Talk:Soil type

Some additional comments on this issue
From Klaus-Jürgen Evert (2004): Lexikon Landschafts- und Stadtplanung, (english title: Dictionary Landscape and Urban Planning), 2nd, corrected reprint, Springer

Bodenart (ger.) = soil textural class (eng.)

Bodentyp (ger.) = soil type (UK eng.) = great soil group (US eng.)

Thus, the title of the english article "Soil type" is wrong. It has to be renamed into "soil textural class" and partly re-written/extended. Then, the link to the german article "Bodenart" would be correct. Another option would be to delete it and link the German article to this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_texture_classification

Further, I suggest to write a new article "Soil Type" and link it to the German article http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodentyp The English article "Soil Type" should refer to several other articles presenting specific soil classification system, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAO_soil_classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_system_of_soil_classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Soil_Classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USDA_soil_taxonomy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_soil_classification

6. November 2013

Wrong link from a German page
The link from the German page soil texture, which is basically describing the particle size distribution, to the english soil type is wrong. The soil type (ger. "Bodentyp") describes genesis, state of development and chemical characteristics of soils, whereas the soil texture (ger. "Bodenart") describes only the particle size distribution, such as sand, loam, silt or clay. Can somebody change or disconnect the link? Geophine (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

why the redirect
Why does soil texture now redirect to this page? Not all soil types are based on texture. Not all soil textures translate to soil typiness. Soil texture classes are not synonymous with soil types. In my opinion, redirecting soil texture to soil type is misleading at best. Paleorthid 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you left a message over at User talk:Daniel Collins? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see any history of any article at soil texture, and a redirect seems to me better than nothing. If you want to start the article in place of the redirect, just click on the link at redirected from under the title when you go there through the redirect, click edit this page and start writing. Gene Nygaard 23:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The first two paragraphs of this article talk about soil texture, and they are the most informed content in this stub - and yet there was no soil texture article. It didn't look to me like this stub was making a distinction, so I made the page and redirect. Cheers, Daniel Collins 03:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

gimme something on soil i haven't seen yet
how come there's no information on soil that i can understand

removed soil class link
However, "soil type" in the broader sense refers to a  pedological classification of the natural (or human-influenced) soil. Then, it is more correct to  speak of soil class.

Unfortunately the article that soil class links to, soil classification, addresses textural "soil types" as if they were synonymous with soil classes, the opposite of what is implied by the link context.

The soil section seems to be peculiar to US soils. Why no mention of the standard soil classification used everywhere in the world apart from US. ISO 14688.

Also it should distinguish between agricultural soils and engineering soils.

Generally accepted uses for the term soil type
Soil type, in its simplest form, refers strictly to mechanical characteristics. That is, to soil texture. , ,

Generally accepted uses for the term soil type go on beyond texture, and so should this article. The article should be expanded to encompass the generally accepted uses for the term. -- Paleorthid (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * List of vineyard soil types: includes alluvial soils, Terra Rossa
 * FAO soil types: same as soil taxonomic classes.
 * Public outreach efforts: commonly same as soil series or soil map units. ,
 * Plant disease: texture, chemistry, color relevant to plant disease Encyclopedia Britannica article
 * Seismology: Typing based on texture, profile, setting and parent material, as relevant to hazard.
 * Geographic Encyclopedia Britannica article

Wikirage
Wow. This tiny article made it into wikirage. Go figure. -- Paleorthid 22:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 06:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Soil type. 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/20041205053402/http://clic.cses.vt.edu/icomanth/02-AS_Classification.pdf to http://clic.cses.vt.edu/icomanth/02-AS_Classification.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041012030817/http://www.itc.nl/~rossiter/research/rsrch_ss_class.html to http://www.itc.nl/~rossiter/research/rsrch_ss_class.html

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) 15:30, 22 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) 13:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. I am opposed to the proposed merger for these same reasons, especially as to the didactic POV. --Paleorthid (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)