Talk:Rangeland

message: 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)

message: 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 SchmedleyT* 06:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inlining section "North American rangelands" 

message: It is silly and poor form to put a half-dozen  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tagging 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Forested rangelands 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222125059/http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=4aabe84e-ea79-417a-ace2-e629ffe95cb3 to http://www.agriculture.gov.sk.ca/Default.aspx?DN=4aabe84e-ea79-417a-ace2-e629ffe95cb3
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305010225/http://esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests/grazing-range-management/documents/ForestGrazing-Factsheet-May2011.pdf to http://esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests/grazing-range-management/documents/ForestGrazing-Factsheet-May2011.pdf
*Added  tag to http://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildlands/areas-of-concern/whaleback/archive/2003_AR_WH.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819112310/http://srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/ProvincialGrazingReserves/Default.aspx to http://srd.alberta.ca/LandsForests/ProvincialGrazingReserves/Default.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718074840/http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/what-is-range/Rangelands_Defined.htm to http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/what-is-range/Rangelands_Defined.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100902071404/http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range/ to http://www.cnr.uidaho.edu/range/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map of the world's rangelands