Talk:Soil classification

Article improvement
It is not believable that the listed references support the article. This article needs to be rewritten with only the relevant references listed. The rest should be relegated to a further reading section. -- Paleorthid 04:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge "Soil type" into this article?
Is there any reason not to merge Soil type into this article? Jajobi (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone could write a good article on soil type from a soil-science perspective, then maybe most of soil texture could be folded into this one, and soil type could get the rest. Check out Talk:soil type for a little discussion about what that article should have. Argyriou (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soil classification. 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/20060907150151/http://forages.oregonstate.edu/is/ssis/main.cfm?PageID=162 to http://forages.oregonstate.edu/is/ssis/main.cfm?PageID=162
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050302033120/http://www.itc.nl/personal/rossiter/research/rsrch_ss_class.html to http://www.itc.nl/personal/rossiter/research/rsrch_ss_class.html
 * Added tag to http://fbe.uwe.ac.uk/public/geocal/SoilMech/classification/

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) 04:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Opposed to merger proposal
December 12, 2018, it was suggested to merge "soil classification" with "soil type". This would mean to delete the article "soil type" and include its text into "soil classification" (the other way round would be nonsense). From a scientific point of view, this might be possible. From a didactic point of view, it is not recommendable. People who want to be briefly informed what a soil type is, can read the article soil type and don't have to browse through the long article soil classification. Additionally, both articles are linked with many articles in other languages, which all follow the idea of having two separate articles.Eleutheropodic (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. --Paleorthid (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)