Talk:Lists of environmental topics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment[edit]

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))[reply]

The pages have since been renamed and I am in the process of reducing the lists to anthropogenic effects on the environment. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure......[edit]

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)[reply]

"Environmental" is highly politically charged. Thus you have environmental issues, agreements, legislation, an environmental movement, etc., and many related topics that feed into these. The Transhumanist 22:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two lists[edit]

Why? Ekem 23:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try 1900-1980 and 1981-Present. Or lists based on the decade. Orngjce223Orngjce223 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report[edit]

  • These were my current plans for this page (approximately in chronological order) until I saw the notice about the length of the page:
    • adding topics under "D"
    • adding topics under "C"
    • adding topics under "B"
    • adding topics under "A"
    • restyling some lists under "Lists", to show destination page titles
    • ensuring that, as much as possible, each list referenced in the main list is listed under "Lists" and vice versa
    • checking Wikipedia guidelines for alphabetization involving:
      • acronyms
      • uppercase and lowercase letters
      • spaces
      • hyphens
      • apostrophes
      • periods (see E. coli)
      • other punctuation (see the topics immediately following "Hurricane Katrina")
    • correcting alphabetization as necessary
    • adding, under each letter heading (except "J", "K", "Q", "X", "Y", and "Z", and maybe "U" and "V"), subheadings and an improvised table of contents like the one which I put under "Lists"
    • adding topics under "1-9"
    • adding subheadings and an improvised table of contents under "0-9"
    • adding an internal link to a new page "list of environment topics by categories" (not to replace or to compete with "list of environment topics" or any category project on Wikipedia), but to provide a different option for managing thousands of topics (maybe 10,000).
  • For "list of environment topics by categories", I have in mind 8 basic categories combined in 255 combinations, and a directory as well as a "search engine", all on one page. The "search engine" would have to be have to be on one page to work as planned. I was going to set up the page framework, without populating it with topics, and invite comments from the Wikipedia community on its practicality.
  • If "list of environment topics" is not going to be on one page, then there is probably no reason for me to set up "list of environment topics by categories". Also, (if the page is not split by someone else first,) I would probably add to "list of environment topics" internal links to new pages as follows:
    • list of environment topics/0-9
    • list of environment topics/A
    • list of environment topics/B

...

    • list of environment topics/Z
    • list of lists related to the environment
  • Then I would copy information as wikicode, heading by heading, to the new pages.
  • Whether it involves subheadings and subsections on one page or headings and sections on separate pages, there is the same challenge of separating topics in such a way as to have short headings/subheadings and short sections/subsections. For example, many topics begin with the word "environmental" and many topics begin with the word "International".

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)[reply]

I have noticed no progress for a month and placed an ad-hoc example that goes by the above outline. If there are no further comments, I'll procede. As for now, I am hungry, and this is taking a long-a** time to complete. Cheers - Hard Raspy Sci 23:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. The Transhumanist 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki markup for headings[edit]

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)[reply]

Removed links to pages[edit]

The following links to pages have been deleted because they have been copied in parts to new pages.

list of environment topics:0-9 A-B[edit]

list of environment topics:D-E[edit]

list of environment topics:F-G[edit]

list of environment topics:H-K[edit]

list of environment topics:L-M[edit]

Wavelength 13:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move them to Category:Nature?[edit]

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)[reply]

If links are not related to the subject, they should be removed.
Feeling that a list shouldn't exist isn't enough, usually. There needs to be good reason. Redundancy between lists and categories is not a good reason, because both have strengths that the other does not possess. See WP:CLS for more details.
Alphabetical lists serve as indexes, and are useful for surveying Wikipedia's coverage of a subject and for monitoring the subject with its Related changes feature (categories are split up to be relatively small and make use of Recent changes tedious because it has to be repeated for each subcategory, and a subject may have hundreds of subcategories).
Some other indexes on Wikipedia include List of mathematical articles, List of psychology topics, List of philosophy topics, List of politics topics, List of law topics, List of history topics, and List of geography topics.
The Transhumanist 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who links to List of environment topics?[edit]

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)[reply]

I have performed this search just mow and I get two pages outside Wikipedia. I am not sure if this is a useful measure of the interest in these pages. On the contrary it may be showing a lack of interest given the size of the internet. Alan Liefting 06:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environment vs Environmental[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree, but the term is still subject to interpretation (for example "pertains to the environment" would have the same scope as before), so a consensus should be reached before a major culling takes place. The Transhumanist 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The word "environment" has a wide currency but "environmental" is generally used in the context of "effects on the environment due to human activity". With the change in article names the preamble should now be changed to suit the title and the list entries culled appropriately. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 03:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note at WikiProject[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment#Lists of environmental topics for work that is needed here. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New criteria for the lists of environmental topics[edit]

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.

A new perspective[edit]

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:

  • Should the list include: earthquakes? volcanoes? floods? hurricanes? tornadoes? endangered species? toxic chemicals? treaties? NGOs? Quangos? parks? books? films?
  • Should it include: the most important ten members of each of those groups? the top 20? the top 50? the top 100?
  • Can someone adding another topic to the list: be absolutely certain that it fits the stated criteria? and provide a convincing explanation?
  • Can someone removing a topic from the list: be absolutely certain that it does not fit the stated criteria? and provide a convincing explanation?

Other perspectives[edit]

Also, here are some resources which exemplify what others have deemed to be environment(al) topics.





Expanding the lists[edit]

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.)


aer agr air America animal aqu atm atom Austral auto
bicycl bio bird Brit bus
California Canad car carb cent chem Chin clea clim cloud coal combin commu conserv convention cooperat
deep Department desert diesel disaster dry dust
Earth eco effect electr emergen endem energ engin envir Europe
Federa fire fish flood food forest free fresh fuel fur
garden gas geo giant glaci glob great green ground
habita haz health heat high histor home hous human hurri hybrid hydr
ice industr Institut International iron iso
lake land light liqu low
magn marine mass mechan meteo meth metr micro min mount mud
nano National natur new noise non north nucl
ocean oil organ over oxy
Pacific paleo paper pest petr plant plast polar poll poly popul power public
rain river road
sea south space storm sub super syn syst
tox trans trop
U.S.; United Kingdom; United Nations; United States; University
water wind wood world


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)[reply]

Reply to above section[edit]

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:

  • Culling list of orphaned article has no bearing on the status of the orphaned articles.
  • You are free to revert my changes. If you do it tells me you have a strong commitment to your list. Whether your list of mine is used should be up to the wider group of WP editors.
  • The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Environment articles by foo entries (for the cats that are populated) suffers the same problem of unclear usage of the word environment.
  • You said "Should the list include: earthquakes? volcanoes? floods? hurricanes? tornadoes? endangered species? toxic chemicals? treaties? NGOs? Quangos? parks? books? films?"
    • Given that the list is now about "effect of human activity on the environment" as stated at the head of the pages:
      • earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes should not be included since they are natural events (ignoring any potential influence of anthropogenic climate change). Also these are coved by pages elsewhere so there is no need for repetition.
      • endangered species, toxic chemicals are within the scope of these pages but there is no point listing every toxic chemical and endangered species. That will make the lists rather extensive and therefore of less use. It is better to include list of endangered species, list of IARC Group 1 carcinogens, list of invasive species etc.
      • enviro treaties should be included.
      • NGOs, Quangos, parks, books, films, should be included as lists rather that listing every single one. The more notable cases should be given their own entry.
  • There will always be topics that are unclear about suitability for inclusion. This would only be a small portion.
  • The topics that I have retained will need to be tweaked a little. The topics that are included would be the consensus of the editors maintaining these lists. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 10:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commitment and suitability[edit]

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)[reply]

WP works on consensus rather rather than the opinions of one or two editors. We will have to see if other editors agree with the current list. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of basic topics and lists of topics[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists of basic topics has links to

both Portal:Contents/Lists of basic topics
and Portal:Contents/Lists of topics.

Therefore, I suggest that Wikipedia could have

both lists of basic environment topics
and lists of environment topics,

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)[reply]

I feel that the list as it currently stand with a large amount of material culled from them are IN NO WAY a list of basic environment topics. Also a list of basic environmental topic would be one page not a collection of lists as you are alluding to. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 01:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Strong support - no question the other million lists would all be served well and be more useful by being merged. Do it since there seems to be no dissent.Earthdirt (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Comment you can't delete the lists, since you merged them. The requirements of GFDL (see WP:GFDL) means that you need to convert them to redirects or rename them as subpages of the merged article (and mark as merged). I suggest you remove your PRODs and just redirect them and add the {{merged-from}} {{merged-to}} templates to the talk pages. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 11:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the idea - seems very simple. I PRODed these because that was one of the suggestions when I merged a bunch of similar lists into List of health topics. See the AfD discussion here. I don't care which is best or correct - I just want to get this to closure. Your method is much easier, but I'll wait a bit in case anyone else comes along with a different opinion. Regards —G716 <T·C> 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion appears to be delete because the lists are a copyright violation because it's a copy of material created elsewhere. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_environmental_topics&oldid=1203706770"