Template talk:Biome

message: Now, I'm no oceanographer, but judging from the Riparian zone article, it appears to me  that it more properly belongs in the Terrestrial biomes category, rather than Aquatic biomes.  Can you explain why you listed it there?
Also, I think it would be useful to list the various biomes in some kind of order.  Of course, it's possible that you did and I just don't know enough about it to recognize the order!
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts!  Thanks for creating a LOVELY template! ~ Mpwrmnt 08:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's there because riparian areas flood at times?  I don't know a lot about biomes, it's something we seldom use in California ecology for some reason.   I'll post your question on the Biome article talk page, and maybe someone can explain it.  I believe classification systems are used, so it probably was not the choice of the editor of this template, but rather a list he/she pulled from a book.  KP Botany 15:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of Biomes 

message: This template is too long to use in many articles.  Would it be possible to use hide and show to collapse the three sections so that it would be more acceptable? --Bejnar (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't mind hide/show. —hike395 (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall there be a vote for the hide/show modification or just modify it? If need opinion, I prefer add the hide/show, too. But I am not familiar with programming so I don't know how to do that. By the way , I think the biomes may be classified into concepts of WWF system:terrestrial, freshwater, and marine. The Template:Ocean habitat topics also collects a lot of different biology communities, may be a good reference. -- shangkuanlc (talk) 15:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I have just read the discussion above (Wetland) and found out that there are objections against the concept of "sole classification standard". I want to point out that my idea of classification concepts is just for big concept, I don't mean to follow the WWF system, the whole system, and nothing but the system. I just want to make the template could be more navigable -- shangkuanlc (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would really help. --Extra  999 (Contact me  +  contribs) 11:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long

message: It would be really great if someone smarter than I could add the View/Discuss/Edit links that all other navboxes have (this is a navbox). I can't figure it out without destroying the code. StevePrutz (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a navbar (using the mini v•d•e option). - Steve3849talk 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW I was inspired by this navbox and made a set of userboxes based on the color scheme Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/Misc#Biome, thank you. - Steve3849talk 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs navbox template coding 

message: The term "broadleaf forest" is equally common as "broadleaved forest" and the latter is more correct grammatically (in analogy to "mixed forest" and "small-leaved lime", for example). So I suggest that we should correct the endings everywhere.
Another question concerns classification. There is an article about ""temperate deciduous forests" (="temperate broadleaf forests"). Should we divide the biome "temperate broadleaved and mixed forests" into two biomes: "temperate broadleaved forests" and "temperate mixed forests"?--Sylwia Ufnalska (talk) 08:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadleaved and mixed