Talk:Rangeland

The term Rangeland may be US-only (it's not used in Australia that I know of), but the concept occurs in many countries. ScottDavis 10:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rangeland is a term used in Australia, It may not be widely used in the general community but it is used frequently within the scientific/agricultural communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treebearded (talk) 12:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I don't know how to do the formatting, but I wanted to add a reference for the first paragraph that describes the vegetation as grasses, grass-like plants, forbs and shrubs. it is stoddart et al. 1975 Stoddart L.A., Smith A.D., Box T.W., Range Management. McGraw-Hill, New York 1975. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patton DA (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Inlining section "North American rangelands"

It's not constructive to give North America special treatment. I think it would be great if we could remove the false dichotomy of North America/rest of world in this article, by splitting that section countrywise, and then just listing the US and Canada as two additional countries within the "World's rangelands" section. However, the random lists at the end of the North America section are making it a bit difficult to do so. Thinking the article would be okay without those, I tried to rearrange things in this revision, but I guess Montanabw thought it a bit heavy-handed. In the interest of not starting a revert war, I'm hoping we can figure out a better plan here. Thanks! Joe Schmedley^T* 06:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was 1) Someone deleted a chunk of theNorth American section of the article without adding anything different (talk about UNDUE?) and 2) Someone else slapped a "globalize" tag on a globalized article. My suggestion is to leave the North American section alone (pending improvements, not deletions), and just expand the other material on Australia and such. Given that North America leads the world in acreage devoted to rangeland and cattle, I don't really see a problem having it lead, though I guess I have no real objection to alphabetizing the continents, if that will tone down the "drahmahz," though in terms of raw rangeland, truth is we could also rank by sheer acreage of such land and that might make more sense. A split of USA and Canada in wholly different sections is problematic as the ecosystem crosses the border - similar issues may be relevant to South America. Open to discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 17:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

It is silly and poor form to put a half-dozen ^{[citation needed]} tags in the middle of sentences. Better to raise actual questions here, or, best of all, go look up info and fix any errors. Montanabw^(talk) 07:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My sole intention is to give warning that I am about to delete material that I believe to be incorrect. Tagging entire sections does not achieve that. Moreover, you have deleted clarification tags without cause. You have already made 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. Just one more should see your account blocked.Mark Marathon (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, YOU have violated WP:BRD by refusing to discuss the matter until ** I ** started the discussion. You refused to discuss matters and just kept refusing to explain yourself. How about instead of reverting and mad-tagging, you STARTED by explaining HERE why you thought the material was incorrect, your evidence and best of all, what YOU are going to do to fix things by researching and working on the article? I am sick and tired of people who just tag bomb articles without explaining and without getting off their butts and doing actual work. Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing it. And I am going to fix it by deleting unsourced material, as per policy, after allowing an appropriate amount of time for editors to find references. When you can explain why you have deleted my clarification and citation tags, then we will have something to discuss. At this stage, I can't see why you feel the need to remove valid tags. Mark Marathon (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put the last bunch in and I took them out because I was using the cn tags to demonstrate to you how silly it is to put a whole bunch of tags on things when a "refimprove" tag is the better way to address an article that needs more sourcing. I then removed those tags and replaced them with citations on all the areas where you originally put YOUR tags because you appeared to have a problem with some items. At this point, you are clearly not even reading the article or you would see that I addressed your original tags, and it is crystal clear you hadn't read the sources in the first place or you would not have put on the tags you did, as nearly all the material you tagged was sourced to the citation at the end of the section, which I have now added to every sentence that it can verify, just to help you out. Now address the actual issue and quit reverting the article, as YOU are the individual who is edit-warring. Montanabw^(talk) 08:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can take out your own tags if you wish. Don't remove mine when you do so. You can add citations if you wish. Don't remove the tags I added where citations have not been provided. You are clearly not even reading the article or you would see that you never addressed my original tags, and it is crystal clear you hadn't read the sources are not referenced to the disputed points. All the material I tagged was not sourced to the citation at the end of the section because there is no reference at the end of most sections., You may have added a reference to to every sentence that it can verify, that doens't mean you can remove tags from sentences that are not verified. Now address the actual issue and quit reverting the article. You are on your third revert for this 24 hour period. Mark Marathon (talk) 08:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not addressing the content, you are just randomly tagging things. Your original tags were to the Australia section, which was sourced and I put the cite there. You didn't put the same cn tags in the same places and you refuse to explain what your problem is and why you are randomly placing tags. Montanabw^(talk) 09:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forested rangelands

I just checked the purported reference, which is freely available online despite not being liked in the reference. Nowhere that i can find does it state that rangelands do not include forests lacking grazable understory vegetation. The closest i cna find is a definition of range (not rangeland) which states that it is "Range includes grassland, grazable forestland, shrubland and pastureland." This is not a definton of rangeland. This definition does not mention grazable understory vegetation, just that the forest has to be grazable. It notes that range is not a use, but rather an adjective

So can we please have a source for the claim that forest lacking a grazable understorey layer are not rangelands. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see your point. I have tried another edit, attempting to reflect your comment. Does it seem okay, or would you like to edit that? Thanks for the comment. Schafhirt (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were a bunch of intervening edits before I got her, I'm going to take a look and see what I can tweak. Overall, the article needs more actual references, that's for sure. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Found a good, solid definition from the EPA, added it to article body, we can tweak the lead from there. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rangeland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map of the world's rangelands

Iceland is coloured as if it was forest. It is primarily a tundra landscape with a long history of grazing in many areas. The map should be changed, since Iceland also contains rangelands then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rieke (talk • contribs) 10:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]