Talk:Physical geography

Request for Feedback

Nice use of pictures to illustrate some of the fields. Can you continue that for the whole list? I would also like to see a discussion of when "physical geography" was used as an umbrella term for all of these fields; is it currently the mainstream term to indicate all these fields; and how it relates to the term "natural history." VisitorTalk 03:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Physiography and inline citations

I added the tag about no inline citations so the article will be more clear where these terms come from. Along the same lines, I have found a couple of references that may help show an area of confusion with the term "physiography" (and may need the 'redirct' changed). For further information (and to see the references), please see Physiographic regions of the world. I would also appreciate any assistance on that article if anybody else cares to help. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Physiography by all the definitions from a google search suggest that it's either a) synonymous with physical geography, b) a description of the land or c) geomorphology. The term doesn't seem to be widely used apart from in a geological sense when describing the partitions of the continent in to separate cratons etc. Ultimately it seems to me to be a left over from the days of regional geography and area studies, when one would publish the physiography of say Western Australia. On a personal note I'd say it was more akin to geomorphology (http://tapestry.usgs.gov/physiogr/physio.html calls physiographic regions geomorphic regions thus also implying the link).Hope that helps somewhat. 81.111.119.98 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Overlap

The salinization image is overlapping the far right column of text under the literature section. Could this be corrected in any way?

Distinctiveness

How is physical geography distinct from Geoscience? I've always understood them to be synonyms.

Proginoskes (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The distinction tends to be based on physical geography largely examining surface and above features and on a timescale usually going no further back than the Quaternary. Whereas, Geoscience is an umbrella term used to group physical geography and geology together. Although the distinction is somewhat arbitrary as many research just go where their interest are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.168.156 (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

List of physical geographers

This list seems to contain a number of natural scientists, i'm not sure its correct to describe all of these as physical geographers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vokidks (talk • contribs) 15:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

this is a bad for now because its going to be a storm with lightning and a hurricane with a tornado and a sanami only at Brisbane and over the whole wide world too except........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.17.20 (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Three "subfields"?

What are the three "subfields"? The article on geography refers to two subsidiary fields. Unfree (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The source says two - physical and human geography - which is also my understanding, so I've changed the text to two. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable source - Muslimheritage.com material

Content from Muslimheritage.com / FSTC is an unreliable source, as discussed on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science. None of its publications are peer-reviewed, and its authors often exhibit a strong bias and incomplete or flawed citation practices. The site has been used as a source in numerous science and history of science articles to make extraordinary claims about Islamic invention and discovery. I am working to remove these extraordinary claims where they stem directly and solely from a Muslimheritage.com reference. Many of these claims were added by a user who has a history of using flawed sources for extraordinary claims, as discussed on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. That page details numerous examples where claims from these sources contradict more reliable sources, on a scale which casts the entirety of the material originating from the site into doubt. If you would like to discuss this or any related removal with me, please leave a note on my talk page. Dialectric (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Section on Russian Physical Geography

The section on russian physical geography (following the discussion of 18th and 19th century european colonialism) has a number of language problems. it may be a valuable contribution but needs careful editing for use by English language readers - also the following sections on W.M. Davis and Ratzel need work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmchaffie (talk • contribs) 13:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)