Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh

Contents

[edit] Environment Barnstar

I would like to suggest the creation of a barnstar for individuals who make significant contributions to articles related to the environment and sustainability and WikiProject Environment. Support would be required on the following page Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals along with someone who is able to make some potential designs for the award.

--Alex 12:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. We need to have an award system for those who contribute a lot to the project. Although I don't use photoshop, I can ask my friend to make a barnstar for us. But how can we value their contribution? There's no "set" measurement for this. In addition to barnstar, I believe everyone of us should place this userbox that I made on their user page to promote environmental protection and our project.

Code Result
{{User:OhanaUnited/Userboxes/Protect_Environment}}
Fx
This user supports the protection of the environment

OhanaUnited 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, my friend made the image and allow anyone to use as long as it promotes environmental protection. The image is very straight forward. Basically the green represents the environment and the panda represents the wild animals.
Image:Environment Barnstar 1.png

[edit] Vote

Should we use this as barnstar?

Yes No


Note: Sign with ~~~ if you want to leave out the timestamp. Voting closes after 7 days (on January 27, 2007). First past the post wins. After that I'll submit it to the proposal page and hope that they'll approve it.
EDIT: Since nobody votes (or cares), the condition now changes to whichever option gets 5 votes first wins or the date reaches Feb. 28, 2007. If at that time nobody votes, then I'll assume that nobody objects and I will submit a request.

For discussion, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment#Barnstar_Discussion

[edit] Category:Environment

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

[edit] Built and natural environment

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

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

[edit] Environmental Management

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

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

[edit] Improvement drive

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

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

[edit] Wilderness

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

Wilderness is that part of the environment the has not been modified by humans. This project is really for that which has been modified. Alan Liefting 01:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental science template

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

Environmental science
Atmospheric sciences | Ecology | Geosciences | Soil science| Hydrology |
Related fields: Biology | Chemistry | Environmental design | Environmental economics | Environmental ethics | Environmental law | Physics | Pollution control | Sustainability | Waste management
Environmental technology

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

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

[edit] Environmental science

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

[edit] Hierarchy definition

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

and add the following as subcats:

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

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

1. to move out of subcats of Environmental science:

2. to move Emissions reduction down the tree one notch

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

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

[edit] Waste management

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

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

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

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

[edit] Waste catagories

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

Waste

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

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

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

[edit] Water conservation deserves an article

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Conservation category

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

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

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

[edit] Category update

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

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

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

[edit] No Parent

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

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

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

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

[edit] Disaster management

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

[edit] Resource on environmental inventions

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

[edit] Category:Environmental law

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

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

[edit] Environment by country categories

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

[edit] Sustainable development links

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

[edit] Problems with the "Environmental Design" article

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

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

[edit] Sierra Club John Muir Award

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

[edit] "Bicycle" undergoing Feature Article review

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

[edit] Environmental organization comparison?

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

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

[edit] Deletion of main template

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

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

[edit] Phytoremediation

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

Basicdesign 13:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean fisheries issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] British nuclear tests at Maralinga

Hi folks,

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

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

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

[edit] Waste management - needs some translation

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Aerography

Some people claim the word for geography on mars, but in the talk page of Geography of Mars I have put some biology related article references, which give me the strong feeeling that the word is already used for the research on the areal ditribution of species. Can anybony give me a clear signal if this word is in use in biology?--Stone 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] environmentalist category

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

[edit] Disgusted at some users' views on environment

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

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

OhanaUnited 04:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Alex 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Discussion

This section is exclusively for barnstar discussion. Questions and comments are welcome! (But I got something to say...)

How should we deem someone as making significant contributions?
Should we vote on it prior to handing it out?
Will there be a designated person to hand out this barnstar?

And if you don't like this barnstar, feel free to say so. I take all criticism as long as they're constructive.
OhanaUnited 06:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the barnstar, and would like to see it used. I query the usage of the Panda image though - it appears to be taken from the WWF logo. Will there be copyright issues there? ropable 00:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
You raised a good point. I must have overlooked the copyright for the logo but it carries the symbol that is understood worldwide. If we use another symbol, people may not understand it easily or confused it with biology. Do you have suggestion on what other symbols that we can use? OhanaUnited 04:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of using something very similar to an existing brand (WWF) logo in the barnstar, but its not an issue that should take up much of our time. How about a tree inside instead? Jens Nielsen 16:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Earth day.svg What about putting one of these in the middle? And what do people think about it being deleted from the Earth Day article?--Hjal 05:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the barnstar. Thanks for picking up my original comments. I think perhaps though it should encompas the earth as opposed to an animal. The earth represents everyones environment whether plant animal or other. An animal such as a panda might refer to conservation more than the environment on the whole. --Alex 08:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
How about this one? . It's the image for this project member's userbox. So... how about use green barnstar as the base and overlap with this image? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OhanaUnited (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
Makes sense to me--Alex 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And to me - a Panda conjures up the issue of species conservation alone to me, not the environment as a whole. A picture of the Earth is a much better idea.Parmesan 02:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Earth Day

Are we going to do anything on that day? For those who don't know, it's on April 22. OhanaUnited 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment Scale

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

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

[edit] FAR request for Global warming

Global warming has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

- Nick Mks 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Environment_1029.html"