Talk:Phytogeography

message: Is this different from Phylogeography. Is the name a typo? Pfly 20:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see -- phyto- meaning "plants" (I didn't know that), and phylo- referring to "phylum", apparently. I guess I could have looked it up. The OED has an entry for phytogeography. Thanks for the response! Pfly 02:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  versus Phylogeography 

message: This stub is a shame for Wikipedia, a subject of this importance, in Encyclopaedia Britannica on the contrary it is reasonable. Berton 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shame

message: How on earth is this article a shame? please explain in more detail. It is short, but it is modeled in part on the zoogeography page, which is a sister subject of phytogeography. I am wondering if the problem is that many people have a narrow view of what phytogeography is, namely an old system of classifying geographical patterns of plants, when in fact the term by its very name can be construed to mean anything about plants that is geographical. That would include evolutionary plant biogeography, the study of the geography of plant biodiversity and climate, intraspecific genetic geography, plant genomic geography, plant phylogeography, plant historical biogeography, plant ecological biogeography, the study of plant abundance, ecogeographical rules (the list goes on). Is this semantic dispute the root of this problem? If so, I think it makes sense to add a paragraph about how the term has been used in the past. And how do we change that rating? I dispute that it is in the lowest class of articles. By the way, I agree that the subject is very important (because the large number subjects phytogeography encompasses, see above) and needs more attention.  Threelovemonkeys (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about the "shame" comment (over 6 months old at this point) - it isn't specific enough to mean much. As for the "rating", if you mean the article assessment for wikiproject plants, the scale is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment. Note that the current assessment is importance "high" (matching your "the subject is very important"), class stub (matching your "needs more attention"). So there seems to be a fair bit of agreement here.  In any case, improving the article is the real point here; the assessment system is just a means to improving articles, not the end in itself. Kingdon (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would think that classifications are dealt with at Phytochorion (which floristic province currently redirects to), and this article is for the broader subject.  So I'd be a little bit skeptical of creating a third article.  In this case, I would think the disambiguation in question would be a sentence in the body of the article saying something like "a phytogeography can also mean a classification scheme" (you can read up at Wikipedia:hatnotes or Wikipedia:Manual of style (disambiguation pages) regarding other mechanisms, but those wouldn't be my first instinct in this situation).  However, what I say should be taken with a grain of salt, given my limited knowledge of phytogeography and the terminology thereof. Kingdon (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Shame?!

message: To El 41.215.7.114 (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factors that influence soil leaching