Talk:Physiographic regions of the world

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Physiographic regions of the world article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Geography (Rated Start-Class) Geography Portal This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

To-do list for Physiographic regions of the world:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Improvements needed to nominate for Good or Featured status (at least a B-class in all actuality) Resolve redlinks and non-links by finding existing articles or creating new ones Add more text (with refs) explaining the physiographic regions, their importance, how they are defined, relationship to other similar entities (ecoregions, etc.)

[edit] References

Would it make sense, or would it even be neccessary, to compile a list of the various references these names came from and provide a reference for each distinct name? wbfergus ^Talk 18:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the references for each region could be in the articles themselves, for example, "The Appalachian is considered to be a physiographic region and its extent is..[cite]. -Malkinann (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a good approach to handling it. Since some of the names don't appear to used anywhere else yet (notice the non-links or redlinks), I was trying to figure out a way to address those, but really didn't want to clutter up the table with ref numbers either. Your approach addresses that very well. wbfergus ^Talk 13:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-sections

Does anybody see the need to also list the different physiographic sub-sections, if an area has been broken out to that level? wbfergus ^Talk 11:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adirondaks

I moved them into the Canadian Shield since they are truly part of that physiographic region. They are not related to the Appalachians at all.Jmpenzone (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)