Talk:List of ecoregions (WWF)

It most certainly would be a copyright violation to copy and paste information from another site to this site. Kingturtle 15:30, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Quoting the essential information (i.e. names of ecoregions) should be okay. Just don't copy the layouts, images. On the other hand, though, is such a list necessary in Wikipedia so long as the WWF provides one? A-giau 20:11, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copyright problems can be avoided for the reasons given above, particulalry if we note in the introduction that the list was compiled by WWF . The list would make a fabulous jumping-off point for articles about each region - I came to this page from Wordl economy and was curious about the regions. So I'm going to start compiling the list; I need a good long-term project to keep me from straying over to New Pages and getting enraged by all the vandalism and idiocy there! - DavidWBrooks 18:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It should be ok. Facts can't be copyrighted, and a geographic names are just that. --Yuje 13:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It would also be nice to be able to wiki-link to pages on specific WWF ecoregions, even if the page was little more than a stub with a link to the WWF's pages. This page's list seems incomplete, I couldn't find Ozark Mountain Forests, ...adding. Pfly 16:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge

This list is not in fact a list of the 867 terrestrial ecoregions; it is a list of WWF's Global 200, which are priorities for conservation, and this list is duplicated on the Global 200 page. The Global 200 list is not a complete list, and includes a number of "composite" ecoregions. This page could either redirect to Global 200, or it could be made into a definitive list of ecoregions; thoughts? Tom Radulovich 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, given the title, this should be an exhaustive list of ecoregions. The Global 200 is just a subset of ecoregions that the World Wildlife Fund thinks should be conservation priorities, which I think has less encyclopedic relevance than a full list. It looks like Yuje went through and created templates with all (most?) of the ecoregions, so maybe we can just include them here. They are currently listed under their respective Ecozones. Many of the templates are tables written in HTML instead of wikimarkup, unfortunately, so they need to get converted, too. Miguel.v 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Merge, make comprehensive, and identify those on the Global 200 list (e.g. with asterixes), and link externally to the Global 200 list.Fredwerner 02:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree too -- when I saw the request to merge, my very first thought was "What about the other 667 ecoregions that the WWF does not consider endangered yet?" It is politicised. I want to see a list of ecoregions based on real science in "the world as it is", not as we wish it to be. Further, the ordering of the list bothers me -- is vegetation and rainfall the primary criteria for grouping? I want to see all the Nearctic entries together, all the Palearctic entries together, etc. by the ordering given here, adjacent ecoregions get widely separated in the list, while forests poles apart get listed together. BeeTea 03:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The list now includes all of the WWF's terrestrial ecoregions, sorted by ecozone and then by major habitat type. I didn't update the freshwater and marine ecoregions, though.Tom Radulovich 16:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this list should be split. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I split it into three pages. Miguel.v (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)