User talk:Peter Campbell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To streamline communications, if you post on my talk page I will reply on my talk page

Old archives: 1 | 2

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to User talk:Peter Campbell/Archive2. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.
Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] My references

[edit] Aust Barnstar

The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 00:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar Gnangarra, much appreciated. I have added it to my user page. Peter Campbell 09:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of forests

Needs something far more substantial than just a list - you need to address what significance means and you need to qualify it quite thoroughly - otherwise its is ambiguous and potentially a trainwrek of a list - cheers SatuSuro 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC) oops sorry been meaning to get off - and realised my edi summary to this message should have been here - why significant? what significance? you really need to make a table- and key things that have been idnetified in the rfa process - old growth, remnant veg species count, quality, burn history, etc etc - SatuSuro 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The article is a starting point. I was thinking of a table with descriptions of significance, along with body text and sections with additional information. More to follow. Peter Campbell 05:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


otherwise as a list it could be shot down on the question of what significance? - qualifying that word is far more important than the list in a way of thinking about it SatuSuro 07:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forests of Australia

Hi, noticed you created the article Forests of Australia. It is an article which describes the forests in the country. Thank you for your efforts. I will like to give a suggestion. A list of forests is what the categories are for. Description of the individual forests should be within the respective articles. May I suggest you that the article to be moved under a new title Wildlife in Australia. It will expand the article, much more valuable information will be within its scope and a separate section will be needed to briefly mention the list of forests in the country. I am waiting for your response. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the current article is fine. I think an article on Wildlife of Australia would be outrageously broad in scope, especially considering we already have excellent Fauna of Australia and Flora of Australia articles. Hesperian 22:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Otolemur crassicaudatus, thanks for your suggestion. The article will be expanded to include more specific information about forest coverage, trends and data across Australia. The current list is a starting point with summary information about notable forests. By all means proceed with a Wildlife in Australia article, but this is a separate topic as forests include both flora and fauna. As per Hesperian, you would need to make sure it does not duplicate content in the existing fauna and flora articles for Australia. Peter Campbell 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

However well intentioned ottos suggestion might have been - just a looking at the australian biota project alone suggests the sophistication of the australian project could not cope with such a simplistic reduction. The map and the elaborations are excellent - keep at it! well done! SatuSuro 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Peter Campbell. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.