This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lepidoptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of butterflies and moths on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LepidopteraWikipedia:WikiProject LepidopteraTemplate:WikiProject LepidopteraLepidoptera articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
With a nod to WP:PAGEDECIDE, is there a compelling why California is singled out for a spinoff conservation article? Is monarch conservation in California significantly different than any other state (or country) where monarchs occur, or could it be better discussed in, say Monarch butterfly conservation?
I question whether is is necessary to chop up the article into list entries of every state park and public site. Well crafted paragraphs would be easier to read, and reduce the potential of a slippery slope to an indiscriminate or trivial list.
I've been wondering the same myself. The topic itself doesn't seem notable, and most of the content seems like an indiscriminate list. I've been meaning to come back to condense a lot of the info and see where the article stands after, but I haven't really got around to it. If there are any suggestions on content changes for now though I'd be happy to chime in. Now California can be an important location since it has a population that is largely non-migratory compared to those in the eastern US, but that too seems like something better suited for the general monarch article(s) instead. I'm not in a hurry to delete this article though, so I'd rather see content worked with first before going that route. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Monarch conservation is very different in California for a lot of reasons. Since the information was available park-by-park/overwintering site-by overwintering site, I thought it would be nice for interested people to be able to find the locations which are typically open to the public. The population in California is very migratory, not in the sense of four thousand miles, but recoveries up to one thousand miles have occurred. Conservation strategies are completely different. The population also seems to migrate between CA and AZ; another reason this population is different. I will be happy to condense the list of overwintering sites into more of a 'list'. There is also much controversy and differences between disease levels, parasites, predators and the way the population is counted every year at Thanksgiving - whereas the eastern population is counted in Mexico at the end of January.
I do have a draft of Monarch butterfly conservation but I am trying to decide whether it should be an article about Pollinator conservation with different sections on different insects.
