Template talk:Geography topics

I'm wondering whether Geographic Information Science should be labled as a branch of geography and Geographical Information Systems techniques. Supposed 13:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Redesign
I just redesigned the template to use the navbox template. I think it looks 'almost' the same. I can't get the 'boxes' on the left (General, Lists, etc.) to have alternating colors, but I think it's comparable to what it was in the original template. This variation defaults so that the box is collapsed, so it is not so obnoxious on the pages where it resides, and therefore fewer people should object. wbfergus undefinedTalk 17:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this template can be forced into autocollapse (where it is collapsed if two or more boxes are on the same article), or plain (always explanded and the [hide] link on the right will not be displayed). This can be toggeled by specifying "state=which_mode_you_want" when calling the template, as in:
 * wbfergus undefinedTalk 17:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct template usage?
Are there any guidelines for the use of this template? I mean is the plan to place this on all geographic articles, every river, every mountain, etc? - Shiftchange (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of geographers part
It is very difficult to make just selection of geographers to be included. Its not like the continents, that there are few and well-defined. There is already geographer categories to use for those who want to explore more on the topic. Further I would argue that the current selection is poor and US-UK-centric. Of course any selection of geographers will be unsatisfying because the criteria for inclusion seem vague. Lappspira (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest edit, May 2017
Please explain [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Geography_topics&diff=prev&oldid=781672595 your latest edit] here. Your edit summary says "according to Gregory et al., 2002; Holden, 2008; Yin et al., 2008"; please provide full citations and page numbers for these sources here and explain why you believe these sources justify your changes. I am especially concerned about why you believe that the sources you cited justify your removal of items. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding Technical Geography as a branch
In 2007 Geographic Information Science was suggested as a possible addition as it's own branch. I agree it should have been done then. Today, there are several similar and slightly different terms, but the umbrella term for all of them is Technical Geography. Here is one source on the topic: Haidu, Ionel (2016). "What is Technical Geography - a letter from the editor". Geographia Technica. 11: 1–5. doi:10.21163/GT_2016.111.01.

Increasingly, geographers are moving towards specializing in the methods and applying them broadly to interdisciplinary topics. This is a huge part of the discipline and should be represented as its own distinct branch.

I added technical geography as a branch to the main Geography page and thought it should be on this as well.

GeogSage (talk) 04:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Pedology, Edaphology and Soil science
Currently these three articles are mentioned like this: Pedology (Edaphology/Soil science). But it should be mentioned Soil science (Pedology / Edaphology), considering that Pedology and Edaphlogy are two fields within Soil sciene? Sr. Freak (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you think that is the correct approach, then make the edit. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 18:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)