Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Archive 3

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

Neologism tags

There are three articles that have been tagged as "neologisms" - sustainability science, sustainability governance and sustainability accounting. (see discussion on this matter above - starting "possible problem with ..."). It is true that these are relatively new fields. However, the articles are well referenced with reliable and reputable primary sources . It would be a simple matter to add secondary sources were these required. The articles contain valuable material of interest to people in the sustainability field and provide an excellent basis on which future editors can build. They are not original research and they do not express a p.o.v. The topics, IMO, will gather in both significance and use over time. Overall Wikipedia would be the poorer without these articles. I request that common sense prevail and that the "tags" at the top of the article pages be removed. If this is not the place to make this request could someone provide guidance as to where such a request may be made, or what the WP procedure is in relation to "tagging" and "untagging" articles. Granitethighs (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the articles you've referenced (all of which you and that user are the sole major contributors), I'd have to agree with him. He isn't refuting your references, just your labelling of those scientific "fields". Sustainability applies to the vast majority of scientific disciplines (all of them?), and shouldn't be pigeonholed under a name that gives the impression that Sustainable Science is a separate minority subject. This is akin to having an article on Research Science. Research is inarguably something central to science (as is sustainability), something all scientific organisations dedicate many resources to, but it's not a field in itself. It's far to large and general an area to be an isolated field. - lucideer 22:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to accept such a decision from an outside and objective observer. However, if you are suggesting that the Sustainable Development (as well as the sustainability science) article be effectively deleted and subsumed in the sustainability article then I question your judgement and request a second opinion. I would also appreciate a more cogent explanation of the criteria of merging or deletion that relate to "labelling" i.e. what is it about the "labelling" specifically that is a problem.
A few points:
1. If you have university departments and a substantial literature dedicated specifically to Sustainability Science as a topic – then doesn’t that become adequate reason for an article, regardless of the “labelling” logic?
2. Isn’t this distinction a rather fine one. Indeed, how “central” to science is sustainability? Yes, you could speak of sustainable chemistry or sustainable palaeontology but that, surely, is drawing a long bow and certainly not a “given”.
3. There are also articles on Social Science and Political Science even though it can be cogently argued that all science has a strong and universal social and political content in spite of rumours to the contrary. I’m sure you wouldn’t dream of saying that we should exclude these articles – and the reason you would not is because they are well entrenched in common usage. I would argue that Sustainability Science is also becoming well entrenched in the same way.
4. The environment is everywhere and, in a sense, everything and yet we have Environmental Science. What’s the difference?
5. Are you arguing that Sustainability Science just doesn’t make sense – that it is a kind of oxymoron – in which case Wikipedia has an article on “Military intelligence” an oxymoron if ever there was one. Perhaps that should be merged under Military? (alright just joking here ... or am I?)
6. Newspapers (good secondary sources) carry advertisements for Research Scientists so this idea clearly has currency in the public domain as well as the research and science communities.
7. “Research science” is just another way of saying “scientific research”. Are you suggesting that “scientific research” is in some way a nonsense either as an idea or occupation?
Fine distinctions aside, surely the question is not whether you (or anyone else) thinks it is too large an area to be an “isolated field” but whether it actually is, in practice, treated as an isolated field (which it is). And finally, I see you now say on the Sustainability Science talk page that you did not intend your argument to be applied to the "Sustainable Development" article. But didn't you just say, in effect, that sustainability can be applied to all science and so making the sustainability science distinction is not warranted? How can you make an exception for Sustainable Development then because, surely, sustainability can be applied to all development? Granitethighs (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This debate is hotting up and has now captured the attention of the Wikipedian community (the crowd are loving it). It is cutting edge stuff. For the latest developments see under sustainability science. Granitethighs (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
Granitethighs (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Those issues were not resolved. This article is surely iffy as to notability and also as a neologism Sustainability governance You originated all three articles. Some are still tagged or if the author is removing the tags this may not be good. skip sievert (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Environment

I have proposed renaming {{Environment}} to {{WikiProject Environment}}. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrological geoengineering

Please comment on the talk page regarding above article's deletion process.SriMesh | talk 05:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition needs cleanup

I found this while perusing Tahltan-related articles today; it needs to be brought inline with WP:MOS and should be checked for NPOV language/evidentiary bias, and many external links are contained within the body. Sacred Headwaters mirrors a lot of the content, as does a section on Tahltan, and the Klappan Coalbed Methane Project needs breaking-off (with WP:Energy and WP:Mining added to any article's talkpage). I don't have time/inclination to work on this; it and several other British Columbia related articles are in serious need of work; I may return with notices of others.....and please always watch for conservation-org ext links which may be mostly fund-raising in intent, i.e. spamSkookum1 (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The Deniers

I am not really able to devote much time to climate change topics, but I note that edits are being made to the article on The Deniers, by Lawrence Solomon, that appear to be to be broadly promotional in nature. The status of critical and favorable reviewers alike is being obfuscated, and one entire section read like a book blurb, consisting solely of a large block quote from the author. The article would benefit from a little attention that I myself cannot afford to devote to it. --TS 18:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A promotional article, Go Green Initiative, needs help or deletion

Go Green Initiative is written as a PR piece by someone I think may be connected to the organization. The organization's likely, but not certainly, notable -- I've left some comments at Talk:Go Green Initiative. I'm busy on some other tasks, but I wanted to flag this here in case someone wants to take it on. Otherwise, it may get tagged by someone else for deletion. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Bosque el Nixticuil

Hello. I had wrote a moments ago the article Bosque el Nixticuil translating from spanish, thats it's from a primary forest from Mexico seriously threatened. I inform of it because my english level is really low, and maybe it would become part from the Environment WikiProject and then improved by someone more skilled than me. Greetings. Akhran (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweden's efforts to curb CFCs

I've been knocking myself out trying to find evidence that Sweden was the first country to ban aerosols, or atleast, any CFC that might have been used in aerosols.

My search started when I saw on the Wiki January 29 page that in 1978, Sweden banned them. It struck me, for I remembered seeing it on the January 23 page earlier that week. I immediately assumed the event must have been in reference to CFCs. After not finding evidence though regarding CFCs, I expanded my search to include anything pertaining to aerosols. After a heck of alot of searching, I'm not an expert on Sweden's environmental effort, but I feel I could easily become one. Throughout the Internet, there are numerous "This Day in History" sites listing January 23, 1978 as the date Sweden was the first to ban them, and many others listing January 29, 1978, as the day Sweden was the first. Sadly, the date discrepancy does not stop at just those sites. I've poured through numerous papers at various U.S. universities and colleges and have seen both dates listed. No citations. I've put Google Translate to the test and it seems to be a great tool.

January 23 was a Monday (at least for me in the Eastern time zone), and January 29 was a Sunday. I emailed the Senior Registry Clerk at Sweden's Ministry of the Environment asking for information on any legislation that took place on either date (I didn't want to discount the possibility of a special session). According to the Senior Registry Clerk — "The ban against CFC in aerosol spray came in to force 1st January 1989." She even went the extra steps of providing me with the full text and history of the 1988 legislation.

But wait a minute...universities and colleges claiming 1978? I continued digging.

The earliest reference I've found to Sweden "planning" to ban CFCs in aerosols was a 1978 EPA press release stating Sweden planned to ban them on June 30, 1979. A 1980 EPA press release mentions Sweden as having enacted a ban. Neither release sheds any light on the scope of the ban. A note at the Stockholm Convention website mentions a 1979 ban. No date or details. A paper published by the University of New Mexico School of Law mentions Sweden as being amongst the first before 1980, though that reference is extremely vague and can be read a number of ways.

Judging from the documents at the United Nations (UNEP) and the ICSU pertaining to Sweden's efforts of controlling CFCs, one can gather (IMHO) that prior to the 1988 legislation I was pointed to by the Senior Registry Clerk, any effort on Sweden's part to control CFCs prior to 1986 was in no way comprehensive and seemingly "cosmetic." This isn't to say Sweden's efforts on protecting the environment has been lax. Quite the contrary. Sweden appears to have been the global leader and catalyst of many environmental protection initiatives.

Can someone please point me in the right direction. Five pages on en.wiki claim Sweden was first to ban "aerosols." Where can I find proof? Right now, Sweden's Senior Registry Clerk at the Ministry of the Environment is the most authoritative source in my book Kentholke (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting story, I'll see what I can dig up. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Your assistance is deeply appreciated. Kentholke (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


The Case Against Kyoto Protocol

freedomion forums quotes from other sources
The case against carbon trading[1] by Rising Tide Environmentalist Activism Group IMPORTANT SOURCE
Reports by Rising Tide
Fact Sheets by Rising Tide
Other Resources by Rising Tide
Quotes by Rising Tide
Carbon Sinks Workshop with Rising Tide by Jutta from Fern
Democracy or Carbocracy? Intellectual Corruption and the Future of the Climate Debate by Larry Lohmann first published October 2001 Corner House Briefing 24 summary PDF see also Emissions trading and Freeman Dyson
The Sky is Not the Limit The Emerging Market in Greenhouse Gases Carbon Trade Watch, TNI Briefing 1, January 2003 English PDF English PDF text-only
Top 10 'Global-Warming' Myths
Life After Kyoto: Alternative Approaches to Global Warming Policies by William D. Nordhaus Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale University
Greenhouse-gas footprints and environmental activism by Mark Kleiman samefacts.org

After I listened some expert's opinion on the matter I have deep concerns on the Kyoto Protocol's effects and possible outcomes. A dedicated environmentalist myself, I am asking your help on reading and classifying the opposing views to Kyoto Protocol. Kasaalan (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bio-energy with carbon storage and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage

There is a proposal to merge Bio-energy with carbon storage and Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage to Geoengineering. You could discuss it here. Beagel (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Faith in Place at AfD

An article at AfD Faith in Place has been rewritten so may now meet the project's standards. Input welcome at the AfD discussion. -- Banjeboi 01:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

E-waste village

E-waste village has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability article

The Sustainability article (please read talk page), has been in the middle of a rewrite for months. There is a limited number of editors ... and in my opinion those editors share too much of the same p.o.v. I think information pertaining to U.N. sources has taken over neutrality aspects on the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sustainability&diff=next&oldid=275093091 - Not all these are currently in the article, but this gives an idea of this overboard sourcing, in general to this p.o.v. - It has been noted in a couple of places that the article is presenting a crusading approach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainability#Possible_conflict_of_interest_in_team as to neutral presentation.

Also from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard ... At present both articles seem to be far from neutral, since they are promoting sustainability as an Obvious Good Thing, and then planning how to achieve it. (The editors seem to be enlisting Wikipedia as a partner in the crusade). If the articles were neutral and factual, they would just be giving a balanced account of what various proponents and opponents have said. It's hard to see this as a matter needing COI enforcement. The neutrality issues that remain are mostly a WP:Neutral point of view problem that could be solved by a change of tone, or by getting input from a broader range of editors. There has already been a concern about NPOV expressed in these peer review comments, under the heading 'Assertion versus verifiable fact. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC) End quote from Conflict of interest Noticeboard.

Could anyone who is interested in sustainability issues and neutral presentation please go to the Sustainability article and get involved? There is currently a very small self described team there that has assumed editorial control of this article in what I believe is not a good way. Also this other article in my opinion is conflicted and not presently viable, or needs to be rewritten in a major way or deleted/A.f.d. as non notable and/or conflicted in interest Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites - skip sievert (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Move/rename Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition → Klappan coalbed methane proposal

Skeena Watershed Conservation Coalition → Klappan coalbed methane proposal. See Talk:Skeena_Watershed_Conservation_Coalition and also content in Sacred Headwaters, Tahltan Nation/Tahltan/Tahltan First Nation/Iskut First Nation and articles linked to them. Also note COI, POV, Advert/spam and cleanup on first-named article. and pleaes note Klappan Coalbed Methane Project exists as a redirect to one of the named articles.Skookum1 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

cfm

Please comment on the proposed merger of Category:Environmental lists into Category:Lists of environment topics here —G716 <T·C> 14:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mis-application of cats

I keep on finding Category:Biodiversity hotspots, Category:Rainforests and Category:Temperate coniferous forests, Category:Nearctic and such on non-forest, non-ecozone articles, most recently Queen Charlotte Islands, which is a region/archipelago article not an ecozone article. I know it's listed on various "ecoregion" lists, but it's not written as an ecoregion article; if Queen Charlotte Islands (ecoregion) article gets written, fine and dandy, but muddling definitions/categories is un-encyclopedic, and often POV in flavour - especially even the title of Category:Biodiversity hotspots is POV in flavour. wikipedia is not supposed to be used for campaigning or the advancement of neologisms....something that shoudl be borne in mind by all WP:Environment participants, as well as being careful to know what is properly WP:Ecology or WP:Biology (WP:Botany and WP:Zoology do not seem to exist....).Skookum1 (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Places that contain temperate coniferous rainforests may be the intent of that category Category:Temperate coniferous forests, but if so it needs different wording, as places are NOT forests; a forest is an ecology, not a place....except when it's a specific forest, like Sherwood Forest or the Great Bear Rainforest. If there's an article Forest ecologies of the Queen Charlotte Islands or some such, then fine, but tha'ts not that article's title, nor its purpose.Skookum1 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Climate change vs global warming

Is there any consensus on which term should be used? I was wanting to change the Mitigation of global warming article to Mitigation of climate change. Would be good to have consistency throughout all the articles. Alanadexter (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Environment by country articles

I would like to see more work put into the the "Environment of [Country]" articles. To this end I have requested a bot to create a couple of hundred articles in Wikipedia space. See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 27#Need about 200 pages created. I have started a subpage of this project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Environment by country to explain what I wish to achieve. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate

Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate appears dead. Do you cover the same area? IF so, maybe it should be merged here? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well is there a Wikiproject for meterology? Either that or one for geography might be a good place. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reforestation

I have a feeling that Reforestation needs some TLC. It was written by people who are in favor of Reforestation, so parts almost seem like a POV how to guide. I think it needs a lot of work. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

Hi guys, just a quick reminder that your article alerts page is here, it's linked from your project page. I convert maybe 5 or 10% of the relevant speedy deletions into proposed deletions, so if you check that page at least once a week, you'll see articles that you might want to save. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

article help: World Ocean Conference

Hi. could you please help with World Ocean Conference? Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

World Forum on Energy Regulation

This one had 23 hits at Google Books so I think it's a keeper, but it would be nice if it were less promotional. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange controversy

At talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, user:KimDabelsteinPetersen is insisting that the minute a person dies, he or she must be removed from this list, since dead people have no opinions. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

They can be marked, maybe with a dagger or with a lifespan; they can be listed in a separate section or in separate sub-sections.
-- Wavelength (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Article assessment

I want to see the Importance of articles assigned via the {{environment}} template. See the discussion at Template talk:Environment#Article assessment for level of Importance. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with having the discussion there - it should be here - and the issue of whether a whole project abandons assessment on the whim of criteria of importance is sadly missing the point. The assessment criteria for the project may indeed be at odds with views of what are environmentally important but I feel that issue - of a heirarchy of importance - needs to be placed somewhere in the project pages so that a disinterested outsider can see what is going on - leaving off wikipedia assessment is simply misreading the issue - and the outsider has no idea of what is going on. bad move imho SatuSuro 05:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Ecology categories

I have put some ecology categories up for deletion:

Environmental issue

I have created the well overdue "Environmental issue" page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:Ecoregions, WP:Ecology, WP:Geography and this WP

Please see these comments on the WP:Ecoregions talkpage; though they're aimed at particular issues with that WP's parameters and bad habits, and this WP has a more emphatic statement of neutrality, the criticisms of environmental/ecoregion-oriented articles are relevant here, as is the division of similar WPs and different regionalization systems on environmental/biological/ecological regions and content.Skookum1 (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Eutrophication GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Eutrophication for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

Are you aware of this article? Aside from the fact that the lemma itsself might be somewhat questonable, it might be important that people being well versed in the topic monitor that list, because otherwise it is likely to accumulate outdated and/or rectracted claims by various scientist, just to create an impression of a large scientific dissent regarding global warming.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject banner

I would like to see an "attention" parameter added to the {{Environment}} template. This will give us another way of tracking environmental articles that need work. {{WikiProject Agriculture}} has one by way of example. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

McDonald's Cycle Center FAC

McDonald's Cycle Center is now at FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:31, 5 August 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) 14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Images

At this image lab entry there is a request for several very important images. perhaps some artist here could make them ? KVDP (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Org spam?

Please see Talk:Rivers_Without_Borders#Dangerously_close_to_org-spam. Various issues, doesn't quite read like an ad/brochure/SOAP but very close; maybe needs notability and advert tags.Skookum1 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Landfill gas

Currently the Landfill gas article is a redirect to Landfill gas monitoring. A look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Landfill_gas_monitoring shows that most of the links are to the redirect, and probably in context other than monitoring.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

POV b.s. on Commission for Environmental Cooperation

Please see Talk:Commission_for_Environmental_Cooperation#Bullshit.2FPOV_nonsense.Skookum1 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability article issues

The same 3 or 4 people edit the Sustainability article and revert any and all that try to introduce new material or veer from their own approach (which they refer to as consensus, but it is hardly that as they are a closed group as to pov direction), which in my view is overtly political as to U.N. over sourcing and progressive liberal political perspective. See the ending Transition section in the article. It Ref's.. Obama, Al Gore, other politicians and the U.N. something like 9 times in that tiny section alone. I would like to see a more science focus on the article, instead of such an overt political position focus.

I made this edit to try and make simple a confusing sentence about endure as some kind of definition in the article lead [2], and so put in a more standard mainstream idea of the definition. I think the endure phrase is problematic and idiosyncratic to the team of editors on the article [3]. I do believe that this team of 3 or 4 active editors have tied up the article now for over a year, with a claim of going for Featured article status, recently modified to wanting to go for Good article status, and I do wish that any interested parties would please get involved on this Sustainability article to open it up to different pov's or more neutral editing. Currently I think the article is not good and not getting better because of the tight closed loop of small pov. skip sievert (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I have only just made a major change to the article. I deleted the history section and linked it to the page that was essentially a copy of the complete section. I also deleted seventeen footer templates covering everything from food science to peak oil. The associated category also needs some culling. I have made a start on it. There is a whole paragraph in the "Transitions" section which I will delete. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for getting involved on Sustainability A.L.-. I saw your changes. I do think the article has been under ridiculously tight control in a negative way. I sincerely hope that other editors that are interested in this subject will also pile in and do some creative and informative editing as to this subject. skip sievert (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
An article on sustainability should include both the science and the political/social aspects. The Quote from Al Gore is not approp however. I am as yet undecided about the overall balance of the science/social/political mix in the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Gavin Schmidt

An editor, suspected to be a banned sock puppet, has repeatedly attempted to add a quotation to this article about a GISS climatologist. There are concerns that it places undue weight on what appears to be an unextraordinary view, which could be read to imply that the view is unusual or unorthodox. Please join the discussion on this subject on the talk page so that we can establish the consensus view on this. --TS 04:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Category deletion

Sustainability task force

I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Sustainability task force. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Renewable Energy Certificates and Green certificate

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but are these articles about the same thing or two related but significantly different systems?

The Green certificate page says that they are "also known as Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) in the USA", but the Renewable Energy Certificates article clearly states that they are only a program in the US. Could someone clarify this? Perhaps there could be a main article about the concept and subsections or other articles about the various systems using that concept.

Thanks, — sligocki (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Rare Earthtones Free Endangered Species Ringtones by the Center for Biological Diversity

Participants may be interested in Rare Earthtones Free Endangered Species Ringtones by the Center for Biological Diversity. How is this related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment? The ringtones "provide a great starting point for talking about the plight of threatened species worldwide" and could lead to a beneficial exchange of information about endangered species. -- Wavelength (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It not a notable topic for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not mean it to be a topic for Wikipedia. I meant it to be a means of starting discussions outside Wikipedia. Those discussions could lead to Wikipedians finding sources of information that they might not otherwise have found. (Also, they could lead to additional people being interested in editing Wikipedia and in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment.) -- Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I doubt it. Wikipedia talk pages are not a Forum for dredging up different opinions... more info. here -> Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I did not mean that Wikipedia talk pages would be a forum. Suppose that you are visiting a park. Your cellular telephone sounds with a ringtone of a member of an endangered species. After you have finished your telephone conversation and you have hung up, a passerby comments to you about your ringtone. You mention your interest in environmental matters and you mention that you edit Wikipedia and specifically articles about the environment. The passerby gives you contact information of an acquaintance who is a leading researcher in environmental science. Eventually, both the passerby and the researcher contribute to Wikipedia articles about the environment. That is only one possible scenario. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe you could bring your theory to a forum somewhere on the internet. It is not appropriate here though. skip sievert (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mire terminology

I started a discussion here about mire/bog/fen terminology.--Carnby (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Scope of thisWikiPoject

I would like to see the following articles excluded from this WikiProject:

  • all biographical articles
  • articles about places even though they may have some sort of environmental issue. Any article that is ONLY about an enviro issue about a particular place should be part of this project eg Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef.
  • energy generation articles such as wind farms, hydro dams etc
  • articles about environmental organisations unless they have an international scope

Lets not spread ourselves too thinly. There is plenty of work to be done here even if we choose to ditch the above list of articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Waste by country category

I have created Category:Waste by country. It needs populating. We also need "Waste in Foo" articles as overviews (Foo=country). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources discussion on Encyclopedia of Earth

I've just started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard on the Encyclopedia of Earth. I'd appreciate thoughts there. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Since not everyone will go there to examine this information I will post what I posted there.
If Encyclopedia of Earth is not a reliable source then there is no such thing as a reliable source ;). It is beautifully done, and it is peer reviewed and topic edited and the largest reliable information resource on the environment in history. See this page for more information. Economics in regard to environment is just one of many subjects published there. The Environmental Information Coalition (EIC) is comprised of a diverse group of respected scientists and educators, and the organizations, agencies, and institutions for which they work. The EIC defines the roles and responsibilities for individuals and institutions involved in the Coalition, as well as the editorial guidelines for the Encyclopedia.
The Secretariat for the EIC is the National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE), Washington D.C., USA. NCSE is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization with a reputation for objectivity, responsibility, and achievement in its promotion of a scientific basis for environmental decision-making. The Department of Geography and Environment and the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University also provide editorial support. skip sievert (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New article on Zero impact living

There's a new article that was titled "Zero Impact" and that I've moved to Zero impact living. It's quite detailed, but it looks more like an essay than an article, and I wonder how separate this concept is from Sustainable living and Simple living. Thoughts? Fences&Windows 22:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Turns out it is for a class project: "We have completed our page and would like to publish it for general viewing. We ask that it is not edited for at least 3 days, as a professor will be grading it for us." Fences&Windows 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

New Page at AfD

Yesterday I created Magic, Inc. (organization), about an organization a large part of whose focus is sustainability. It's now been put up for deletion. I would appreciate some input - either there or to me - on whether the organization is actually notable, as I believed it to be when I wrote it up. I see a proposal above to exclude from the scope of this project organizations that are not international in focus, but I am finding it hard to identify the projects to which this article is relevant, so I'd also appreciate a push in the right direction if there is an environmental/ecological project to which the article topic is of more interest. Thanks! Yngvadottir (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change in the United Kingdom

There is a discussion at Talk:Climate change in the United Kingdom about a potential merger. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change arbitration request

There is a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Climate Change. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming: proposal for discretionary sanctions

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change there is an ongoing discussion of a proposed measure to encourage administrators to enforce policy more strictly on articles related to climate change. I'm placing this notification here because global warming is a member of this WikiProject. It doesn't belong on the main WikiProject page because it's a user conduct matter and isn't really on topic there. --TS 13:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate change task force

I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with this article by people who love this planet would really be appreciated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:11atoms/The_future_for_Human_Beings

The article is an essay and as such cannot be used on Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrongly categorised?

Can anyone tell me why Oxyhydrogen is part of the Environment WikiProject? Petecarney (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is typical of WP. Some editors want to link everything with everything regardless of how tenuous the link may be. Oxyhydrogen is linked to the water powered car which is linked to petroleum use which is linked to global warming which is linked to climate change which is linked to the environment. I have removed it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Environmental statistics

Can I invite attention to the relatively new Category:Environmental statistics, with a view to adding existing articles to it or constructing new ones as appropriate, and of course editing. There may be scope of constructing a new category "Environmental statistics data" to contain articles about important data-sets ... this would be similar to Category:Social statistics data, which parallels Category:Social statistics. However, I don't know whether there is already something equivalent in existence under another name. Melcombe (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Windcatcher

Any idea why this is being tagged with this project? It's not (at the moment) in any relevant category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A tricky article namng issue - deforestation vs forest management

See Talk:Deforestation_by_region#.22Deforestation.22_vs._.22Forest_management.22. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Anaerobic digestion

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as this project's banner is on the talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Anaerobic digestion/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

'Scope' section

Do we really all agree with this?
"The word environment ... has come to mean the negative effects of human activity on the environment."
The word "environment" has certainly not come to mean that. 'Environmental destruction' perhaps, but not "environment".--Tyranny Sue (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I will change it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Alan, nice work.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Radio EcoShock or Radio Ecoshock

Someone may wish to start the article Radio EcoShock or Radio Ecoshock.

I am not ready to spend the time to make it deletion-proof. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Climate change in Nevada" -article in need of attention

I came across Climate change in Nevada, and I feel there are some serious issues to be addressed with this article. There are no references to back up the not-very-plausible data, and I don't see how it could be anything other than original research. I have an impulse to simply delete the article, especially since the article was created by a used who has now been blocked; however, I will be fair and merely express my concern to others who are more knowledgeable. I would appreciate if someone else could look at the article to decide what needs to be done with it. Thanks. --Tea with toast (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Without interfering your edits, I just want to remind you that this article is likely to be part of the climate change probation so edits are likely to be scrutinized. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Guri (Simón Bolívar)

Does this project do dams? Guri (Simón Bolívar) could use expansion. Rd232 talk 18:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC for Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

Since the above named article is part of WikiProject Environment, I thought I'd notify the project of an ongoing RfC concerning whether and how the group's funding should be handled in the article. Your participation is encouraged. Yilloslime TC 23:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Archive 3/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of environmental lawsuits#Criteria for inclusion: overinclusive?

Your comments at Talk:List of environmental lawsuits#Criteria for inclusion: overinclusive? are welcome. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Methane chimney

I just made the article. I'm not a scientist, so I don't quite know what I'm writing about. I could really use a bit of help on it, if you have time. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing topics

I've updated my missing topics pages, including those about Environment and pollution - Skysmith (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

WP Environment in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Environment for a Signpost article to be published April 19. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

DNAPL name

I noticed that DNAPL was within this WP. Does anyone think that the page name should be dense non-aqueous phase liquid instead? As of now, the full name is a redirect. Light non-aqueous phase liquid is currently the full name for that page, rather than LNAPL. Cmcnicoll (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Spanish-language news sources

Today I discovered these two Spanish-language sources for news about the environment.

(This Spanish-language newspaper based in Mexico City specializes in environmental news.)

-- Wavelength (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I just found another one.

-- Wavelength (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please Investigate Problems on BP (british Petroleum) Wikipedia Page: Intentionally Burying Section on Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, Changing Name of Oil Disaster to Hide it

Any attempts to correct this (following reasonable Wikipedia guidelines) are met with aggressive reverts and edits. Intentional spinning and manipulation of article in favor of BP? Can this task force investigate this?

Currently there is no easily recognizable section on the current Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster, surprisingly since the US Government has held BP responsible. Instead the "Oil Disaster" Section in the article keeps being given obscure (hard to recognize) names (as if someone is trying to hide the section from the public).

That section also keeps getting pushed to the bottom of the article (attempts to bury it)?

It's as if the BP Public Relations department has staff people who are aggressively spinning the article. Could this Task Force investigate this?

75.71.192.54 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Environment to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose that there be a category for the following pages and others like them.

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I am considering the name Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject. It would be a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia.
-- Wavelength (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
[I am inserting a line break between my first and second messages. -- Wavelength (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)]

Request for project help Coastal States Organization

This article was prodded as non-notable. I removed the prod as Google Scholar returns sufficient hits for possible notability. Members of this project should be able to bring the article up to WP standards. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Electric bicycle

I've added the Electric bicycle article to WikiProject Environment. I encourage any interested editors to add quality and importance ratings. Also if any editors are involved with Wikiproject Cycling, I encourage you to re-evaluate Electric bicycle's "C" rating in light of many recent improvements to the article. Thanks very much. Ebikeguy (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

New proposal on global warming articles

Hi. I propose that a series of articles be created based on occurrences due to global warming and climate change during each year: global warming in 2010, global warming in 2009, global warming in 2008, etc. Among the sections we may include in such articles include:

Of course, we don't need to include the full list in every year, but we'll have enough potential information for complete articles. Most years in recent decades, however, will be eligible for an article. Also, some other articles that could be created are outline of global warming (a redirect), outline of climate change and timeline of global warming. ~AH1(TCU) 17:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Outlines proposal was marked as "failed" in February. I don't think we should continue to proceed with creating more outlines. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
See here, the outlines proposal wasn't exactly failed. However, this proposal is mainly about year lists, and not just the outlines. What else d'I miss in February?? ~AH1(TCU) 23:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Haven't followed that discussion for awhile because it got dragged to the extreme. But when we're talking about climate change (or any weather-related data), the science community agreed that 30-year duration is the minimum length to compare data (i.e. if we're comparing this year's weather to those in the past, we need to use the data from 1980 to 2010). Slight deviation in each year is expected so creating an article on global warming per year is not advisable. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I have likely suggested more than enough topics for most years to have a suitable article. Most importantly, we should try to track Arctic methane release on a year-by-year basis, as the main article might not be updated as easily and it's a phenomenon that should be reported as soon as it is studied by reliable sources. However, we should also avoid any original research, which should be enough to keep the articles from getting excessively long, but they would be a good compliation of yearly developments especially in recent years, and the aim of Wikipedia is to compile knowledge. The more recent years have more data, and when oscillations such as ENSO are noted, different years can be compared. I still think, however, that we should have a timeline article and that any yearly articles to be created would be linked from that. We already have a history of global warming article, but a timeline would focus more on a yearly basis, and have more information pertaining to the topics mentioned above. Also, it is more difficult to mention ice shelf break-ups, coral bleaching events, and discoveries of tipping points without mentioning such events per year, or at least in a timeline. I'd like to see more discussion in this area before this idea is implemented or not. Especially since last year's dramatic conflicts over the Copenhagen Conference and the CRU email hacking incident, I think it's important that Wikipedia has a clear historical basis for the yearly developments in climate science and occurrences in the actual climate. Extinctions of species, especially due to climate-related causes such as Chytridiomycosis are difficult to chronicle without some kind of adequate timeline or list. ~AH1(TCU) 14:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It is not possible to link specific events (or specific anomalous years) to global warming. GW is a change in the statistical properties of climate over multi-decadal periods. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Effects of mining

I've got two quick question for this project: Would articles on mines with documented environmental issues (see: Iduapriem Gold Mine) fall under WikiProject Environment and should therefore be tagged accordingly on the talk page? Secondly, is there a category they would fit in in regards to pollution/environmental impact? Thanks for any hints, Calistemon (talk) 07:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Articles

I followed the chain of links from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous (permanent link here) to User:FisherQueen to Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Articles to Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Articles, and I thought that there could be Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment/Articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Articles.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Indian Point Energy Center

I'd like to suggest that it would be worthwhile to keep an eye on this article, in particular, and in general on the editing of User:FellGleaming, who appears to be editing in a way that pushes a pro-nuclear power POV. I've been countering some of his edits, and have tried to find some compromise ground, but he continues to push the article past NPOV, in my opinion. I'm going to stop watching the article because I can feel myself being sucked in, and I don't want to violate any rules, so other eyes would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Kripalu Center RfC

Any interested editors are encouraged to take part in the discussion at Talk:Kripalu Center#RFC: Kripalu Center. The discussion is primarily about how much if any weight to give a discussion of the center's water quality. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Renewable energy portal

The new Portal:Renewable energy is progressing quite well, so feel free to drop in and have a look around... Johnfos (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

For your attention and consideration

I found this article while categorizing uncategorized pages. Its a word for word copy of an EPA.gov webpage. At minimum it needs an extensive rewrite. It may even need to be AFDed but I don't know enough about the subject matter to be comfortable with nominating it for that. Which is why I'm bringing it to you.*Kat* (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Environment articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Environment articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Environmental Engineering Subgroup - Citizendium

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested in the (currently 58) articles listed on the following page.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
For importing content from Citizendium articles, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium Porting.
—Wavelength (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup listing for WikiProject Environment

This clickstream may be of interest.

--> Cleanup listings for WikiProjects --> Cleanup listing for WikiProject Environment

—Wavelength (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Students need feedback on Energy Policy articles

Hi, One of the courses in the Public Policy Initiative is writing energy policy articles for their assignment. They are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Political Economy of Technology and Science fall 2010, if you could give feedback on the revisions in Article space, please do so. Thank you, Sadads (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

template:Renewable energy in Australia

{{Renewable energy in Australia}} has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Environmental performance of automobiles

For those project members that might be interested to participate, there is an ongoing discussion in the WikiProject Automobiles about the inclusion of content about the environmental performance of automobiles in articles related to hybrid electric vehicles here.--Mariordo (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Green Vehicle Task Force?

It has been suggested that a Green Vehicle Task Force could be formed as part of Wikiproject Environment. It could focus on articles about green vehicles, i.e. vehicles which are deemed to be more environmentally-friendly —notable for alternative energy, fuel efficiency, or low-carbon emissions, and automotive articles related to conservation and pollution. See Category:Green vehicles. Johnfos (talk) 01:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a perfect fit. Could you show the link to the discussion? OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Link to discussion: User talk:North wiki#WikiProject Electric Vehicles. Johnfos (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Please note that certain automotive-focused editors, most of whom have expressed distinctly "anti-green" sentiments in the past, are attempting to hold a "vote" to decide whether Wikiproject Environment should be "allowed" to form this task force. I am not sure what authority they claim in doing so, but their effort seems misguided to me. I encourage others to share their feelings at the discussion that is currently underway. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
There was a recent systematic attack from automotive-focused editors on Green Vehicles articles - that resulted in elimination of Environmental information from Green Vehicles articles as well as elimination of entire Green Vehicles articles (for example Ford Escape Hybrid). Green Vehicles are Environmental first and Vehicles second. Green Vehicles were created not because there was a need to get from point A to point B - existing Internal Combustion Engine vehicles already did this job. Green Vehicles were created because of environmental concerns. Therefore the emphasis in Green Vehicles articles should be on what they were created for - Environmental impact (including information tables). This is what people are looking for when they seek Green Vehicle information. Each Green vehicle model is a multimillion risky investment - there are very few of them - for this and for many other reasons each one deserves an article. Yegort (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Both of you are right, Wikiproject Automobiles don't have any authority to dictate or override another project's decision unless it violates WP:MOS (or vice versa). If their project is not willing to accept/allow electric vehicles to be created as a task force, then Wikiproject Environment will gladly adopt this task force. However, instead of calling it electric vehicle task force, I think it will be more appropriate to call it as green vehicle task force (as Johnfos suggested). OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
OhanaUnited, thank you for your support and assistance in this matter. The problem does not seem to be that WP:AUTO will not allow a green vehicle task force under their own auspices. Rather, the problem results from concern that, should such a task force be created under WP:AUTO, the same editors who have consistently attempted to minimize green vehicle coverage will maintain undo influence over the task force, thereby rendering it relatively ineffective. To my understanding, this concern over undue influence by anti-green automotive editors is the primary reason to create the task force under WikiProject Environmental rather than WikiProject Automotive. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as a member of the auto project who's been largely uninvolved in the various merger and name-calling debates, the reason there is such resistance to the idea of some articles on car models going over to another project is simply to preserve continuity among such articles.
In my view, there would be merit for the environment project to be responsible for the more general green-vehicle technology articles, like hybrid car or electric car. But for Toyota Camry to be part of one project and Toyota Camry Hybrid to be part of another would be a mess. Because there isn't a huge difference from an environmental perspective -- just an automotive one -- among different models of hybrid or electric cars, having that sort of information concentrated on a single page rather than duplicated in each of a series of technologically similar vehicles has seemed like a logical move to many well-intentioned users.
And no one at the autos project has any sort of vendetta against the environment that has manifested itself in suggesting that a version of a car with a gas-electric powertrain be a section of an article instead of an article of its own. That sort of suggestion just downgrades any sort of reasonable debate. IFCAR (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
"Because there isn't a huge difference from an environmental perspective -- just an automotive one -- among different models of hybrid or electric cars." Many or most environmentalists would disagree with this statement. This statement is a perfect example of the dismissive attitude many automotive editors have toward hybrid and electric vehicles. This attitude, which is predominant at WP:AUTOS, is the main reason why this task force would be more effective if it existed under WikiProjects Environment.
Please understand that this post should not be interpreted as a condemnation of IFCAR. I respect this editor as a valuable and reasonable member of the Wikipedia community. The fact that he/she expresses his/her skepticism of the environmental benefits of hybrid electric vehicles as generally accepted fact, rather than as his own opinion, sheds light on the biases in both knowledge and opinion of many WP:AUTO editors. They understand cars. They understand performance. They understand spark timing and compression ratios. They do not, as a general group understand the complexities of environmental issues to the same extent as do the members of WikiProject Environment. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
"no one at the autos project has any sort of vendetta against the environment that has manifested itself in suggesting that a version of a car with a gas-electric powertrain be a section of an article instead of an article of its own." I think, sadly, that's exactly what happened to Toyota Camry hybrid. (For the version of article just before being merged with Toyota Camry, see here) -North wiki (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Usually if the hybrid is just a variant of the car, then the article will be about the main type with a section on this hybrid variant. This approach is very similar to aircraft types (such as Airbus A320, Boeing B747, etc.) If the only type itself is the hybrid/electric version (e.g. Nissan Leaf) then of course it deserves to have an article on its own. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Many people don't see these Hybrids as being just a variant. They have received significant coverage in news media and are a notable topic in their own right which deserves a separate article on WP. Sustainable transport and environmental performance have become mainstream issues which deserve adequate coverage. And most of these Hybrid articles have proved quite popular in terms of number of visits to the page. Johnfos (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


OhanaUnited, No, hybrid is not just a variant of the car - it is not the same as Airbus A320, Boeing B747. Hybrids are much better for the environment yet a practical choice! - the extra up front cost ($8,000 for Ford Escape Hybrid) is returned back in fuel savings over the life of the car. Still many new car buyers cannot see that because this information or some other information they seek (like reliability, safety, historical sales numbers) is not readily available! When I shopped for a new car I seek all this information. "Ford Escape Hybrid" Wikipedia article before it was merged generated around 72,000 views last year and the car sales were around 11,000. Who knows to how many people this article helped to make the decision to buy the car? Now I know how this article could have been improved to help people even more. But now this article is no more. :( Now a person who makes a "Ford Escape Hybrid" Google search may even decided not to visit at all "Ford Escape" Wikipedia article since the name suggests that it is not about Hybrid. The importance of separate Hybrid articles is that a person who visits it will immediately see the practicality of buying it! Hybrids are so important for the Environment and for many other reasons. We can save the world - one hybrid article at a time! Yegort (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. It is not our job to convince people to buy one car over the other. We cannot throw out out the principle of NPOV under the guise of "saving the world." --Sable232 (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Mariordo has made quite a convincing case about a separate article for Ford Fusion hybrid, and Mitsubishi i-MiEV at WP:CARS discussion page. -North wiki (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, I tend to agree that variants of cars or aircrafts should be considered part of the main type. However, there's always some exceptions, like B50 Superfortress and B29 Superfortress, or R.R. Corniche. So, hybrids and electric vehicles that share same name with an ICE model may not necessary mean it can't qualify as a main type by itself. -North wiki (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to " The fact that he/she expresses his/her skepticism of the environmental benefits of hybrid electric vehicles", I think that's a misunderstanding of my statement. I wasn't saying that hybrids don't have an environmental benefit, but that there isn't much difference between the way the Toyota Camry Hybrid benefits the environment versus the way the Ford Fusion Hybrid benefits the environment, so it would make more sense to have that in-depth discussion on a single page rather than on each individual hybrids'. IFCAR (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Created task force

Anyways, it looks like we have a near-unanimous agreement on creation of the green vehicle task force. I have created the page for this task force. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks great. Ebikeguy (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The (outer) Space Environment

I am curious. Are there any Wikipedia articles that deal with environmental concern about, or environment tracking/data collection relative to, outer space, especially near-Earth space and the problem of space debris? I've looked through the various pages in Category:Environment and Category:Environmentalism and could not locate any pages at all that deal with the topic, other than the aformentioned space debris article.

We in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight have recently created a new article category: Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth. But this is little in the grand scheme of things relative to monitoring and encyclopedically reporting on space junk. For example, while most launch payloads have an individual WP article—and many of those will become derelict satellites over time—almost none of the spent upper stages that are orbiting Earth are even mentioned in Wikipedia, and these will present a challenge or potential problem for other Earth-orbiting satellites, as they use up some of the common resource space "real estate" and thus create externalities for others who are attempting to utilize space, especially near-Earth orbital space.

(For those of you unfamiliar with the problem beyond the many satellites that have died (worn out at the end of their useful lifetimes), nearly every space launch mission leaves a spent upper stage (often the size of a small schoolbus) in Earth orbit. For those in low-Earth orbit, the orbits will tend to self-decay in months or a few years and the spent stage will re-enter Earth's atmosphere on their own. For those missions launched to higher orbits, which is nearly all communications satellites we all use everyday in modern connected high-tech society, an upper stage is left in an orbit that will not decay for decades or centuries.)

All these spent upper stages seem to be "off the Wikipedia radar screen", and it would appear, the entire topic may be off the radar screen for the Environmental WikiProject.

All this is to open up a discussion, and let you know what little Wikipedia is doing today, to my knowledge. If others are interested in the topic, or if anyone knows other articles/categories that address the issue, please indicate that here, or on my Talk page. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

See Kessler syndrome. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
At this time, it is the 617th article listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Popular pages.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
United States Space Surveillance Network is not listed there.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I just checked and learned that United States Space Surveillance Network was only added to WikiProject Spaceflight in the middle of last-month. So it does not (yet) have a full month of data to get into the priority rankings. N2e (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Here are some external links to pages with information about space debris.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in the following online reference desks (all hosted by NASA), especially the first one.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Wavelenth for the work on finding some sources. And the pointer to the Kessler Syndrome article definitely qualifies. I think I'm looking for a more robust discussion of the outer space environment in the mainstream, [[secondary-source, environmental scholarly literature, and haven't found that yet. I'll keep an eye on this space from time to time to see what environmental-project editors might show in this topic over time. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"State Forests"

The usage of State Forests is under discussion, see Talk:Polish State Forests. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Name change for Arctic Shrinkage article

I'm trying to solicit suggestions, and to reach consensus, regarding a name change for the for the article Arctic Shrinkage, which is included in this WikiProject. I have proposed on the article's talk page that the article be renamed to Climate change in the Arctic, which would be consistent with other wikipedia article names (1, 2, etc). The term "Arctic shrinkage" seems to have been coined by wikipedia and does not appear to be a common name outside of wikipedia. For example, a google books search for "arctic shrinkage" returns 12 hits (excluding books mentioning wikipedia or Books LLC), whereas an equivalent search for "climate change in the Arctic" returns 1,150 hits; the same searches on google scholar similarly return 18 hits and 1,810 hits, respectively. This and other details are discussed on the article's talk page from this section to the bottom. A few days ago I placed a move notice on the article, and I plan to make a move request in a couple days. Since the page has received a lot of work from many users in the past (and I am relatively new to editing wikipedia), I am trying to be as careful as possible with this name change. Any comments on the article's talk page would be appreciated. I am also posting this note on WikiProject Arctic. --Abc-mn-xyz (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Environmentalism as a Religion

I am seeking assistance in writing a section to the article Environmentalism regarding a significant minority opinion that Environmentalism can be viewed as a religion. As the primary subject is tagged as falling under this wikiproject perhaps there would be interested parties willing to assist in this endeavor. Please see the current discussion at Talk:Environmentalism#Enivironmentalism. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Environmental issues with energy

Your comments are requested at a discussion here about a potential merge of Energy and the environment into Environmental issues with energy. Any constructive contributions would be appreciated. Neelix (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File:GlobalTemps21stCent.png & File:GlobalTemperaturesSince1991.png

Image:GlobalTemperaturesSince1991.png & Image:GlobalTemps21stCent.png have been nominated for deletion. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India

This article needs serious attention. Background is as Talk:Plastic recycling and biopolymers in India and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Recycling and the need for Bio-polymers in India. Voceditenore (talk) 11:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Renewable energy portal at FPC

Portal:Renewable energy is currently a Featured portal candidate. Any contributions and/or feedback appreciated. Johnfos (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to assist in adding donated content: GLAM/ARKive

Hi,

I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nanotechnology

Your comments are requested at a move discussion taking place here. Any constructive input would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The new Category:Environmental policy need populating

I have created Category:Environmental policy and some subcats for countries. They will need populating. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Portal image - need opinions

Hullo. This concerns this WikiProject's portal image. Previously it was the following:

Which is honestly unrecognizable at that resolution. I have proposed it be replaced in the meantime with:

While it looks more recognizable, it may not be representative of the project. There are some suggestions as to other replacements. Current suggestions are:

File:Emperor Penguin Kiss.jpg

Please see discussion at Template talk:Portal/Images/Environment and feel free to comment or suggest other alternatives. Thanks-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am happy with the current choice. Since it is used at low res it needed something better. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Article request

  • I requst the article: Radiative heater conversion

It would be an article about a fossil fuel burner to electric heater conversion for ecologic purposes

Category:Environmental topics by year

I have created Category:Environmental topics by year to fill what I realised was a gap in the environment related categories. The names for the sub-categories is a little "clunky" but I chose it to suit the other topics. Filling these categories and created related pages will be a BIG JOB. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about this article

I am having a discussion with the author of Dominant group (evolutionary biology). I'm not really an expert so I don't know if this is really a notable topic in biology. I don't want to nominate the article for deletion if it is. BigJim707 (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolution. It does not come under the purview of this WikiProject. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. This project is listed on its talk page. BigJim707 (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Transwiki suggestion

I'm a bit surprised that Micro-Sustainability has escaped deletion. It's a valid concept as an idea, but maybe not as a WP article, as it has no sources.

Such articles - reasonable ideas, not pseudoscience - are welcome at Appropedia.[4] I'm involved with Appropedia, so I'll avoid acting directly (potential conflict of interest) - but happy to help out as needed. There is a fair bit of content which gets deleted from Wikipedia which doesn't meet the specific Wikipedia requirements, but does have value - it's much better if it can find a friendly home. --Chriswaterguy talk 15:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

See microsustainability - Google Scholar.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

openCCS - source for carbon capture and storage info

There's a new wiki-like open knowledge resource about carbon capture and storage being developed at openCCS. It may be of use to other Wikipedia editors - see my longer note here. --Chriswaterguy talk 07:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Information merged – from the Adopt an article section of the Wikiproject Environment main page, and other information that was commented in the text

The following is a discussion from 2006 that was in the Adopt an article of the Wikiproject, and other information that was commented in the text. These parts of the WikiProject are currently not implemented at this time. This is being placed here to preserve it for reference and possible future use.

:Is there currently a way to call for collaboration (i.e., put out a call for collaborators) for specific articles? Meaning, collaboration in starting an environmental article, or expanding a stub, or adding valuable information to an article that is well along but could use improvement or new information? (I'm not thinking about the "Collaboration of the week" practice, because that's only for stubs and is not specifically related to the environment.

Joel Russ 23:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a blanket message to each participant in WikiProject Environment requesting for thier input if they have the necessary knowledge.--Alex 11:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Commented information from this section

<!--Check [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Melbourne#Adopt an article]] to see how this section is used.-->
<!-- add later User:Alan Liefting
==General strategy and discussion forums==
*[[/General]] *[[/Strategy]]
==Other subpages==
===Infoboxes===
* {{substemplate|template}}
* e.g.<nowiki>{{Infobox Environment}}
{{template|Infobox Environment }}
--> <!-- The line below is transcluding in the list of articles nominated for scientific peer review. This is still in an experimental phase and this line will later be added to all Science WikiProjects. Transcuding it means that it is automatically updated. --><blockquote>

WikiWomen's History Month

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Environment will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in environmentalism's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Years in the environment

How come there isn't a series of articles like "Year in the environment" in the style of 2011 in science? IT shouldn't be too hard to make a series like that. Abyssal (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is because no one has got around to it I guess. I have recently created the Category:Environment by year series and I made a pathetic stub article as a test at 2010 in the environment. It is a HUGE exercise and is something that I am planning to work on. My plan was to populate the categories and then use that as a basis for the individual year articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Cool. Take your time, there's no deadline. I might pitch in a little on occasion. Abyssal (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I have set up a bit of a structure. See Table of years in the environment for a stack of red links that need doing. List of years in the environment should be built up as the articles are created. The current structure is only temporary. Each year should have a summary. I have made a start on 2010 in the environment, 2011 in the environment, and 2012 in the environment. With the first two I have used the contents of the related category. Entries can also be gleaned for from the current events pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have set up Wikipedia:Environment by year project to help with what is a Really BIG Job. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Timelines that need sorting out

Timeline of history of environmentalism was split from Timeline of environmental history. Both names or both timeline are poorly thought out given the use of the words "environment" and "environmentalism". I have made an attempt to sort things out in the past (see Talk:Timeline of environmental history) and would like to clean things up, but before I do I want to get some further feedback for the wider community. Nothing worse than doing some major editing and having someone come in and stomp all over it with a heavy handed keyboard! (?!?) Fortunately that doesn't happen very often.

A few points:

Note that I have been working on Category:Environment by year which is intimately tied in with some sort of environmental timeline. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Given your proper concern for precision and unambiguity, why not Timeline of human impact on the environment? Or Timeline: history of human impact on the environment? Or the like? That is explicit, descriptive, and no longer than some accepted titles. It is unambiguous and eliminates the environment/environmentalism/etc confusion, that I guarantee to become a perennial nuisance or worse. JonRichfield (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Image for Template:Environmental-org-stub

Hi,
FYI, the image commons:File:Earth Western Hemisphere white background.jpg that had been used in Template:Environmental-org-stub was deleted earlier today. If anyone has a fitting replacement image you may consider putting that into the stub template.
Amalthea 11:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I quite like it without an image actually. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Article Edit of "Water Scarcity in Africa"

I plan on editing the current article on "Water Scarcity in Africa" and would like to add it to WikiProject Environment page. I will expand the current brief article to address how clean water scarcity effects health, opportunities for women, education, development, agriculture, and regional conflict. Overall, the article will discuss how the removal of a basic human necessity, such as clean water, devastates all aspects of African development. Without access to drinkable water, African nations are unable to support equal and comprehensive education opportunities, healthy living, reliable food sources and agriculture, technological advances, and sustainable positive development. Additionally, the burden of locating clean water is put on the shoulders of women and children, and thus women in these regions are denied access to basic capabilities, which has led to an unequal gender participation in society. Africa's current state is one of the most glaring examples of our time concerning how the lack of clean water leads to the stalling and reversal of human progress. Although the article will focus heavily on the development issues associated with Africa's clean water problems, the root of the cause lies in the environmental issue of clean water scarcity and how it is perpetuated by unsustainable practices, which is why I believe it fits in the scope of WikiProject Environment. I would greatly appreciate any opinions on what should or should not be included in my article expansion. Thanks so much! Hmccann (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done a few tweaks of Water scarcity in Africa. Some of the refs had a publication title in the authorlink field. It might pay to check the refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Wind power article

An editor has requested the views of others on whether this article is overly promotional of wind power. Please comment if you can. Johnfos (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to those who commented. Johnfos (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wind farm coverage

There is a lot of emphasis now on renewable energy commercialization and clean energy technologies like wind power. I think overall we have quite good coverage of individual wind farms on WP. But there is a tendency to focus on too many smaller wind farms, often less than 50 MW capacity. Would anyone be willing to help correct this situation by starting more articles on larger new wind farms such as the Blue Creek Wind Park (304 MW) [5], Flat Ridge 2 Wind Farm (419 MW) [6], Trianel Borkum West II (400 MW) [7], and others? Johnfos (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Edit of "Solar Powered Desalination Unit"

I would like to update the article "Solar Powered Desalination Unit" as it seems to be outdated. I would like to include in the article the use of direct and indirect means of solar desalination, the usage of Thermal Energy Storage to improve efficiency and how it can benefit rural communities. I would appreciate any feedback with regards to my proposed amendments. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongchin-NJITWILL (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing

There is a request for comment concerning the Hydraulic fracturing article. Beagel (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Environmental issues in China

There is a completely irrational merge discussion at Talk:Environmental issues in China. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And here - Talk:Water_supply_and_sanitation_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Merger_proposal. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge needed on Translocation

I just ran into the articles Species translocation and Translocation (wildlife conservation). They appear to me to cover the same ground. I hope somebody with some expertise in the area is up for a merge. Let me know if I can help. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I will put it on my to do list. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Add this to your watchlist

It seems that a bot has been quietly keeping an eye on new articles that relate to the environment without us noticing. Well at least I didn't notice. Or I have forgotten. See User:TedderBot/NewPageSearch/Environment/errors. The rules may need tweaking to make the results more accurate for our project. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sawdust vs. wood dust

As they may constitute an environmental hazard, I thought that you all might be interested in the sawdust and wood dust articles, and the debate at Talk:Sawdust#Merge in from Wood dust. --Bejnar (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Globalization Project Proposal

Hi WikiProject Environment Members, A few of us are trying to get a Globalization Project up and running. Members of this project would work together to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia on globalization, global issues, and related topics. If you're interested in globalization, would you come by and check out our proposal? We'd really appreciate any feedback about our ideas, and of course your support if you were interested in lending it. Thanks! LizFlash (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is an instructive 'how-not-to-do-it'... Thanks for the reference. Any further suggestions welcome, too... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Related: The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Enviornment members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Is the Globalization Project going to involved contributions by schools/colleges/universities? OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the question. As of this moment, there are no specific proposals for contributions by schools/colleges/universities; however, I don't forsee that such proposals would meet objections. Regards, Meclee (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject Globalization

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Meclee (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Rainwater harvesting in the UK proposed deletion

This deletion discussion is moving beyond whether or not the article in question should be deleted. It seems like there's room for improvement in how the larger subject is organized. --Kvng (talk) 22:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Recycling navigation box consolidation

I'd like to propose a consolidated Recycling navigation box, including Template:Recycling, Template:Recycling by material, and Template:Recycling by product, with some cross-links to more general waste topics. Please see the suggested consolidated navigation box at: User:DASonnenfeld/sandbox. Suggestions? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- merged to Template:Recycling. Articles using templates updated, as well. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon benzband (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Waste navigation box consolidation

Similarly, I am supportive of consolidating Template:Waste management; Template:Waste by type; and Template:WasteManagementByRegion. Would anyone like to take the lead on that? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I also support the consolidation. Can you take the lead seeing that you did the recycling one? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll start up a consolidated Waste navigation box in my sandbox... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Mock-up ready for viewing now, at: User:DASonnenfeld/sandbox. Suggestions welcome... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks goo! Lets go live with it! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

New, consolidated template created at Template:Waste. Will update article links... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Further enhancements to Template:Waste completed. All backlinks to Template:Waste management updated to combined template. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Environment Barnstar

Template:The Environment Barnstar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 19:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC on BP content dispute

There is currently a Request for Comment on a content dispute at the BP article. The dispute concerns whether the environmental record should by mentioned in the lede. As this topic falls under the WikiProject Environment's area of expertise, you may want to add it to your alerts section. Thanks! 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

For Your Info

Massey Energy and Mountaintop Removal Mining are being edited quite heavily at present, and some related articles are up for merging or deletion: Martin County sludge spill, I Love Mountains, and Lee Hall (lawyer). Johnfos (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Spanish language sources for BLP article

Anyone who has access to and can read Spanish language sources and is familiar with WP:BLP guidelines is invited to help ensure that Richard Fifer is fully and accurately represented. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Resurgence & Ecologist

FYI, one of the oldest environmental magazines, The Ecologist, published recently only online, has merged with Resurgence, edited by Satish Kumar. A new, combined print publication, Resurgence & Ecologist, is slated to come out this month (Sept. '12)... This set of articles will thus need to be updated soon. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Concept.gif

File:Concept.gif has been nominated for deletion. This appears to be the water cycle? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by forest area

Hello, I've made some updates to the above-referenced list, attempting to disaggregate countries from other units, in separate sub-lists. This may or may not be the best way to do it. But I find the alternative & former form, lumping everything together unsatisfactory. Comments and suggestions on that article's talk page regarding the best way to approach it would be most welcome. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Plastic pollution

This article is a bit of a mess, and not much about pollution. I'm not sure whether the concept really exists, beyond Marine debris, Plastic particle water pollution, and Litter, but it seems a bit harsh to take it to AfD. Maybe someone around here could expand it usefully? Or maybe it needs to be a dab page to that trio? PamD 07:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country

Comments are invited here on a proposed merger which would bring the interdisciplinary approach of the relatively inactive Water WikiProject within the more narrowly focused WP:WikiProject Water supply and sanitation by country.Thewellman (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed article merge

A merger has been proposed for Department of the Environment and Environment ministry. Comments are invited at (Discuss). Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Peer Review Request

Peer review has been requested and reviews will be appreciated for the article Globalization. Meclee (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Importance parameter

The is another request to activate the importance parameter for this WikiProject. See Template talk:WikiProject Environment#Display importance. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Today's Article for Improvement: Renewable resource

The improvement drive for this article nears conclusion, and it should be reassessed by the relevant wikiprojects in light of the improvements. And if the concept interests you, feel free to join in the next Article for Improvement, available on the WP:TAFI page. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Importance parameter

The is another request to activate the importance parameter for this WikiProject. See Template talk:WikiProject Environment#Display importance. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Today's Article for Improvement: Renewable resource

The improvement drive for this article nears conclusion, and it should be reassessed by the relevant wikiprojects in light of the improvements. And if the concept interests you, feel free to join in the next Article for Improvement, available on the WP:TAFI page. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill

There is a discussion if the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was split correctly from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and if it should be merged back there. Relevant sections for this discussion are this and this. Your comments are appreciated. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Palm oil information

Hello, I am reaching out here on behalf of the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC), which I have been helping improve information in Wikipedia articles on palm oil related topics. I have prepared revisions to update the Social and environmental impact of palm oil article and am looking for knowledgeable editors to review the two changes I suggested on the talk page last week. These changes introduce new information and supporting references, and suggest the replacement of out of date information.

Because these requests are on behalf of the MPOC, I will not make the additions myself and hope that someone here will look at them for me. I'll be checking this page as well as the article talk page for any questions. Thanks in advance. YellowOwl (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

List of environmental laws by country

I've spun off the above-referenced article from a very unwieldy Environmental law article. The new list includes too many redlinks, including for articles in languages other than English. Assistance is welcome in further refining and developing this work in progress. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not too keen on having a paqe of mostly redlinks in article namespace. I would like to move it over to project namespace as a to-do list. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alan, I don't mind if you want to do that. Makes sense... There are a few countries (the UK, New Zealand, maybe Australia) that perhaps are sufficiently far enough along to spin off as country-specific lists, too. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Can I get you to remove the categories and add the env WikiProject one? I have been topic banned and cannot do it. I should have removed the categories before I moved the page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I fixed and moved it from Wikipedia space to article namespace. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Categories removed & WP:Env category added... Next? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
OhanaUnited, are you suggesting that this article should remain in article namespace, even with the many redlinks? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 ::::Hang on! What is happening here? We don't put articles in project categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

=> See the 'Requested move' discussion at: (Discuss). Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

UPDATES: i) the Requested move referenced above was closed with "No consensus"; ii) the article has now been proposed for deletion. WP:Env participants are invited to comment on this latest proposed action at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental laws by country. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

RESOLUTION: the proposed deletion has been closed with the decision, Keep. Thanks to WP:Env participants for input. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

New York Times eliminates environment desk

The management of the New York Times has decided to eliminate its environment desk.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Organic Milk

Request for comments at Talk:Organic_milk#RFC The Banner talk 03:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Geoengineering - delete, redirect here, task force?

I have proposed deleting Wikipedia:WikiProject Geoengineering because it was dead on arrival - see the discussion here. Someone has proposed redirecting it to this project. It could also become a task force for this project. Any thoughts? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No apparent action there for several years. Perhaps best to let it go altogether at this time. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with DASonnenfeld. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI

Hello,
Please note that Jungle, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Hello,
Please note that Poaching, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Hello,
Please note that Energy crop, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(From the TAFI team)

Persistent organic pollutants

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 23#Category:Persistent organic pollutants. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Important, continuing discussion for this WikiProject. Additional comments welcome! Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon oil spill

During some last months there has been an active development of cleaning up the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article by splitting off large sections into separate articles. A Deepwater Horizon series were created (all the articles accessible by Template:Deepwater Horizon oil spill series. You are invited to assist by cleaning-up and copy-editing these articles. There are also ongoing discussion concerning additional split-offs. You could see split-off templates at the article's page and find discussions at the talk page. Your input would be useful for building consensus on these issues. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Article assessment: importance

Does this WikiProject really have more than 5000 articles without an importance assessment? Suggestions? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably. Since it has only now been activated it was rarely added to articles. I had added a few over the years hoping that it would eventually be enable. BTW, I think the assessment table is a bit slow in being updated. I am not sure how to prod it along and give the updates that we are doing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Added note w/ link to purge page cache. Even with that, though, there is a 24-36? hr. delay. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The purge macro does seem to work well for some updates, such as category changes. I would recommend adding it back in somewhere... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You can run the bot manually here. Then purge the table and any page that include the table. Even after running the bot manually, there appears to be an occasional lag in updates occurring. Regards, Illia Connell (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

For those who don't have it on their watchlist Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Popular pages is now updated and now has the importance parameter listed. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, Alan! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal from May 2012

See Talk:Human_impact_on_the_environment#Merge_proposal. Be good to get it resolved. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Environmental Kuznets curve - proposed article split

Hello, I would like to propose splitting off a new Environmental Kuznets curve article from the current Kuznets curve article. Good idea? Please discuss here. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Binghamcopperminesmithson.jpg

File:Binghamcopperminesmithson.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion of images

Can anybody draw schemes of biomass like that [8] (for animals, plants, bacteria, etc) for the Biomass (ecology) article? Thanks Zorahia (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

BP article controversy

Hello WP:Env editors, I came across this story on cNet that may be of interest here. It relates to a controversy regarding the BP article. That article is not currently tagged w/ this WP, but the WP:Env Environmental Record Task Force is watching it... Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A high level of editing and discussion continues on this article. Anyone been following the discussion who would like to summarize it here? Also, should it be tagged for this WP? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

2013 Arkansas oil spill

An oil spill in Arkansas has been reported.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Khian Sea waste disposal incident

Khian Sea waste disposal incident is under discussion at WT:SHIPS -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Live video pictures of the Earth

Plans are under way for the International Space Station to begin, on October 16, 2013, the transmission of live video pictures of the Earth to the Internet.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Campus Climate Challenge

Hello, FYI, there's a conversation of possible interest to WP:Env editors regarding an effort to include institutional environmental record information on related Wikipedia articles. The discussion is at WP:Universities. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 00:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article on Temperature of the Earth

Although the article has information on the long term history of the earth's temperature, it has the flavor of the temperature has been increasing. That is true, but it does not state the fact that the coldest earth's temperature since about 4500 bc occurred in the mid 1800's and the earth's temperature today is lower than it was in 1100 bc. Also the earth's temperature swings from hot to cold ever 600 years or so.

The article is misleading. see http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

64.245.206.194 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Content removed from the project's main page

The following content that was in the form of a hidden comment has been removed and moved here for historical purposes from the project's main page, because it hasn't been utilized there. Open the edit link for this section to view its layout as it existed there. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

<!--==Similar WikiProjects== No similar WikiProjects have been named. One type of similar WikiProject are ones that have the same parent Similar WikiProjects are: *[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Q|WikiProject Q]] *[[Wikipedia:WikiProject R|WikiProject R]] --> <!-- Save these for later User:Alan Liefting ==Related [[Wikipedia:Wikiportal|Wikiportals]]== No related Wikiportals have been named. ==Related [[:Category:Weekly Wikipedia collaborations|Collaborations]]== No related Collaborations have been named. ==Related [[Wikipedia:Regional notice boards|Regional notice boards]]== No related Regional notice boards have been named. ==Related groups of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedians]]== No related Wikipedians have been named. ==Related pages in [[Wikipedia:Sister projects|Sister projects]]== *[[Commons:Environment]] *[[Wikibooks:Environment]] *[[Wikinews:Environment]] *[[Wikiquote:Environment]] *[[Wikisource:Environment]] *[[Wikispecies:Environment]] *[[Wiktionary:Environment]] *[[meta:Environment]] ===Sister Project Searches=== *[http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Environmentia&go=Go WikiBooks search] *[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&scoring=d&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=site:en.wikibooks.org+Environment Google WikiBooks search] *[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Environment&go=Go WikiQuote search] *[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&scoring=d&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=site:en.wikiquote.org+Environment} Google WikiQuote search] *[http://wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Environment&go=Go WikiSource search] *[http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&scoring=d&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=site:wikisource.org+Environment Google WikiSource search] -->

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer village in China

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer village in China.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for Environmental impact of Deepwater Horizon oil spill article

Hello, my name is Arturo and I am an employee of BP. A few weeks ago I posted a request on the talk page of the Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article looking for help with a simple correction. While looking at the article recently, I noticed that there is one sentence that is repeated word-for-word in two places and I'd like to suggest removing this duplication. Please take a look at the request on the talk page if you would like to help out. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

article tag questioned

Why is San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station tagged by this wikiproject? I do not see why that article falls within the scope of this article. It appears to be a bit of anti-nuclear power activism; it would be as if WP:RIGHT were to tag the Barack Obama article, which would be entirely inappropriate. Just because environmentalist oppose or support a subject doesn't mean that the subject falls within the scope of the article. Same can be said just because a political ideology opposes or supports a subject means that it falls within the scope of that wikiproject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can see two reasons: i) the section on "Environmental risk and mitigation"; and ii) another on "Anti-nuclear protests". Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Both sections go into documenting environmental activism against the subject of the article, and thus my concern. So if there is a section of conservatism criticism/activism of a politician/idea/movement/etc., does that mean that WP:RIGHT should be able to tag an article? Such things have been met with opposition in the past, with consensus saying that just because an article has a section that documents criticism or activism about the subject of an article doesn't mean that the corresponding wikiproject should tag the article as being under its scope, and thus why I am raising this concern here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Cooperative WikiProject

WikiProject Globalization, with assistance from Outlines WikiProject, has drafted an Outline of globalization. We welcome your input, additions, and comments. Meclee (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability of three environment buildings in Réunion

Someone might want to have a look at INNOVAL, Retrofitting Building M: University of Reunion Island, France and The Groupe Omicrone, bioclimatic building In ictu oculi (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

"Unacceptable Levels" (movie)

Someone may wish to start a Wikipedia article "Unacceptable Levels" about the documentary of the same name.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not feed the animals

There is a discussion at Talk:Do not feed the animals#Article title which members of this project may be interested in. -- 202.124.89.1 (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Earthquakes by Richter magnitude

I propose a new category, Category:Earthquakes by Richter magnitude (based on the Richter magnitude scale), with its subcategories. I do not know whether one decimal place in the upper bounds is sufficient.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposed category is analogous to Category:Tropical cyclones by strength.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Earthquakes by moment magnitude

I propose a new category, Category:Earthquakes by moment magnitude (based on the moment magnitude scale), with its subcategories. I do not know whether one decimal place in the upper bounds is sufficient.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The proposed category is analogous to Category:Tropical cyclones by strength.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Dumpster diving, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Removal of material on potential environmental disruption of Earth

I feel this is relevant here because of the environmental aspect. Important material relevant to protecting the environment of the Earth has been removed from wikipedia. It is a mainstream and not a fringe concern.

Origin of the concerns

Carl Sagan was concerned about back contamination of Earth, and all the official studies since then have confirmed his concerns.

The main concern is that in the worst case it could cause environmental disruption of the Earth. This is thought to be a very low probability possibility, but can't be ruled out. As a result the conclusions of studies by the European Space Foundation, and the National Research Council, is that a great deal of care should be taken for any Mars sample return.

Due to the international nature of the low probability worst case scenarios, there are also many legal issues including internationally and the domestic policies of countries other than the launching nation, and the need to involve the public in debate world wide.

Mainstream view

This is the mainstream view. There is an organization ICAMSR which is an advocacy group opposed to any return of a sample to Earth. They shouldn't be confused with this mainstream view that accepts the concern and says a return to Earth is possible but needs great care, changes of law and worldwide public consultation.

Some space colonization advocates such as Zubrin take the view that these concerns have no scientific validity but his is not a mainstream view.

All the material I contributed on this removed

An editor has removed all the material I contributed to wikipedia discussing these issues. My material was heavily cited and carefully researched. He did it on authority of an AfD of an article I wrote, which was improperly carried out in many ways.

He seems to have support of most of the other editors who have got involved in the debate so far, so am posting to other related projects, to see if I get more sympathy elsewhere where perhaps there will be editors with different views on it all.

This is a short summary of it from previous version of the back contamination issues page: Back contamination from Mars

Here is a longer treatment which I keep in my user page because I can't add this to the main space in wikipedia at present:

Mars Sample Receiving Facility and sample containment

This is about irregularities in the AfD. Previous AfD

This is WPs most recent proposal to remove everything on interplanetary contamination issues from wikipedia except for one article (plus a short page about the extreme views of the ICAMSR).

Merger Proposal III

Why I posted here

I'm not sure what to do, and am posting to any place I might get sympathy and help about what to do next. Robert Walker (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


To explain more - I posted this because just about all material in wikipedia on planetary contamination issues has been removed over the last few weeks or replaced with material biased towards the views of space colonization advocates that the issues are of little or no consequence. I wrote most of this material, summarizing numerous notable sources as best I could.
I feel it is wrong to remove it. I proposed to address issues of bias by collaborating with a friend with opposite views to do. But that was of no avail and it seems there is nothing I can do about it.
The admin who was helping me feels that I am ""whining" about this informal topic ban, that I can't seem to get the message of the other editors. Really no-one on wikipedia apart from me seems to think it matters at all if this material is removed, though many of my friends and colleagues outside of wikipedia think it is outrageous. Anyway it now seems to me unlikely anyone can help, but just in case anyone else feels as strongly about it as me, that the material is needed, leave this in place for now. Be aware if you do try to restore it or support my side, you will encounter fierce opposition and insults from editors totally opposed to its inclusion in wikipedia. What they particularly object to is any mention of possible issues of environmental disruption from the sample return. Though the sources state clearly that that is a possibility, low probability but possible. Robert Walker (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Heads up: user Robert Walker is a disruptive WP:SPA. Check his history and handle at your own discretion. Thank you, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not a SPA. Recently all my talk page discussions have been on contamination issues because a single editor took on himself to remove everything I wrote on contamination issues from wikipedia. Also before that I was engaged in a long weeks long attempt to save an article I wrote from the same editor- eventually it got deleted in an AfD.
Normally I write on many different topics. Robert Walker (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:SPA and a deleted article are irrelevant to the merits of this information. What reasons do some editors express in support of removing the information? Even if some editors consider it to be nonsense, Wikipedia has Category:Controversies and Category:Pseudoscience.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Wavelength, They haven't given me any reasons. It is all ad hominem stuff. They just repeatedly insult me, and say I am not competent to write about it. You can see the quality of their criticism from the AfD .
They also say that I am unable to write in a NPOV way. Since the AFD I found a friend who is keen to collaborate with me, who is also a friend of Zubrin and who I have had lively discussions with, as he is pretty much opposite to me in the debate, to deal with any POV slant, but this was of no interest to them. WP also repeatedly challenges me on facts that you can easily check by reading the source material, saying I report it inaccurately but you just need to read the sources to see that I report it accurately, and that his paraphrases are simply incorrect. Robert Walker (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
@ Wavelength: Read his crap first before commenting here, here, and e.g., here, and here. Losing an AfD is not an invitation to cut 'n' paste the deleted content rightly described as editorial BS to other articles. He has also spammed his published opinion pieces in at least one place here. His POV-pushing walls o' text have proved to be extremely disruptive. He cares NOTHING for wasting other people's time. Go ahead and step in it if you got nothing to do. He is extremely self-absorbed and paranoid, making absurd allegations of sock puppetry in multiple places: but one example here. After you've done that, come back and make a substantive comment. Thanks. Warren Platts (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Robert Walker, I have read partway through your very long article in Science 2.0, and I found it to present a balance of points of view in regard to back contamination, as well as a list of 56 references under "References". (I recommend that you read that article slowly in order to find and correct mistakes in spelling and grammar and punctuation.)
Likewise, I found that the information removed from the Wikipedia article had a balanced presentation of views about back contamination. If some editors describe you as incompetent at writing articles, then I question their competence at assessing competence. However, if they have their hearts set on preventing readers from learning about a potential risk, then perhaps there is little that I can do to dissuade them.
I believe that this information deserves to have its own article (possibly called "Back contamination from early Mars sample return"). I suggest that you wait for 12 months before starting that article, meanwhile continuing your research on the topic and communicating with experts and accumulating more material in support of the validity of publishing the information on Wikipedia.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Wavelength, thanks, yes I am in communication with professionals on the topic and will continue this. One of my friends is an exobiologist who helped with design of science instruments for detecting life on Mars and has written many papers on exobiology - I am in regular communication with him, and he helps correct any mistakes in my microbiology. Have been in communication with some of the other authors who write on the subject checking my understanding of their papers, for instance, exchanged many emails recently with Chris McKay who is one of the top authors in the field of interplanetary contamination issues, and will continue with this. I've been coming to a similar conclusion that there is probably nothing I can do on wikipedia. As you say, they have a heart felt opposition to the material. I don't take the insults personally, or try not to, as I expect on other topics we could have perfectly amicable conversations, it is just the material that is the issue for them.
As you say, yes things can change. The science can change too.
It wouldn't be too extra-ordinary if in the not too distance future unambiguous detection of present day life on Mars, many scientists think it is quite likely there is life there, I'd say personally maybe 50% probability (ask me 10 years ago and I'd say maybe 0.1% probability on the surface and maybe 20% below- I mean of course not an exact probability, just to give an idea.). Reanalysis of the Phoenix lander isotopic observations already came up with strong evidence that there has been interaction of the atmosphere with significant quantities of water in the geologically recent past and part of the reason I put the prob. of life there so high.
Something like that could change people's attitudes to the validity of including this material in wikipedia. Meanwhile I can be patient and write on science20 where my content is valued. Robert Walker (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh and thanks for pointing out that the article still has spelling and grammatical and punctuation errors in it. Is my big bugbear, and I put it through a spell checker just now and found and fixed some errors I'd somehow missed before. Will check the grammar and punctuation too and I like to be corrected on this, am not a great proof reader myself, and know that (I think I might be mildly dislexic though not been tested for it, I know I do have a defect in my right eye that causes the letters to dance around on the page slightly when I read it). Robert Walker (talk) 07:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Wavelength, I've taken your advice and am going to stop writing about contamination issues for wikipedia. I considered filing an admin incident report but it is not yet extreme enough to be plain for anyone to see. You have to read the official studies to see how revisionist WPs editing of these topics on wikipedia has been, and no-one here has the time to read hundred page studies to verify sources. Surely if I post to an admin incident desk, no-one there would have the time to read the sources. It would just be another opportunity for WP and BI to insult me some more, and I would lose the incident and most likely be sanctioned for raising it at all.
So instead I am reusing the content I wrote for wikipedia under CC by SA on other sites on the web. There is more to the web than wikipedia and some other places are more than happy to host well cited scientific material such as this.
I still have the wish to improve the coverage by wikipedia on Interplanetary contamination issues, and would return to the topic again if anyone here wants my contributions, and if there is at least a reasonable chance that it won't be removed by editors opposed to including material on this topic. Robert Walker (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Wavelength, what do you mean by "early" MSR? Honestly, what is "early" supposed to mean? Can you please explain it? Cuz we don unerstand... Unbelievable.... lol! Amateurs... Warren Platts (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I apologize: you are a true professional! I like your link you put on Wikipedia here as well! I guess I now unerstan what you mean by early: if life only originated 6,000 years ago here on Earth, what can we really expect for frackin' Mars?!? Warren Platts (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
WP - there is a place on wikipedia for authors with any belief system. I see you link to some pages on Jehovah's witness pages. It doesn't mean that he is a Jehovah's witness because he has material on them, might just be that he writes extensively about the Jehovah's witnesses on wikipedia, a notable and valid subject for an encyclopedia. But if he is a JW that is also absolutely fine, if a creationist that is also fine.
A creationist can contribute to evolutionist pages too, e.g. there would be nothing wrong at all with a knowledgeable creationist helping to edit pages on Darwin and evolutionary theory, by putting forward the evolutionist arguments, using "writing for the enemy". There is no problem at all having any belief you like, all that matters for NPOV is that when you report on the material in wikipedia that you present the POV of the source rather than inject your own POV into it. Robert Walker (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Poaching, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 02:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Hello,
Please note that National park, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ela foundation

Dear environmentalists: This article: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ela foundation hasn't been edited for a long time and will be eventually deleted, because there is already an article Ela Foundation in the encyclopedia. It has a lot of information, although most of it is available on the organization's web site. Should any of this information be transferred in to the main article? If so, is there someone who knows about these things who is willing to take on this task? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Megadiverse countries}}

Template:Megadiverse countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Diesel exhaust

The scope of Diesel exhaust is under discussion, see talk:Diesel exhaust -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I was looking at the IPCC 5th AR, and noticed the copyright status of the IPCC materials is listed as such: [9]. Two questions:

  • To what extent could be use figures from AR5 in articles such as IPCC Fifth Assessment Report‎?
  • Could Wikipedia/WMF officially request more comprehensive permissions to allow more unrestricted use? How could we go about this?

Cheers, --LukeSurl t c 15:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Anahareo.jpg

image:Anahareo.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Climate Reality Project

As the note at the top of this page says that its primary purpose is to discuss changes to the WikiProject Environment page, I'll keep this very brief. If there is a similar WikiProject where you think this message would be better suited please let me know and I'll take this request there.

I've written a new draft version of the Climate Reality Project article and am looking for editors to review it because I have a COI with this topic: to explain simply, I have written this draft on behalf of and with input from the organization.

I'm asking here because this WikiProject is listed on the article's talk page; I'm hopeful someone here is interested in articles on environmental organizations and can review this draft and let me know what they think. If you are interested, please take a look at my more detailed message on the Talk page. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done My draft was reviewed and moved live, and the two predecessor organizations' articles were merged and redirects created. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sustainability, sustainable development, and engineering emerging technologies

Due to a potential appearance of conflict of interest concerns[10] I have started a Request for Comments on engineering sustainable development. Tim AFS (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Closure of Canadian science libraries

It has been reported that some materials from closed Canadian science libraries would be digitized upon request.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And it has also been reported (in those same articles) that since that (false) promise, they have been dumped in landfills, burned, or taken by private research companies. Sure, would have been nice to get them all into WikiSource, but when the country's major university and public libraries weren't even asked if they'd like them, it's pie-in-the-sky if you're suggesting that they be brought into Wikipedia. They're already gone, poof; into the dump, turned to ashes, or coopted by companies who were given the tip-off that they could be gotten for nothing and are now out of public reach. Including Wikipedia's. Your point in posting this was...??Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
PS, I raised this for inclusion in the respective article at Talk:Environmental policy of the Harper government but I do not keep that watchlisted so am not sure who has added anything, if anything, so far. Since you have posted this on three different WikiProjects, might I suggest that any further discussion take place at that one spot?Skookum1 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:07, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Category:Earth and atmospheric sciences journals

Hi, could someone here perhaps have a look at this category and its subcats (especially Category:Meteorology journals)? I find the current situation not completely satisfactory. For example, I'm not sure that climatology journals belong in "meteorology". Other journals that currently are in the main cat could perhaps be diffused, but some may be difficult to place in the current subcats. Would it make sense to create a "climatology journals" cat? Would that be a subcat of "meteorology journals", the other way around, or a equal level/parallel subcat within Earth and atmospheric sciences journals? Thanks for any advice! --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

updating WLT pages

There is a problem with correcting errors and updating pages, inasmuch as anyone connected with the organisation attracts negative comments. The same occurred when I tried to correct a page created under my personal name. In the case of WLT it would be interesting to have guidance as to how it can be corrected.85.233.185.122 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Could you clarify which 'WLT' you are referring to? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC).

Editing Climate Change and Poverty

Hello! I will be editing Climate change and poverty for SWGS 322 at Rice University, as a student in term = Spring 2014. I will further expand upon the topics mentioned, and incorporate alternative ways to decrease climate change. I intend to explore how we might develop solutions to poverty though utilization of clean energy and environmental systems, rather than describing perceived problems and losses of development due to climate change, as the current article seems to do a bit. This investigation topic is essential to consider in our ever-progressing world of innovation and technology. Hopefully, findings will allow us to gain knowledge and encourage us to tackle the social challenges that face us as a result of climate in an objective manner. My hope is that I will be able to specify the material already provided, while integrating insight about alternative ways to limit climate change and how this might influence social development. The current article obtains many links to other articles, but is not particularly detailed. Most of the statements are rather broad and biased, rather than objective and specific (to a particular region geographically, or aspect of climate change).

I thought of editing the title of the article so that it does not contain the word “and,” suggesting a biased, correlative relationship between climate change and poverty. Do you have any suggestions of a better title? One idea that I had was “Clean Energy Development Potential.” I also hope to incorporate pieces of Climate change and gender, as mentioned above, for I think that the consideration of gender in relation to social development could integrate an additional layer of understanding climate change. Do you have any suggestions or input of what else is necessary for the cohesion and enjoyment of this article? Thank you for your consideration!CarolineABrigham (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"Climate engineering" or "geoengineering" ?

See talk:climate engineering for the discussion on the name of the article -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Silent Spring

Despite being a vital 4 article, it's been rather neglected. I've improved it by taking material from the Rachel Carson article which is FA rated. This is a start. With some work and expansion it could become FA as well. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center

The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center might deserve a Wikipedia article, but if it does not, then its website might still be useful as a resource for expanding other articles.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a notable organisation, I would give it the thumbs up. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Silent Spring peer review

Important book in the history of environmental regulations, history of pesticide usage, and environmentalism. Please offer your thoughts. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

How much space should be discussing his climate change views? See Talk:Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Undue_weight. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Art parks

Category:Art parks has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society journals - subscription offer for one year

I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 03:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

NewBees (robot bees)

Wikipedia can have information about NewBees (robot bees).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC) and 14:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
About two and a half hours ago, I discovered the article "RoboBee".
—Wavelength (talk) 17:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Categories for waste and waste management by country

It seems to me that the pages currently within Category:Waste by country could all be moved down into Category:Waste management by country. Would this project support the implied category merges/renames? Category:Electronic waste and its sub-cats could likewise be renamed as "electronic waste management". There are practically no country sub-divisions of other sub-cats of Category:Waste. On the other hand, it would be possible to categorise some pages within Category:Waste disposal incidents and Category:Radioactively contaminated areas in "waste by country", if anyone thinks this would be worth having. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any advantage in the proposed changes. Adequately assessing this proposal requires time and attention that I prefer not to spend on this at this time. Other watchers of this talk page may likewise prefer not to spend time and attention on this proposal at this time, so silence does not necessarily imply consent.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Dutch solar bicycle paths

There's some content needs developing at Smart highway, and some older related discussion at US Company Talk:Solar Roadways. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Haze meter

FYI, there's a notice at WT:PHYSICS about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haze meter -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Renewable energy enters the mainstream

The REN21 Renewables 2014 Global Status Report is now available, and it says that "renewable energy has entered the mainstream". The global growth of most renewable energy technologies has been greater than many people anticipated, see Renewable energy commercialisation. There are now studies and proposals in many countries about practical pathways to 100% renewable energy. The REN21 report says that renewable energies are not just energy sources, but ways to address pressing social, political, economic and environmental problems:

Today, renewables are seen not only as sources of energy, but also as tools to address many other pressing needs, including: improving energy security; reducing the health and environmental impacts associated with fossil and nuclear energy; mitigating greenhouse gas emissions; improving educational opportunities; creating jobs; reducing poverty; and increasing gender equality... Renewables have entered the mainstream.

Further reading:

-- Johnfos (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/Selected topics#Environmental degradation.
—Wavelength (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
A spiral-type integrated compact fluorescent lamp, which has been in popular use among North American consumers since its introduction in the mid-1990s.[1]

Interesting angle, Wavelength. We need to remember that moving towards energy sustainability will require changes not only in the way energy is supplied, but in the way it is used, and reducing the amount of energy required to deliver various goods or services is essential. Opportunities for improvement on the demand side of the energy equation are as rich and diverse as those on the supply side, and often offer significant economic benefits.[2]

A sustainable energy economy requires commitments to both renewables and efficiency. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are said to be the "twin pillars" of sustainable energy policy. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy has explained that both resources must be developed in order to stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide emissions:[3]

Efficiency is essential to slowing the energy demand growth so that rising clean energy supplies can make deep cuts in fossil fuel use. If energy use grows too fast, renewable energy development will chase a receding target. Likewise, unless clean energy supplies come online rapidly, slowing demand growth will only begin to reduce total emissions; reducing the carbon content of energy sources is also needed.[3]

The IEA has stated that renewable energy and energy efficiency policies are complementary tools for the development of a sustainable energy future, and should be developed together instead of being developed in isolation.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnfos (talk • contribs) 10:31, 13 June 2014‎ (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Philips Tornado Asian Compact Fluorescent". Philips. Retrieved 2007-12-24.
  2. ^ InterAcademy Council (2007). Lighting the way: Toward a sustainable energy future
  3. ^ a b American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (2007). The Twin Pillars of Sustainable Energy: Synergies between Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Technology and Policy Report E074.

Leaflet For Wikiproject Environment At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oil Platforms case

Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) has been proposed to be renamed to Oil Platforms case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), for the discussion, see talk:Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

longwave radiation

The usage of Longwave radiation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Outgoing longwave radiation -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Particulates

The uses of Particulate, Particulates, Particulate matter is under discussion, see talk:Particulates -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

"Right to farm" in Missouri

Missouri is considering a constitutional amendment that would guarantee the "right to farm".

There are implications for the environment and the use of genetically modified crops.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Mount Polley mine disaster

I've made some notes on WP:CANTALK about this article as to it having the potential to being a "battlefield article" and also that it needs watching to prevent POVism arising (it's not bad so far and only regular Wikipedians have worked on it as yet). The crisis is ongoing and there is a lot of material out there already that could be added.Skookum1 (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GREAT-ER Model

Dear environmentalists: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it will disappear shortly if no one edits it in the next few days. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
How is this article's scope/notability different from AERMOD or CALPUFF? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Urban Heat Islands

I intend on mentioning and expanding a little about the effects of the Urban Heat Islands on the "Climate change in the United States" under the "Our Changing Planet" section. Arch361student (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Arch361student

Apparently, you are referring to the effects of urban heat islands on climate change in the United States, and the article section Climate change in the United States#Our Changing Planet. Please see WP:NOUN and MOS:HEAD.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC) and 18:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia coverage of human-caused NEW space debris

I've spent some time going through the launches of just one US company, for the past year, and have added brief prose to the applicable articles, with source citations, of each of the intentionally-left space debris from used-up second stage rockets that have been left in Earth orbit. I found five out of seven launches had done so. These articles are now added to either the Category:Derelict satellites orbiting Earth category or the Category:Former derelict satellites that orbited Earth category.

Details: the five redir links for the seven launches of just that single company (SpaceX) during the past year are: Falcon 9 Flight 6 upper stage, Falcon 9 Flight 11 upper stage, and Falcon 9 Flight 12 upper stage as currently derelict space debris, and Falcon 9 Flight 7 upper stage and Falcon 9 Flight 8 upper stage as formerly derelict (these last two have encountered enough of the thicker atmosphere over enough orbital passes over enough months to have slowed down and reentered and burned up in the air, before depositing the solid remnants in the ocean or on Earth's land surface, and leaving metal and metal oxide particles in the atmosphere). The other two of that company's second stages were deorbited under controlled conditions, within hours of the launch, and left their debris in the south Indian ocean as well as some particulates in the atmosphere.

There have been another dozen+ launches in the past 12 months just by US companies, and and another couple-dozen+ launches by Russia, India, Japan, Europe, etc.; with over half leaving long-term space debris in Earth orbit, just from the second stage rocket bodies alone.

If anyone else in the Environment project would care to pick one company, or country, and do the work to add the past year's debris adds to Wikipedia (with a short sentence and a citation in an existing article, and article redirects and categorization so others can find them), I think we could really begin to improve Wikipedia, the encyclopedia of human knowledge, by keeping it current with the human-caused NEW creation of intentional space debris. I would very much appreciate the help, and I would be happy to help show others how to do it, and help with traversing the spaceflight-specific esoterica and terminology. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

In reply to your final statement (about "traversing the spaceflight-specific esoterica and terminology"), I suggest a new glossary (Glossary of spaceflight), to be categorized in Category:Glossaries. Guidelines are at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC) and 19:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

npp for category tool

Please comment. Gryllida (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Interest in the environmental effects of space debris

Are there editors involved with the WikiProject Environment group who are interested in the topic increasing human-caused debris in outer space and how that ought to be mentioned/covered in Wikipedia?

If so, there may be some discussions from time-to-time about the appropriate level of encyclopedic coverage in articles on launches and satellites, particularly as they go inactive and become long-term space debris as derelict objects left in orbit.

I'm generally more involved in WikiProject Spaceflight, but would be willing to add Requests for Comments and invitations to discussions over here on the Environment project if there is interest. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I am definitely interested in this topic, besides many other topics. You may recall your request for information at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Archive 3#The (outer) Space Environment (February 2011), and my replies there. If I encounter online information about this topic, I will probably post links to it on your talk page.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Wavelength, for your interest, and for reminding me of the previous (limited) Talk page discussion. Wow, that was 3 1/2 years ago. I had a vague recollection of previously contacting the WikiProject Environment folks, but had not recalled at all the detail of what was discussed. With your link, above, that is now available to all Environment project persons at the current time. Will appreciate any help as topics arise. N2e (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

My sense is that there is some synergy between the terrestrial environment, and the outer space environment, and that some subset of folks from both wikiprojects will be may be interested in working together to improve Wikipedia at the intersection of these two topics.

I think this is especially true in the inner solar system environment. With the rapidly arriving advent of cheaper and smaller satellites—see, for example Skybox Imaging (currently deploying tens of satellites around Earth) and the WorldVu satellite constellation (which plans to deploy some 360 satellites in Earth orbit in the next few years); both have Google and billionaire financial capital behind them—and with the much lower-cost space launch services that are already being provided by private companies (non-governmental space launch services) and will likely increase rapidly if the reusable technology continues making the advances like it has made in the past three years.

To that end, I've been occasionally making note of derelict objects in some spaceflight-related articles when I have a good source, but I've not been systematic about it, and human-caused derelict-object space debris is a big part of what's up there. So in general, I think this topic is undercovered in Wikipedia, and interest from other editors might be useful for doing a better job of representing it in the English Wikipedia. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. Since it has been a couple of weeks, and only Wavelength has responded, thought I should perhaps summarize my take on the current situation:
At the current time (late 2014), there is not much interest in the environmental affects of space debris, at least not much in the WikiProject Environment Project and those who frequent its Talk page.
I don't mean anything bad by this at all; it is just an observation of the situation here of little interest shown by other WikiProject Environment editors as of September 2014.
Moreover, this is not particularly surprising. Most negative externalities of the pollution sort (air, water, or land pollution) were typically not treated as pollution by the larger society in their early years. E.g., in the United States, no broad environmental laws were enacted in 1790 to prevent the tannic acid waste of leather tanners from ruining the surface arable land: this was such a small problem at the time that any damage one small leather tanning company (or artisan) did, even leeching of a small amount into streams, was mostly ignored. (or if private property was involved, might have resulted in a small tort action in some local jurisdictional court). Ditto in, say, 1880. Even though the quantities were much greater, more creeks and rivers had more water pollution dumping or leeching in, it was not handled as a general matter via any sort of broad public law, or even broad societal disapprobation. It took until after the middle of the 20th century for the aggregate unaddressed waste streams, of a growing and increasingly dense population, to defile the water resources sufficiently for broad societal disapproval to result in both the environmental movement and the public laws we have today, laws which, in the main, attempt to force the cost of such pollution to be taken into account by those who generate the pollution.
While I may wish it was not so, I think the outer space environment, and overall increase in the negative externality of space debris in orbit around Earth, is analogous to the leeching tannic acid in 1790. We are, apparently, too far from where sufficient damage has been done to the outer space environment by this intentional human-caused debris for more than a few to care, or perhaps it is just a bit too "distant", or hard to understand for many folks. So I may drift over here and ask from time to time, but my assessment of the current situation is that we are far from where any critical mass of even environmentally-concerned folk are going to expend much of their volunteer effort in Wikipedia editing to add such information to the "encyclopedia of human knowledge," even though the verifiable source information is there to back up this growing pollution-related negative externality that is caused by, quite literally, source generators not taking into account the cost of their pollution when they make their launch plans (except to a very limited extent, in the US, there is a weak regulatory requirement, that only applies to some launch regimes, and with very uneven enforcement, that introduced space debris must decay and reenter the atmosphere of Earth within 25 years.)
I welcome, of course, alternative views; or discussion in general—here on this Talk page, or elsewhere in specific articles or Talk pages. I imagine I will remain interested, so others can always ping me on my Talk page if they care to. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this latest reply. I continue to be very interested in (intentional and unintentional) space debris from spaceflight, but I mostly prefer to edit articles that have been started by other editors. I have started and I continue to edit various lists of environmental topics, including the following.
I hope that you will continue to add content about space debris from spaceflight, and I hope that you will possibly even contribute entire stand-alone articles about that topic. However, I recognize that no editor is under compulsion to contribute content.
(It can be easy to confuse the verb leach (related to the verb leak) with the noun leech.)
—Wavelength (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
And thank you for your comment, and your work on these issues of import! As for myself, I'll probably await a fellow-editor, perhaps one familiar with some of the environmental and negative externality literature, to choose to volunteer some attention and effort to the project. In other words, I'm in, and quite willing to help. But if I go there by myself, especially in a somewhat traditionalist and male-dominated WikiProject and discipline like spaceflight, I suspect I'd spend way too much time in somewhat one-sided Talk page discussions with traditionalists, and I might end up the sole voice for building content in this (notable and verifiable, yet perhaps controversial amongst spaceflight-interested editors) area of the encyclopedia.
So until someone comes along with similar interest, I'll happily bide my time. As I said above, perhaps it is just too early, and the negative externality too distant, for most to care about space debris pollution very much. However, should someone come along with interest, I imagine I'll be around for a few more years and they can just ping me on my Talk page; or on a new article Talk page that they might choose to write. Or if they don't like starting articles, but want to work on the effort of building encyclopedic content on the environmental side of space debris, just volunteer to partner on the venture and ask me to help start new articles as required. I apparently have no issue with that, as I write new articles from time to time as I find content that needs to be covered.  ;) Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fukushima Daichi: source of references

Another editor has provided a source of references for information about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexander V. Kaffka

Dear environmentalists: This topic appears to be about a person who writes about chemical dumping. Should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep. May be a bit marginal in terms of academic notability, but between being editor-in-chief of a (young) journal, being affiliated with one of the top universities in Russia, and his environmental efforts, would seem notable... DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, now that you have edited it, it will hang around for six months. Here are the Worldcat results, which are rather low. —Anne Delong (talk)

Bushmeat article

I've just completed some fairly significant cleanup of the Bushmeat article. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or resources to take this article all the way. Given that the recent Ebola scare has driven the traffic on this page up considerably, it might be good to collaborate on improving it further... possibly getting it up to GA standing. Any experienced GA/FA writers up for working on it? – Maky « talk » 10:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that National park, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Request for comment

Hello WP:Env editors, Please see the request for comment at the List of environmental organizations. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Peak sand

Someone may wish to start an article about peak sand.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology

The Royal Society of Chemistry (where I'm employed as Wikimedian in Residence, to declare my interest) have a new journal: Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology [11], should anyone want to start an article; or find its content useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Possibly I (or someone else) will start an article about it, or use it as a source, or do both of those things.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Free 'RSC Gold' accounts

I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics. Please visit Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

NASA clean air study

The NASA Clean Air Study is a one-sided perspective. The study was flawed because static (sealed, unventilated) chambers were used, and there is no evidence in the study itself or in subject-related follow up studies outside NASA that the plants actually remove the pollutants. The soil medium and, perhaps the chamber walls, served as "sinks," were some of the pollutants were adsorbed. Nonetheless, using the data presented in that study, the pollutant removal rate was equivalent to that accomplished by air leakage, in a very tightly-sealed home, about 0.1 air changes per hour. (See the article at http://www.buildingecology.com/articles/can-house-plants-solve-iaq-problems/?searchterm=plants or http://www.buildingecology.com/articles/critical-review-how-well-do-house-plants-perform-as-indoor-air-cleaners/?searchterm=plants)

Wolverton did only one study at NASA and has been promoting the use of house plants to clean indoor air ever since. the list of species creates a pseudo-scientific character to the information which is unsupported by any convincing evidence. Many researchers at horticultural institutes and in horticulture departments promote the use of plants and conduct research to further the support. But there have been no follow up studies by NASA and NASA is not using plants to clean air in the space station.

The NASA study, published in 1989, is the only study ever published by NASA on the subject. Almost all the references on the Wiki page are to Wolverton's work and that of his colleagues.

20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Hal Levin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halrhp (talk • contribs)

Here is a convenient link: NASA Clean Air Study.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Oil spill near Yellowstone River

NPR has reported an oil spill near the Yellowstone River in Montana. Wikipedia can have an article about it.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Wavelength: also [12] & [13]. If you're up for a collab, I'd like to work with you. Bananasoldier (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
[14] & [15] Bananasoldier (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bananasoldier: If you start the article, then I am willing to see what I can do to improve it. I am not not sure of what an appropriate name would be, but some ideas might be found at "List of oil spills".
—Wavelength (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The spill is discussed at Yellowstone River#2015 oil spill, but there still can be an article about it.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Wavelength: Should we have both 2011 and 2015 in one article? If so, maybe "Yellowstone River oil spills". Or do you think the 2015 one is notable on its own/has better organization on its own? Maybe we'll edit it in a draft and then we can change the name later when we think up a good name or the media gives the spill a name. Bananasoldier (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bananasoldier: I am inclined to prefer separate articles (possibly called "2011 Yellowstone River oil spill" and "2015 Yellowstone River oil spill", in parallel with some entries at Category:Oil spills), but I am willing to work with the other option (a single article, possibly called Yellowstone River oil spills).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Wavelength: I've set up a shell at Draft:2015 Yellowstone River oil spill, but I won't be able to start writing for another week, so you can go ahead now or I'll let you know when I start (if you want to edit at the same time, etc.). Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bananasoldier: I have added the draft page to my watchlist.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
@Wavelength: do you think any US government websites have posted pictures of the spill that we could add to the draft? Bananasoldier (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bananasoldier: From my Google image search for 2015 "yellowstone river" "oil spill" site:gov, I found many results, of which the first is http://www.deq.mt.gov/images/YellowstoneRiver.jpg at http://www.deq.mt.gov/yellowstonespill2015.mcpx.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK on Earth Day

Hey! I was wondering if our WikiProject could get together and use our DYK hooks for Earth Day. I think it would be nice to have all the hooks be about the environment on that day. So maybe if you get a DYK for an environmental article if you could reserve it for Earth Day? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

That would be good. (Earth Day is April 22.)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Guettarda (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know (WP:DYK) "showcases new or expanded articles", and new environmental articles are listed at User:AlexNewArtBot/EnvironmentSearchResult.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kunene Regional Conservation Strategy

Dear environmental experts: This old AfC submission is shortly to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have made headings and subheadings and wikilinks. Other editors can make other improvements.
—Wavelength (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Trident Seafoods added to Project

I've added Trident Seafoods to the project based on my remarks on the article's talk page and the company's environmental record. --Mox La Push (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Bicycle (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hard Choices, new article about book on climate change in Canada

I've created a new article about the book on climate change in Canada, titled, Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada.

Help with suggesting additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hard Choices (Coward book).

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Garbage picking, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

New Women in Climate Change page

Hi. There is a new Women in Climate Change wikipedia entry that I helped create and we have already been alerted on twitter that some of the critics of climate change plan to 'attack it' with editing. It took us several months to create the entry with acceptable levels of referencing and only adding women with wiki pages or other evidence of merit. Someone told me that if we do end up in an edit war the climate change task force may be able to help. Is this accurate? Thank you. Dianaliverman (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please update this page.

I am doing a research paper about energy and I really need this information. I have been running around Wikipedia to try and find a place were I can comment so hopefully this will work. Please update the page so I can have accurate info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B110:AC21:B897:5AA7:AF5:C565 (talk) 17:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Updating our company logo and adding/deleting incorrect content

Hello, I am an employee of Cory Environmental and I wish to update our company logo and correct some of the content and add new content to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Environmental . I have been told by the Wikipedia information team that I should use the article's talk page rather than edit the article directly. Please can someone tell me what I need to do. Thanks Corywikipedia (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please visit "Talk:Cory Environmental" and click on "new section" to start a discussion.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Important Bird Area listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Important Bird Area to be moved to Important bird area. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library donations

Hello all, I wanted to let you know of two recent donations we just opened up at the Wikipedia Library: WP:Taylor & Francis and WP:World Bank. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Garbage picking, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Children's environment books

Hi, I am an editor involved with the children's and young adult literature project. If I come across a book article about the environment, is it okay if i add the environment project to it's talkpage? thanks Coolabahapple (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are asking about adding Template:Environment to the talk page, as someone has added it to Talk:An Inconvenient Truth (book), then please do add it. Doing so will enable new articles to be reported by User:AlexNewArtBot/EnvironmentSearchResult.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
See Sammy & Sue Go Green Too! (the first in a series of children's books).—Wavelength (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

El Niño and La Niña event articles

While browsing the "Uncategorized pages" special pages for such football articles, I stumbled upon the following event articles: 1982-1983 El Niño Event, 1997–1998 El Niño Event, and 2010-11 La Niña Event. No idea how your project handles these kind of articles but they definitely some kind of treatment, because they are currently uncategorized and stub articles at best. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

One more note – this message has been cross-posted to WP:METEO and WP:OCEANS as well as the main articles of the topics in question were also in the scope of these WikiProjects. – Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I have categorized them.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

FYI the article about this film has been nominated for deletion. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,
Please note that Garbage picking, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

"Venting"

The usage and primary topic of Venting is under discussion, see talk:Venting (disambiguation) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"Garbage"

The usage and primary topic of Garbage is under discussion, see talk:garbage (disambiguation) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

White House Astronomy Night

I've created a new article on White House Astronomy Night.

Suggestions for additional WP:RS sources would be appreciated, at Talk:White House Astronomy Night.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Pilot project for expert reviews

I recently came across the Climate Feedback initiative, which "brings the expertise of the scientific community into the world of online climate coverage to provide readers and authors with in-situ feedback about the content’s scientific credibility". The feedback tool they use is Hypothes.is, which looks like this when applied to Wikipedia pages. So far, they have focused on news articles and thus static documents, but I think such expert reviews could be even more useful for non-static documents like Wikipedia articles that could be updated in light of the feedback. I discussed this with them, and they are interested in giving it a try with Wikipedia articles on climate change. Would WP:ENV be interested in such reviews? If so, which articles would be most suited from your perspective? I think that it would be useful to have some articles that are already good by our standards as well as some that clearly need improvements (Category:Climate change articles needing expert attention is almost empty at the moment). People from Hypothesis were part of the conversation, and interested in helping with similar review initiatives in other knowledge domains — suggestions welcome. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have followed all the links which you have provided, and I read the information at http://climatefeedback.org/FAQ/. What does highlighting mean? Is highlighted text scientifically correct? Is it scientifically incorrect? How can a reader ascertain what corrections need to be made?
—Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The use of appropriate tags with Hypothesis can indicate what the highlight means, e.g., https://via.hypothes.is/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholinergic_neuron. The latter is just a quick example with of the types of things needed. I think Wikipedia already has some and additional ones could be developed specifically for this project.Memartone (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I have hovered over the icons at the right-hand side of that highlighted article, and now I have a better understanding of the highlighting. This seems to be a worthwhile initiative, but I do not wish to implement the recommendations myself. Perhaps one or more other Wikipedians wish to do so, or scientists may wish to join Wikipedia and contribute directly.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
We are trying a pilot project at the Society for Neuroscience meeting to see whether neuroscientists will contribute to WIkipedia articles using Hypothesis. Will provide feedback here if it is helpful Memartone (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)memartone
To decide which articles would be most suited to being reviewed, you might wish to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Assessment and Category:Environment articles by quality.
The present version of this talk page has, in one of the panels at the top of the page, "Expert attention: Biodegradable plastic, International development".
—Wavelength (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Help with Hansjörg Wyss?

Hello. I'm working on the article of the businessman Hansjörg Wyss and would like for other editors to review a proposal I have. Wyss is very involved in the environment and conservation, so I thought the article might be of interest to editors here. I have prepared the suggestion on behalf of Wyss as a paid consultant. Because of this COI, I don't want to make edits myself. There are more details about my request on the Talk page if anyone wants to take a look. Mainly, I think a few pieces of information are better organized in another section and hope someone can move them. I also have a draft prepared related specifically to Wyss' conservation efforts that I'd like others to give feedback on, but I want to work through this request first. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I have added the text from your user subpage, and I am leaving the matter to the decisions of other editors.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Heatherer (talk) 16:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Pinging this note again because I have posted a new draft on the Talk page for the Environmental protection section of the article. I invite anyone here to review and give feedback if they're interested! Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Heatherer, do you want the new section "Philanthropy" (including the new subsection "Environmental protection") to replace the old section "Environmental protection"?
—Wavelength (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Wavelength: Ideally, yes. However, I'm open to other thoughts if you have them. Thanks for your continued help here! Heatherer (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I have revised the article accordingly, and I am leaving the new version to the decisions of other editors.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 196#"values and beliefs"

I wanted to inform this project that I opened a thread about WMF's sustainability practices and activities and any interested editors are welcome to comment including User:Velella and User:WilliamJE. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 21:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with updating 10:10 article

Hi everyone! I'm sharing a comprehensive draft update to the article on 10:10, the UK-based climate change campaign in the hope that it can aid the process of bringing the main article up to date. It's saved as a workspace draft here.

As a 10:10 employee, it didn't feel appropriate for me to edit the article directly, but as it hasn't had a significant update since 2013, I thought it'd be good to get the ball rolling.

The new draft includes sections on the more recent Back Balcombe and #itshappening campaigns run by 10:10, as well as past projects and an updated introduction reflecting the organisation's broader focus.

I'd be really grateful for any feedback on the draft as it currently stands, or if interested editors feel it's already good to go, please feel free to incorporate it into the live article as you see fit. Thanks! Simuove (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I have copied the wikicode of the draft and pasted it over the old version of the article (except the categories). I hope to spend time soon in correcting spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
—Wavelength (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Created new article on book - Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand

I've created a new article on the book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

Input and suggestions for additional secondary sources would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Template:Public health

Template:Public health needs some TLC and general improvement. Please help. Bazj (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you contact the participants of Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The aspects needing consideration are focussed around the content of the template rather than any technical problems. It's become bloated beyond a useful size. Bazj (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps DASonnenfeld can help you.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It is rather large! I'd suggest initiating a WP:RfC and soliciting input from various interested editors regarding what is essential... Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions regarding Superfund articles and sites

I've been doing a bit of research into Superfund/CERCLA sites and am a little disappointed in some of the lack of information about sites less famous than Love Canal or Valley of the Drums. I'd like to add some info from EPA documentation and, if possible, add some sites to the list pages, but I'm not quite sure what sort of notability to look for with these kinds of places or how I should work in information from Records of Decision and Five-Year Reviews. I'd like to improve coverage on this topic, but I'm just not quite sure how I should go about it. Buerish (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Buerish, thank you for your interest in Category:Superfund sites. The best that I can do for you is to refer you to Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
You might wish to consult http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=superfund.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm interested in this as well, and i've actually recently added some information about a couple of toxic waste sites, in Akron, Ohio and Green Springs, Ohio and i've seen pushback with a couple editors removing the content repeatedly with edit reasons that don't make sense... there seems to be a push against including content about toxic waste sites. Anyway, my hometown has toxic waste in the river and i added it to the town page there, because we need to know about the devastation caused by the carelessness of the past, to avoid it in the future.

In an existing article, like for a town or a river, you need to follow WP:DUE guidelines and it must simply be of enough weight for inclusion. To have an article of its own, you need to meet WP:N. I think those are both very easy for superfund sites just by their very nature. Anyway, i would like to get systematic about this and seriously make sure that pollution of note is included in articles where it's relevant because people need to know and it's important, as reflected by news coverage and other sources. SageRad (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

new member wishing to be added

First, it said to going ad my name to the list but I couldn't find how to. Second, given the extreme -right pov of the artical on "wise use" It shuld be graded as c not b. Antycrist (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

@Antycrist: You can add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/participants OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC): @OhanaUnited: tried that. It will only let me edit the inactive users.--Antycrist (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Created article on satirical comedy film - Climate Change Denial Disorder

I've created a new article on the satirical comedy short film Climate Change Denial Disorder.

Help with additional research would be appreciated on the article's talk page, at Talk:Climate Change Denial Disorder.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This project - is it active?

I see a few new comments here, but how active is this project? Could people please reply if you're active here? I would like to know that i can call on people for some help... and vice versa. Can we set up a noticeboard for articles that need attention?

I would like to ask for some help on these articles, from people who are ecologically-minded:


And there are articles on places like these where there is significant pollution and it could use better coverage:

How active is this group and do people feel like helping each other on articles about contamination and pollution sites? SageRad (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I actively watch this page, and I continue to be interested in Wikipedia articles about environmental topics. When I see a new section on this talk page, I try to contribute what I can, although my focus lately has been mostly on correcting errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. You may wish to contact individual editors listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/participants.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi im still working on rewrites for Love Canal. Im interested in doing more. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement

Hi, I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta. I'd love to hear your ideas and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your interest in this matter. Perhaps there can be a Wikipedia article about it. Please see http://www.greenillusions.org.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I have added a link (to your essay) to User:Wavelength/About Earth's environment/Internet.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Please see these archived discussions.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@Gnom:, I read your essay. I think its fascinating that WMF is much more environmental friendly than some companies, proportionally at least. I'll be expecting more information later Winterysteppe (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Winterysteppe, why do you think that the Wikimedia Foundation is much more environmentally friendly than some other countries? I don't think that is the case. --Gnom (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Love Canal

As of now, im working on a rewrite for it. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Winterysteppe: Do you have a draft in your userspace or sandbox for it? I haven't done much for this WikiProject in awhile (I've mostly been working on things for WikiProject Furry recently) but I was looking to see if there was anything I could do to help WikiProject Environment. Anything I could help with in the new draft? I mean the article looks pretty decent already, so I wouldn't have thought to do a full rewrite of it, but if you have an idea of how this can improve it, "go for it" as WP:BOLD says. SarrCat ∑;3 13:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


The article as of it was a rewrite of it but needs more work on it. I was planning to do more. Winterysteppe (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster

Is this an incident, accident or a disaster, for the renaming discussion, see talk:Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force#New category Category:Species threatened by climate change. jonkerz ♠talk 15:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Impact of ExxonMobil climate expertise on operational planning at Natuna

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy#RfC: Context of Natuna gas field on the impact of climate expertise on ExxonMobil operational planning. Should the following, bolded for clarity, be added to ExxonMobil climate change controversy?

Exxon also studied ways of avoiding CO2 emissions if the East Natuna gas field (Natuna D-Alpha block) offshore of Indonesia were developed. An October 1984 internal report from Exxon's top climate modelers said that the gas field contained over 70% carbon dioxide and that if the carbon dioxide were released to the atmosphere it would make the gas field "the world's largest point source emitter of CO2 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem." Members of Exxon's board of directors told Exxon staff that the gas field could not be developed without a cost-effective and environmentally responsible method for handling the CO2.

Please comment at Talk:ExxonMobil climate change controversy#RfC: Context of Natuna gas field on the impact of climate expertise on ExxonMobil operational planning. Thank you! Hugh (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation looking for input on Environmental Science student guidebook

Hi everyone! The Wiki Education Foundation is looking for community input on an upcoming print brochure for US and Canadian university students. The handbook focuses on editing Environmental Science topics on Wikipedia. I'd love to hear feedback and recommendations from this community! You can read the proposed document here. Thanks in advance! --Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

These resources could be mentioned somewhere in the document.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC) and 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are some additional resources.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Here is a third set of resources.
—Wavelength (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2016‎ (UTC)
Here is a fourth set of resources.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Ozone layer, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

To editors Wavelength, DASonnenfeld, Winterysteppe, SageRad, Antycrist and OhanaUnited: (and everyone else at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/participants — the above addressees were names I got from the recent history so I could notify the more active editors)

I saw your broken featured portal image in Wikipedia:Portal's See also section's Featured portal box. See my post at Portal_talk:Environment § Your project's image was broken.... Sorry my real-life limitations prevent me from doing more than just pointing this out! Hope this helps! —Geekdiva (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Geekdiva: I could not see the broken image at Portal:Featured content/Portals. Maybe it has to do with your computer? OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Geekdiva. But it looks okay to me, too. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Water Conservation: Strategies Section

I think this article needs to expand on the strategies section. One way this section could improve is if it addressed different water policies in place that are effectively managing water for conservation. For example, explain some water resource management practices like recycled and reused waste water, or different strategies governments utilize for its citizens to reduce water consumption. Another topic that should be introduced is Groundwater. This is because managing groundwater properly is a large part of water conservation since groundwater resources are utilized for fresh drinking water. The article can expand to international water conservation and how, especially fossil aquifers in the middle east, are managed by international government bodies. For example, in the Tigris-Euphrates-Western Iran Region of the middle east, poor groundwater management has resulted in the loss of 143.6 km^3 volume of water form 2003 to 2009[1]. Temurimam (talk) 02:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Voss, Katalyn (19 February 2013). "Groundwater depletion in the Middle East from GRACE with implications for trans-boundary water management in the Tigris-Euphrates-Western Iran region". AN AGU JOURNAL. 9 (2): 904–914. doi:10.1002/wrcr.20078. Retrieved 5 November 2016.

Query

Can I use a garbage disposal with my aerobic septic system? I have one and now I have an infestation of drain bugs. Did my garbage disposal cause this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100D:B11B:A2A6:59F7:17DF:F655:E9F0 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Please post your questions at either Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Class project essays

Participants here may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Essays for a class project concerning contributions from students from an Environmental Chemistry course(s). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Environment/Archive 3 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Archiving threatened information

This is to apprise watchers of this page that there is an initiative to archive environmental data.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The web page to which I linked has been archived at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional information is at https://blog.archive.org/2016/12/15/preserving-u-s-government-websites-and-data-as-the-obama-term-ends/.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Iron bacteria

Editors with an interest in this subject are invited to comment on this discussion of recent and proposed changes to Wikipedia coverage and nomenclature. Thewellman (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A couple of pointers (re: Brownfield land)

Hello,

I am currently enrolled in a university class on environmental justice: "race, class, equity and the environment," and as part of an assignment I am to critique an article of my choice. While this article had a great amount of important information that educated me a lot on the topic, with a bunch of reliable sources and scholarly journals, there are a couple of pointers I would like to add:

1) In the beginning of the article, there is mention of "mothballed brownfields," sites that are not cleaned up or put to productive use. This term along with general information about the land should definitely have its own separate section.

2) There is very little mention of other places in the world where these sites pop up; there is a small section dedicated to regulations in the United Kingdom, as well as the United Kingdoms variation of the term "Brownfield land" but nothing on the rest of Europe or Asia or anywhere else in the world. I believe you could improve the strength and validity of your article by comparing and contrasting a couple of different countries from different parts of the world.

3) Where is the section on environmental risks of these fields contaminated with hazardous waste? This article has so much potential with its credible sources and neutral standpoints, however, there are certain topics that are extremely underrepresented, (some that haven't even been mentioned at all) and perhaps including what kind of damage these sites have on soil, water, the atmosphere and just the environment as a whole, would make this a much stronger piece of writing.

4) Lastly but most importantly, a factor of great significance that is missing in this article is detailed information on where these sites are located both within the United States as well as internationally; what types of cities with what types of demographics? Where are the "mothballed brownfields" and are they located in poorer areas that aren't prioritized for redevelopment? Also, who funds the redevelopment and who assesses the contaminations? (You mention state and federal programs, but no information on which ones). I can only assume that environmental racism would be a huge factor in determining the sites that are left unused, and I believe it would make for a great, informative section in this article.

Other than these pointers, I would like to mention that I knew practically nothing about the topic until I stumbled upon this article, and now I have a desire to learn more about them because of this reading this! Best regards, @ilonamantachian, Friday February 3rd 2017, 2:25AMIlonamantachian (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide the name of the article and enclose it between [[ and ]] to wikify it.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC) and 20:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I hereby acknowledge this revision of the section heading at 12:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC).
—Wavelength (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

People's Climate Mobilization

Project members are invited to help expand the People's Climate Mobilization article, or participate in the ongoing AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People's Climate Mobilization. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

See draft at Draft:People's Climate March (2017). ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I remember the deleted article having more details: an expandable navigation box listing many organizations.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

General Motors

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:General Motors#Support of climate disinformation. The Environmental record section of article General Motors, originally added by the Environmental Record task force of this Wikiproject, was section blanked 11 January 2016, leaving only an extraordinarily non-neutral characterization of the environmental record of the subject of the article. More recently the same editor is warring to exclude a neutral concise summarization of multiple reliable sources regarding the environmental record from the article (19:51 26 March 2017, 19:45 27 March 2017) as well as warring to delete the project/task force template from the talk page (20:09 26 March 2017, 19:46 27 March 2017). Additional editorial attention is needed to approach neutral coverage with respect to available noteworthy reliable sources. Thank you. 34.223.230.53 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Earth Day Edit-a-thon

Hello! We are hosting an Earth Day Edit-a-thon at the CUNY Graduate Center on April 27th. I hope any NY-based Wikipedians interested in the topic will join us! I'd also like to know if there's a good place to identify articles to create/edit for newbies with an affinity for research and writing. This is not my area of expertise, and I would appreciate any guidance you may have. Thank you!! Megs (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I can begin by mentioning eight topics which have interested me since the 1900s. I am hoping for a separate article for each of the eight topics.
Ecosystem services
Environmental degradation
(environmental degradation from excessive extraction of geothermal power)
(environmental degradation from excessive extraction of solar energy)
(environmental degradation from excessive extraction of tidal power)
(environmental degradation from excessive extraction of wind power)
Perhaps the foregoing is not clear enough to all who may read it, so I am providing additional details.
These topics are not about environmental degradation caused by these methods of extraction per se (for example, bird endangerment from wind turbines), as discussed in the article on energy development. They do not deal with environmental degradation caused by human activities for which extraction is a prerequisite, such as the processing, distribution, and use of the energy.
Specifically, the topics are about environmental degradation caused by the quantity of extraction, when energy diverted from its natural course in large quantities reduces the supply available for contributing adequately to the normal operation of ecosystem services (for example, photosynthesis and wind pollination). The fourth topic includes damage to the natural balance between opposing wind forces in different areas, and wind energy extraction in one area causing an increase of wind energy in another area.
These types of energy are very abundant in nature, but let us not forget about the competition between natural supply and human desire.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Here are some sources specifically for environmental information.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Here are some environmental sections of websites having information about many topics.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
(1) You can examine Category:Natural environment to see what environmental information Wikipedia already has. (2) You can examine Wikipedia:Requested articles/Natural sciences/Environment and geology to see some topics about which there have been requests for Wikipedia articles. (3) You can examine Category:Open access (publishing) to find Wikipedia articles related to open access.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Archive 3/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Environment.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Environment, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Multiple articles on sustainable design

As noted as Talk:Sustainable design, multiple articles exist on very similar topics: all these articles could potentially be merged - Sustainable design, Environmental design, Environmental design and planning, Ecological design, Ecodesign. Could these be worked together into one overarching article or are there genuine differences in these fields of design? Fences&Windows 18:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Merges have been suggested before, a consensus to merge Environmental design and Environmental design and planning may exist at Talk:Environmental_design#Proposed_merge_with_Environmental_design_and_planning. Fences&Windows 18:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comments: United Nations Ocean Conference nomination for In the news

United Nations Ocean Conference has been nominated for In the news here.

You can participate in the discussion. If you would like to do so please leave a comment there as soon as possible as it will be closed or simply be inappropriate for ITN later.

--Fixuture (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to revive and rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management

The proposal to revive the WikiProject occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management#Project reboot & project rename to WikiProject Emergency management, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Global Challenges Foundation Prize 2017

Hello,
you might be interested in the Global Challenges Foundation Prize 2017 challenge which is opened until 30 September.
This note is not meant to promote the challenge but to inform reasonably relevant people who might be interested about the presence of this article and this challenge.

--WikIdeaCatalyzation (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Please advice me on how to structure my first page

Hello everyone. I'm quite new on editing wikipedia, so please bear with me if the question is silly or misplaced. I feel like a mycoremediation page is due. Right now there is a little piece under bioremediation, but it's poorly written and the topic is big enough to have its own page, just as phytoremediation. Now, I have the good will, I have the informations (pubmed, books), I know how to read it, but I am wasting a lot of time on structure. Hope you can help me in getting what is the most "wikipedian" way of putting such an article.

For example: should I do sections based on the kind of fungi, like brown rot, white rot, mycorrhizal..? Or maybe sections based on the pollutant, like IPA, heavy metals, petroleum-based? Or, divide by environment, like marine, forest, urban? Or by function, like hyperaccumulation, degradation, filtration..?

It is a very big topic and any help in building the frame would be very appreciated, so that I can then go on with filling it.

Thanks everyone and have a great day!

Beleriandcrises (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Updates to Wikipedia articles about national parks in Africa

On behalf of the nonprofit organization African Parks via the Wyss Foundation, and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I am working to create and improve several Wikipedia articles related to national parks in Africa. I created this page to describe the scope of the project and provide updates about my progress.

So far, I've submitted an expanded and updated draft for consideration at Talk:Liwonde National Park, and I will be publishing other drafts soon. I invite any Wikipedia editors, especially those with an interest in ecology and protected areas, to follow along and help improve articles by reviewing and responding to the edit requests I post on their talk pages. I'm happy to answer any questions or concerns about my work on my user talk page, or on talk pages belonging to articles in the scope of this project, since I have them watchlisted. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Request for review & editing help

Hey folks! I'm looking for impartial editors to help me improve the article The Wetlands Initiative. As an employee of the organization, I'm currently the sole author/editor of the page, and that dog just won't hunt in the long-term (we're all scientists here and we all recognize the value of some good impartial peer review). I'm looking for further references proving the notability of the organization, as well as better and more in-depth discussion of the restoration ecology projects the organization does. I'm also looking to place it in more relevant categories, and to find other Wikipedia pages to link to/from it.

Thank you!

Pthatch (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Environment

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 15:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Arthur Riedacker

Please improve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arthur_RiedackerHariSinghw (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Environment of the United States, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

University of New Mexico looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar

Of possible interest to WikiProject members: The University of New Mexico (UNM) is looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar.

The University of New Mexico Libraries would like to work with a Wikipedian to explore themes related to following interdisciplinary areas:

  • Intersections of science, design, art, and architecture in New Mexico
  • Energy, water, and environmental policy in the Southwest and Latin America
  • Healing and foodways in the high desert

The Visiting Scholars program connects Wikipedians with educational institutions based on shared interest in a topic. Any editor in good standing is welcome to apply. Professional experience is not a requirement. For more information and the application, see the University of New Mexico’s Visiting Scholars page. If you have questions, feel free to reach out on my talk page. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:19, 10 April 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   07:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Seeking assistance

Hello all! I'm looking for someone who is part of this project that might be willing to help me out with something. I do a lot of technical editing (templates, modules, etc). Not much work on actually writing articles or content. A family friend is asking for my help with an article they are writing. It is about an environmental projection organization. I'm wondering if anyone in this group might be willing to help me copy edit the article as it is drafted? Please {{ping}} me or leave me a message on my talk page if you're interested. Thanks! --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment/Archive_3&oldid=1086386189"