Talk:Biophysical environment

Article name

Perhaps I could have called the article Environment (ecology). This may cause some confusion however, since ecology is often confused with environmental issues. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating such an article myself, although I decided against it. I was going to call it environment (ecology) too, and I've created a redirect from there. There is sort of a need for an article like this, but it also overlaps a lot with other terms like habitat and ecological niche, so it might be difficult semantically. I think articles on conditions and resources in ecology would be a good idea, then this one could summarize those for some of its content. One of the most annoying things is wanting to link to the word 'environment' but not having the right article to link to, and I think this can be that article in many cases. Richard001 (talk) 09:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Environment of a specific organism as a concept

I was trying to find a page regarding the use of environment in the sense of the environment of a particular organism, and I was surprised to discover than WP apparently has none. This article seems to be the closest currently, but the sense here seems to be much more about ecology and the environments of large collections of organisms. This page could be expanded to include the concept I'm seeking, or alternatively a new page could be created. Any opinions on this? Mkcmkc (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could do with such an article. An appropriate name could be Environment (organism)? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is fine for that. Richard001 (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

outdoors and outdoor goes to Environment (biophysical) and Wilderness. Just a note. 24.31.247.114 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Human impact on the environment = "any effects of human activity" by wp:piped links intuition.

Mr. Rubin how is Human impact on the environment not "any effects of human activity" by wp:piped links intuition? 108.73.114.77 (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a stretch. In context, perhaps "effects of human activity" might be linked, but I don't really consider it intuitive. Perhaps, if someone other than you (the hopping IP who puts random links in edit summaries, in articles, and in others' comments on talk pages) would comment, I might be convinced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition

I recently started a talk in natural environment, with the aim of improving its definition. I have soon found that my efforts should start here, though. I have some ideas that would propose for consideration.

We could begin considering that environment is always environment of something. For instance it can be the environment of one individual living being, as it was reflected in a precedent talk of this same page; or of an entire ecosystem. The term is also often used as relative to the present human population on earth. Another possible consideration is that the environment is the environment of all life on earth.

As there is an other aspect very connected with the precedent, I will go into it now. The second point to consider is what elements constitute the environment, and particularly if life should be included in it. Logically, if we consider the environment of a single individual, it is indeed surrounded and influenced by the rest of life. But what if we take the environment of the entire life on earth, then it is not so clear that this same life environs itself. But if we consider it relative to humanity, then it clearly includes all non human life. I am currently reading a French translation of a German work by Hans-Jürgen Otto, "Forest Ecology". His approach is to consider and describe what he calls "Physical environment", and this is the only environment he considers in the entire work.

To sum up, I think that there is not a unique definition.--Auró (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I have found a definition that is simple and quite complete: "The biophysical environment is the biotic and abiotic surrounding of an organism, or population, and includes particularly the factors that have an influence in their survival, development and evolution." It is mainly based in the definition of biology online.--Auró (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Natural environment or biophysical environment

By definition a natural environment is a biophysical environment: "The natural environment encompasses all living and non-living things occurring naturally, meaning in this case not artificial." What is the difference between these two articles? Do we need two articles?

Requested move 28 August 2019

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Calidum 14:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• Biophysical environment → Environment
• Environment → Environment (disambiguation) (over redirect)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME; by far the majority of unqualified usages of "Environment," and many of the qualified ones, are referring to the biophysical environment (which is why we have, for instance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment and not Wikipedia:WikiProject Biophysical environment). The other, much less frequently used, usages can be handled on the disambiguation page. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – This older version of the disambiguation page had more items, in a recent cleanup the very relevant article Natural environment was removed (I've added it in again). I believe Natural environment might be more of a primary topic than Biophysical environment. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, leave as it is. Natural environment regularly gets more page views than Biophysical environment.[1] All things considered, better to just leave it without any primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Zzyzx11 and Thjarkur that Natural environment is another strong contender for ptopic. It seems to me more likely to be the meaning that represents "the majority of unqualified usages of "Environment", as mentioned by nominator. Colin M (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed Biophysics from see also to Related Studies

I've taken the liberty of correcting a miss-spelling of minimize in the Environmentalism portion of related studies, but I've also moved Biophysics from see also to related studies. Biophysics studies all in some way are conducted in the biophysical environment, so I've also added a short description of what it is and how it relates to the above section. CynicalPixel (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Environment

English 43.250.211.221 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)