This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Environment Thisenvironment-related page is part of theWikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of theenvironment. The aim is to writeneutral andwell-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properlycategorized. ReadWikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at theproject talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment

To-do list forWikipedia:WikiProject Environment:edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2024-02-14 For a bot maintained list of pages needing attention, check out:this list For manually configured recommendations, check out: Attention:Environment pages Cleanup:Bioeconomics,Biofuel,DDT (seeTalk:DDT),Tributyltin,Sustainability Accounting Standards Board Expand:International development,Low-carbon economy,Sustainable development Expert attention:Biodegradable plastic,International development Good article nominations:Tehachapi Energy Storage Project,Energy in Turkey Neutrality:Ecofascism,Beneficial effects of global warming,Environmental movement in the United States#Criticisms of the environmental movement,Mediterranean Sea#Environmental history Requests:Migration studies,Vertical kiln,Orange EV Sources: add sources toUnreferenced BLPs,Appropriate technology,Biodegradable plastic,Energy development,Green politics,Recycling,Sustainable agriculture Spam cleanup:Sustainable development Stubs:Environment,Environmental disasters,Environmental organizations,International development,Renewable energy,Sustainability,Waste,Water supply,More...

WikiProject Environment was featured ina WikiProject Report in theSignpost on April 2010.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than365 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III.

There is a proposed deletion ofHairshirt environmentalism. The notability has been questioned; for certain the page needs serious attention. If nobody works on it and/or opposes the PROD then it will be deleted on Sept 20, 2024. If it is of interest to this project then please edit; I am neutral on the topic beyond thinking that a PROD might be hasty.Ldm1954 (talk)22:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bees and toxic chemicals has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see this one retained a GA rating.Jusdafax (talk)01:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)01:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it was delisted, I’ve added this article toour task list. An important article, in my view.Jusdafax (talk)08:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Food waste in the United Kingdom has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)22:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it has indeed been delisted because the sourcing was outdated, so here we have another good project for the WikiProject’s Article Tasks list, which also needs updating.Jusdafax (talk)02:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There isa thread at theFringe Theories Noticeboard about the articlestraditional ecological knowledge andtraditional knowledge that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Please consider joining the discussion.Hydrangeans (she/her |talk |edits)00:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at a couple screens worth of that discussion. I did find it of interest, so thanks for the heads up. I’m going to think over what I perused, then try to get through the rest. Cheers!Jusdafax (talk)01:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look atThe Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment and assess it (particularly with respect toWP:NORG andWP:NOBLE). The article was created directly in the main space by a student participating in aWP:WEP affiliated university course; so, it never really underwent any type of formal assessment (e.g.WP:AFC) and it doesn't seem to have yet been reviewed byWP:NPP. --Marchjuly (talk)01:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just took a glance at it and it seems fine to me. It needs expansion, and hopefully someone here can get to that. I found the linked case interesting as well.Jusdafax (talk)01:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High-level radioactive waste management has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)22:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a merger discussion and have suggested to merge the articleenvironmental politics intoenvironmental policy. Please join the discussion at the talk page here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Environmental_politics#Merge .EMsmile (talk)13:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be alright if I were to replace the current article atEnvironmental Engineer (which is currently just a redirect toList of environmental engineers) with something along the lines ofUser:Froglegseternal/Environmental Engineer? Expanded, obviously, right now its just a stub, but something like that that talks more about the field itself than the knowledge bases the field relies on. The article used to be an actual article and was turned into that redirect, but that happened around 12 years ago, and not only have Wikipedia policies changed but also the field itself.Froglegseternal (talk)07:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom#Requested move 2 March 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Alalch E.19:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of aviation in the United Kingdom has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Chidgk1 (talk)12:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikipedians and editors,

I need your help! I am conducting research for my master's degree in environmental communication andI'm interested in the learning more about the use of LLMs during the editing/writing process of Wikipedia articles. In true Wikipedia fashion, I am entering this inquiry from a neutral standpoint - I neither support nor oppose the use of LLMs on Wikipedia articles.I am writing here in hopes of reading your anecdotes on how LLMs have been used or even encountered on Wikipedia articles within the WikiProject Environment.

You may see this topic a few times in your notifications, but please don't dismiss it as spam! I am posting the same topic here on the WikiProject Environment talk page, as well as the Earth, Climate Change and Tesla Model S talk pages - because they are the only three Wikipedia articles that are both of FA quality and of Top importance according to theWikiProject Environment Article Assessment table. I am open to hearing experiences with using or encountering LLMs in the editing process of other Wikipedia articles as well, but I do want to remainwithin the limits of articles under the WikiProject Environment umbrella.

It is understandable if you want to remain anonymous to other Wikipedians in this discussion. If so please feel free to reach out to me via the "Email this user" feature on my User page! Otherwise, I encourage a conversation to take place on this Talk page so that it may inspire others to contribute.

Finally, I am only in the design/digging around phase of this research. If anything that is said will be used in my actual research, all contributors will remain anonymous (unless requested otherwise). Consent forms can be made available at any time for anyone involved in further research that may be published to the public.

Some questions to inspire your storytelling:

- How have you encountered the use of LLMs on editing/writing Wikipedia articles within WikiProject environment?

- What impact has it had on article quality?

- Where do you stand on the use of LLMs in editing/writing Wikipedia articles dealing with environmental topics?

- What about the use of LLMs in editing/writing on other topics in Wikipedia articles?

- Do you have a community on Wikipedia that you communicate with about the use of LLMs in editing/writing Wikipedia articles? If so, please mention which one(s)!

All the best,

Wikipistemologist (talk)14:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I use LLMs quite frequently in my editing. 95% of the time, I'm using it to simplify text, to help me find a word (either translated from Dutch, or by describing the word I'm trying to think of), or otherwise improving prose quality. On occasion, I've used it to suggest how an article could be structured (the table of content), but in general those suggestions are not great. We have a large problem with articles that are too difficult to understand, and I believe getting help on how to simplify the language we use makes it much easier for us to write in plain and clear English.

I've encountered people use LLMs for finding sources (at least that's my suspicion), where LLMs give hard-to-detect garbage. I consider this one of my main points of concern on Wikipedia, how it's difficult to stop this type of LLM-generated misattribution. The whole idea of Wikipedia is that we're not experts and that the sources speak for themselves. If that trust is broken, there is little role remaining for WIkipedia. I wish that legislators made correct attribution obligatory for these models, so that their users know how trustworthy their output is.—Femke 🐦 (talk)16:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Femke! How great to get your input on this. Are you a part of/a watcher to any forums regarding any of these points? Have you seen discussions on Wikipedia about these concerns you have brought up in regards to any specific WikiProject Environment-related articles?

Additionally, have you ever tried using any tools to detect LLM generated text in any of the articles you're actively editing/watching?Wikipistemologist (talk)16:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of fora where this is discussed: we sometimes talk about it in the WikipediaWP:DISCORD server informally. On-wiki, you regularly see AI misuse reported atWP:ANI. In terms of an example,this edit tonatural gas seems like AI slop to me. Sources that don't exist. The give-away was that a lot of text was added in one go. Normal edits, especially from newer editors, is usually more gradual.

I believe I used an LLM to make suggestions on how to improve the introduction to theinduction cooker article.

I've never used LLM detectors. The two give-aways are made-up sources and waffle. Of course, some people waffle even without LLMs, so breaching the topic can be sensitive.—Femke 🐦 (talk)17:41, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all

I’m very happy to let you know we are running a competition atWikiproject Climate Change to encourage people to help improve visual information about Climate change. The competition is open until the 17th of May for all language versions of Wikipedia. The top three point scorers will each win a signed copy of The Climate Book by Greta Thunberg.

Please let me know if you have any questions

Thanks :)

John Cummings (talk)16:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please participate in the discussion atenvironmentalism about spinning off the section about people to a new list article calledlist of environmentalists (even though I don't think such a list of people will be particularly useful; but better than bloating up the articleenvironmentalism). See talk page ofenvironmentalism. Also see talk page ofenvironmental movement - needs further brains as well.EMsmile (talk)07:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiEMsmile, just a kind reminder that Wikiproject notifications should be neutral, to prevent the impression of canvassing. Thanks!—Femke 🐦 (talk)09:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks!EMsmile (talk)10:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has requested thatParticulates be moved toParticulate matter, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate inthe move discussion..—Femke 🐦 (talk)09:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the parishes inCancer Alley in Louisiana. It seems to be relevant to me as the article includes information about allegations of environmental racism. If anyone would want to chime in either for or against inclusion it would be appreciated. The collapsed table I would like to add is on the talk page. Cheers (seeTalk:Cancer Alley#Adding the racial/ethnic profile of the counties in Cancer Alley...Patapsco913 (talk)18:51, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:EPA (disambiguation)#Requested move 31 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.ASUKITE01:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The articleHybrid reactor has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as unreferenced for 15 and 1/2 years.Appears to be original content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular, thespeedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion.Bearian (talk)01:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100,000-year problem has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)19:58, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Alexander Shenkin, co-author of a 2024 Nature paper showing trees remove methane from the atmosphere. Given the climate significance, this discovery might merit a Wikipedia article.

Key points:

• Published in Nature (July 2024):https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07592-w
• Shows forests are 10% more beneficial for climate than previously thought
• Covered by multiple news outlets
• Has commercial applications in development

Related: SelvaFlux (https://selvaflux.com), a company I founded to commercialize this discovery through methane removal credits, might also be notable enough for an article if it gains more coverage.

I have aconflict of interest so won't create these myself, but happy to provide sources and answer questions on this talk page if anyone's interested in writing about either topic.Ashenkin (talk)05:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Trina Solar#Requested move 24 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Векочел (talk)11:56, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Environmental impact of wind power—has beenproposed formerging with another article. If you are interested, please participate inthe merger discussion. Thank you.Chidgk1 (talk)08:38, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article for golf looks like it was essentially written by the golf industry. There are many articles on the environmental impact of the sport, and I linked several intalk:Golf, but we haven't had much forward movement. Posting the sources here and bringing attention to this in case anyone is interested in getting a section started. It's on my to do list, but may take a while.

• Analyzing golf course pesticide risk across the US and Europe—The importance of regulatory environment
• A Global Perspective on the Environmental Impact of Golf
• What does sport really cost? A micro-economic study of the consumer cost of golf and soccer
• An exploration of golf and voluntary environmental programmes
• Golf, the environment, and development
• Market Preemption and Entry Deterrence: Evidence from the Golf Course Industry
• What does sport really cost? A micro-economic study of the consumer cost of golf and soccer
• Who is the city for? Sports facilities and the case of Vancouver’s public golf courses
• Golf for all? The problems of municipal provision in the bookScience and Golf II
• Do Urban Golf Courses Provide Barriers to Equitable Greenspace Access in the United States?
• Municipal Enterprises: Exploring Budgetary and Political Implications
• Expansion of Golf Courses in the United States*
• Effects of nutrient subsidies from groundwater to nearshore marine ecosystems off the island of Hawaii

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)}01:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the recommendations! I think what is likely a more tactful approach would be to incrementally improve sections: adding environmental issues to the golf course section, and talk about gender and racial discrimination in other places (i.e. instead of a section title "women" it could be something more like "Demographics of golf",Sadads (talk)13:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please note thatEconomics of climate change mitigation, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of theArticles for improvement. The article isscheduled to appear on Wikipedia'sCommunity portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by—MusikBottalk00:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

FYI. This recent Sign-post article

• Is Wikipedia a merchant of (non-)doubt for glyphosate?

has produced discussion here:

• Talk:Monsanto#Williams_2000_ghostwriting_controversy
• Talk:Polyethoxylated_tallow_amine#Williams_et_al_2000_paper
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#USRTK
• Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#More_organic_industry_sourcing

--David Tornheim (talk)17:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I have added the Glyphosate article to our Project page.Jusdafax (talk)05:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Glyphosate/Roundup is banned in numerous countries and localities, and a well-sourced list article of such notable nations and locations should be created.Jusdafax (talk)20:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense. Might want to mention that in the two articles. --David Tornheim (talk)22:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked at the Monsanto Talk page. I am astonished by this link to a study of glyphosate and the history of how Monsanto ghostwrote a key paper cited by Wikipedia as a reliable source. The link:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125001765?via%3DihubJusdafax (talk)09:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Jairo Mora Sandoval has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)00:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One person has commented for and one against. I would like to close the discussion so if you have an opinion please comment atTalk:Electric bicycle#Merge pedelec into this article? soon thanksChidgk1 (talk)Chidgk1 (talk)04:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I'm normally pretty comfortable with technical writing, but IMHO the readability ofSource–sink dynamics can be improved.-~2025-36261-79 (talk)04:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Project-Class Environment pages
• NA-importance Environment pages
• Wikipedia pages with to-do lists