Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please have a look at Portal:Geography. Looks like some vandals have struck. 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action MONGO :) -- • Q^#o • 18:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to help out with this is greatly encouraged. Take a look http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/School:Geography —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Franko2nd (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

See Template:Infobox Islands. Currently used in articles including Java, Sumatra and Maluku Islands. (Caniago 07:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC))

May I suggest that you read this : [1] (Marxian subsection) and this [2] (obscure academic). This person is trying to undermine our work on articles about prominent geographers. Further, his/her tone seems totally inappropriate to me. Zigzig20s 13:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear... I agree, when you speak of the tone used. Although, having said that, I wonder really in the notability of those articles. As I said in the talk page, there should be more sources added. --Francisco Valverde 18:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well for instance I heard about them in lectures...but of course I can't add "my lectures" as a source. The bottom line is, I'm sure people will want to look them up like I did. It would be a crying shame to whittle them down. Zigzig20s 18:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Cemetery has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I recently made a userbox for geographers. Might be of interest to those of you who waste time with userboxes!

This user is a Geographer.

BTW you should consider archiving the projects talk page (as its quite long) and make a new talk page. LordHarris 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. From the top level down to local neighbourhoods. There has been some overlapping and various mis-routings. It's been interesting looking at it all. However, there appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. And these can operate side by side quite usefully. The by region isn't a problem. But the by size has become difficult because User:Hmains wishes to use the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions [3] to fit his own understanding of the term - [4]. Community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community - [5]. I did some sorting, placing the cat Human communities under Human geography. Human communities splitting into Urban geography and Rural geography. And those splitting into appropriate sized communities - cities, districts, neighbourhoods, villages, settlements, etc. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do people think. Is settlement an acceptable term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps. Is Human community a viable alternative? Are there other choices (apart from populated places of course!)? SilkTork 13:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) would be the proper single place for discussion with pointers to it from other places. Hmains 20:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Settlements SilkTork 11:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Please comment and weigh in on the nomination for deletion of North America (Americas), a recent fork of North America. Thanks! Corticopia 11:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please vote. As all of we know, there are several geographic models applied to the Americas. One of them clearly indicates that the Americas are divied in North, Central, Caribbean and South. I created the article North America (Americas) to address this issue, because the Template:Regions of the world lacked a link to the North American region/subcontinent, instead it presented a link to the continent North America. There is another template, specially for continents Template:Continents of the world. It has a link to both conceptions of the continent, the Americas (single continent) and North America and South America.

So, what is wrong about creating an article to address this region of the Americas? After all, there is the article Middle America (Americas) that address the other region comprised by Mexico, CA and the Caribbean.

There is no POV forking, since the article was not created as a consequence of a disagreement in the article North America, nor was created to push a POV about North America. In fact, there was no open discussion in North America article for a long time. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As stated elsewhere, there is a key difference -- the content regarding the sub/regions of Northern America (which is not merely a UN construct; see article) and Middle America (numerous definitions provided) are well sourced, while that of the 'region' of North America isn't ... and still isn't. This doesn't deny other continental models, but no sources have been provided that clearly delineate what the model upon which the nominated article is based. The sources in North America (Americas) do not support the content in that article, and a read of those sources will reveal that. Regardless, if necessary, applicable content can be added to the North America article instead of forking and conflating. Corticopia 14:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Again ...

Thanks to those who commented on this prior AfD. Even though an apparent consensus supported the prior AfD in some way (and the article has been deleted), this has reared its ugly head again -- please peruse and weigh in. Thanks! Corticopia 16:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of work relating to and thinking about articles which are about settlements (towns, cities, villages, etc.) I've noted that there is a wide variety in the way existing articles have been made and have wondered if it might not be useful to produce a Places Template which would provide a person creating a new article with a skeleton on which the new article would build.

The template I have in mind would include a suggested concept of an introductory part and several suggested sections such as History, Location and Climate, Commerce and Industry, Culture and Recreation, Local Government, Notable Characeristics, etc. A places Infobox could be included with the template.

Using a template of this sort, the new article creator would simply "fill in the blanks" with whatever information was available and leave the empty headings for other editors to add to in the future.

I'm willing to spend some time on this myself, but before starting I was wondering what others thought about this and possibly get a few additional thoughts from persons who have created other templates.

In the templates area it was suggested that this maybe would be a "preload" rather than a template but regardless of the way it is implemented, I would be interested in seeing if the idea has any appeal and or obstacles.--JAXHERE | ^Talk 16:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some articles on the various streams of northeastern Iowa and adjacent parts. I've come up against massive name-space problems. See Village Creek and Trout Creek as examples of my disambig pages (as well as links to that ultimate source of hydrography info, the USGS). There are more than 400 Trout Creeks in the United States. Pine Creek is another; see my Pine Creek (Iowa) disambig page. My naming conventions are rather ad hoc, but what does one do. I just did Village Creek, another disambig page, after moving the only article on WP with that name (one I wrote). The fount of all knowledge is US Geological Survey's Geoname site]. The USGS seems to use the county/state name for the mouth of the stream, so I'm prepared to go along (associated maps also pinpoint the mouth). Considering how many hydronyms a simple search has brought up, WP needs some name-space rules. Village Creek (Allamakee County, Iowa) is not unreasonable, with the understanding this is the mouth of the stream in question. There is also a separate project at the back of my mind -- getting all the hydronyms of the United States recorded on WP, at least in a disambig page. One needs help. See my contribs (I don't like little articles which say about all that can be said being labelled as stubs). --Ace Telephone 04:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi there WP:GEOGRAPHY. A user, pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) has been adding long tables of coordinates to many articles, including Tinsley Viaduct, Digbeth Branch Canal, Dudley Tunnel, Manchester Ship Canal, Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal and Norwood Tunnel. There was a very long discussion on talk:Tinsley Viaduct (indeed, 6 times longer than the article itself!) Culminating in a vote 8:1 in favour of removing the table. I have reverted on some other articles today, but can we gain some kind of consensus here, as I feel these tables add nothing to the articles but clutter, are too long, and even badly formatted (the zoom is awful). I simply cannot be bothered to get into another arguement with Pigsonthewing. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

" I simply cannot be bothered to get into another argument...". If you truly don't wish to be involved in an "argument" with me, I suggest that you refrain from misrepresenting me - I have not added "long " tables to "many articles"; I have added short tables (the one on Tinsley Viaduct had six rows) - containing verifiable, encyclopaedic in formation - to a few articles, with the involvement and assistance of a number of other editors. The discussion on the Tinsley article centred on its relatively short length; it's hardly applicable to something the length of the Manchester Ship Canal - as ahas already been pointed our to you on your talk page. If you think formatting and zooming is not appropriate, then why not make positive edits to improve them, rather then reverting and removing useful information? "...with Pigsonthewing" - My name, as I have pointed out to you more than once, is Andy Mabbett. Your continued refusal to use it constitutes incivility Andy Mabbett 13:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please Pigsonthewing, this is not an attack on you. I am simply asking for a concensus to develop on the wikiproject with which I feel these articles are most associated. You will note I linked to all the articles in question, so readers may judge for themselves if the tables are overly long or not. Encyclopedia is POV. Formatting and zooming was a side issue, not the primary concern, but regardless, I shall reiterate what Bkonrad (talk · contribs) said here - "Considering that you are the only one who sees value in keeping table of coordinates, it seems rather incredibly lazy to suggest that someone else clean up after you". L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that I didn't "suggest that someone else clean up after" me (and have already pointed that out to you, more than once) and that I'm not the only person who wants to use tables of coordinates, I'm not sure what would motivate you to do that. Your further incivility is noted. Andy Mabbett 15:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't 'suggest that someone else clean up after' me". Yes Pigsonthewing, you did. Note "suggest". Also "I'm not the only person who wants to use tables of coordinates". No Pigsonthewing, you are not. Nor am I the only person who wants them removed. That is why I asked for a debate to achieve concensus. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 10:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on every one of the reverted "some other articles" referred to above has been to keep the tables of coordinates. Andy Mabbett 22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Please... objecting to someone using a username rather than a first name is just petty. Let's focus on the content dispute rather than on who has or has not been right so far. The Tinsley Viaduct poll does not apply to everything, but I personally agree with Lewis that tables solely for the purpose of giving a series of co-ordinates disfigure articles. It is an issue worth talking about. JPD (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I also have concerns regarding these tables of coordinates on articles. It surely simpler and more useful to put the majority into the narrative when possible. Do we have to put coordinates down for everything? We'll end up with lists of coordinates with some copy attached as opposed to the other way around. Regan123 18:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Do we have to put coordinates down for everything?" - No. Can you find any evidence at all of anyone saying we should?

"We'll end up with lists of coordinates with some copy attached as opposed to the other way around." - another slippery slope fallacy.

Andy Mabbett 08:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside; is this discussion more useful here or at WP:UKGEO? Or should both be involved? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There may be some slippery slope fallacies here, Andy, but I would say that sections headed "Coordinates", containing simply tables of coordinates, such as at Manchester Ship Canal, are already degrading the articles they are in. JPD (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The section does not "contain simply" coordinates, but also a list of features, links, and mileages. I've renamed the section accordingly. Andy Mabbett 11:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The new heading is an improvement, but I still don't like the table. Can the features be included in the Route section, or described in a manner that does more than replicate tables from elsewhere with added links? Supposing all the bridges do need to be mentioned, which (human) reader of an encyclopedia will want to know their co-ordinates? JPD (talk) 11:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it even necessary to name every bridge? This is an encyclopedia, written and read by human beings. I do not think we ought to be writing for computers or GPS devices. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Is it even necessary to name every bridge? This is an encyclopedia [...]" - I think you've just answered your own question, there.

"I do not think we ought to be writing for computers or GPS devices." - nobody is suggesting that we should be - it's just a bonus, and benefits the humans who use those computers and GPS devices.

Andy Mabbett 22:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of coordinates is not for an encyclopedia. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

According to which policy? Andy Mabbett 00:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Peer review/Ridge Route/archive1 the table has been rejected for in prose use. Why can that approach not be used on these other articles? Regan123 22:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It can be used elsewhere - there's not a binary choice here. But on the articles in question, consensus has been to have a table. Besides, that article was written and FA'd before this way of working was suggested, and before coord was widely available. Andy Mabbett 22:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the concensus to have the table? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On the articles in question. Andy Mabbett 00:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, Pigsonthewing, show me where. talk:Digbeth Branch Canal and talk:Dudley Tunnel have no talk page whatsoever relating to the coodinates. talk:Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal has a post asking why we need the coordinates from VinceBowdren (talk · contribs) with no replies other than a direction to WP:UKW, talk:Manchester Ship Canal basically has you and me arguing, and talk:Norwood Tunnel has a concise and reasonable arguement, also from VinceBowdren, which I accept. Now, where are your concise and reasonable arguements for an 18-article table taking up a quarter of the MSC article? And where is your proof of concensus? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 00:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On the articles in question - and in their edit histories. VinceBowdren does not ask why we need coordinates (that's anotehr of your unture claims, then) but whether the coordinates table and route map can be emerged; and he is rightly directed to a discussion of that very issue. Andy Mabbett 08:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes,merged, so as to remove the table! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

merged as in making two tables one - and thereby keeping the coordinates in a table. Andy Mabbett 14:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop the wiki-lawyering? Any consensus either for or against the tables is quite clearly disputed here. Neither is it fair to say that the table has "been rejected" at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ridge Route/archive1. There, I have simply stated my opinion, as I have here, that such tables reduce the quality of the article. I agree that such a table is not encyclopedic material, and as far as I can see, the idea of microformats is such that we should establish what place coordinates have in the article before considering any benefits for people making use of the microformats. JPD (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 9#Category:Maps and Category:Cartography and offer suggestions. Mangoe 16:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Geography of India has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'm a mediator for a dispute at the article on the historical province of Paytakaran (of Greater Armenia). We've run into an odd situation, in which one group wants the article to be about Paytakaran the province, while the other wants to treat it as a region over its entire hisory, regardless of its various names throughout time. The two sides have managed to settle upon a partial compromise, by having the lead section introduce the region as Paytakaran with other sections in the article covering the history of the region prior to and after its existence as Paytakaran.

But the dispute rages on, because one side wants all the names of the region throughout history included in the first line of the article as synonyms of Paytakaran, while the other side adamantly opposes this treatment due to amibuity reasons. The latter group reasons that the province of Paytakaran refers to the region at a particular period in history while it was part of Greater Armenia. They hold that to state that the region was a province of any other state implies that it was still called Paytakaran at those other times. The other side doesn't make that distinction, because it's all the same territory (more or less), with the details to differentiate the names presented later in the article.

Another issue of the dispute is over the existence of a city by the same name, which served as the capital of the province of Paytakaran. The two sides can't agree on the location of the city, and one side wants to represent the city as moving even though it was destroyed and the/a (new?) town (re)built several miles away and called by a different name (Baylaqan, if I remember right).

The discussions above have gotten quite intricate and technical over various references dated centuries ago. I'm definitely in over my head, and this discussion needs more participants to sift through the details and form an opinion (take sides) to help break the deadlocks in these disputes. I can't take sides because I pledged not to. So I'm sort of stuck in Limbo. I hope my descriptions above were neutral enough.  :-)

If you know of any similar disputes that have occurred or if there's a generally accepted approach for presenting regions over time, I'm very interested in learning about them.

Please help.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist    06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I recently started The Sustainable development Portal and offered it up for portal peer review to help make it a feature portal down the road. Please feel free to to help improve the portal and/or offer your input at the portal peer review. Thanks. RichardF 02:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The root oceanography article is currently under the auspices of the geography project. I propose a new project, WikiProject Oceanography; is there any interest in working on this project? It's much needed but would also be an undertaking and require at least a handful of committed editors to make it last and work. Evolauxia 21:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I would very much like to participate and/or be a lead editor for such a project. A dedicated oceanography wikiproject is looong overdue. I have already given thought to an oceans/seas infobox (modelled on the country wikiproject) in articles for each major body of water, with locator maps (which I can create), etc. (Note: I created the animated GIF of 5-4-3-1 oceans.) Other aspects, like prescriptions for consistent structure/section titles, can be adapted from existing wikiprojects. You can probably cull other interested editors from the talk pages for the five major oceans. Thoughts? Quizimodo 23:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

An infobox like that is certainly something to do. Thanks for offering to make the maps, that's not my area of expertise, my main interest is physical oceanography, however, I also am interested in other aspects and oceanographic related subjects as a whole are long overdue for concerted improvement. The basins domain should include all bodies of water open to the oceans system, those involved in currents, everything except enclosed continental bodies of water. The other suggestions are good as well, hopefully there is enough interest to get this going.

The project is proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oceanography. Evolauxia 23:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

A proposal has been made concerning the importance of geography articles to be included in Wikipedia 0.7. You can see them here. The page is incomplete as of current, but the geography proposal is ready. Diez2 02:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Holdridge life zone climate classification system is named after its creator Professor Leslie Holdridge. The relative simplicity of the model, and ease of determining life zones from climate data, has led to its use in modelling climate change impact.Image credit: Peter Halasz

My diagram of Holdridge's life zones is going to featured picture of the day in less than 48 hours 1 hour, and I feel embarrassed that the caption is so dull and that there's not much text in the associated article. So I've just started Holdridge life zones but many details are missing. I've left a bunch on questions at the science reference desk Talk:Holdridge life zones if anyone's interested in helping with the article. Cheers. —Pengo 07:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC) 23:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Optimum population - Totaly unreferenced. An OR nightmare. Please can someone with an interest in or knowledge of the subject (that rules me out) fix this. Willy turner 15:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Over at WP:AFD, specific notability guidelines (WP:BOOK, WP:BIO, etc} are frequently cited in keep and delete votes. Just recently at one article's debate, here, a geographic location was up for debate. I was surprised to find that although geography is one of the largest portals on Wikipedia, currently there does not exist official policy guidelines for keeping/deleting place-related articles. Perhaps this could be rectified if your project banded together and started brainstorming a set of policies? Although I have not contributed significantly in the geography area, I would be more than happy to help. All the best, Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Though this project is inactive, you can help with : Óscar Pianetti (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 18 Apr 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF).

North Sea is the current Article Creation and Improvement Drive collaboration. WikiProject Geography members may find that a relevant focus. I have refrained from rating the article pending the result of the collaboration. Perhaps a regular member of this project could find a place for the collaboration banner on the project page itself? __meco 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I want to draw this projects attention to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7#Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7#Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories. These are highly politicised discussions and anyone who goes to these discussions will see what side I'm on and I haven't looked at who is in here and don't know what all your views are. However, I think it is important that people in WP:Geography weigh in with how you consider the Palestinian Territories should fit into your categorisation systems and that you collectively provide a substantial contribvution to the debate. --Peter cohen 22:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated Quneitra for featured article status, following its designation last month as a good article. Please leave any comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quneitra. -- ChrisO 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a new article, Demographic analysis, that may benefit from review since speedy delete was denied. -- Jreferee T/C 19:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)