Category talk:Landforms is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
Huh, looking at the pages in this category, there are all kinds of odd things that don't seem right to me (like "Astrogeology stubs"? "Mythological places"??). I agree with Hike395 that forests, grasslands, etc, are not landforms but rather biomes. The
Category:Biomes category looks rather chaotic and messy, perhaps overly subcategorized. But that seems to be the appropriate for for forest and grassland pages. Maybe I'll try some recategorizing if I find the time and energy. The whole category tree for geography (and ecology for that matter) seems a confusing tangle to me.
Pfly04:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Fixed astrogeology stubs and mythological places -- more cleanup is welcome: categories tend to decay with time.
hike39507:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks! I began to do some cleanup too and noted that we were working simultaneously (some pages I'd opened in tabs for work magically turned out to already be cleaned up when I got to them!). I read through some of the wikipedia guideline pages on categories and got myself thoroughly confused and demoralized on the topic of category cleanup. Guess I prefer making new articles or major expansions to existing ones rather than cleaning up. Admin I'll never be! :-)
Pfly08:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I found the category
Category:Terrestrial biomes where grasses and trees were mostly at and it is in the ecology category structure so I moved grasses and trees there and removed them from landforms. Thanks very much.
It seems that for all but 3 or 4 countries, forests, grassland, and prairies are placed in geography. I think these few countries should be changed so these categories go into geography. This will at least make them uniform. Whether this is the best/right category set to use, I don't know as the WP articles do not seem to support any category.
Hmains03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I can think of one reason to put forests, grassland, and prairies into a non-geography country category: because the flora category for that country exists. Not all countries have flora categories: only the US and UK do (that I could find) I would suggest putting forests, grasslands, and prairies into such flora country categories, if they exist. (You could argue that, if a forest, grassland, and prairie country article exists, that we should create a flora country category for it. That would be OK with me, too, if you want to make things more consistent).
hike39506:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Many flora by country categories have been deleted because of the objection that flora does not know geographic boundaries so categories by country are not useful. I have moved various fortests in the flora/biota/natural history/environment categories and they just do not seem to fit. I think geography is the right place. I have opened a further discussion to get more input. Thanks
Hmains04:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I would agree that listing species in a country category is not a good idea. But, these forests do have a limited geographical extent and can be assigned sensibly to a flora of a country category. On the other hand, I've become careful about actions on WP that, while nominally correct, can encourage other editors in doing the wrong thing. If the risk is too high that these flora categories will be filled with junk, I can see not using them and putting them in geography, instead.
I see that you've made a bunch of flora country categories. I'm sorry if that work is backed out (I hope you are using a bot). Thanks for putting in so much effort.
hike39511:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
deserts
is a desert a
Landform or a Terrestrial
biome or both? Someone needs to change the articles with a good argument, then only followed by category structure changes.
Hmains02:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry --- my mistake: a desert is not a landform (it isn't listed at
Landform). A dune is a landform that occurs in a desert. It's clear that a desert is a biome, because there is the "deserts and xeric shrublands" type of biome from the WWF.
hike39504:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It seems that deserts are generally in the geography category. Whether this is right or not I just don't know as I cannot find WP article text that support the placement of deserts into a particular category.
Hmains03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Category talk:Landforms is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
Huh, looking at the pages in this category, there are all kinds of odd things that don't seem right to me (like "Astrogeology stubs"? "Mythological places"??). I agree with Hike395 that forests, grasslands, etc, are not landforms but rather biomes. The
Category:Biomes category looks rather chaotic and messy, perhaps overly subcategorized. But that seems to be the appropriate for for forest and grassland pages. Maybe I'll try some recategorizing if I find the time and energy. The whole category tree for geography (and ecology for that matter) seems a confusing tangle to me.
Pfly04:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Fixed astrogeology stubs and mythological places -- more cleanup is welcome: categories tend to decay with time.
hike39507:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Thanks! I began to do some cleanup too and noted that we were working simultaneously (some pages I'd opened in tabs for work magically turned out to already be cleaned up when I got to them!). I read through some of the wikipedia guideline pages on categories and got myself thoroughly confused and demoralized on the topic of category cleanup. Guess I prefer making new articles or major expansions to existing ones rather than cleaning up. Admin I'll never be! :-)
Pfly08:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I found the category
Category:Terrestrial biomes where grasses and trees were mostly at and it is in the ecology category structure so I moved grasses and trees there and removed them from landforms. Thanks very much.
It seems that for all but 3 or 4 countries, forests, grassland, and prairies are placed in geography. I think these few countries should be changed so these categories go into geography. This will at least make them uniform. Whether this is the best/right category set to use, I don't know as the WP articles do not seem to support any category.
Hmains03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I can think of one reason to put forests, grassland, and prairies into a non-geography country category: because the flora category for that country exists. Not all countries have flora categories: only the US and UK do (that I could find) I would suggest putting forests, grasslands, and prairies into such flora country categories, if they exist. (You could argue that, if a forest, grassland, and prairie country article exists, that we should create a flora country category for it. That would be OK with me, too, if you want to make things more consistent).
hike39506:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Many flora by country categories have been deleted because of the objection that flora does not know geographic boundaries so categories by country are not useful. I have moved various fortests in the flora/biota/natural history/environment categories and they just do not seem to fit. I think geography is the right place. I have opened a further discussion to get more input. Thanks
Hmains04:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I would agree that listing species in a country category is not a good idea. But, these forests do have a limited geographical extent and can be assigned sensibly to a flora of a country category. On the other hand, I've become careful about actions on WP that, while nominally correct, can encourage other editors in doing the wrong thing. If the risk is too high that these flora categories will be filled with junk, I can see not using them and putting them in geography, instead.
I see that you've made a bunch of flora country categories. I'm sorry if that work is backed out (I hope you are using a bot). Thanks for putting in so much effort.
hike39511:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
deserts
is a desert a
Landform or a Terrestrial
biome or both? Someone needs to change the articles with a good argument, then only followed by category structure changes.
Hmains02:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry --- my mistake: a desert is not a landform (it isn't listed at
Landform). A dune is a landform that occurs in a desert. It's clear that a desert is a biome, because there is the "deserts and xeric shrublands" type of biome from the WWF.
hike39504:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)reply
It seems that deserts are generally in the geography category. Whether this is right or not I just don't know as I cannot find WP article text that support the placement of deserts into a particular category.
Hmains03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply