reflect the new title and the new intro that I have been adding. The lists need work to make them of use:
 * 1) reduce the lists to anthropogenic effects on the environment (there are many other lists for the superfluous links)
 * 2) tidy up punctuation
 * 3) add any missing entries
 * 4) give suitable annotation for links that are not self explanatory. -- Alan Liefting- talk - 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. The Transhumanist 22:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested articles
An article on ecodevelopment would be good, though I'm not exactly sure where I should put in a request - it could go under economics, society or ecology... Should the project create its own requests page? Richard001 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Category:Environmental issues
I have populated and adjusted the articles and the subcats in Category:Environmental issues. Can you tell me how it looks? -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 02:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The links to individual entries (i.e. not in subcategories) look OK. However the subcategory Category:Pollution is just the existing main "Pollution" category.  As such, it links to various pollution topics (e.g. under Air Pollution, Pollutants, Waste and Water Pollution) rather than issues. It would be more helpful to create a new subcategory specifically for pollution issues, broken down by air, water, etc.  A few of the non-subcategorized pages could then be classified under this subcat., e.g. Sanitary sewer overflow would be under "Water pollution issues." Thanks for setting this up. Moreau1 (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Pollution in general is an environmental issue. I had a quick look in the pollution category and I did not see anything that should not be included in a pollution issues category. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam
See Talk:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam about a merge proposal. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 09:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

POV issues
The following have been tagged with POV templates and require discussion or editing to NPOV:
 * Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China
 * Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam
 * -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 21:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Help needed at Marine debris
Lots of changes recently made to this article, a second-opinion copyedit would be very helpful. Thanks - 82.18.44.72 (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Global dimming GA Sweeps Review: On Hold
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Global dimming and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hanford Site
The world's largest environmental cleanup project is up for Featured Article consideration at Featured article candidates. Welcoming all reviews. Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Category:Eco-terrorism
There is a hot debate under way on keeping or renaming Category:Eco-terrorism. Please join the discussion (it's already been relisted from March 28). Cgingold (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Environmental preservation
See Talk:Environmental preservation for a discussion on the deletion of Environmental preservation after I gave it a complete rewrite. -- Alan Liefting- ( talk ) - 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article icon
A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up
Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

List of environmental reports
List of environmental reports has been created. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. I hope Outriggr's script and the assessment template works with lists. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 04:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Geography and ecology of the Everglades
In rewriting the Everglades article, I have created two satellite articles so the main Everglades article doesn't become too large (although it still might). I would appreciate it if you could look at this article and check for content or copy edit errors. Please know: my next article will be about Settlement, draining, and development of the Everglades, so there are few issues in this article that address the politics and development of the Everglades. Another future article will address Restoration of the Everglades. I intend to bring all satellites and the Everglades article to FA at some point. Thanks in advance. --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably best to ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecology and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Environment (biophysical)
I have created Environment (biophysical). It cam out of the need that I discovered when disambiguating links to the Environment page. Many editors assumed there was but one meaning for "environment" and that meaning is what I have described in the new page. I have not used any references yet but the large number of internal links to other major articles makes it less of a requirement. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 03:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

List of climate change topics
List of climate change topics is a copy of Glossary of climate change with a few other articles thrown in. There is no reason to have two pages that are essentially the same. I propose that this is turned into a list in the same style as List of conservation topics, List of architecture topics etc. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now converted the list into a list by removing the descriptions. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 05:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

List of environment-related websites
I think there ought to be a page regarding environment-related websites, i.e. all the websites that promote helping the environment and such. For example, my friend started a website that outlines his plan to save polar bears from mass-extinction (one Styrofoam cup at a time...). I figure that Wikipedia probably doesn't want an individual article for every one of these pages, so possibly a whole list with the name of the site,a brief summary of what they do, and what sort of environmental problem they relate to. I figure this way any user could see the whole list and be able to find a site that maybe they'd like to support or something like that. Thoughts? Omega234 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are enough of them with their own articles, perhaps, but I don't like the idea of listing websites that are not notable enough for an article here. Something like the Open Directory Project is probably more suitable. Richard001 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * edit conflict!!
 * There was a page called List of environmental websites that was created three times but since deleted. It was for articles in WP about environmental websites, not simply a list of external links. There is also Category:Environmental websites. What you want though is a directory of all enviro website and that is something WP is not. Search engines and directories such as dmoz are probably what you want. -- Alan Liefting ( talk ) - 05:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite Sustainability
There are several appeals on Wikipedia for a re-write or total reorganisation of this article. I am willing (with trepidation) to carry out this task but it will certainly entail a substantial reorganisation of the material to fit in more with the conventions of Encyclopaedia style and formal citation. I realise that this might cause concern. It may be possible to post a preview of the new article somewhere to allow comment and feedback - but I dont know how to do this.

Anyway, at present my proposal is to replace the current article with the new one on 1 July 2008. If this causes offence or upsets protocols please let me know. Granitethighs (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability" Granitethighs (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ecoregion articles
I have begun a massive data dump of public domain information + maps at the following new articles:


 * List of ecoregions in North America (CEC)
 * List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA)
 * List of ecoregions in Oregon
 * Coast Range (ecoregion)
 * Willamette Valley (ecoregion)
 * Cascades (ecoregion)
 * Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills (ecoregion)
 * Columbia Plateau (ecoregion)
 * Blue Mountains (ecoregion)
 * Snake River Plain (ecoregion)
 * Klamath Mountains (ecoregion)
 * Northern Basin and Range (ecoregion)

Note that this series differs from the previously existing series of ecoregion articles descending from List of ecoregions (WWF). I have disambiguated the two series at Lists of ecoregions. For more details and a rationale about maintaining two separate article series, see my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon and notes in my user space at User:Northwesterner1/notes. Thanks! Northwesterner1 (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Environment
Environment needs the importance parameter. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We purposely didn't have this because we think that all issues should have the same importance. If we assign importance to the template, one may find some issues (say invasive species) more important than others (e.g. smog). This sends a wrong message. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirs to Alarmism
There are a few redirects to Alarmism (Global warming alarmism and Environmental alarmism) that may be of use. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 526 of the articles assigned to this project, or 30.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-06-18.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:33, 4 July 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 09:58, 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 )  21:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment
I have created WikiProject Deletion sorting/Environment as part of WikiProject Deletion sorting. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability rewrite
Now available for viewing and comment at: User:Granitethighs/Sustainability - please make comments on h discussion page. In this attempt at a rewrite of Sustainability I have tried to provide a general structure for sustainability debate and include all the main points being made in the current article. Also extended out the subject area to include more of the general sustainability picture - waste management, permaculture and other bits and pieces. Also tried to brighten it up with a few pics, and citations for any assertions being made. It could still do with more hard data and more ways in which people can contribute to sustainability but I am concerned about the length. The reading list is as before. Anyway please make any suggestions you like and let me know if you think it is worth putting up? Granitethighs (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories and subcategories
I am currently working on "sustainability" and sustainability-related topics. As it stands "sustainability" is a category with a number of subcategories. These subcategories have no apparent logic. Some cover quite broad areas like "sustainable development" others relatively narrow areas like "permaculture" or "sustainable eating". It would seem, in theory, possible to create a much more intuitive sub-classification system of sub-categories for sustainability. It could include, for example, a subcategory on sustainable technologies, another on sustainabulity philosophy, values and ideas ... and so on. I realise that whatever classification is used will be controversial and open to challenge. I also recognise that subcategories interlink so they are more web-like than tree-like. Also, that to review the current system would involve editing a large number of pages. However a more intuitive and logical system of sub-categories (no matter what) would be a great help for people researching the topic. I am still a Wikipedia beginner, so before I embark on such an enterprise could I get feedback on whether this is ?possible, ?allowed or not allowed, ?a waste of time. Would appreciate feedback. Granitethighs (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Recycling
I've been working on expanding and improving the Recycling article over the past week. I think is coming well, and has reached a point where some collaboration would be helpful. There are a few areas that still need expanding and/or clean-up (history and methods, for instance), a couple of Economist articles which could be further fact-mined, and of course my many inevitable typos and grammar mistakes to correct ;-)

Also, if anyone has access to any other print resources, they'd be a great help; I've taken most of my additions to the article from the one book my local library had on the subject.--jwandersTalk 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any input on my suggestion of a name change at criticism of recycling would be welcome too. Richard001 (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Moving this down -- this article needs a substantial amount of work. I noted serious weight and RS problems, and did a quick work-up. What I found was that Tierney and Munger (SELFPUB from Econlib) were being given more weight than the EPA and a peer-reviewed article (the only one) -- these were some the first sources mentioned. Tierney's article titled "Recycling is Garbage" is noted at length in two sections, and given a bunch of bullet points. We need to get some peer-reviewed scientific articles on this stuff rather than source from polemical editorials. II  | (t - c) 05:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies at AfD
FYI this article is at AfD, discussion is at Articles for deletion/K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies. <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   08:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Environmental direct action in the United Kingdom
This article seems to be more an advert for Earth First! than it does an article about Environmental direct action in the United Kingdom. It might as well just be a link to the Earth First! website, it would certainly save the reader valuable time. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikiproject Environment is not designed to promote direct action for the environment, it is to develop different articles within wikipedia that are related to the environment.--Alex Marshall (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh it isn't criticism of anyone here, certainly not, but it annoys me to see such a biased and obviously POV article. I had hoped that someone here might take interest and improve it, or have it deleted.  I had thought of nominating it for speedy delete but would rather see what others thought first. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It not the sort of article the should be speedied. Such an article should exist but it currently needs a lot of work to get it up to scratch. I have added a couple of tags to it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

US Offshore drilling debate
The article Offshore drilling has attracted contributors recently who wish to write about the US debate on coastal drilling. It is problematic to do this and keep a worldwide view] at the same time. For details, see [[Talk:Offshore drilling]. I've proposed that we start the article [[US offshore drilling debate, in a similar style to the article Arctic Refuge drilling controversy. I'm a bit puzzled that en.wikipedia dosn't have an article on this already, seeing how much media attention it has gotten. EverGreg (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Environmental organization
I have created a stub page at Environmental organization that needs a little expanding. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. My next exam (on coming Monday) has a section asking us questions on environmental organizations. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Environmental protection
I have created Environmental protection. It has many incoming links so I feel that is deserves a page of its own rather than redirecting to Environmentalism. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:17, 12 August 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)

Sustainable Living
Hi, I just joined Project Environment. I've edited the Sustainable Living article, which was listed under the cleanup section. Do you normally have these article reviewed after edits or do we just remove them from the list as we go along? cronin x  05:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just do whatever you want. We're not as formal as Military History WikiProject <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

cement kiln dust
I added cement kiln dust to the CKD disambig page after reading about it here: http://www.watershedcouncil.org/bayharborupdate.html

I think it deserves an article if anyone here is interested. Tkjazzer (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * over my head but here is interesting site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/ckd/index.htm Tkjazzer (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Environment
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. 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 with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

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 22:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sustainable food system
It has been proposed that the stub "Sustainable food system" be moved to Wiktionary using the automated transwiki process. The article will be moved if there is consensus. Please discuss on the article talk page. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab case
MedCab has a backlog of cases. Anyone can volunteer as an informal mediator. I was wondering if an active member of WikiProject Environment could adopt Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-01 Greenhouse effect. Thank you for any assistance! Vassyana (talk) 15:32, 12 October 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) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability
Any interested parties that would like to, come to the Sustainability article and give it a read through and general inspection. It seems like the article is a little long in the lower sections, and maybe some parts could be combined. Feel free to contribute to this article or make suggestions on the talk page. skip sievert (talk) 07:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible problem with original research by a user in articles connected to the Sustainability article.
Here below, as in the articles linked on the Sustainability... this looks suspect as to information and the way it is being presented... unsourced and opinion oriented, by articles created by Granitethighs... which from all appearance, for most part are unsourced and a combination of original research and attaching citations and references to un cited material opinion material. They also seem to lead in circles to themselves ala a walled garden approach to U.N. (United Nations) which is stressed to the extreme in this related material. Please examine these articles for original research Wiki Project Environment group members. This is a copy of the section describing these articles in the Sustainability article which ... if I am correct in this appraisal, should not be in the article.

Start Sustainability science is the article section lead in Sustainability article.

The formal study of sustainability has relatively recently emerged as an academic discipline referred to as sustainability science which examines and underpins the broad, inclusive, and contradictory currents that humankind will need to navigate toward a just and sustainable future it also encompasses the study of sustainability governance as the process of implementation of sustainability strategies; and sustainability accounting, as the evidence-based quantitative information used to guide governance by providing benchmarks and measuring progress.

End article section ^

That section now below has purely pov. research or so it appears, such as this from Sustainability governance

''In the formal political process sustainability policy is implemented in exactly the same way as any other policy. However, governance (the implementation of decisions) is not confined to the formal political process of government. Sustainability governance is carried out at many (all) formal and informal levels of human organization acting, in turn, on many levels of ecological/environmental organization over many scales of space and time. These articles do not seem to be cited in huge sections.... it appears to be commentary and original research, and this section Sustainability science'', probably can be removed from the sustainability article. Creating material here to fit, topics concerning this subject, all bolstered by the creation of other articles with loads of original research and pov connected to that... seems like a really bad idea. skip sievert (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sort of lose here. First you commented about original research, then unsourced, then POV? Granitethighs provided some really good references there. The quality of the references are undeniable. He didn't use any blogs, but instead, use credible sources such as United Nations, a balanced number of peer-reviewed journals representing different POVs. I think you should be the person to stop the name-calling. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 05:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not about name calling...Please do not bring down the level of discourse here, and you who have worked together in tandem with the editor in discussion, and may be too close to the issue to see the O.R. involved in this Sustainability governance this is akin to a blog. Based on original research and not sourced. Where are the good references? in that article... and how is it that so many filler articles with basically the same information, spun differently are needed? I am not against the U.N. -they provide good information... however, how many ways does that information have to be spun in various articles including the Sustainability article and is that good for the article to lead in circles to the U.N.? It is very pov in that sense that one user is doing that, and has been doing it. There is no shortage of good information concerning sustainability... and lots has been added to the article in a positive way. Many science based information points are there now, and connecting these issues in a dominating political way... may not be good to focus on.  I think you should be the person to stop the name-calling. Please do not bring this down to that level. This is about improving the article Sustainability and the reality of a poorly done http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research article. Sustainability governance. skip sievert (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're trying to improve the article, but your approach on how to get things done is wrong. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 21:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My approach? I am just pointing something out. How is that wrong? How is the article any thing other than a personal blog currently? Sustainability governance... And why should it be used in other articles as a link??.. such as the sustainability article... when it seems like someones opinion (an editor), more than an article? And, how is it that it is wrong to express concern about those issues? skip sievert (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK Skip, yes, there is room for improvement. However, I think as they are not even classified as "start articles" they are very low-ranking but serve the purpose of drawing attention to an important idea. At the moment, along with other editors, I will be concentrating on trying to bring the Sustainability article up to Featured Article status. I can then work with people to improve subsidiary sustainability articles like the ones you mention. Thanks for your input, perhaps you can help the articles with some authoritative references or constructive suggestions for improvement. By the way, I like your CO2 pic. Granitethighs (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am not a drama fan at all and welcome positive feedback. The trouble with the article, as is (is confounding though... given that it is chatty rather than notable. Maybe the Sustainability governance thing is non notable and could be dropped as an article... and the other links which are better could just be incorporated into the U.N. part of the article.... that is what I was thinking. Then it does not draw so much attention to itself and it could incorporate well into the environmental issues area of U.N. aspects. This area could also be renamed I think to good effect... Maybe Environmental issues and United Nations research on sustainability.... or something like that. skip sievert (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ::::: Have added citations and removed tendency to adopt a "preachy" style   Granitethighs (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I worked on the article, I hope to some good purpose, others can check it and work on it also for improving it Sustainability governance. Some spelling things.. and broadening the See also section. Also the phrasing in many places seemed to lead the reader and tell rather than present neutrally, information about a subject. So, changed the wording and phrasing in a number of places. It still seems that these three articles are narrow focused and maybe broadening the See also section addresses that some. I am still thinking that the article, if added to Sustainability article may be better incorporated into the U.N. area of that article, as that material dominates as to being connected with that. skip sievert (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Sustainability
Could I encourage again editors with an interest to come to this article and give it an inspection and possibly help in making incremental improvements in the article? Sustainability I am hoping more people get an active aspect here as this article needs more scrutiny and a broader group of people involved than it currently has (my opinion). skip sievert (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

references section
Because of many items having references on this page, here is a reflist: