Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecoregions/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week

Physical oceanography is a current candidate on the Science collaboration. Vote for it if you want to see this article improved. --Fenice 07:19, 8 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)

Bioregional democracy

If anyone has an interest in the bioregional democracy article, I'm currently taking some dynamite to it. Right now it is an ungainly chimera of an article (see its Talk page for my detailed comments), but since some of the more coherant sections deal with ecoregions, I though I might find some interested editors here. - David Oberst 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories (aquatic mostly)

Hello. I'm currently working mostly at WikiProject:Fishes and I'm categorising articles (species/genera etc) by geography. So far I've been using very broad continental categories eg Fish of the Atlantic etc. When I've finished that I'd like to categorise by eco-region. Could anyone give a link to a list of Categories you've got, or maybe suggest some (fairly broad categories) Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.HappyVR 13:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC) (Not as many as at http://www.nationalgeographic.com/wildworld/terrestrial.html - could use these as subcategories later on..)HappyVR 13:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Medio-European acidophilous beech forests

Hello! We are looking for interwiki for cs:Acidofilní bučina which is supposed to be Acidophilous beech forests (or may be that Medio-European acidophilous beech forests).

The labeling is:

  • System Physis: 041.11 Medio-European acidophilous beech forests
  • System EUNIS: G1.61 Medio-European acidophilous [Fagus] forests
  • Code in Natura 2000: 9110

Can you help us? (That would be somewhat strange if such divisions are not implemented in en:Wiki, when this one is fiftytimes bigger then the cs: . cs: is having quite good covering of those topics, but I could'nt find anything here. No article, neither any reasonable navigation)

Thanks a lot Reo ON | +++ 10:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the usage of sub-categories of Category:Biota by country

I am trying to get a discussion going on the Flora of <region>/Fauna of <region>/Biota of <region> categories.

Please see Category talk:Biota by country GameKeeper 13:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia: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 23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Project template

I made a project template for you. You can add it to an article by typing "{{WP Ecoregions}}" at the top of a talk page. It looks like this:

WikiProject iconEcoregions NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is supported by WikiProject Ecoregions, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of ecoregions. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on these topics. See WikiProject Ecoregions and Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing.EcoregionsWikipedia:WikiProject EcoregionsTemplate:WikiProject EcoregionsEcoregions articles
NAThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Feel free to modify it as needed. I made it green so it would be "ecologically friendly." :-) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say "please visit the project page""? There's a word missing. If someone could tell me how to fix it ... BeeTea 23:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. (by editing Template:WP Ecoregions) —Pengo 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

IBRA regions

I just discovered this WikiProject, and will certainly join.

I recently started working on the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) regions. The WWF ecoregions in Australia are based on the IBRA regions; each ecoregion is either identical to an IBRA region, or the amalgamation of a couple of neighbouring IBRA regions. Where an ecoregion is identical to an IBRA region, they can obviously be dealt with in a single article. I have so far written one such article, Warren (biogeographic region), which also happens to be your "Jarrah-Karri forest and shrublands" ecoregion. I located it at "Warren" because in Australia IBRA is widely known, used and respected, whereas the WWF ecoregion system is largely unknown. Also the IBRA regions predate and precede the ecoregions. Naturally there is a redirect from Jarrah-Karri forest and shrublands. How do you guys feel about this?

Warren is still a work in progress, so don't judge it too harshly, okay? My other almost-finished articles are Esperance Plains and Mallee, which together make up your "Esperance mallee".

Hesperian 12:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Interesting to note that I have followed your proposed article format almost exactly, despite being ignorant of this project's existence. Great minds think alike! Hesperian 13:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Project Banner

I have recently created a banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology which has assessment parameters. I notice that your 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 20:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Florida

Southern florida is mentioned as part of the neotropics, but a quick survey with keywords neotropics florida everglades nearctic on scholar.google.com shows mostly articles about immigation of species from the west indies to florida. Is the mentioning fo south florida correct, is its status under scientific discussion, what are our sources? TeunSpaans 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

PS I discovered the current definition is taken from WWF, and I wonder if their areas are finding acceptance in the scientific community. For example, I read that neotropics for botanics was usually defined as the tropical forest regions, and excluded the temparate regions in sourthe america. Do botanists generally accept the WWF areas? Does any one know? TeunSpaans 09:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ecological area infobox

It looks like there is no infobox for an ecological area ?

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ecology#Infobox and 'linking' templates for ecological areas and provide any comments there.

Peet Ern (talk) 02:29, 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) 01:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks promising. Can you make a few example uses to help us understand what it's capable of? —Pengo 07:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have put together one very rough and quick example. I will try and do some more. Peet Ern (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oceania terrestrial ecoregions

Hello. WP:HAWAII currently has four terrestrial ecoregions in need of article creation. Please consider adding these four articles to your task list for collaboration. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 5 June 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)

New wikiproject started:Arctic

Wikipedia:WikiProject:Arctic and its related portal have been started. Mentioned here as it is its own ecoregion in the circumpolar north. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

North Sea

North Sea is currently undergoing GA review. Any assistance appreciated.SriMesh | talk 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Input sought on ambitious proposal that may or may not be a good idea

I've made a "test proposal" at CfD to see if there is a consensus for replacing the categorization system of classifying biota "by country" with a system that would categorize biota "by ecozone". See here to read or comment. Looking for as much input as possible especially from those expert in the area. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment pasted from Talk:Ecozone

What on Earth happened to the article on plant geography? PG is a field of study and although there are relations with this article, it should have its own article. As far as I can fathom from the history of this article, it actually started out as an article on PG and then gradually got modified until it became the current article with the current title. I'm not enough of an expert to untangle this mess, though, but perhaps somebody else can. --Crusio (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Untrue Fact

South America is not the only place that Tepui are found. There is a group of them located in North West Oregon, close to Grants Pass. I am sure that they are not near as big as the ones in South America, but they are awe inspiring in their own right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.96.227.221 (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume this is about the opening sentence of tepui: "A Tepui (or Tepuy) (pronounced /ˈtɛpˌwi/) is a table-top mountain (mesa) found only in the Guayana highlands of South America, especially in Venezuela." My biggest doubt is about terminology; would the Oregon structures be mesas, with the word tepui meaning specifically the mesas of this part of South America? In any event, cite sources to back up whatever the article says on the subject. Kingdon (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Maritime Yungas"

Comments on this matter would be appreciated. • Rabo³ • 10:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Own re WWF and this WP

I came here following a posting by someone concerned about POV/tone/SOAP at Talk:Pacific temperate rain forests (WWF ecoregion), partly to discrern how and why this WikiProject is different from WP:Ecology and WP:Environment and, for that matter, WP:Geography. In some articles I was already disturbed by the way ecoregion names were being substituted for the usual/offical landform names (e.g. Boreal Cordillera as if it were a mountain range and not an ecozone) or in the case of the forest ecoregions by linking from simple phrases like temperate rainforest but in looking over the project page I see the problem is deeper-engrained that simply a matter of misdirection, or the POVism described in the talkpage just linked; here's what I noticed on your project talkpage?

Ecoregion articles should be named per the WWF definitions. WWF sometimes uses slight variations in ecoregion names or capitalization, so default to wikipedia conventions regarding capitalization, and create redirects for all likely variations in naming and capitalization.

Excuse me, but since when is Wikipedia a platform or vehicle for the WWF ecoregion egenda, especially when there are other ecological classification systems, most importantly the one from the Center for Environmental Cooperation, the US branch of which is the EPA, in Canada it's Environment Canada. There's also the biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia and other systems. This project should responsibly be neutral and not advance the interests or perspective of one system over the other; because of the duality between WWF and CEC ecoregions/ecozones, disambiguation and contextual mention of the attached organization to the ecoregion being described should be mandatory. And there should be an end to confusing or ignoring regular geography while advancing catchhraess and slogan/campaign names as if they were places and not the names of campaigns (e.g. Great Bear Rainforest, Sacred Headwaters). Overall I'm finding most ecoregion pages to be annoyinguly full of SOAP, POV and OR; in the case of the Pacific Temperate rainforest one, it reads like a junior high school primer full of the usual cliches - marbled murrelets, spotted owls, salmon, with no mention of the actual full range of biodiversity in situ. Wikipedia should not be a soapbox, and it's a pity that so much of the sources that ecoregion studies are built on (the WWF, CEC, plus the various NGO sources) are so POV and full of cliches. I recognize that it's an infant science, or a juvenile one, so such things are understandable as it grasps at making reality to itself; I recommend a read thorugh the prologue of Faust....Anyway Summing up:

    • Why and how is this WP different from the goals of WP:Environment and WP:Ecology (and WP:Geography).
    • This project should not be bound by affinity or loyalty to the WWF system of classification.
    • Too many ecoregion articles are written as promotional or tub-thumping "brochures" and are not properly encyclopedic and in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines.
    • Distinction of terms between e.g. "forest" in the general sense and "forest ecoregion" must be maintained, ditto with landforms and other ways of looking at/speaking of the land, whether informal regions or formal toponymies and other non-WWF/non-CEC/non-NGO type systems. It also doesn't help that the choice of names doesn't always work well; Columbia Plateau (WWF ecoregion) is not the same area as Columbia Plateau, for example, and in the EPA system there are three Cascades ecoregions - but only one Cascade Range (with its own subranges within).
    • Ecoregion articles need vetting for "tone"; material that is pointedly "essay", speculative, campaigning or "wistful" (like "there is no knowing if logging will continue in the area") have to be watched out for and removed. it's a hell of a lot of editing work, but editors contributing to this project should have a long sober read over WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:Synth, WP:Soap and those belonging to NGOs should bring themselves to heel re WP:AUTO and WP:COI.Skookum1 (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between articles/links on forests in general and their linking to WWF ecoregion-format definitions is highly questionable, and has a certain insidious nature. Forests, to me, would also seem to be in the provenance of the WP:Biology project and maybe WP:Botany if there is one (whichever is on Talk:California Floristic Province, which I found in a geographic list, not even an ecoregion one. Too many conflicting agendas, all apparently on the same subject, but advnacing different ideologies/affiliations...this can't go on.Skookum1 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll start with the easy one: yes, there is a botany wikiproject (WP:PLANTS) which is quite active. As for the "Ecoregion articles should be named per the WWF definitions" guideline, I would tend to agree with changing it to something which is closer to "Ecoregion articles should be named according to widely used terminology" (citing some generic guidelines about naming things in general) although I'm not really knowledgeable enough to be sure what would work well. We have a lot of different articles based on different systems, and it is often hard to know when to merge regions which refer to geographic areas which may be the same, but might be slightly (or not so slightly) different. Just for plants there are both floristic provinces and the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (and I doubt those are the only two). As for the future of this wikiproject: it isn't very active, so I could imagine shutting it down (although I'm not sure how naturally the subject would fit into any of the 3 wikiprojects you mention, and there does seem to be a useful pointer posted here every few months). Whether that would help you combat what you see as NPOV problems is less clear to me. One thing about having a wikiproject is that it gives you a more centralized place to complain/discuss, rather than having to hunt down a bunch of article talk pages. Kingdon (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Doing some follow-up on this please see changes at temperate rainforest and see Talk:Temperate rainforest#POV problems and also the expanded second paragraph on Pacific Maritime Ecozone (CEC). Please note I've also added the floristic provinces....Skookum1 (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, +1 vote for WWF - a reasonably independent international body seems a good source for Wikipedia. I do not understand your objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leegee23 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Forest Regions and Forest Districts of British Columbia

I created this long-overdue list, for now a list of redlinks, as the Forest Districts are far more important than the regional districts which too many wikipages have been using as locational references and as if somehow the regional districts were all that important in the BC political geographic scheme of things (which they are not). Each item listed can have its own writeup/content, re ecology, annual allowable cut, FSRs, workforce, value, local issues etc, and the BC Ministry of Forests (actually right now named the BC Ministry of Forests and Range) needs its own article, as do other BC ministries. This will be a component of List of administrative regions of British Columbia, which will also have Ministry of Environment Regions, EMR Mines Districts, Tourism Districts; there's already the Health Regions. Too much weight has been given regional districts in Wikipedia with the result that a lot of content placing things in regional districts constitutes original research/synthesis; the other types of regions are far more powerful, especially in terms of land management but also in relation to political power, budgeting, economics etc.....and in use as geographic descriptions/locators, where MoF districts especially are commonlyu used (though the primary reference used by all govt sources, including the federal level, is Land Districts. Note the use of full capitals in the title; Forest District denotes a legal entity, "forest district" or "forest region" is not a formally-defined entity but could just be a general "region of forest" etc....Skookum1 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Note also Biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Also List of Ministry of Environment Regions of British Columbia.Skookum1 (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Info Box and Maps

Any chance of an info box template, and maybe some maps?

I've been working with programming around WWF ecoregions for a large broadcasting organisation, and it would seem a trivial matter to create these features. Please let me know if you would like some help. Leegee23 (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Afrotropic ecoregion maps

Doreano created these years ago, but they never got linked to from anywhere. They're on wikimedia: [1] Miguel.v (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I categorized all of these. See the commons Maps of ecoregions category. We should also put maps into this category (or subcategories) in the future. Miguel.v (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

User:Istanbuljohnm just used Template:Geobox for an infobox on the Montana Valley and Foothill grasslands article and it looks pretty good. There actually is a Template:Infobox ecoregion, but it's old, shoddy looking, and not much used. I'm happy to use Template:Geobox instead.

Additionally, The Nature Conservancy's Atlas of Global Conservation has all sorts of up-to-date statistics for the WWF ecoregions, including things like habitat loss, protected area percentage, and plant and animal diversity. I think these stats would be perfect for ecoregion infoboxes. Miguel.v (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for noting this. I found the infobox in the Flint Hills article and it seemed to work for ecoregions. I've just done another one in Alaska-St. Elias Range tundra. I could use some better maps though. Thanks again for the encouragement Istanbuljohnm (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I made an infobox for Northeastern coastal forests to see how it looks. I'm pretty happy with it. Check it out.Miguel.v (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:41, 5 April 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 Ecoregions to be involved, you can find out more by clicking here.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: Ecology of California

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

Delete, redirect or task force? WikiProject Biomes

I have proposed WikiProject Biomes for deletion (see the MfD), but someone suggested redirecting it to here. Or it could become a task force in this project. Comments? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tropical Dry Forest

Hello Ecosystems experts:

This article has been submitted at Afc: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tropical Dry Forest.

Right now Tropical dry forest redirects to Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests.

I thought that you might want to check this out.

—Anne Delong (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Starfish threaten Great Barrier Reef

A story in the BBC is blaming Crown-of-thorns starfish for the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Is this of interest to this wikiproject? XOttawahitech (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2014‎ (UTC)

I have started a new draft

Please feel free to contribute to Draft:Nama Karoo - a large xeric shrubland ecoregion in Southern Africa. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Peat Swamp Forest

We are rewriting the article on Peat Swamp Forests for a college project. Please see sandbox here [[2]] and add any relevant suggestions or commentary. Jboyar9 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Cape Verde listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cape Verde to be moved to Cabo Verde. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Stewart Island listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stewart Island to be moved to Stewart Island/Rakiura. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Are ecoregions important?

I am pinging user:Plantdrew and user:Graeme Bartlett because they seem to assess most new ecoregion articles. It is not clear what criteria are used to assign {{WikiProject Ecoregions}} importance ratings for articles that define ecoregions. The project's link to the importance scale leads nowhere. But see WP:Assessing articles. Different projects use different criteria, but the general idea seems to be:

  • Top: Essential to have an article
  • High: Important to have an article
  • Mid: Probably should have an article
  • Low: Does not much matter if there is an article or not

There are 867 terrestrial ecoregions. I would say the project goal should be for them to all have an article, making them all Mid importance to the project, whatever their absolute importance may be in the broader scheme of things. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Aymatth2: My general rule of thumb is that most articles within a project's scope will be of low importance. In my experience, the exact wording of the general assessment guidance isn't really followed; articles tend to get lower quality/importance assessments than what is suggested by the guidance. I don't mind rating all new ecoregion articles I assess as mid, but I do think it would be a little strange not to have anything rated as low for this project. Are there any articles you'd consider to be within the scope of this project and low importance? Plantdrew (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I am no specialist in ecoregions, but I can tag with the project when I find it listed as a new Geology page. Agreeing with the above, most would be low importance. The general few articles on the whole topic would be top importance. Famous or wide spread types would be rated high. The most significant in a country might be rated mid, and just about all the rest of the regions rated low. That is the rough idea I would use. Any way anyone from the project is welcome to change any importance setting that I set, as they probably have more idea. When it comes to the country projects that probably also apply for individual regions, low is the likely rating, or mid if it very important to that country. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
We cannot assess importance by country. England and Wales are fully contained in the Celtic broadleaf forests ecoregion, which also covers most of Ireland and Scotland. This ecoregion must be the most significant in England and Wales, since it is the only one. French Guiana has two ecoregions, but the same two cover most of Suriname and Guyana, and extend into Brazil and Venezuela. Both are, of course, very significant to each of the Guianas, which would be nothing without them. Temperate, dry ecoregions tend to be better studied (and more degraded) than the very hot, cold or wet ecoregions, but are they more important? The hot, wet ecoregions have greater density of biota, and the montane regions have more diversity, but some biologists would consider the cold desert regions most important because they have species that are pushing to the extreme limits of where life is possible. This all seems over-complex, comparing apples to oranges. We need a simple and uncontroversial way to decide how important ecoregions are to Wikiproject:Ecoregions. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Plantdrew and Graeme Bartlett: Generally articles get lower quality/importance assessments than would be suggested by the guidance, which does not help improve Wikipedia. Overly critical quality assessments and low importance ratings are discouraging both to newbies and to experienced editors. We could benefit from being a bit more positive, within reason. For this project, it is unclear what the importance criteria are. We could just follow the draft at {{Importance scheme}} which says all notable subjects, presumably including ecoregions and much more, are at least Mid importance. I would prefer a more tailored definition. A starting position could be:
  • Fundamental topics such as the criteria and debates about defining ecoregions, human and geological/climate change effects on ecoregions in general are Top importance
  • Broad topics such as overviews of specific realms and biomes are High importance. Lists may be at this level
  • All terrestrial and marine ecoregions are Mid importance – they are the bread and butter concern of WikiProject Ecoregions and should have articles
  • Very local subjects such as specific lakes, species, conservation units etc. are low importance. That is not to say that they are Low importance to projects on geography, biology, conservation etc., just that in general they are peripheral to the discussion of ecoregions.
Picking an article currently rated "Mid" at random, I would say Lake Bile is probably Low importance for this project. It seems to be in the Pontic Steppe (PA0814) ecoregion, but is just one lake among many, not necessarily representative or unusual for that ecoregion. A fairly thorough book on ecoregions might not mention this lake, although it would certainly mention the Pontic Steppe. But the description of Lake Bile is not completely unrelated to ecoregions, so Low. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to the three eds to acknowledge the validity of this project - I have as part of the Australian project a vast number of potential articles untouched or uncreated as yet - Land types (Western Australian land type) which fit into this area as well - they would be low importance in this area JarrahTree 01:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Western Australian land types are much smaller than ecoregions, and seem to be mainly administrative concepts, defining allowed land use. I would see them as low importance to WikiProject:Ecoregions. They may be higher importance to other projects. Aymatth2 (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed assessment guidelines

Since there were no objections, I have gone ahead and implemented the change. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions/Assessment. If there are no strong objections in the next 10 days, I propose to add links to these guidelines from the project main page and from the {{WikiProject Ecoregions}} project template. The guidelines confirm that the project uses the standard quality scale and provide an importance scale, which was missing. The importance scale is very simple, and may overstate or understate the importance of a few articles, but should be good enough for the purpose of prioritizing improvement. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

When recovered from inactive status - the project was found to have few/little of the expected array of bells and whistles for a normal functioning wikiproject - lots of assessment and normal talk page template items were simply not there - anything added to help the project is welcome/wanted - please and thanks JarrahTree 14:37, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this project could use some work getting various project based tools and reports included. Adding assessment guidelines is a good start. Plantdrew (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Piney Woods listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Piney Woods to be moved to Pineywoods. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Ecoregions vs Biogeography

Is Wikiproject Ecoregions essentially the same as Wikiproject Biogeography or is another wikiproject more responsible for managing the multiple biogeographic schemes? It seems like the focus here is mostly on WWF ecoregions, si I wasn't sure if anyone was looking at other, non-WWF biogeographic schema.

I was examining the various Biogeography classification schema and the categories look like they could do with a good sprucing up. Take the floristic province, North American Prairies Provinces, the category graph looks like this [this]. Obviously things could be cleaned up for that article, but if you move up the tree, you see the Category:Ecoregions of Canada ((which goes to a disambiguation page for 3 ecoregion/ecozone schemes)), two of which seem to differ from the WWF regions, which are different from the floristic regions, not even to mention that the classifications schemes themselves seem to be up for active academic debate. -Furicorn (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The scope of {{WikiProject Ecoregions}} is defined as "a relatively large area of land or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities." The WWF ecoregion definitions differ from CEC, EPA and other definitions of ecoregions. I doubt that there will ever be a single "official" set of definitions. Wikipedia, and this project, can describe overlapping ecoregions / bioregions / ecozones / floristic regions / whatever. I do not see a {{WikiProject Biogeography}}. That seems a broader and more abstract concept than {{WikiProject Ecoregions}}, about the factors that cause a species to occupy a geographical area, rather than just describing a large area with a characteristic mix of species. Biogeography seems to have a more scientific slant, where Ecoregions are more about human impacts and conservation. Possibly, if there are enough interested editors, a {{WikiProject Biogeography}} should be launched. If that is done, {{WikiProject Ecoregions}} could perhaps become a sub-project of {{WikiProject Biogeography}}. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense. How would I figure out if there is enough interest for the broader category? -Furicorn (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I think a task force makes the most sense as a starting place, and then maybe eventually it could develop into a parent wikiproject. What are the steps for that? -Furicorn (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hm, reading that page, I have to ask myself if there are enough people participating in Ecology to even justify a task force. I believe you just recently revived this wikproject? I guess I'll canvass some other wikiprojects to see if it can make sense. -Furicorn (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11

Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 12

Newsletter • August 2018

This month: WikiProject X: The resumption

Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!

-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13

Newsletter • December 2018

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

  • Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
  • I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
    • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
  • Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Southern Hudson Bay Taiga listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Southern Hudson Bay Taiga to be moved to Southern Hudson Bay taiga. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14

Newsletter • June 2019

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

  • A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
  • We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

  • Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
  • WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Cape Verde listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Cape Verde to be moved to Cabo Verde. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Ogasawara Islands listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ogasawara Islands to be moved to Ogasawara Islands. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Bonin Islands listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Bonin Islands to be moved to Ogasawara Islands. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15

Newsletter • September 2019

A final update, for now:


The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Flora and fauna, "diagnostic"?

It's been a long time since I took an ecology class, but I seem to recall that ecoregions are defined (or was it "diagnosed") by their flora (and fauna?). Is this still done in practice? Is there a database or another (semi-)official way that lists the species for each ecoregion? Or do the secondary sources that initially describe an ecoregion list them? Abductive (reasoning) 04:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The definition in "Terrestrial Ecoregions of North America - A Conservation Assessment" (WWF 1999, Island Press) is: "An ecoregion is defined as a relatively large area of land or water that contains a geographically distinct assemblage of natural communities. These communities (1) share a large majority of their species, dynamics, and environmental conditions, and (2) function together effectively as a conservation unit in global and continental scales". When I'm writing ecoregion articles, I therefore try to describe characteristic flora and fauna, any that are notable or endangered, and the main underlying drivers of what lives there - climate, soil, geomorphology, and species interrelationships. "Start" articles are pretty basic; once we have at least the basics for all ecoregions I expect to double back and add more detail. Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Could you give me a couple of examples of well fleshed-out articles? Abductive (reasoning) 09:34, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's an example of a C-class ecoregion article: Appalachian–Blue Ridge forests. And a Start-class example: Queensland tropical rain forests. The core external sources for these articles are the WWF and DOPA pages. For example, the WWF site's URL for the 'Queensland tropical rainforests' is https://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/aa0117. To get any ecoregion's page just edit the ID code at the end of the URL (in this case "aa0117"). (Actually, WWF has let of of their pages go blank, but the information is either in the Wayback machine, or at a website called "Encyclopedia of the Earth"). The ecoregion codes can be found in the first column of my tracking checklist (User:Every-leaf-that-trembles/sandbox. For the DOPA page for the Queensland region, go to https://dopa-explorer.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ecoregion/10117. Notice that the URL also ends in '0117'; just edit the URL to get a different ecoregion. For visualizing the ecoregions on a world map, I use the interactive map at https://ecoregions2017.appspot.com/. I also have most of the printed reference books; let me know if there is anything I can do to help! Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Most ecoregions are defined by a predominant plant community. Some are ecoregions are relatively homogeneous, but others - particularly island ecoregions and mountain ecoregions – have more diverse vegetation types. Where I can find reliable sources I like to describe the main plant communities in the 'flora' section. That includes the predominant type or types - grassland, shrubland, savanna, woodland, forest, etc. - along with its characteristics. What is the typical height of the different layers? Do the trees form an open or closed canopy? Are the plants annual, perennial, or a mix? are they evergreen, deciduous, or a mix? What grows the understory? Are there many or few epiphytes? Listing the characteristic species and endemic or near-endemic species is also helpful, along with the total numbers of species and endemic species if you have access to those. For fauna I like to include the total number of species in different classes (mammals, birds, etc.), and the endemics and near-endemics. I also include the large herbivores and predators (if the ecoregion has any), along with as much about smaller animals as I can find. The WWF ecoregion profiles have a lot of useful information. The ecoregion articles at Encyclopedia of Earth mostly include the same text as the WWF profiles. Sometimes the WWF profiles focus on ecoregion endemics and provide little information on characteristic and important, but widespread, species, so you have to find other sources which confirm what those are. Birdlife International's Endemic Bird Areas and Important Bird Areas often correspond to ecoregion boundaries, and the IBA and EBA profiles often have full species lists. Some of the WWF ecoregion profiles are very scant, just a paragraph or two - that's the case for many European, Middle Eastern/Central Asian, Latin American, and Australian ecoregions. Tom Radulovich (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Working checklist of WWF ecoregions on EN-Wikipedia / Wikicommons / Wikidata Comment Suggestion

@Abductive and Tom Radulovich: Picking up from talk page: Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
My working list of WWF Ecoregions and their status on Wikipedia is **here**. If you think it would be useful to the group I could move it to a more public place on the Wikiproject Ecoregions site. I have other data fields like foreign wiki article links in progress. I'm trying to do a couple of new en-wiki ecoregion articles a week, and every once in a while I do a batch of maps for Wikicommons. There appears to be about 170 missing ecoregions articles, and about 250 missing maps, out of a total possible of 843 (2001 version). Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is great! A list like the one you created would be a very helpful addition to the project page. Another useful column would be the article's current quality rating - stub, start, C, etc. Some of the articles on your missing list actually exist; differences in spelling or capitalization may account for that. I uploaded a list that you can cross-reference against your own, here: User:Tom Radulovich/missing terrestrial ecoregion articles. Tom Radulovich (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I updated the format of my table, (see here), and started filling in the middle columns. It will probably take me a week to finish the input and cross check against your list. I can see that many of my redlinks are simply matters of improper capitalization. Thanks for your help. Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Full checklist added

@Abductive and Tom Radulovich: I added my full checklist to this Wikiproject directory: A checklist of Terrestrial Ecoregions on EN-Wikipedia. Note that there is a column for "redirects", as there are quite a few ecoregions that are being represented by a geographic article that may or may not be accurate (I checked the names against the WWF, DOPA, and EOE datasets; see the right-hand column for links to the sources). Eventually we should have a separate article for each ecoregion, possibly with a "main" template added to point to the geographic area. In columns with "1"s, that means that factor applies to the article, so that sums could be added to the bottom of the table. Thoughts? Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

That is very informative. Abductive (reasoning) 06:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks great! I added a few articles written in the last few months. Tom Radulovich (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my oversights. As you can tell, I did not automate the collection of most of the fields, but I did try to confirm the actual ecoregion names against the DOPA/EOE pages which seem to follow the original WWF database pretty closely. The Ecoregion Project should probably have a policy regarding redirects - many are just naming differences, but many are not contiguous with the geographic articles (the tiny Cayman Islands have three different ecoregions). Going forward, I'll be updating this table as I make changes to articles. I created two new ecoregion articles today, so my redlink count comes down to 117. Every-leaf-that-trembles (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Can the redlinks be added to the list? Abductive (reasoning) 07:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for doing all the work to set it up; it's been a useful tool in organizing ecoregion 'to-dos', and a real asset to the project. Naming can be fiddly. WWF is not entirely consistent about naming and capitalization for their scheme. The convention for the ecoregion project on Wikipedia has been to capitalize proper nouns in ecoregion names, and use lowercase for the rest. There are a few articles - Sonoran Desert, Thar Desert, Caledonian Forest, etc. - where it probably makes sense to stick with the widely-used capitalization. There are a small number of ecoregions for which the WWF designation probably ought to continue to redirect to an existing article about the same place, but with a more widely-used name - Niger Inland Delta, Sudd, Mesopotamian Marshes. In those instances the WWF name can be mentioned as an 'also known as' in the text, and in the infobox. The WWF designation for the Sudd - Saharan flooded grasslands - is silly anyway; the Sudd isn't in the Sahara. For some of the Australian ecoregions there's an IBRA bioregion with the same boundaries but a different name. Same with some of the EPA ecoregions in the US. In those instances it's a judgement call and a consensus-building exercise about which main article name to use. Tom Radulovich (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I requested moving the article about the Llanos ecoregion to Llanos as the primary article; it's currently at the awkwardly-named Los Llanos (South America), and "Llanos" is a disambiguation page. You can opine on the proposed move here.

Sundarbans

Can someone lend a hand here? It seems some sections in the article are completely devoid of cites and sources. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Los Llanos (South America) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Los Llanos (South America) to be moved to Llanos. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Stewart Island listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stewart Island to be moved to Stewart Island / Rakiura. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Requesting some inputs

Greetings,


Requesting your visit to article Black Sea and inputs on splitting and restructuring @ Talk:Black Sea#Some article restructuring and overhaul


Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

NT0403 San Félix-San Ambrosio Islands temperate forests vs San Félix–San Ambrosio Islands temperate forests (dash vs emdash)

I noticed Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions/Terrestrial Ecoregion Checklist points to San Félix-San Ambrosio Islands temperate forests (with a hyphen), instead of San Félix–San Ambrosio Islands temperate forests (with an emdash). Cf with List of terrestrial ecoregions (WWF), which points to the emdash version. Also, this might be a broader question, but does the project track ecoregions that are just sections folded into larger articles about the geographic area? -Furicorn (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

On closer inspection, looks like the Ecoregion checklist link was a mask for Islas Desventuradas. I'm also noting that San Felix-San Ambrosio Islands temperate forests is a redirect to the article on the Islands, but not San Félix-San Ambrosio Islands temperate forests - both link styles should probably eventually point to the ecoregion article at San Félix–San Ambrosio Islands temperate forests. -Furicorn (talk) 10:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Split proposal for Great Migration (Serengeti)

A split proposal is in progress for Serengeti to Draft:Great Migration (Serengeti). Please discuss in at Talk:Serengeti#Split with your thoughts. Thank you. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Pine Barrens (New Jersey) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pine Barrens (New Jersey) to be moved to New Jersey Pine Barrens. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Stewart Island / Rakiura listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Stewart Island / Rakiura to be moved to Stewart Island. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Requested move at Talk:Caspian Hyrcanian mixed forests#Requested move 10 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Caspian Hyrcanian mixed forests#Requested move 10 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Valdivian temperate rain forest listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Valdivian temperate rain forest to be moved to Valdivian temperate forests. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ecoregions/Archive_2&oldid=1224541722"