This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
The contents of the Biophony page were merged into Soundscape ecology on 12 September 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Geophony page were merged into Soundscape ecology on 12 September 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
The contents of the Anthropophony page were merged into Soundscape ecology on 12 September 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Seems like the Biophony, Anthropophony and Geophony articles are already covered by the soundscape ecology article, which describes them all. The only aspect unique to the Biophony article is the mention of the concept of dysphonia. The Anthropophony and Geophony articles are little more than single paragraph articles that loop back to Biophony. All three -ophony articles are flagged with year-old notability concerns. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the terms above, Niche hypothesis is also a closely-related neoligism, from the same group. Also worth merging the already-overlapping content. Klbrain (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2020
I disagree with the idea that the niche hypothesis is a neologism for soundscape ecology. The acoustic niche hypothesis is a key theory in the field of soundscape ecology, but they are not the same thing.[1]. The old Niche hypothesis page was incorrect in places and lacked a lot of detail, so I was planning to do a major overhaul on it as it is actually an important concept within soundscape ecology. I'm hoping it's okay if I reconstitute the page and bringing it up to date. Dkadish (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
original NH article suggests it's an "early version" of biphony, so nothing lost in merger, doesn't require separate entry. Also, it seems, based on editing patterns in the past, that someone close to the topic has been pushing Krause's work while ignore the field as a whole. Acousmana 14:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
