![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Subalpine forest is a newly created stub. I propose merging it back into this article, leaving a redirect to Montane ecology#Subalpine zone. Please feel free to join into the discussion at Talk:Subalpine forest.
Upper montane forest is also a newly created article, with a proposed merge to Alpine-steppe. Please see the discussion of re-organizing that article at Talk:Upper montane forest, — hike395 ( talk) 11:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no branch of ecology, named montane ecology. There is a journal called Mountain ecology (so this term exists in English). However, the topic of this lemma is not mountain ecology but life zones or better, vergetation zones in the mountains. I propose to change the title in vegetation zones in the montains. best regards, 08:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Montane ecology | Mountain ecology | Ecology of mountains | Vegetation zones in mountains | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Recognizability | Low (not common) | High | High | High |
Naturalness | Low | High | High | Low (people won't search for this) |
Precision | Med | Med | Med | High (narrowly defined article scope) |
Conciseness | High | High | High | Low (much longer) |
Consistency | High (category names) | Med | High (many article named Ecology of X) | Low (no other articles named "Vegetation zone" |
Summary: It sounds like there is a consensus (Sminthopsis84, Corinne, Guettarda, Lavateraguy, Hike395) in favor of using the general English term "montane" to mean "related to mountains", per the recognizability criteria; while Henriduvent wants to retain its technical ecological meaning to refer to the forested zone in mountains (as opposed to the alpine zone above treeline).
If I've misrepresented your opinion, please speak up. After another 1-2 days, I'll do the move to Montane ecosystem (singular). — hike395 ( talk) 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Done Moved —
hike395 (
talk)
10:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I can see the argument that this article is only about botanical zonation, and doesn't cover the full range of topics about the ecology of montane systems (e.g., isolation of populations on mountain peaks). There are three articles that cover altitude-related biotic zonation: Montane ecology (this one), altitudinal zonation, and life zone.
Therefore, I propose that we merge all three of these articles into life zone. I realize that "life zone" is a somewhat out-of-date term, but it is very common (see the Google ngram results) and recognizable to most readers (altitudinal zonation is a relatively technical term).
Do other editors agree with this merge? I will post a proposed merge notice on all three pages.
Assuming that editors agree with the merge, a broad overview article at Ecology of mountains or Mountain ecosystems would be a wonderful addition to WP (analogous to Britannica's). Would anyone like to take a crack at it? — hike395 ( talk) 04:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
In the past, I have found it difficult to reach consensus on the abstract idea of merging articles. To make it concrete, I made a first attempt at a merged article, at User:Hike395/altitudinal zonation (without a lede, because I don't know the scope of the article, yet). Please take a look.
I take Guettarda's point that we mustn't mix up bioclimatic zones and altitudinal zones (hence, I would not merge biome, per Henriduvent). I think there are three paths forward:
What do editors think? Other comments / alternatives? — hike395 ( talk) 14:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I still think that vegetation zones - or another ttle referring to the zone ascpect - is better as a title than montane ecology. There are two resaons:
So I propose to choose for the title vegetation zone (mountains) or vegetation zone (altitude) or a(nother) better title, Agree? Biome can be replaced ar supplmented by a redirect Vegetation zone (latitude), idea? best regards, ` Henriduvent ( talk) 11:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Back in June, Henriduvent ( talk · contribs) moved the article to Mountain ecosystems (note plural). The consensus here seemed to prefer "Montane" to "Mountain", so I just moved the article to Montane ecosystems. The plural may or may not be correct --- WP prefers singular titles, but it seems that the article is about multiple different kinds of ecosystems (at different elevations), so I kept the plural. — hike395 ( talk) 07:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"As elevation increases, the climate becomes cooler, due to a decrease in the greenhouse effect. " -> this is incorrect, the real reason for cooler temperatures is lower pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.176.243.9 ( talk) 09:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The article Ruddy woodcreeper (alone) contains a redlink to Premontane humid forest. To what article should that link be directed (or are we missing a topic)? -- Finlay McWalter··–· Talk 22:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Subalpine forest is a newly created stub. I propose merging it back into this article, leaving a redirect to Montane ecology#Subalpine zone. Please feel free to join into the discussion at Talk:Subalpine forest.
Upper montane forest is also a newly created article, with a proposed merge to Alpine-steppe. Please see the discussion of re-organizing that article at Talk:Upper montane forest, — hike395 ( talk) 11:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is no branch of ecology, named montane ecology. There is a journal called Mountain ecology (so this term exists in English). However, the topic of this lemma is not mountain ecology but life zones or better, vergetation zones in the mountains. I propose to change the title in vegetation zones in the montains. best regards, 08:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Montane ecology | Mountain ecology | Ecology of mountains | Vegetation zones in mountains | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Recognizability | Low (not common) | High | High | High |
Naturalness | Low | High | High | Low (people won't search for this) |
Precision | Med | Med | Med | High (narrowly defined article scope) |
Conciseness | High | High | High | Low (much longer) |
Consistency | High (category names) | Med | High (many article named Ecology of X) | Low (no other articles named "Vegetation zone" |
Summary: It sounds like there is a consensus (Sminthopsis84, Corinne, Guettarda, Lavateraguy, Hike395) in favor of using the general English term "montane" to mean "related to mountains", per the recognizability criteria; while Henriduvent wants to retain its technical ecological meaning to refer to the forested zone in mountains (as opposed to the alpine zone above treeline).
If I've misrepresented your opinion, please speak up. After another 1-2 days, I'll do the move to Montane ecosystem (singular). — hike395 ( talk) 21:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Done Moved —
hike395 (
talk)
10:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I can see the argument that this article is only about botanical zonation, and doesn't cover the full range of topics about the ecology of montane systems (e.g., isolation of populations on mountain peaks). There are three articles that cover altitude-related biotic zonation: Montane ecology (this one), altitudinal zonation, and life zone.
Therefore, I propose that we merge all three of these articles into life zone. I realize that "life zone" is a somewhat out-of-date term, but it is very common (see the Google ngram results) and recognizable to most readers (altitudinal zonation is a relatively technical term).
Do other editors agree with this merge? I will post a proposed merge notice on all three pages.
Assuming that editors agree with the merge, a broad overview article at Ecology of mountains or Mountain ecosystems would be a wonderful addition to WP (analogous to Britannica's). Would anyone like to take a crack at it? — hike395 ( talk) 04:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
In the past, I have found it difficult to reach consensus on the abstract idea of merging articles. To make it concrete, I made a first attempt at a merged article, at User:Hike395/altitudinal zonation (without a lede, because I don't know the scope of the article, yet). Please take a look.
I take Guettarda's point that we mustn't mix up bioclimatic zones and altitudinal zones (hence, I would not merge biome, per Henriduvent). I think there are three paths forward:
What do editors think? Other comments / alternatives? — hike395 ( talk) 14:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I still think that vegetation zones - or another ttle referring to the zone ascpect - is better as a title than montane ecology. There are two resaons:
So I propose to choose for the title vegetation zone (mountains) or vegetation zone (altitude) or a(nother) better title, Agree? Biome can be replaced ar supplmented by a redirect Vegetation zone (latitude), idea? best regards, ` Henriduvent ( talk) 11:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Back in June, Henriduvent ( talk · contribs) moved the article to Mountain ecosystems (note plural). The consensus here seemed to prefer "Montane" to "Mountain", so I just moved the article to Montane ecosystems. The plural may or may not be correct --- WP prefers singular titles, but it seems that the article is about multiple different kinds of ecosystems (at different elevations), so I kept the plural. — hike395 ( talk) 07:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
"As elevation increases, the climate becomes cooler, due to a decrease in the greenhouse effect. " -> this is incorrect, the real reason for cooler temperatures is lower pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.176.243.9 ( talk) 09:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The article Ruddy woodcreeper (alone) contains a redlink to Premontane humid forest. To what article should that link be directed (or are we missing a topic)? -- Finlay McWalter··–· Talk 22:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)