Talk:Biodiversity of New Caledonia

message: At the top of the article are maintenance templates  and  that contain the "section" parameter.  If these issues are limited to the lead section, should these be replaced with ?  If these issues are NOT limited to the lead section, should the "section" parameter be removed?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there is an  template in the middle of the Ecoregions section.  Should a "section" parameter be added to this parameter?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Thanks Curritocurrito, but someone beat me to it.  I did add the "section" parameter to .  GoingBatty (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about maintenance templates 

message: I hit this thing with a club. Hope you like it. Here are my observations:
*Please add coverage of marine biodiversity, covering both the nearshore and pelagic surroundings.
*The geology section remains incoherent, because it presents two conflicting pictures of the origins of life. I tried to make sense of it, but I'd say I failed.
*I'd like to see more quantitative info. How many species are in the various IUCN categories? How much area has been affected by mining?
*How about a map marking the boundary between wet and dry.
Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 18:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi LFS, Good Stuff mostly. I was holding back today because I had had an editing clash the previous evening. I am just having a sniff at the article before crashing. One thing that disturbs me is the cheerful assumption: "Land bridges formed between New Caledonia and its neighbours, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Australia. Thus new species came to New Caledonia while Gondwanan species were able to penetrate the Pacific Island region." Now, firstly, smaller islands like Vanuatu could hardly act as more than refugia, rather than major sources of biota, and besides there are some pretty deep trenches between NC and those places. The severest ice age drops Iin sea level that I personally know of were measured in tens of metres. If you know of hundreds-metre drops, I won't call you a liar, (in fact I have not even checked whether you were the source of that assumption; forgive if not) but land bridges over 2000 to 5000 metre trenches over distances of hundreds of km? I think hardly! Even Zealandia high ground between NC & NZ are mostly ovr 1000m deep. Check it out on Google Earth. Any citations had better be pretty impressive to convince me. I prefer the citation I gave of Head. I prefer his views to those of geologist rivals. But I am open to persuasion. G'nite! JonRichfield (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jon - I didn't add anything to the article. I cut about 25% and reorged the rest. As I noted above, the whole geology bit didn't make sense to me, but I left it in hoping someone knowledgeable would put it right. Lfstevens (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Hi again LFS. Fair enough. But which article was that, and what time period? For example, I don't know of any significant Ice Age between say, the late Permian and Early Pliocene, and although the geology of the time is confusing and controversial, by 3 MYA those channelswill already have been deep and wide, not like say, the channels between say, Aus and PNGuinea, which most certainly have been land bridges more recently than the dawn of agriculture, let alone the Miocene. Not trying to be difficult, I'd just like to see what the source had in mind. No hurry of course; there is plenty more editing to do, not even counting other articles! :-)  Jon  JonRichfield (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: The deletion and replacement of the NC region map; I don't follow what is going on. Is the problem something that can be settled with a bit of editing rather then deleting the whole map?  JonRichfield (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you are referring to a less recent exchange, it's not the New Caledonia map, but the Nothofagus Gondwanan distribution map that is the problem. It has large red patches showing where Nothofagus grows, but New Caledonia is not marked. Such a marking seems like something that should be included on a map on a page about New Caledonia. Nadiatalent (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Has Nothofagus fossils been found in Antarctica?  If so perhaps a different colour could be used for former distribution. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In my mutilation of the map, the fossil finds occurred to me, so I made sure of retaining a recognisable stretch of Antarctica. However, I don't know where the fossils were found, and though I know that similar fossils occur elsewhere, I don't know where those were either. If you do know, feel welcome!  JonRichfield (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

text: You are very welcome. Thank you for the information. JonRichfield (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Map coverage confusion

message: The gallery contains one image of "Araucaria columnaris with albatross", which was photographed outside New Caledonia. The image should be replaced with an image showing native New Caledonian habitat containing "Araucaria columnaris with native bird". -Mardus (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery: misplaced ''Araucaria columnaris'' image