This article was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This alphabetical index is not for strictly scientific ecology topics. It is for ethical, economic, medical and political human-environment-relevant topics, some of which will be also on the list of ethics topics and list of economics topics. A rule of thumb: if the article talks about the likely impact on humans, it's probably an environment topic. If it doesn't, it's probably an ecology topic. (an a cooment that I gad removed from the article page. -- Alan Liefting- talk- 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
If you look at the introduction to this, the environment links to natural environment, which infers to me that this is only meant for natural topics Magicmonster 06:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Why? Ekem 23:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Try 1900-1980 and 1981-Present. Or lists based on the decade. Orngjce223 Orngjce223 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
...
I have found it convenient to have the whole list on one page as I add topics, sometimes checking things up and down the page. If the page is going to be split, is it possible for that to be deferred until after I have "essentially finished" adding topics under "D", "C", "B", "A", and "0-9" (possibly in mid-January of 2006)?
Here is another idea: We could split the page for people with browser limitations and/or connection limitations, but still keep a one-page version for people who prefer to use that. People could be linked first to the index page of the multi-page version, and then have the option of seeing the one-page version and/or the version by categories. (There might still be a question of which is the most up-to-date version.)
I invite feedback to these comments. Wavelength 01:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Spaces were recently (03:26, 19 December 2005) removed from the wiki markup for the headings, but spaces are shown in the examples at Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Examples. Wavelength 21:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The following links to pages have been deleted because they have been copied in parts to new pages.
Wavelength 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel that all these articles should be sent to Category:Nature. Category:Environment is for anthropogenic effects on the environment yet many of the articles catalogued within thease pages are in no way repated to enviornmental issues. Alan Liefting 09:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
By using the Google feature "Who Links to You?", I found that "Almanac of Policy Issues: Environment" ( [1]) links to List_of_environment_topics. This is an indication of interest in the list. Wavelength 01:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If this were Lists of environmental topics we could be more specific as to what should be included. Being specific is a good idea for an encyclopeadia!! "Environment" would suggest everything can be included whereas "environmental" would limit it to the effects that we have on it. -- Alan Liefting- talk- 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment#Lists of environmental topics for work that is needed here. -- Alan Liefting- talk- 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been formulating my comments on the question of what is an environmental topic, and I was expecting (both hoping and anticipating) that participants would reach a consensus on an unambiguous definition before any culling took place. When I noticed that Alan Liefting had begun to cull items from the lists of environmental topics before initiating a discussion, I started to doubt the usefulness of my comments. (I might have preferred the course of a different culler.)
Perhaps to some people an explanation by example is easier than a
definition which clearly delineates the boundaries in abstract
terms. Maybe they prefer
negotiation by
haggling rather than by
analysis. In this instance, maybe culling is intended to represent an explanation of what constitutes an environmental topic. If I am being invited to choose to revert the changes, perhaps my version is intended to represent my explanation or definition of it. Although I accept that both parts of
show and tell have benefits to communication and can be mutually
synergistic, the process of acting first and discussing later does not have much appeal for me.
I understand that
abstraction in some fields of study tends to be
individualistic to some extent, and that sometimes what seems obvious to one person might not be so obvious to another person and yet still be expected to be seen as obvious. Further, I understand that the
natural environment, by its nature and by its comprehensiveness, presents an especially challenging task when people try to agree on what is
relevant. Therefore, it may be that a consensus on this task is more elusive than it would be for most other tasks involving relevancy. As a result, what ought to be of great importance to all of us who live on this planet--the natural environment--can also be the subject of many diverse views. (Please be aware that a person reluctant to curtail an activity may be unwilling to accept that it has a negative effect on the natural environment.)
I recognize that, for most of the time that this list has existed, most of the items listed have been ones which I contributed, and that, despite my efforts to add unambiguous boundaries to comprehensiveness, there has nevertheless been a measure of uncertainty as to what topics are in harmony with the preamble which I added. On the other hand, I also see some uncertainty about what remaining topics harmonize with the lead sentence which Alan Liefting has provided. Maybe this is a matter which can never be perfectly resolved by any one or combination of us Wikipedians. Also, some of the topics listed before the culling are
orphaned topics (that is to say, with no pages or few pages linking to them) and their removal from the list negatively affects their orphaned status.
I am willing to abandon what I have contributed to this list so that its users can experience a new series of versions from another perspective. At the same time, I am offering to maintainers of the list some questions to ponder:
Also, here are some resources which exemplify what others have deemed to be environment(al) topics.
Those same resources can also be used by persons looking for new topics to add to the lists. For the same purpose, additional topics can be found by the use of Wikipedia:Quick_index, and especially by the use of Special:Prefixindex with these character strings. (Early in 2007, I identified these as having large numbers of topics already listed, and therefore as having the most potential for providing new topics for minimal effort.)
Also, where the article on an environmental topic has a list of internal links, that list might include one or more topics which can be added.
--
Wavelength (
talk)
08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I began culling these lists after User:Transhumanist added an index and changed the article names. I was never happy with the extensive list of links that were a disparate set of topics, needed better punctuation, had a lengthy preamble and needed some annotation of the links. I had put the series of articles up for deletion but no consensus was reached. There had been comments made on User:Wavelengths talk page about the unsuitability of the broad range of links included in these pages.
The English language, being dynamic and sometimes poorly used, leads to a range of interpretations of a word. "Environment" is one such word. With Wikipedia, as with any encyclopaedia, we must be clear with the use of a word and this includes setting boundaries for its use. On the whole WP uses the word "environment" to mean "the effect of human activity on the environment". This is spelt out in many pages where it needs to be stipulated. These pages have used the wider meaning of environment as everything around us. By using clear and narrowly defined uses of a word we can have a clear idea as to what is incorporated in an article.
A few specific replies to points raised:
Even if reverting some changes demonstrates a commitment to a previous version, commitment does not prove the suitability of the thing to which one is committed. (See proof by assertion and argument from silence.)
|
|
--- Wavelength ( talk) 21:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics has links to
Therefore, I suggest that Wikipedia could have
and each of them could be linked to the other.
Maybe the version after the recent culling could be copied to lists of basic environment topics, and then the culling could be reverted. Alternatively, maybe the present version of the lists of environment topics could be culled further to produce the lists of basic environment topics or one list of basic environment topics. -- Wavelength ( talk) 21:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see all of the related alphabetical pages merged together into List of environmental topics. Having one page works well with most topics. See Category:Topical indexes, to see how it works eg. List of biology topics, List of engineering topics. The best arrangement is having the topic links listed across the page rather than down the page. There is a lot of wasted space and the page must be scrolled down needlessly to view the contents. Some of the pages have very few entries and one page has no entires. The list can also be culled of any irrelevant topics and topics that are repeated at related pages such as List of sustainability topics, List of solar energy topics -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
DONE - See List of environmental topics. I think that the list is too long and crufty - please cull as you think fit. — G716 < T· C> 14:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This alphabetical index is not for strictly scientific ecology topics. It is for ethical, economic, medical and political human-environment-relevant topics, some of which will be also on the list of ethics topics and list of economics topics. A rule of thumb: if the article talks about the likely impact on humans, it's probably an environment topic. If it doesn't, it's probably an ecology topic. (an a cooment that I gad removed from the article page. -- Alan Liefting- talk- 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
If you look at the introduction to this, the environment links to natural environment, which infers to me that this is only meant for natural topics Magicmonster 06:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Why? Ekem 23:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Try 1900-1980 and 1981-Present. Or lists based on the decade. Orngjce223 Orngjce223 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
...
I have found it convenient to have the whole list on one page as I add topics, sometimes checking things up and down the page. If the page is going to be split, is it possible for that to be deferred until after I have "essentially finished" adding topics under "D", "C", "B", "A", and "0-9" (possibly in mid-January of 2006)?
Here is another idea: We could split the page for people with browser limitations and/or connection limitations, but still keep a one-page version for people who prefer to use that. People could be linked first to the index page of the multi-page version, and then have the option of seeing the one-page version and/or the version by categories. (There might still be a question of which is the most up-to-date version.)
I invite feedback to these comments. Wavelength 01:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Spaces were recently (03:26, 19 December 2005) removed from the wiki markup for the headings, but spaces are shown in the examples at Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Examples. Wavelength 21:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The following links to pages have been deleted because they have been copied in parts to new pages.
Wavelength 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I feel that all these articles should be sent to Category:Nature. Category:Environment is for anthropogenic effects on the environment yet many of the articles catalogued within thease pages are in no way repated to enviornmental issues. Alan Liefting 09:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
By using the Google feature "Who Links to You?", I found that "Almanac of Policy Issues: Environment" ( [1]) links to List_of_environment_topics. This is an indication of interest in the list. Wavelength 01:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
If this were Lists of environmental topics we could be more specific as to what should be included. Being specific is a good idea for an encyclopeadia!! "Environment" would suggest everything can be included whereas "environmental" would limit it to the effects that we have on it. -- Alan Liefting- talk- 22:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment#Lists of environmental topics for work that is needed here. -- Alan Liefting- talk- 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been formulating my comments on the question of what is an environmental topic, and I was expecting (both hoping and anticipating) that participants would reach a consensus on an unambiguous definition before any culling took place. When I noticed that Alan Liefting had begun to cull items from the lists of environmental topics before initiating a discussion, I started to doubt the usefulness of my comments. (I might have preferred the course of a different culler.)
Perhaps to some people an explanation by example is easier than a
definition which clearly delineates the boundaries in abstract
terms. Maybe they prefer
negotiation by
haggling rather than by
analysis. In this instance, maybe culling is intended to represent an explanation of what constitutes an environmental topic. If I am being invited to choose to revert the changes, perhaps my version is intended to represent my explanation or definition of it. Although I accept that both parts of
show and tell have benefits to communication and can be mutually
synergistic, the process of acting first and discussing later does not have much appeal for me.
I understand that
abstraction in some fields of study tends to be
individualistic to some extent, and that sometimes what seems obvious to one person might not be so obvious to another person and yet still be expected to be seen as obvious. Further, I understand that the
natural environment, by its nature and by its comprehensiveness, presents an especially challenging task when people try to agree on what is
relevant. Therefore, it may be that a consensus on this task is more elusive than it would be for most other tasks involving relevancy. As a result, what ought to be of great importance to all of us who live on this planet--the natural environment--can also be the subject of many diverse views. (Please be aware that a person reluctant to curtail an activity may be unwilling to accept that it has a negative effect on the natural environment.)
I recognize that, for most of the time that this list has existed, most of the items listed have been ones which I contributed, and that, despite my efforts to add unambiguous boundaries to comprehensiveness, there has nevertheless been a measure of uncertainty as to what topics are in harmony with the preamble which I added. On the other hand, I also see some uncertainty about what remaining topics harmonize with the lead sentence which Alan Liefting has provided. Maybe this is a matter which can never be perfectly resolved by any one or combination of us Wikipedians. Also, some of the topics listed before the culling are
orphaned topics (that is to say, with no pages or few pages linking to them) and their removal from the list negatively affects their orphaned status.
I am willing to abandon what I have contributed to this list so that its users can experience a new series of versions from another perspective. At the same time, I am offering to maintainers of the list some questions to ponder:
Also, here are some resources which exemplify what others have deemed to be environment(al) topics.
Those same resources can also be used by persons looking for new topics to add to the lists. For the same purpose, additional topics can be found by the use of Wikipedia:Quick_index, and especially by the use of Special:Prefixindex with these character strings. (Early in 2007, I identified these as having large numbers of topics already listed, and therefore as having the most potential for providing new topics for minimal effort.)
Also, where the article on an environmental topic has a list of internal links, that list might include one or more topics which can be added.
--
Wavelength (
talk)
08:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I began culling these lists after User:Transhumanist added an index and changed the article names. I was never happy with the extensive list of links that were a disparate set of topics, needed better punctuation, had a lengthy preamble and needed some annotation of the links. I had put the series of articles up for deletion but no consensus was reached. There had been comments made on User:Wavelengths talk page about the unsuitability of the broad range of links included in these pages.
The English language, being dynamic and sometimes poorly used, leads to a range of interpretations of a word. "Environment" is one such word. With Wikipedia, as with any encyclopaedia, we must be clear with the use of a word and this includes setting boundaries for its use. On the whole WP uses the word "environment" to mean "the effect of human activity on the environment". This is spelt out in many pages where it needs to be stipulated. These pages have used the wider meaning of environment as everything around us. By using clear and narrowly defined uses of a word we can have a clear idea as to what is incorporated in an article.
A few specific replies to points raised:
Even if reverting some changes demonstrates a commitment to a previous version, commitment does not prove the suitability of the thing to which one is committed. (See proof by assertion and argument from silence.)
|
|
--- Wavelength ( talk) 21:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics has links to
Therefore, I suggest that Wikipedia could have
and each of them could be linked to the other.
Maybe the version after the recent culling could be copied to lists of basic environment topics, and then the culling could be reverted. Alternatively, maybe the present version of the lists of environment topics could be culled further to produce the lists of basic environment topics or one list of basic environment topics. -- Wavelength ( talk) 21:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see all of the related alphabetical pages merged together into List of environmental topics. Having one page works well with most topics. See Category:Topical indexes, to see how it works eg. List of biology topics, List of engineering topics. The best arrangement is having the topic links listed across the page rather than down the page. There is a lot of wasted space and the page must be scrolled down needlessly to view the contents. Some of the pages have very few entries and one page has no entires. The list can also be culled of any irrelevant topics and topics that are repeated at related pages such as List of sustainability topics, List of solar energy topics -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 22:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
DONE - See List of environmental topics. I think that the list is too long and crufty - please cull as you think fit. — G716 < T· C> 14:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)