Talk:Physiographic region

message: Would it make sense, it WOULD NOT 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)
replies: text: I'd say the references for each region could be in the articles them SHIT selves, for example, "The Appalachian is considered to be a physiographic region and its extent is..[cite]. -Malkinann (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: References

message: 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)
thread_title: Sub-sections

message: 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)
thread_title: Adirondacks

message: "Intermontane Plateaus" is a US term; the Canadian equivalent is Interior System - eee Physiographic regions of British Columbia and the accompanying maps. The site is unofficial but is a distilation of a classification in the official BC Govt-defined geography Landforms of British Columbia, S. Holland (1964, 1976) and which is the basis of the British Columbia Geographical Names Information System and the provincial basemap.  The reason for the non-use of the term "plateaus" here is that northern BC is not plateaus, but a system of mountain ranges known in Holland's nomenclature as the Interior Mountains, which include such complexes as the Hazelton Mountains, Skeena Mountains, Omineca Mountains and Cassiar Mountains as well as the Tagish and Tahltan Highlands; similarly farther south the Interior Plateau includes various mountain ranges as well as the Quesnel, Shuswap and Okanagan Highlands.  The Intermontane Plateaus physiographic region is esseentially the same region, just with a different; I note that his use of Interior Plains conforms to designations already here; maybe Western System and Eastern System are correspond, or there maybe are American equivalent terms for extensions of the same classification/concept.  Just to note also that the Skeena Mountains and others listed here as being in the Yukon-Tanana Uplands are not designated so in Canada, except maybe in geologic or ecologic classifications (see below).  Just wondering what to do here; easy enough to redirect interior System to Intermontane Plateaus but how to indicate these usages in the table; using Interior System for the Canadian entries would tend to indicate that it was a different system from Intermontane Plateaus; maybe a common footnote to indicate both terms are the same, or a sect-hatnote at the top of the table?  Once that's settled I'll populated the table further....Skookum1 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Intermontane Plateaus v Interior System

message: It is unclear to me how East Asia fits into this scheme...?andycjp (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear?

message: Intermontane Plateaus, Pacific Mountain System, Rocky Mountain System are subgroupings of Western Cordillera (North America), which itself is a subgrouping of American Cordillera, which includes the Sierra Madre System and Andean Sysstem.  Lots of work to add that column, I'm not in the mood tonight to expand the table that drastically, just suggesting/serving notice it needs to be done.  Other than that a sixth column may be needed because Intermontane Plateaus, or rather its Canadian equivalent-term Interior System, has a many-tiered substructure, i.e. Cassiar Mountains, Skeena Mountains, [[Hazelton Mountains, Stikine Plateau are all part of the Interior Mountains; the Interior Plateau has various plateaus and mountain ranges within it; that's not including the small ranges, I'm talking huge areas.....this has to do also with teh conflicting terms/classifications between the two countries; but this article can't rightly say 'of the world" if it uses only classification-tiers and moneclature from the American system.  How to resolve it well I'm not sure, I'm just fielding the problem, and the next one too....Skookum1 (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  at least a fifth column needed, maybe a sixth

message: I'm on the edge of expanding the contents of the table with the various groupings, but find it problematic because the table's existing terminology is USPOV.  I won't clutter the masthead by adding , but am wondering about two solutions:
*footnoting is graphically unappealing as each instance of Intermontane Plateaus, for instance, would have to have a footnote saying "The term for this physiographic system in Canada is Interior System]]", and add onto that t he footnotes on each instance of Rocky Mountain System and Pacific Mountain System for, respectively, Eastern System and Western System (or Pacific Coast Ranges, though that term is a grouping of mountain ranges, the former is for the physiographci system and corresponds to the other two).  Complicating this is that in BC's classification there's the Insular System, I think it is.
*The other thing to do is have a mention in the foreword to the table what the Canadian terms are.  This seems simplest but it gets a bit more compilcated because:
In the US the Rocky Mountain System includes the Columbia Mountains; if I'm not mistaken (and I may be), the Canadian system places these as part of the Interior System; I'll double-check that but it's not the only variance; the BC term "Insular System" includes the Alexander Archipelago but the US system has that as part of the Pacific Mountain System.  Plays hell with the table, ultimately.
:NB I've currently got Pacific Mountain System redirected to Pacific Coast Ranges but that's not quite right, I was "making do" as previously the first was redirected to the Western Cordillera (which includes the Rocky Mtn System and the Intermontane Plateaus).  I think Pacific Mountain System equates to Western System in the Canadian/BC terminology/classification, but the Pacific Mountain System also includes what in CAnada/BC is the Insular System.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See this map which shows the systems in British Columbia and some of the Yukon.Skookum1 (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: American v. Canadian terms/classification

message: This is not in the last about the actual data here or the citations needed to establish whose take on global geology we're talking about—I can't even claim dilettante knowledge in the subject area—but the very first sentence is a frightful mess:
"The physiographic regions of the world are a means of defining the Earth's landforms into distinct regions based upon Nevin Fenneman's classic three-tiered approach of divisions, provinces and sections,[1] in 1916,[2] which although they date from the mid 1910s, are still considered basically valid, and were the basis for similar classifications of other continents later.[3]"
Various problems:
Citation 1, apparently a University of Connecticut geology class handout on PDF, is not available; in any case it is not clear why one would use curricular materials instead of or in addition to the primary text at citation 2!
Fenneman's foundational work is dated twice in two consecutive phrases for no reason.
'although they date from...' 'they' is an incorrect pronoun reference: the approach dates from the mid 1910s, not the divisions, provinces, and sections
'Other continents' than WHAT?
Doing an edit to clean this up. Sebum-n-soda (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, yes that is painful to read. This whole page needs a lot of work, whatever you can do is appreciated. There's some info and references about Fenneman over at United States physiographic region, which might be useful (that page needs work too!). Pfly (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Presentation of Information in a Useful Way

message: I looked through the citations, and I couldn't find a comprehensive list for anyplace other than the U.S. Is this based on any sort of official list? It seems like it isn't. Also, large parts of the world are entirely omitted from the list (e.g. East asia, Southeast asia, Polynesia.) Unless somebody can find an official list, the article should probably be changed to reflect the lack thereof. Cghsci (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for the other Canadian sections, but the BC items are modelled on the system used by the British Columbia Names Office, based on a government publication from the 1950s or so which forms the basis for the geographic classifications and nomenclature in the province.  So that part, at least, is official for BC, I'd expect the same for Canada as a whole because WPCANADA people go by National Geophysical Survey definitions and research.Skookum1 (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Complicating issue is that American and Canadian official systems often do not share terms, very much on purpose historically; same applies to ecoregions etc.Skookum1 (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official list? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Physiographic regions of the world. 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/20080315105147/http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/geomorphology/GEO_1/GEO_CHAPTER_1.shtml to http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/geomorphology/GEO_1/GEO_CHAPTER_1.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225004304/http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/land/quality/html/quality/geomorphology.html to http://www3.gov.ab.ca/env/land/quality/html/quality/geomorphology.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212213206/http://www.usgs.gov/science/science-kwic.php?letter=p to http://www.usgs.gov/science/science-kwic.php?letter=p
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) 02:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)