Talk:Orography

Without some explanation before hand, I don't think this text makes much sense. I've removed it to make the page a bit simpler, maybe it could be put back with further explanation?

Because orography is spatially averaged, for example the height of the [[Himalaya]] mountains will depend on horizontal [[Image resolution|resolution]]. The higher the horizontal resolution, the better the orography will follow the actual terrain.<ref>[http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?p=1&query=Orography&submit=Search Orography] (from the [[American Meteorological Society]] website)</ref>

--PhilMacD (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd definition

Hi, I'm confused that orography is defined in the first sentence as "the study of...." when the article continues to say the orography of East Africe affects the monsoon. I'm not sure that the amount of studying you do can affect a physical process...? Does the word mean "the study of" or is it describing the actual lay of the land? Thanks, Viv D 90.200.64.166 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Reworded ... better now? Vsmith (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split following some pre-split cleanup and referencing. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

---

@Lithopsian: I propose that sections Orographic precipitation be split into a separate page called Orographic precipitation. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. Pathsw (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I've added a split tag to the article. This will hopefully attract a little more attention to the discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Agree based on scope of geomorphology vs meteorology. Widefox; talk 17:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
• Agree per nom. Libcub (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Agree but the actual split should ideally wait until citations are added to make sure sourcing is adequate for a stand-alone article. The section is presently uncited, with only general references. Reidgreg (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

  Why is this discussion still going on almost six years later? Should we close it yet? Purposely refraining from giving official opinion; because I myself might be the one who closes it, and I don't want to be considered involved. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:40, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  Pinging @Lithopsian years after discussion opened. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  Also pinging @Pathsw. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  One of my student will be working on this section to improve clarity and references. The assignment will be due in less than 4 weeks. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:09, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  @OhanaUnited, I will be awaiting the completion of that assignment. Then, I will most likely close this discussion as "split". Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

  My student has finished. You can close this discussion and perform the split. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:58, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

  @OhanaUnited, I will tomorrow. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Discussion now being closed. Probably still needs some additional cleanup on both ends in the days and weeks to come. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:56, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Hurricane Clyde: It looks like you performed a "cut and paste" split, which violates attribution policy in the new page. Please follow instructions to perform history split. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)