Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Category:Environment

The reason that prompted me to start this WikiProject was the fact that the Category:Environment was moved to Category:Environmentalism. This was an inappropriate move since environment is a "thing" and environmentalism is a philosophy or worldview. Many articles are now in the wrong category. Alan Liefting 09:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC) :Yep. I see what you mean. We have lots of articles from tree hugger to geologic timescale that had better be classified logically. CQ 04:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Consider taking ownership of California Air Resources Board Article

If you read the controversy section of the CARB article, you will note that it is completely one-sided and focuses mainly on the "ill possible effects" of regulating car emissions? (Ridiculous, I know!) Anyway, I was wondering if perhaps someone would consider adding the CARB article under your umbrella. 24.251.84.221 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


Built and natural environment

Built environment and Natural environment are important top-level (first-tier) distinctions, I think. We might also work on Environment to clarify that it is a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. Charley Quinton message

The problem is that there is not a unique word that means "anthropogenic effects on the natural environment". Wikipedia is also not the place to create a neologism (See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). Alan Liefting 20:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Management

I am willing to contribute to this project, particularly in the fields of environmental management systems, environmental auditing and environmental impact assessment. Parmesan 20:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

That's great. Place your name on the list of participants on the project page. Alan Liefting 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Asteroid deflection strategies is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Support the article with your vote if you would like to see it improved on the article improvement drive!--Fenice 18:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

:This article is not really of relevance to this project. Alan Liefting 01:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wilderness

Hi Alan, et al - thanks for getting this project up. Do you see wilderness as within the scope of this project? Its also nominated on the WP:IDRIVE. Jtneill - Talk 04:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Wilderness is that part of the environment the has not been modified by humans. This project is really for that which has been modified. Alan Liefting 01:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Not to step on any founders' toes, but I have to disagree. How wilderness doesn't fit within "environment" is beyond me. If you need a formal argument, there are no ecosystems that remain untouched by humans, particularly considering the scientific consensus around global climate change. Envirocorrector 16:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Environmental science template

I can't find the code for the environmental science template:

As of this writing, it implies four fields are environmental sciences while they are not: environmental economics, environmental ethics, environmental law, and environmental design. It also puts atmospheric science in the main section, while geoscience is a related field. Could someone point me to the source if it is not here? Cheers, Daniel Collins 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC).

See Template:Environmental science and Template talk:Environmental science. Alan Liefting 02:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Environmental science

i am interested in contributing more to this area. i have just written a new article on Soil contamination, and have added significant new material and cleanup to Air pollution, Water Pollution and others. i would like to see a dialog about the logical hierarchy under environmental science. for example Social science should not be a subcategory but could be an article in the field (if one must).Anlace 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hierarchy definition

we need a lot of work on this. i would like to start with Environmental science and vote to delete the following as subcategories and move these to articles under Environmental science:

and add the following as subcats:

this would be a good start on some uncontroversial changes and then we could discuss structure further, let me know what others in the project think, best regards Anlace 01:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

btw, we may want to change the name of air pollution to air quality, which is the same topic, but air quality is the name environmental scientists use; furthermore it promotes NPOV...ditto for water quality.Anlace 04:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's see. I have been somewhat reluctant to comment until I look over what has taken place until now and what already exists elsewhere. So far I would weigh in as follows:
  • Agree to removals as Category:Environmental science subcategories of (a) Emissions reduction, (b) Political science, and (c) Social sciences, but then I would lobby a little differently. I think Environment should be an article within the supercategory Category:Environment. If absolutely needed, maybe a different Environment article can also belong to Category:Environmental Science but I can't think of a case for this. I agree about putting (a) under Category:Environmental Science, but (b-c) should go up the tree one level and be placed in the more general Category:Environment. I think that's consistent and doesn't put one science under another.
  • Agree to expanding the above articles into categories. I believe I recall Toxicology being the fourth subcat after these 3 and is now removed. I think this maybe should possibly also be a subcategory of Category:Environment, sort of as a peer of environmental science, though I am not sure. It is a very important related field and is primarily probably something under medicine, physiology, or biology.
  • I am not sure about the Air pollution -> Air quality renaming. Air quality is effectively a free entry right now as it is a redirect to Air quality index but pollution and quality do denote different things in the sense that one talks, in the non-trivial case, about "quality" quantitatively in a range of what is acceptable and pollution is what falls outside or in excess of that. I can see room for both articles in the same category, however that category is named. The field or specialization of air quality would seem to be the place to talk about specific metrics, and regulation specifics, even if there is also more general mention of those regulations elsewhere. More anecdotal and less technical stuff would fit comfortably in the pollution article. Usually (1) something bad happens, (2) public reaction ensues, (3) legislation occurs, and lastly (4) whatever parameter caused the uproar thereafter gets monitored more closely. "_ pollution" encompasses #1-3 and "_ quality" can address #4. People normally don't begin to formally think about the quality of something, whether it is air, water, or a car, until they get a dud. I am not dead set on this. A good coherent counter-argument might sway me.
That's my initial take on this. There is alot of prior art here and I would need to take in existing categories and orderings before opining further. One thing to think about is what would be the most practical changes to make given what already exists. After any concensus is reached, there might be enough work that some prioritization should take place as to actions needed. -thanks, Onceler 00:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
ok lets table the renaming discussion and see where we have agreement:

1. to move out of subcats of Environmental science:

2. to move Emissions reduction down the tree one notch

now lets discuss what to do with Social sciences and Political science. i would favor either eliminating them entirely from this tree, as they have their own domains or else moveint them down a notch. i think we cant move them up since the people creating this tree so far have thought out the higher levels pretty well and it would be presumptous of us to make more high level elements. besides i really dont think they belong a rung higher in THIS tree. thanks onceler for your thoughtful contributions here cheers, Anlace 02:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Another tree is by all means even more appropriate. I just don't have a good enough bead on the larger category picture so don't feel I can shed much light on where else they ought to go. But I do see the orderly direction this forum is going in and I'm willing to bet that those in political science and social sciences have as developed a sense about those fields as all those on this one about environmental science and other natural sciences. These are definitely oranges in an apple barrel and probably only wound up here due to topical (not disciplinary) affinity. The two belong in another tree very close to environmentalism/environmental movement. These different areas inform each other but the connections are not structured so conveniently (so far) as to be graphed hierarchically. -regards, Onceler 08:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Waste management

I have carried out some significant work related to waste management. New categories have been created including:

Category:Anaerobic digestion, Category:Biodegradable waste management, Category:Landfill, Category:Thermal treatment, Category:Waste collection, Category:Waste containers, Category:Waste collection vehicles, Category:Waste companies, Category:Waste legislation, Category:Waste processing sites,Category:Waste managers, Category:Waste treaties, Category:Waste treatment technology, Category:Waste management concepts, Category:Waste processing sites,

There is also a new {{waste-stub}} and Category:Waste stubs cleared through WikiProject Stub Sorting.

--Alex 09:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Waste catagories

Hi people, I (--Alex 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)) have the following suggestions for subcategories under the waste section (please feel free to expand:

Waste

I would appreciate some help in getting the formatting right --Alex 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

I think the majority of the work on the structure of the waste section is now complete. Any comments or suggestions are welcome!--Alex 09:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note, under some deliberation I have made Category:Waste management at a higher level to Category:Waste which now logically identifies different types of waste. Category:Waste types is being removed. --Alex 14:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Water conservation deserves an article

I believe Water conservation deserves an article, rather than being a redirect to Water resources, which doesn't deal at all comprehensively with conservation strategies and technologies. 13 pages link to Water conservation. Now there's 14, as I've created Palathulli (water conservation campaign).

I've created the Category:Water conservation - please add articles!

I couldn't find the water efficient shower head thingy... but it definitely should go in there.

I'm happy to help, but I've got a big backlog at the moment (and I'm focusing on the WikiProject International development. So at most I'll make a stub. --Singkong2005 04:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've created the stub for Water conservation - any input appreciated.
btw, there's not much on Wikipedia about wastewater reuse - just a bit in wastewater, and the greywater article. --Singkong2005 02:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Conservation category

Category:Conservation is currently a subcat of Category:Environment. I suggest moving it to a subcat of Category:Sustainability.

Category:Water conservation & Category:Energy conservation both fit naturally into Category:Conservation & Category:Sustainability, so the move would make for a simpler structure. --Singkong2005 04:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Suggestion withdrawn (after reading Alan Liefting's explanation). --Singkong2005 08:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

good idea Anlace 05:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I do not agree. Category:Conservation is all about conservation of stuff in an ecosystem. Category:Water conservation & Category:Energy conservation are about Category:Sustainability only and do not have a direct correlation to Category:Conservation. Conservation is quite different to sustainability. Alan Liefting 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah yes, my mistake. In that case, Category:Conservation seems slightly ambiguous - I can't think of any alternatives right now though... --Singkong2005 04:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The note on the category page says it is "conservation of the natural environment" but the word is ambiguous if not qualified. It is unfortunate that both conservation and environment have a number of meanings. I would dealy love to see common useage of a single word that means "conservation of the natural environment" and a single word that means "anthropogenic effects on the natural environment". Alan Liefting 05:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Category update

I thought I would be bold and made a few changes:

I feel that this is a more logical arrangement. Go to Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 26 if you would like to vote on the deletions. Alan Liefting 08:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Very good. I would just suggest moving the new cats from the parent category of Category:Environment to Category:Environmentalism. I think that would be a better fit. --Singkong2005 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I decided that they should be in Category:Environment rather than Category:Environmentalism since some articles are about environmental issues rather than environmentalism. Examples of environmental themes are Silent Spring and The Day After Tomorrow. Environmentalism is in a smaller number of articles such as The Monkey Wrench Gang, State of Fear and Ecotage. If there comes a time in the future that there are sufficient articles for Environmentalism sub-categories in the new categories that I have created then they can be linked up the hierarchy to Category:Environmentalism. Alan Liefting 11:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No Parent

I think it would be very beneficial, and we would get more help if we moved this project to have the Science project as a father project. This project is mostly scientific. Anything else could be the mother project? Sociology? Give feedback please. --Bantab 23:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This project is difficult to categorise. It cannot easily come under Science or Sociology since there is categories under it on Law, enviro books and enviro related events. I feel that all the traditional categorisation methods do not work with this Category:Environment. It is a multi-disciplinary topic. Since environmental issues are so important should it placed at the same level as Category:Science, Category:Politics, Category:The arts etc? Alan Liefting 23:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be put under the science project because Category:Environment includes subjects like geography which consider science (logical positivism) AND other philosophies. Supposed 07:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs to too many categories. It's a combination of science (animal and plants biology/chemistry), politics (laws), businesses (to follow the laws and use the word "green" to attract customers), philosophy (humans are part of the nature with same genetic makeup DNA base pairs), and geography (how humans exploit natural resources). Heck, I can even list more if their points can be made stronger.
OhanaUnited 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Disaster management

Just want to let you know that there now is a WikiProject for disaster management: Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management. We will be looking at environmental threats and disasters, which obviously is of interest to this project as well. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 15:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Resource on environmental inventions

This could be useful: The New Inventors - Category Index: ENVIRONMENT. These inventions may not automatically deserve their own pages (though some, like the BiPu emergency latrine, have other sources and are notable enough for an article.) If not notable they might still be worth mentioning in the relevant article, e.g. Waterwall & waterHOG in rainwater harvesting. --Singkong2005 04:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Environmental law

This category needs a project of its own really if anyone fancies it ;-P Supposed 07:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no harm in doing this. but don't you think that the subject Enviromental law is a bit specialized? --Siva1979Talk to me 13:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Environment by country categories

A changing of the naming convention used in Category:Environment by country is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Environment_by_country. Wikipedians here may be interested in participating in the discussion. Kurieeto 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Sustainable development links

I notice that someone deleted a lot of links from the Sustainable development article (with the comment trim ext links, please see WP:EL policy). Some culling was probably justified, but I'm not entirely clear how the decisions were made. Anyway, some links may happen to be of interest to people here - so here is the last edit with the longer list of links. --Singkong2005 11:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the "Environmental Design" article

I believe that the environmental design article is actually promulgating a serious misunderstanding of the term (which, in its normative usage, has little to specifically do with the natural environment). I've written in this about more detail on its talk page. I currently believe that the article text needs to be merged into green design and sustainable design -- which themselves probably need to be merged together -- and that an entirely new article needs to be written for "environmental design", detailing the correct usage of the term. If anyone is interested in this, come on over to its talk page and let's discuss it. Thanks! Skybum 20:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet I wonder whether environmental design is limited to the scope it had decades ago.
Architects like Sim Van der Ryn, Peter Calthorpe, and James Wines have extended the concerns of architecture toward the outdoors and natural environment. Waste-treatment and food-production (and recycling) pioneers like John Todd (the biologist) have worked in the other direction: the natural environment and natural processes moving into the built environment in new ways. Rooftop gardening is taking hold in the big city in my part of the world, Vancouver... and there are others pursuing the same integration in New York, from what I hear and read. Especially in the rapidly developed urban parts of North America, I find that contemporary people often seem to hope that specialists and technicians will tame, "green," and make more amiable the larger built environment in which they live and must move and work. Joel Russ
Joel Russ: These are all important, and I find them very interesting. But it doesn't address the question Skybum is raising, of whether environmental design is the right term to use (rather than, say, sustainable design). --Singkong2005 talk 09:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sierra Club John Muir Award

A few days ago I created Sierra Club John Muir Award, mostly from a list on the Sierra Club's website. About half the recipients are red (and a few of the blue ones are suspicious - George Marshall?). Googling around for the redlinks finds quite a few interesting, encyclopedia-worthy folks in there. I might get around to filling these up, but anyone who wants to beat me to any of them is more than welcome to do so. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bicycle" undergoing Feature Article review

The bicycle article is currently having its featured status reviewed. The subject might be on the border of the scope of this project, but if anyone feels like lending a hand in preserving it's FA status, please feel free :) --jwandersTalk 18:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Environmental organization comparison?

Pages like comparison of video codecs gave me an idea: why not make a "comparison of environmental organizations" article? I sometimes notice "how does this organization compare to others" discussions on talk pages (that's not what WP talkpages are for, but that's another discussion). A clear, fact-based article on the subject would be useful. It would, for example, have the following points of comparison:
- focus
- revenue
- current campaigns
- important results from past campaigns

Any ideas? I'm suggesting it here instead of just creating it - past experience has taught me that being bold and creating pages often results in deletion. MrTroy 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of main template

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_8#Template:Sustainability_and_energy_development_group

I suggested splitting it up in 7 seperate templates. Mion 10:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Phytoremediation

  1. Where would you put Phytoremediation?
  2. Also I think it needs splitting now, there's a nice big (BIG) hyperaccumulators table newly arrived and up and running. Don't know how to do that though...
  3. There's' a small problem with the formatting of the subtitles after that table ('Notes' and 'References', the refs should not be a subpart of the Notes, and I can't work out why it does it?

Basicdesign 13:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Ocean fisheries issue

Recently I added the following to the "Issues and topics important to fisheries" section of the Fishery article:

"The cover story of the May 15, 2003 issue of the science journal Nature – with Dr. Ransom Myers, an internationally prominent fisheries biologist (Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada) as the lead author – was devoted to a summary of the scientific information. The story asserted that, as compared with 1950 levels, only a remnant (averaging 10%) of all large ocean fish stocks are currently left in the seas."

Dr. Myers is concerned with what he terms "the noble fish" (large, top-of-food-chain fish like haddock, cod, salmon, turbot, halibut, etc.)... and I used the term "large ocean-fish stocks"... maybe this needs more clarification.

I believe this loss of large fish is a huge issue. (People used to talk about 'the inexhaustible food riches of the oceans'.) Possibly the fish populations can rebound - through a let-up in overfishing, some enhancement programs, or...???

I'm just posting this here to learn whether other in the Wiki Environmental Project are similarly interested in the topic and want to work on it, in relation to existing, or possibly new, Wikipedia articles? Joel Russ 14:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I heard a swatch of a news item this morning on CBC (Vancouver) in which actress Sigourney Weaver was addressing some (from what I could tell) international assemblage about the worldwide oceans problems created by large corporate-owned trawlers. Anybody have any info on what she had to say? Could be Ms. Weaver is committed to this issue, and possibly there could be an 'internal link' put into the Wiki article about her, to highlight the Fishery crisis. Joel Russ 17:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

British nuclear tests at Maralinga

Hi folks,

I've recently been working on this article, thoroughly sourcing claims (and rewriting where needed), adding a map, eyewitness quote, and table, and so on, and I'd be grateful for any comments or assistance with any work needed to improve it further.

(Copied to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board)

Thanks, Jakew 14:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Waste management - needs some translation

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)


Aerography

Some people claim the word for geography on mars, but in the talk page of Geography of Mars I have put some biology related article references, which give me the strong feeeling that the word is already used for the research on the areal ditribution of species. Can anybony give me a clear signal if this word is in use in biology?--Stone 18:14, 6 December 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)

environmentalist category

Hi, The Category:Environmentalists is quite broad, and includes folks by attitude or writing who I think are probably not within the definition on the project page ("Environmentalist: a volunteer, activist, employee working to protect the environment from damage due to human activity.") I suspect this is because the term environmentalist is used in common parlance to refer to belief, as well as to refer to activists. It makes it difficult to class the Category:Environmentalists in other people categories. If you've got ideas or thoughts, please discuss at the Category talk:Environmentalists page. --lquilter 17:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Disgusted at some users' views on environment

Many users just won't admit that global warming is happening. Some even went as far as removing such information on various pages. I was attending lectures and professor talked about some advantages of recycling. I want to put these info on Recycling page but I need to know how to reference it so I went to the citing source talk page and ask what to do. People flamed the daylight out of me and say that nobody can proof that those info are correct if they are not online. My mind was thinking "Was information posted on a couple of personal blog pages have higher authenticy than a prof's lecture simply because they are available online?"

Should I go ahead and put in these information even though I can't cite its online source?

OhanaUnited 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't use lecture notes as sources, blogs are even worse as sources for citation for scientific material, however, dig a little more and you might find valuable sources from online journals. Hard Raspy Sci 15:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi OhanaUnited. Dont give up. Here are some tips. try Google book search...it s wonderful. Also put your new info on an article talk page and someone may show up to assist you with finding reliable cites. Hope you will keep working hard and dont let the bureaucratic elements on wikipedia wear you down. As hard raspy says, though, we must attempt to find sources of the greateste reliability: published monographs, scientific journals, on line scientific articles, and government publications are the best sources. best regards. Anlace 15:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem using citations from published articles if they aren't found online. Lecture notes are best stayed away from.--Alex 16:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The lecture notes are written by the prof himself. Is it possible to use other sources like poster? Information on university's notice board?OhanaUnited 21:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you could ask the prof what his primary sources are. Anlace 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment Scale

I think we should start rating on articles related to the environment by using Wikipedia:Assessment_scale before too many accmulates and creates a huge backlog. OhanaUnited 04:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I've started getting everything together. MahangaTalk to me 15:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Assessment MahangaTalk to me 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

FAR request for Global warming

Global warming 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.

- Nick Mks 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Superfund sites...

I started a list List of Superfund sites in the United States, and already some Superfund articles exist (see: Category:Superfund sites). There are about 1200 sites; would these be within the scope of the project? Thanks. --Remi 08:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As long as they don't fall into the scope of ecology and energy (excluding renewable energy), then it's in this project's scope. I think we need to update the project's scope to include environmental laws as well. Keep in mind that articles can fall into multiple WikiProject (e.g. Global warming) so don't be surprised to see that they belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law scope as well. OhanaUnited 02:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal

I recently started The Sustainable development Portal and offered it up for portal peer review to help make it a feature portal down the road. Please feel free to to help improve the portal and/or offer your input at the portal peer review. Thanks. RichardF 17:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal now is a Featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. RichardF 02:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected areas and conservation in Belize

I don't see a list of newly tagged articles, so I'll just drop a note here. There's what looks like a good new article by a brand new user at Protected areas and conservation in Belize. I'd recommend that anyone knowledgeable have a look and see how it could be further improved. ··coelacan 08:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That article is quite specific to a region. It maybe more appropriate for people living in that region to add info to it. I will drop a note in that user's talk page and hope he/she can find more info. In the meanwhile, we can link more pages into this article so that it catches more people's attention and hope that someone from that region reads it and improves it. OhanaUnited 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Environmental record task force proposal

Several editors working independently seem to be committed to making sure that the environmental records of major corporations and the environmental records of politicians are accurately and consistently represented throughout the encyclopedia. I'm wondering if this effort wouldn't benefit from being organized into a task force of the Environment project? Any thoughts? If any editors are interested in helping organize this, I'd certainly lend a hand. Thanks!Benzocane 16:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in participating in this task force. And I think I know some other editors who would be as well. Maybe we should move this discussion to the project's talk page to discuss this further? --Mackabean 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Mackabean just left me a note about this task force. I would be very interested in lending a hand. Cyrusc 01:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a great idea. It will certainly expand stub company articles and consolidate those that have a reasonable length. How do you want the task force look like? Is it within a period of time or contiuous? Do you want to consider recruiting more editors through community portal? I'll try organize a task force within a few days. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we've enough editors to get this off the ground! I think once we get it up and running it will be easy to recruit more participants. I think the next step is to get a task force page in order so we can organize our effort efficiently. Benzocane 16:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like we have enough folks to get moving. I thought it might be worthwhile to hone in a little more on the scope of the task force. If we are interested in the environmental record of corporations and politicians, which corporations and which politicians? It seems logical to start bigger first (e.g., Fortune 500). Also, in terms of politicians, I am from the U.S. and that is where I tend to focus. I don't feel like I have enough expertise to be working on other countries, although it might be cool to expand outside the U.S. at some point. What do people think about the geographic scope of the articles on politicians?

Yes, I agree we should logically start with the larger corporations, given that they have the greatest environmental impact. I think you make a good point about integrating global perspectives. I can do some research in this regard, but will also look into recruiting international participants. I don't think everything has to be delimited in advance--I think priorities will arise naturally from the process of editing. Benzocane 22:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Benzocane just left me a message about this task force idea. First, I am very pleased that you all gave me this opportunity. I would be very eager to lend a hand and to help create this new task force. I am here and ready to help! :) Psdubow 00:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I just made an "environmental record" edit here. Is it coherent with what you folks are wanting to task force? Cyrusc 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a fantastic edit--well written, well sourced, highly encyclopedic in both tone and content. Benzocane 03:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I can do Canada and Hong Kong politicans POV on the environment. But my main focus is on Canada because Hong Kong politicans aren't worried about the environment, yet. The task force is up, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Environmental record task force and put up your name. I'm going to create a template for the project. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

List of environment topics listed for deletion

I have listed the List of environment topics (a total of 28 articles containing lists) as a WP:AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environment topics. Alan Liefting 10:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

List of environment-theme lists of topics for deletion

I have also placed the List of environment-theme lists of topics up for WP:AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environment-theme lists of topics. Alan Liefting 11:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

List of environmental organizations up for deletion

I have put List of environmental organizations up for WP:AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental organizations. Alan Liefting 00:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Tailings

Could someone take a look at this please? Cool Bluetalk to me 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitions

I changed the definitions around. Now, rather than use common parlance definitions (which doesn't accomplish much), this page gives a list of correct uses of commonly-misused environment-related words, and suggests that they be used correctly. Envirocorrector 15:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

1000-1491: Environmental events up for deletion.

I have put 1000-1491: Environmental events up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000-1491: Environmental events. Alan Liefting 22:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Can any non-member of this project post a WikiProject Environment template on an article Talk page and also assess the article?

To be specific, anonymous user Jbntj, who is not listed as a member of this project, posted a WikiProject Environment template of the Talk page of Fossil fuel power plant some time ago and also assessed it as a Stub Class. Is that proper? I cannot imagine anyone considering Fossil fuel power plant to be a Stub Class. It is a very large article with 16 sections, numerous diagrams, photos and references.

I might add that anonymous user Jbntj also added a WikiProject Climate Change template to Fossil fuel power plant, altho he is also not listed as a participant in that project.

And recently, he added a Cleanup tag to Fossil fuel power plant and refuses to explain why on the Talk page of that article other than to say the article is "dirty".

A very careful reading of the "Contributions" page of anonymous user Jbntj discloses that he has done this sort of thing on many energy related articles. In my opinion, he is very biased against use of coal or oil because he feels they bear a major responsibility for global warming. Wikipedia has dozens of articles devoted to global warming and climate change where anyone can contribute content or discuss their feelings about coal and oil. However, I don't believe posting WikiProject templates on technical articles about the use of coal and oil is a proper method of trying to promote biased opinions against such articles. Fossil fuel power plants are a fact of life and Wikipedians have every right to create and to contribute NPOV content to technical articles explaining how coal and oil fired power plants are designed and used.

I will be very interested to learn what members of this WikiProject Environment have to say about my above comments. In particular, I would like to hear from Alex, OhanaUnited and Anlace. - mbeychok 00:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Without making any judgment about Jbntj, yes he can post the template and make assessments. Wikipedia is pretty informal. That said, if the assessments or postings are in poor judgment then they should be corrected and the issue explained to Jbntj, etc. Dragons flight 00:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this issue to my attention. I think his intentions are to promote alternative energy through Wikipedia. Nevertheless, fossil fuels shouldn't belong to this project as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment#Scope. Of all energy topics, only renewable energy topics are covered in this project. I think he misunderstood the assessment system. Take a look at User talk:Jbntj#Talk:Wind power, he doesn't know that GA, A, FA require reviews prior to class promotion. About non-project members' assessment, it's ok for editors not participating in the project to assess articles, but try to avoid disputes. I need some time to come up with a solution that works out for both parties. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, OhanaUnited. Since you pointed out that fossil fuels don't belong in this project, do I take it that you will delete the project template from Fossil fuel power plant when you are ready? You know more about this than I do, and therefore I think it best if I leave it to you. Regards, - mbeychok 06:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Turns out it's not a really big issue. I only did 3 changes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 10:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Re scope of project

Hi Mbeychok, Interesting observations and comments. It's not something I had thought about before. I agree with the comments of Ohana related to the informality of the rating process, however it needs to be monitored and checked. I would have thought that Coal Power plants should be related to wikiproject environment. There are a number of developments here in the UK looking at clean coal. In this instance CO2 is planned to be sequestered below the north sea in empty gas and oil fields. Without having read the coal power plant article I would have thought it should include information on the affect of coal power plants on the environment. I'll have a look at the articles out of interest.--Alex 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
My reasoning is based on the scope. I agree with you, Alex, that clean coal should be covered by this project (and many others too). Does anyone think we should change the scope? OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
OhanaUnited and Alex, I agree with the changes made by both of you and thanks for your help in resolving most of my concerns. However, I would very much appreciate it if one of you removed the Cleanup tag from the top of the Fossil fuel power plant article. It is very well written, formatted, referenced and completely Wikified. The Cleanup tag is simply not warranted. - mbeychok 14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 Done OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick comment regarding the scope of this project. I've come across any number of articles that are included in more than one WikiProject. There's no reason that should not be the case for articles of interest to this project as well. It's not as if we're talking about jurisdiction, after all. It's simply that many articles/subjects quite naturally fall within the scope of more than one project/discipline. Needless to say, many energy-related articles are intrinsically environment-related, as well. Cgingold 22:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems like the active project members have agreed to change ths scope. If no one objects within next few days, then I will change the scope OhanaUnitedTalk page 11:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Water purification merge / coordination proposal

Could some of you please comment on Talk:Water_purification#Merge.2Fcoordination_proposal? Thanks, Espoo 08:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Effects of oil exploration

Greetings! As near as I can determine, there doesn't appear to be an article on the Environmental effects of oil exploration. I turned up some bits and pieces scattered across a number of articles about particular cases, areas, etc. Seems like an obvious candidate for an overview article, especially if somebody has worked on any of those related articles. Cgingold 23:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I almost forgot to mention that the article on oil exploration doesn't say anything about this issue -- not a single word. It clearly should have an entire section, which could link to a "main article" (if there was one). Cgingold 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

New article

I just started African Wild Dog name controversy and put your project's tag on it. Please check it out and see if it can be improved or whatever, if you like. Thanks. Steve Dufour 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


Fallon, Nevada

It has been mentioned that the content of the Cancer Cluster section of this article seems to rely entirely on one source. In fact, a recent article in a local newspaper here writes

"Arsenic in the water, tungsten in the air, polonium in wells, underground atomic testing to the east - all have been reported by the media. The entry for "Fallon, Nevada" on Wikipedia, a popular online encyclopedia, mentions the leukemia cluster. It's no wonder some outsiders unfortunately perceive our community as unhealthy."

If you have access to any further information regarding this subject which might be relevant to this article regarding this subject, such as perhaps contrary opinions and/or further research, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter 15:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


Lake Ontario Waterkeeper

I have taken liberty to add a new topic, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, to both Wikipedia and WikiProject Environment. I've also taken liberty to assign it class=Stub as the article is in outline form and pending incremental development over the next few days. Feel free to change that as I am unaware of rating protocol. "Stub" feels right to me at this point. The topic is already subject of some controversy as some rather zealous Wikipedia admins seem bent on declaring Lake Ontario Waterkeeper as a non-notable organization which, frankly, I find both laughable and sad. I have already spent ridiculous energy defending this nascent topic, starting when it was less than one hour old. StevenBlack 04:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't find it notable enough. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
On what grounds? What more do you need to see? Please be specific, pointing to specific policy guidelines. Realise that time right now is fragmented between the article, and defending the article's right to be here, all under a premature AfD, which doesn't help. StevenBlack 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I, and probably others, are not arguing that the organization isn't notable, but rather that the article does not establish, or even assert, notability. Do that, and you have nothing to worry about. I've saved one article from 2 AfDs by finding Reliable Sources that established Notability and adding them to the article.--SarekOfVulcan 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rating Request

Can a wizard from WikiProject:Environment please rate the Lake Ontario Waterkeeper article now, or soon? It's well beyond "Stub" now. StevenBlack 04:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment does not give an article a bullet-proof vest from AfD. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Merely asking for feedback relative to article's progress which, as you know, has been very much uphill. Understood? StevenBlack 18:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment/Archive_1&oldid=1075170488"