Talk:List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA)

Notes

For notes on this article series, see User:Northwesterner1/notes

Split Proposal

About the split proposal, I think this list should remain a complete list, as in this version. The various lists descending from Lists of ecoregions are already quite complicated because of the two separate classifications on Wikipedia, one by the CEC and partner agencies and one by the WWF. Having the full list of United States ecoregions with the map is very useful, and splitting it off into various sublists would get messy. I'm not sure what the proposed sublists would be. We could split by Level I ecoregions into List of ecoregions in the Marine West Coast Forest, List of ecoregions in the Northwestern Forested Mountains, etc., but (a) those regions are not all contiguous, and (b) those lists would include ecoregions in Canada and Mexico that are not part of this list, so it wouldn't really be a proper split of this content. Yes, we should create the articles Marine West Coast Forest (ecoregion), Northwestern Forested Mountains (ecoregion), etc., but they would not be a substitute for this list.

We could split instead by state, and in fact I've already done that at List of ecoregions in Oregon, but then we lose the context across states. So I think we should keep the master list, List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA), in one place, just as List of ecoregions in the United States (WWF) is in one place.

I would suggest instead that the new content -- which is very useful but which may be overkill for a stand-alone list -- should be split off into stubs for the various articles.Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See second section below on correlation with Ecozones of Canada et al. Or maybe integration/merge even?Skookum1 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Source citations

The new summaries need in-line citations at the paragraph level. If this content is copied verbatim from the source, then the source needs to be verified as public domain and this fact should be noted in the footnote or by using a public domain template, per the conversation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive435#Continued plagiarism on DYK?. Thanks. Northwesterner1 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Summaries seem to be from ftp://ftp.epa.gov/wed/ecoregions/us/useco_desc.doc available in MSWord doc format. The d/l file is titled PRIMARY DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OF LEVEL III ECOREGIONS OF THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES Draft April 2002. The word doc has no author or copyright information nor any indication of source - and that would seem problematic even though it is an ftp download file from EPA.gov. Vsmith (talk) 03:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There is information already, although perhaps not in the most obvious format. At the top of this page is a link to User:Northwesterner1/notes which states that some PD article text is from the referenced EPA posters. The article's only EPA link goes to http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions.htm where the Level III link goes to http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm which contains a link to useco_desc.doc. Thus the useco_desc.doc file is connected to this Level III information. However, the "notes" phrasing mentions taking text from "posters", which implies the posters (that's what the text on the maps calls them) if you click on the "Level I" on the ecoregions.htm page...and none of those have the detailed descriptions. However, that's not the only EPA document with some of the descriptions. http://www.epa.gov/ost/criteria/nutrient/ecoregions/lakes/lakes_9.pdf but those aren't mentioned in the article nor notes. (pdf) -- SEWilco (talk) 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to a previous version of the article, given that the copyvio concerns about the paragraph summaries have not been resolved in the last month. As you'll see from my note above under "Split proposal," I believe the paragraph summaries are unnecessary anyway. This article is better conceived as a standalone list. The paragraph summaries -- if verified as public domain material -- could be used to create stubs to fill out the redlinks in the list but that information is overkill here. The notes at User:Northwesterner1/notes refer to the articles that are bluelinked from here, such as Coast Range (ecoregion), Willamette Valley (ecoregion), etc. Those articles were created using public domain text from EPA posters, and they have appropriate footnotes indicating this fact. I can make no claim about the MS Word document that User:Alba used to provide content here. It may be public domain; it may not be. But as it has not been appropriately cited, I am removing it for now.Northwesterner1 (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Correlating with Ecozones of Canada = confusion

The EPA's system in Canada is mirrored by that of Environment Canada and is laid out in Ecozones of Canada. Note that this is NOT the same as List of WWF ecoregions in Canada, which corresponds to List of ecoregions in the United States (WWF). I've added some correlative cross-links to respective articles - note that "ecozone" is the CEC/Environment Canada equivalent to a Level I ecoregion, which in this article is used as section headings and in the Canadian side of things are stand-alone articles; there's the beginnings of Level III ecoregions here, which appear to correspond (I think) to Canadian ecoregions; level II might be the same as Canadian ecoprovinces, where Level IV would be, I think, ecodistricts in Canada. At least that's what the lede to Ecozones of Canada indicates. I haven't been able to fully correlate the systems; Mixedwood Plains seems to be in both Great Plains and Atlantic Temperate Forests; Northern Forests in this system spans what are two different regions in Canada, and your Taiga system and Taiga Cordillera Ecozone don't quite match either. So to me the groupings are different within Canada and the US; for proper correlation it may be necesary to have things arranged at all four levels ,and hopefully that will tidy it all up. It's supposed to be the same system (CEC<=>EPA).....As far as the above discussion about breaking off the sections here, rather than naming them as lists why not integrate all the level III's into a granparent Level I article, which can also contain t he Level II/ecoprovince breakdown. List of ecoregions in North America (EPA/CEC) might be a good idea but would bascially be a combination of both country-pages, plus Mexico's if such a corresponding list/article ever surfaces. I also note btw that Canadian Rockies (ecoregion) is going to cause some confusion, but not like a lot of these names don't also.....See a corresponding section on user talk:Mindmatrix for more details....Skookum1 (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)