Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Archive 3

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.

Is it possible to have a section solely listing important models for geography? For example

• Demographic Transition Model
• Burgess Model
• Bid rent theory

It may be that this already exists and I just can't find it. In which case it needs to be more prominent. Nengscoz41620 02:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's possible to have one. I looked, and don't think we have one. You could create an article or a list. Click on Geographic model or List of geographic models and start typing. You'll need to find a source that defines what a geographic model is, but that shouldn't be too difficult. Good luck. The Transhumanist 06:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Currently the article is at Peirce F. Lewis, yet I've also seen Peirce K. Lewis on some of his articles. Does anyone know which is correct? -- John Reaves 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Peirce F. Lewis is correct. The Transhumanist (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have created a new article called Physiographic regions of the world. It is still obviously a Start-class article though. I have also created three new categories Category:Physiographic divisions, Category:Physiographic provinces, and Category:Physiographic sections. Any help on expanding these would be appreciated. Also, I don't where in the above 'lists' to place these. To me, it seems they could be in several different places, but I figured I'd let somebody else make that decision. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Kind of as an addendum to this, I just went back through the articles that under the "Physiographic divisions" category and addedd the "Geography navigation" and "Physical Geography Sub-disciplines" templates to the main article's page, and also added this projects template to the talk pages. I'll next start on the provinces, then move on to the sections, though those will take a lot longer. wbfergus ^Talk 18:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Something else I noticed as I was going through the above process is that there is a lack of consistency in the various articles I've gone through. Of course part of that is becuase of the article class (Stub, Start, etc.). But, I was wondering if it would make sense for the project to have some sort of consistent guidelines for these articles, so say for instance, for an article to get to "A" class for this project, the article 'should' include a (more-or-less) 'standardized' section, similar to the various sections in Physical geography#Fields of physical geography? It adds a consistent layout to the project's articles, and it also would seem silly to have an "A" class article that didn't at least address those topics somewhat (if it is possible). Also, the earlier in the process articles adopt such a layout, the easier it is to spot areas still needing work. Comments or other ideas? wbfergus ^Talk 18:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

categories of Surface features of celestial bodies has been nominated to rename from cat:X on Y to cat:X of Y. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 9#Surface features of celestial bodies 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this article within your scope? Taemyr (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know much about how the templates work on here, so before I take a crack at it I figured I'd also mention it here in case anybody else does and add this enhancement.

It would be "real nice" if the tl:Geography topics template would accept the "nested=yes" syntax (or something similar), so that it's not automatically expanded. Or, is that capability already 'built-in' somehow? Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay it's done. Here's a cut'n'paste from the template talk page:

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.

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:

{{Geography|class=Start|state=plain}}

I hope this is acceptable. I can't figure out how to get the 'boxes' on the left to alternate colors, I think a change in the main navbox template is required for that. Otherwise, I think it looks 'almost' the same, but adds a bit more functionality. wbfergus ^Talk 17:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just acquired an undated map and did what I always do: determine the date by checking borders and names. In this case, it was made after the partition of Korea (ca. 1953) but before the independence of Gold Coast/Ghana (ca. 1957). I thought it would be useful to write up a list of such events in Wikipedia. Is there anything like this? Do you think it would be better to set it up as a category, including articles like Korean war alphabetized under 1953 or 1953.07 (July), as its own article, or both? What rubric? I'm not a Geography person, so I'm not sure if any of this has been addressed before. --Kenmayer (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in the List_of_basic_geography_topics#Lists_of_manmade_geographical_features section under the rubric "List of map-changing events by date" to include both boundary changes and name changes (British Honduras-->Belize for example), perhaps with subcategories of "Sovereign name-changing events by date" and "Boundary changing events by date." --Kenmayer (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Found it! It already exists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_Map_changes Now I have to delete the stub that I started. Dang. --Kenmayer (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Does every geographical feature need to be added to this project (e.g. mountain ranges, etc.)? For example, I've noticed several articles relating to WikiProject Oregon being added to the Geography project. I'm thinking that the state projects should perhaps be made subprojects of this one as the state projects are most likely going to be able to provide better oversight of the articles in question. Adding WikiProject Geography to likely tens of thousands of articles seems counterproductive. Thoughts? Katr67 (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I also feel adding the generalized geography navboxes to specific articles, like Klamath Mountains isn't helpful and that these templates should only be used on the articles linked in them. The casual reader isn't necessarily going to want to look at geography articles in general when looking up a specific geographical place, and if s/he is interested in browsing geographical topics, s/he can easily access the geographic categories the page belongs to. I'm curious whether this tagging effort is sanctioned by this project? Katr67 (talk) 19:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To keep everything in one place, it was agreed to copy discussions from our talk pages over here. I am doing that, but may still make a couple minor formatting changes so things appear in the proper order. That will be the only change, so some things may not appear to be in the proper context of this project. wbfergus ^Talk 19:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. May I ask why you removed the geography templates from the article? They (the Klamath Mountains) are clearly a geographic feature. The 'Geography navigation' template merely provides further guidance to othe geography related ::subjects, in case that is how the user navigated to the page. The 'Physical Geography Sub-disciplines' template will help to highlight additional areas in the article that need information of further expansion. Some of those 'sections' are already included in the article, but not all. Since the Klamath Mountains are also a distinct physiographicla section of the United States, to properly 'fill out' the article, those sections should be present, as much as possible, therefore especially the second template is even more important. Please reconsider the removal, or at least make a good case for why they shouldn't be included on the article. Thank you. wbfergus ^Talk 19:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I too feel that these templates are overbroad and should not be added to specific geographical features. Generally templates should only be added to articles that are linked from them. While I appreciate your effort to promote and improve geographical coverage in Wikipedia, overtemplating articles is not the way to do it. Katr67 (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the quick reply. I am not adding them to every geographic feature, only those specific geographic features on Physiographic regions of the world. All of these articles are of a higher 'importance' than say Mt. Hood, as they used in various studies very similar to ecoregions. As such, they eventually should have sections within the articles to cover all of the various physiographic (Physical Geography) subjects. I have made the more general 'Geography navigation' template collapsible, so that it takes up less room on the screen and is more unobstrusive. I also just sa your other post on the Geography project. Should these 'discussions' be perhaps moved over there, or is this forum adequate to discuss this? Thanks again. wbfergus ^Talk 19:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I share this concern. I don't know the precise policy on navboxes, but I think these boxes, which may be excellent additions to the right articles, are out of place on specific mountain range pages like Klamath Mountains and Oregon Coast Range. -Pete (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's better to have the discussion over there, since I'm not the only one who has questioned this. Katr67 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wbfergus, I replied on my talk page--re: let's move this discussion to the project page. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking as well. It would save an awful lot of retyping and keep everything in one place. I will go ahead and copy unless you have already started to. I will wait a few minutes to see, so we don't get an 'Edit conflict' (I hate those!). Thanks again. wbfergus ^Talk 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy away. I have some other stuff I should be doing right now... Katr67 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the copy is out of the way, so now to try address the concerns and my reasoning (which may be flawed). All of the pages I have added the two templates on have been specific geographic feature that have been identified distinct physiographic 'areas', per this fairly new article I'm working on, Physiographic regions of the world. I am not adding the templates to very specific articles, such as a Mt. Hood or anything. These physiographic 'areas' are very similar to ecoregions, in that they have specific contexts and applications, other than merely describing a nice place to camp for the weekend. My agency has a specific database that uses this information, but some (many) of the definitions are incomplete. It was my intention that by creating the artcile with the list, I could link to the specific 'areas' articles, and make it more well known that these 'types' of area definitions exist, and eventually other editors could help contribute further information from reliable and verifiable sources, not only for our own database's use, for for other countries/aganies as well.

With that basic preamble out of the way, it would 'be nice' if all of those articles had fully fleshed out sections (as much as possible anyway), as that would further describe the area in it's entire physiographic context. If/when this is done, it is far more difficult trying to find those article and ensuring they have the 'Physical Geography Sub-disciplines' template, than it is to just go through all at once and add them. If they do have all of the sections to fully describe the physiography, then they clearly should have at least that template.

As far as the more general 'Geography navigation' template, I felt it wouldn't hurt any article to have it (especially the myraid of stubs I've run across), but I also modified the template so that it is collapsed by default and therefore more unobstrusive to the casual reader. I felt it could very well add to the occasional users reading, as they may very well have navigated to that article from a geography related page, instead of just of a search for that specific article. They also may see a term or concept on the page and could have a quick way to see related subjects for further information. I beleive that is what the template was designed for, though I could be wrong. As it is, the template only takes about two lines of screen room, so it doesn't 'cluuter up' the screen if someone is not interested in it. Let the arrow flinging begin. wbfergus ^Talk 19:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Further comment. I ran across a similar objection from another user a few days ago, Darwinek who mainly objected because the 'Geography navigation' box was not collapsable and took a large amount of screen space, which is why I redesigned it so that it was collapsed by default. After this change, he withdrew his objections to their presence and re-added the templates to the pages he had removed them from. We both reached a mutual agreement and saw the merits to both sides. I have no problems with trying to work out any other mutaul agreements, or even just being slapped around if I'm way out of line. I think though that at least the 'Physical Geography Sub-disciplines' template should stay, as all of the articles I've added that to 'should' have those sections populated. A few articles actually seem to do already (much to my surprise), but having the template available helps to highlight other areas of the article that may be missing or incomplete. wbfergus ^Talk 20:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, whatever your argument is, you lost me at: "My agency has a specific database that uses this information..." Excuse me, but what agency? This now stinks of some sort of conflict of interest and/or point of view pushing. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I don't really feel it's pertinent, but I work for USGS. We have a mineral database that contains information on mineral/mining 'sites' (occurences, mines, refactories, smelters, etc.) world-wide. At one point in time, it was suggested to also add in the physiographic areas, so future studies and analysis could be done to see if one sort might be more conducive that other types of areas. In the US, these areas have been pretty well defined since at least the 1920s, if not even earlier For the rest of the world, it's pretty hit and miss on how well they've been defined, hence my desire to get other Wikipedians to 1.) know about this particular field (even though it's been around for quite some time), and 2.) hope that other Wikipedians can help supply additional information to help further define the different characteristics of this field to the different physiographic 'areas'. Please see Physical geography for additional information on exactly what fields are in this 'subject'. As you can see, most, if not all of these 'subjects' would be a benefit to all of these various articles if covered (as far as possible anyway). Many of these articles already exist on Wikipedia, and have been defined many years ago by people outside of USGS as distinct physiographic 'areas'. Therefore, these articles do fully warrant the 'Physical Geography Sub-disciplines' template, as they clearly have been defined as such by numerous others. So, as I said, I really don't see any conflict of interest or POV. This is a well-defined field consisting of many different sub-disciplines, as even a cursory search would reveal. I'm merely asking for other Wikipedians to help define (or fill out) information for the various subjects this field encompasses. It will definately help the article, it will probably help us with our database, and the additional information will probably help other Wikipedians know that 'area' better than the current article. The main article I created, and probably will be working on for quite a while, Physiographic regions of the world is the only comprehensive list of this information from all sources that I have been able to find, which is another reason that I decided to create the article, so finding this was much easier. Now there may be some errors, omissions, etc. in the table, but that's yet another reason for a Wikipedia article. Others can find additional sources to further correct the table and data. So basically to me, the whole issue is whether it's disrupting to use about two lines of screen space per article for these two templates. I don't think it is, especially when most 'state' templates take around 4 or more lines per template. These two are some of the most unobtrsuive there are, and whatever points can be made about state templates can just as easily be made about these two, and vice versa. The information can be easily wiki-linked in the article, etc. easily applies both ways. Either keep these two templates (though I can possibly see a small point about the 'Geography navigation'), or remove all templates, the same arguments apply to them all. Look at the various geographic features that extend across multiple states or countries, and each state wants to have their own template on it, at around 4 lines per state template. For a perfect example, see Ridge-and-valley Appalachians. Which is more annoying, the state templates or the two I added at the top of the templates (bottom of page)? This has gotten so long I probably forgot a 'subject' or two, but if I did, please feel free to ask further about it. Thanks, I'm glad for the discussions on this subject. wbfergus ^Talk 12:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'm embarrased by all of my typos I see above (sheepish grin). Anyway, I also wanted to state that the talk pages of the articles that are physiographic 'areas' (divisions, provinces or sections), I have also been add the 'Wikiproject Geography' template, which I 'think' the subject line refers to, but I wanted to further clarify this issue in case it came up. It would be beneficial if other members would participate in this discussion. I am holding off on further edits to give other a chance to weigh in, but I also don't think I should be left waiting more than a day or two. Thanks. wbfergus ^Talk 18:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Looking at the Project page itself, where the templates are listed, the column labeled "What it's for" clearly states that the 'Geography navigation' template is for "The geography Navigation has been designed to be placed at the bottom of articles relating to geography to provide an easy link to important articles." and the 'Physical geography sub disciplines' tag states "The physical geography sub-discipline tag has been designed to be placed at the bottom of articles relating to physical geography to provide an easy link to important articles". So, by the first definition, I have been placing them (the templates) on articles that clearly relate to geography for the purpose of allowing navigation back to important geography subjects. By the second definition, these are clearly physical geography articles by definitions at least around 80 years old, if not far older, used by many different professions and professionals.

Furthermore, I have already added these templates to probably a little over 200 different articles so far. This is only the second time the templates were 'questioned'. The first time, the user actually had a good argument, because the template was non-collapsible and did take up a lot of screen space. I subsequently modified the template so it defaulted to collapsed, the user withdrew their objection, and self-reverted the articles he had removed them from (around 20 or so). Most of the other articles have had numerous edits, vandalism, reverts, etc. performed on them since I added the templates, and they haven't been questioned. There are to many diffs (around 200 articles, with usually several or more edits apiece) to even begin to list here, so if anyone doubts this claim, all I can do is to offer you to go to Physiographic regions of the world, click an article, and then check the history.

So, lacking any opposistion other than it doesn't look good or whatever (something not based upon policy, guidelines or anything else 'concrete'), I will continue my editing of the remaining 50 or so articles and re-add them to the (I think) 4 articles from which they removed, which also started this discussion. wbfergus ^Talk 11:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, these discussions usually do not end after a couple days, people have regular lives and do not always respond immediately. My question is this, did the USGS ask you to do this? I ask because that is where the COI would come in, and that was what I took from the "my agency" bit above. Outside of this, I too would object to the placement of the templates on articles outside of those listed on the templates. Please note that whatever instructions you are referring to were likely written by the template author, and like most of those instructions there was little or no input from anyone else. I include general instructions whenever I make a nav template so that whenever someone new comes along they might know what it is used for, but these have no actual authority to them (FYI the geography template needs to be fixed, there is a DAB issue). The problem with adding the nav templates to all these lower level articles is it looks like link spam. If an article needs a link within it to one of these, it should be linked from within the body of the article (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)) to provide context for the reader. Since that should cover what you seem to be adding the templates for, the only other legitimate use of the template would seem to be an attempt to provide navigation. Nav templates normally are only added to articles that are listed in the template, and in some cases closely related articles. In this case I'm guessing the templates were designed for that type of use, with the closely related being other geography related articles such as Geodesy for the sub-fields template, and not specific physical named features (i.e. mountain ranges, not the Rocky Mountains). Would you place these templates on notable geologists? Doubtful, and I'm sure the editors who watch those pages would object.

For me, I think it would be fine to place the "sub fields" template in the articles listed at the "division" level in your Physiographic regions of the world article, but nothing lower. Then maybe make a template for each division to be used to navigate between articles with that division. But anything more expansive becomes too broad and tertiary. Aboutmovies (talk) 12:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for commenting! I thought I stated above (maybe poorly), that I took the initiative to create the article. I was not asked to do it. As I was building my 'list' around 6 or 7 years ago (maybe even longer), I had to go to numerous sources to compile this list. I still can't find just one single place where this 'list' of physiographic 'areas' exist for the entire world, which is one of the reasons I decided to create the article, to help others trying to do the same thing. I think I explained my other reasoning above, about hoping other Wikipedians could help contribute to that article, and also to the various articles it links. If I wasn't very articulate about it, then please ask for further clarification.

I wouldn't add either of the templates on specific Geologist's page. It clearly wouldn't be appropriate there. However, these are clearly geography articles, so the usage (addition) of the 'Geography navigation' template 'seems' warranted, per not only the 'instructions', but just normal categorization. However, I can also see your point, though I also will admit that to me, it doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. Maybe a project 're-definition' of where and when they are appropriate would be needed?

Regarding the second template, I personally feel that each article linked from the Physiographic regions of the world article should have it. They are both directly related. The articles themselves wouldn't even be tagged as such if the weren't physiographic 'areas', and each of those articles would improve in their content 'coverage' if each of the various sub disciplines of physical geography had it's own sub-section under the 'Geography' section. Having that template available on each of those articles helps to highlight what additional coverage could improve the article, unless those who are watching the article don't really care much about giving the article a full and nuetral coverage of all related information for that 'area'. It seems to me that they would, as it (the additional information) helps highlight the various reasons that 'area' is so distinct, special, and notable. It also helps to highlight (especially to those that don't know), that a myriad of other disciplines have or probably will be, studying that 'area' to further their knowledge. All of the articles where I added the second template are closely related to physical geography, they wouldn't have the same 'importance' without that particular field. I don't think it is worth it to have 300-400 different nav templates to tie each division to each province and then each of the constitient sections. That can clearly (and easily) be done within the article, in the process of creating a full-fledged 'Geography' section with the applicable physiographic topics/disciplines underneath as 'sub-sections' to 'Geography'.

Regarding my last statement about continuing, I mainly made that after seeing that one of the editors above, without any further discussion here, even after being given a link to this page to participate, and asked politely to participate, has gone ahead and removed the templates from at least one other article. Evidently they feel participation doesn't matter, though I think it's fairly obvious I'm willing to participate. I have a life as well, and if the individual takes the time to question something and still has the time to continue editing, participation should be a given. Why question something if you don't or can't participate, listening to answers and maybe asking additional questions. If they have the time to edit, they have the time to participate. I should be accorded the same courtesy as well. wbfergus ^Talk 13:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello All,

I've just been reading the discussion above and quite a few good issues have been raised as to whether the geography and physical geography navigation templates ought to be used in specific articles or remain as navigation to the articles listed on them. I can see both sides of the argument that the physiographic areas are indeed related to physical geography and the placing of the template highlights this, however I can also the counter arguments point that wikipedia has a tree like structure and that navigation through the categories at the bottom of the page are enough for the reader.

As such I've tried to come up with a solution that should appease both sides. The below template is a draft template of all the physiographic regions etc. It has a link at the bottom to the physical geography page and also categorises each article to the physical geography category and also the physiographic divisions category (this can be changed, such as if a physiography category is created allowing all regions, divisions etc to be put into one category with the sub-sections then branching of i.e. as an umbrella category listing everything while the other categories remain and list the regions etc more specifically). As such allowing the reader to see that it is related to physical geography and categorised as such whilst also leaving the physical geography template to be used as a direct navigation bar.

The below is only a first draft, and any changes are more than welcome. The general gist is that each region has a row followed by division and then provinces as the small text (e.g.Africa ->African Alpine System -> Atlas Mountain). I've stopped after Africa as this is only a suggestion and if taken on-board the rest can be added. AlexD (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Forgot to mention, wbfergus raised a good point on my talk page about the use of the term physiography as a synonym for physical geography and as such a section could be added to the physical geography article explaining how the use of the term has changed from a synonym to being mainly concerned with landforms and topography, thereby making the link on the bottom of the template more useful. AlexD (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

From first impressions, it looks pretty darn good. I'll take a little more detailed look at it, and think it over a bit, but I don't have any objections to it. Thanks Alex! wbfergus ^Talk 15:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

After a bit of thinking, here's what my 'opinion of the hour' is. At first, I was thinking that the 'sections' should be included also. But, further reflection made me relaize not only how 'busy' it would make the box, but also the difficulties inherrent in trying to implement it. I thought about maybe sub-nav boxes included within the larger box, but I don't know if that's possible and it would probably look really wierd also. I then thought about maybe different deliniation, like Pacific Mountain System (Pacific Border province ((Olympic Mountains, Oregon Coast Range, etc.), Cascade-Sierra Mountains ((Northern Cascade Mountains, Middle Cascade Mountains, etc.)), etc.), but that really doesn't look very good either. So, as it is, it appears a pretty equitable solution. The box can still be included on the 'physiographic section' articles, as it would still aid navigation to the higher level province, or other physiographic 'areas'. As I stated previously (kind of anyway), the only problem would be with navigation between the different physiographic 'sections'. That's really not to to bad of an issue though, it just requires the user to make a few extra mouse-clicks and maybe look a bit more to decide how to get there. The major points (subjects/articles) are still easily accessible though.

On a side issue, I see from the project page that you seem to have a far better grasp and knowledge of the subject than I do. Can you find and provide a ref or two to further clarify the 'physiography' 'physical geography' distinctions and/or similarities? As I said on your talk page, like you, I originally thought physiography was primarily about landmasses and geomorphology, but another user said that physiography was actually just a contraction of 'physical' and 'geography' and included all of the various subdisciplines, so I'm confused on that point, as I'm sure many other Wikipedians would be as well. Also, I see in your new navbox that you include Antarica with two subdivisions. I don't have those in the main article (or list), but to include them, I should probably have a reference that they are defined as such, and the articles don't seem to have any that say that. Could you point me to some source so that I could include them please? Thanks, and it looks like a great job. wbfergus ^Talk 16:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the wait wbfergus, I am in the middle of doing a pollen count, where there seems to be a lack of pollen and therefore results in me not being able to reply quickly. Anyway, the sources you asked for:

• Leighly, J. (1955), What has happened to physical geography?, The Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 45, No 4, pp309-318 (Equates physiography with geomorphology)
• Davis, WM. (1903), A Scheme for Geography, The Geographical Journal, Vol22, No 4, pp413-423

Although these are rather old articles, if I remember correctly the term changed from being synonymous with phys. geo. due to Davis as he used it only for geomorphology and thereafter it became the general definition.

For Anarctica:

• http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/261/5117/45
• http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/crustal/abst.txt

If the template is to be used, would you be so kind as to finish of the similar parts that are in parentheses in the Africa section for the remaining areas? Thanks AlexD (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I’m more OK with the new template, that is far more closely tied to individual regions. But again I reiterate that nav templates normally allow for navigation between related articles in that the article a template is on is included within the template. Otherwise it comes across as advertising/promotion for the other articles, and that is not what templates are for. A few other points, readers of an article on Death Valley are likely not interested in topics like the Saudi Geographical Society listed in the “Geography” template. Additionally, most of the topics in the “sub fields” template are covered in the general template, so these are redundant and should not be on the same article. Next, as to you saying you would not place the original templates on individual geographers and articles like Mt. Hood, why not? They fit your inclusion criteria. That in itself means the criteria is rather arbitrary, and on Wikipedia we try to avoid arbitrary decisions/criteria (see WP:NOTE and WP:OVERCAT for examples). Honestly, as a general interest editor and reader who edits lots of bios, some geography related topics, some government related, and many history articles I think I am a good example of the average reader. As such, when I go to one of these articles I do not see myself as reading them to learn more about geology/geography, but to read about a specific physical feature in a specific place. That is on an article about the Rocky Mountains I’m going to want to know what formed them, when, how long they are, the average height, maximum height, and area covered. That’s about it. You as a geo-person would likely delve further into the subject, and that’s where those templates come in, and I think that’s why you want to include them, as a professional in the subject. It’s similar with the law people, they want to add their “law” template to many articles, but even as a member of the WikiProject I do not add the template to every law related article as the topics (though within law) are too far removed from the article. Constitutional law and a variety of other legal topics do have a bearing on Oregon Ballot Measure 5 (1990), but these legal topics are too far removed from the ballot measure. A nav template for people generated laws or ballot measures or property tax reform would be appropriate, but a general law template is not. And that goes for these templates as well. As to 300-400 sub templates, many of these already exist. I know there are several for the Cascade Range, and I made one for the Oregon Coast Range that “uplinks” to the Pacific Coast Ranges that it is a sub region off. Hopefully that all makes sense. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I can see your point of view now (and not with the bias usually assiociated with a statement about POV). Let me clarify a point though before I progress. I am not a geologist or geographer or anything like that. About the extent of my active interest in geology is the occasional gold panning trip with my son, and about the extent of my interest in geography is the physiographic 'stuff', as it's a weak area in our database. I'm primarily (actually almost entirely), a 'database guy'. Almost all I know about rocks is they usually hurt when I'm hit in the head with one. I agree with your statement about the various countries Geological Societies, and is a good point about the first template. I'm not totally convinced about it's inclusion myself, but it did seem like a good fit. For Mt. Hood, on certain days, I would probably be tempted to add it to the article though, while I other days I probably wouldn't. It to is clearly an article about a geographic feature, and much more pertinent than an article about a geographer. Many times I would also be sorely tempted to add it to articles about practically any natural geographic feature (man made ones like cities, towns, dams, etc. don't really seem as appropriate, even if they are geographic features as well).

I wouldn't add the second template to an article about Mt. Hood (or similar 'features') because it clearly doesn't belong. When talking about a 'larger' feature though, such a mountain range that has been defined as a physiographic area in its own right, and with it's own significance, then it's a slightly different context then though. It seems that since it is (and has been for many, many years) defined as a physiographic feature, that the article itself (at least the fairly complete, good ones) would also have sub-sections within the article addressing the different subject areas of physical geography. It provides much more information about the area to the casual reader, especially since most readers have probably never heard of physiography (I never did until about 8 years ago). Those additional sub-sections would help the casual reader understand the various 'things' that help make that area distinct and 'special', and isn't that the purpose of having the article here really is? Somebody created the article because they thought it was important in some regard. Other editors come along and add further information, and somehwere along the line an editor or two comes along that has a POV about it, because they live close, camp there a lot, live there, whatever, and more or less assumes a personal interest in the article, wanting it to be 'better'. Doesn't knowing those additional subjects make the article better? Conversely, can't there many cases where somebody coming sees the article, and goes "Wow. I didn't know that. I wonder what other information is available?", or maybe even wonders "Why is this subject here?". Now, a navigation box would be useful for those readers, though it could also be handled by wikilinks in the article as well. But, to use a wikilink, the user has two options. Follow it right away to further investigate the 'subject', and then (usually) return back to the article, or read the entire article to the bottom, then scroll back up to try and find the link. This is where the navboxes are beneficial.

But, with all that out of the way, and after Alex's comments and navbox above, I'm not as adamant about the second template now. I still clearly think that it's highly pertinent to those articles, and I think those articles themselves should be much more concerned about useful and pertinent content than on how pretty the article looks, and that really seems to be the only objection to the second template, the 'appearance'. Not whether or not the 'Climatology' link in the navbox is appropriate, especially if a complete article has a sub-section on 'Climatology'.

Next, also in light of Alex's comments and after a trip to the library, I am still just as confused as I was 8 years ago. Is physical geography the same as 'physiography', or are they two completely different fields of study. I found as many references saying one did for the other, in both new and old books. There doesn't seem to any clear or definate answer, so especially with Alex' excellent alternative, I would be willing to let a few US articles with some editors with a personal interest in the article, go ahead and skip the second template so it looks prettier. Those articles will thereafter look pretty, but wil be slightly inconsistent with the rest of the US and the world for those that fall in the 'physiographic' field of study, but I guess that's the editors choice in light of Alex's alternative.

So, since you have at least given me the courtesy of discussion, without even having asked for discussion, I can readily abide by our discussion and allow the removal of the two templates from those articles. I will however add in Alex's template once it is finished, as it is more pertinent and specialized, and therefore more applicable to the articles. Is that acceptable?

Finally, let me thank you again for participating in the discussion, instead of asking for a discussion, then ignoring the discussion while you continued to edit and remove material that was the subject of discussion, like others have. You weren't originally involved, but at least you utilized common courtesy. Thank you for that.

Alex, is there anything I can do to help? wbfergus ^Talk 12:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Two quick points. It is not the appearance of the article (prettiness), Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context, and in this case I think many of the links are not relevant enough to the topic, and thus leads to overlinking. Both of these are WP:MOS items, thus not only do articles need to abide by them in general, but when try to get articles through GA and FA they must comply with these guidelines. Templates at the bottom of articles are unintrusive and have little to do with the look, but they must be closely related to the topic, which is why I am far more inclined to have the new template on an article such as Oregon Coast Range, as these are similar topics. Topics like those related to glaciers have no business on that range as glaciers were not a major shaper of the range, and if they had it would be mentioned and linked. The relevant items to geography (physical and political) should already be linked in the body. And secondly, try to assume good faith with why others have not discussed more here. Note that even with their reversions the articles are back at the same point as they were before you edited them. The articles would either be your preference or theirs, it could not be both, and from my own experience I will often revert back to the previous version while a "controversial" edit is discussed, since the prior version was implicitly OK. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I hope you weren't referring to me above. (Though I asked for the discussion, I don't believe I have continued to remove templates, so if you have diffs to show that, and I am wrong, I apologize). Your posts here are quite long and I haven't had time to give them the proper consideration so I could formulate a thoughtful reply. Also, I've been busy. Besides which, I've pretty much stated my case already (that the templates add clutter, are only tangentially related to the subject at hand, are overbroad in relation to the articles to which they were added, and are not useful to the casual encyclopedia reader). For my part, that is the end of the discussion, and you either agree or you don't. I won't revert if you decide to replace the templates. Do what you will, my goal was simply to open this up to a wider discussion, which has been accomplished. Though if this were a !vote, I would register my Oppose to the use of the templates on specific mountain ranges and the like. Katr67 (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No Katr67, I wasn't referring to you. I try (though quite often fail) to be semi-diplomatic and not specifically name any individuals or other such non-tactful actions. I duly note your position and your continued lack of support for the templates, more or less, within the Oregon area. It appears though, that from any opposition in the other 200 or so articles on which I've already added them, the folks that watch those pages don't share your concern. Quite a few of those pages have been edited several times or more since I added the templates, in many cases even reverted back to my last change. So, I will respect your position as well and not add them back. However, do you have any objection to the new template that Alex has proposed above? I see that as a fair compromise, besides being more specialized.

Regarding my frustration, I just felt that I was being unduly subjected to a request to wait, which I did in all good faith, so that further discussion could continue before any further edits either way were performed. After discussion, then additional edits could be made, but only after the discussion. That is only common courtesy and respect that should be accorded to all editors, regardless of 'most' circumstances (vandalism obviously one of those). When I abide by it, and then see another party not only make additional reverts without any more discussion, and then continue to edit other things (related or not) without any further discussion, then I (and most editors) would tend to get a bit frustrated. As several long-time editors on some policy pages are currently saying, silence equates to approval, or at least lack of objections. If I wasn't acting in good faith, I could have easily interpreted the silence as the other editors had read my further discussion/explanation here, and saw my point, and had no further objections, especially with other editing activity going on. It was simply a matter of common courtesy and respect, not an assumption of bad faith. wbfergus ^Talk 21:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly no longer have an opinion. Like I said, do what you want. Katr67 (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates related to the Oregon Coast Range for an example of why we need to limit templates

Possible templates

All of these could be included as related to the topic of Oregon Coast Range (you would have the same issue with almost any article), but I think everyone can agree this would be far too many. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Almost as bad as Ridge-and-valley Appalachians. I to think the myriad of State, county and other political boundary type templates goes way to far, but I personally wouldn't object to several of those being included. They seem perfectly pertinent in context, if those general subjects are covered in the article, as opposed to how something with a political boundary would be covered within the article. Anyway, I had a nice long reply and we had an edit conflict, so I should save this and then go back and reply to your other point. wbfergus ^Talk 20:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Geography of Ireland Featured article removal

Geography of Ireland 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. feydey (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here interested in helping out on this. It needs inline citations and checking of statistics. TIA ww2censor (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Can one of you geology/topographic-orientated editors possibly help put some inline citations into this article as the FAR will close soon and it really needs some help in this area? It has been nearly 3 weeks so far and the silence is deafening! Please. TIA ww2censor (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

There's is currenly a discussion underway about changing the way geographic coordinate references are cited/linked and which sources can legitimately be used as references. It seems to me that some of you might have some perspective to bring to it here. Caveat: it's grown into an anaconda. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD on History of western Eurasia

The above article is currently being considered for deletion. Anyone interested should feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of western Eurasia. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Depoe Bay, Oregon

A question over Depoe Bay, Oregon emerged: does it belong in Category:Bays of Oregon? The water body adjacent to the city seems to fit the definition of a bay. Another view is that a) the geographical feature and city are separate and, b) the water body is small, not comparable with other articles in that category. —EncMstr 10:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

DVD

Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/additions_and_updates#Geography for proposed article updates and changes going from the 2007 DVD Slection to the 2008 DVD Selection. Input gratefully received. --BozMo talk 14:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Uvs Nuur basin/hollow/depression?

There's currently a discussion going on in the WikiProject Central Asia, which among other things involves the differences and/or commonalities between a basin/hollow/depression/etc. Input from native English speaking geography experts would be welcome. The original names involved are in Russian, Mongolian, and potentially a few other regional languages, and we're not always certain how to translate them correctly. Thanks for any help! --Latebird (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference Desk question

Someone has asked a Darned Good Question on the Miscellaneous Reference Desk, here. They want to know what was the last piece of land discovered (and for once we don't have to ask "by whom?" because I'm sure it was uninhabited). I surmised that there would have been no way to be entirely sure about the islands until aerial images had been made of the entire earth, but I don't seem to be able to find out when that happened by looking in Wikipedia. I'm hoping that someone here can answer the question on the desk. When were the geographers sure thay were done with the discovery phase? --Milkbreath (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Here's my best guess, simply because I happened to pass by it not too long ago: Landsat Island. Assuming, that is, extraterrestrial land is ruled out. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

Is there a peer review for this project? I would like to get Europe reviewed here as well as at WP:PR. Harland1 (^t/_c) 14:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Jordan Transverse Mercator

Could someone have a look at the article Jordan Transverse Mercator? It has been tagged with notability questions a long time ago.

Please leave your comments on the article's talk page if possible. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox for straits?

Hello. Is there an infobox for straits (or channel, passage, sound, firth)? Thanks, --Rosiestep (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:River cities

Category:River cities has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Cgingold (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Emery Molyneux

The article Emery Molyneux is up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Population of Basra

Would anyone know of reliable sources for figures for the population of Basra (City) and Basra Governate? Figures seem to be either around 800,000 and 1.7 mil or 1.7 million and 2.6 million (Msrasnw (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Vital articles

Any editor with a broad knowledge of geography is invited to take a look at Wikipedia:Vital articles and offer suggestions on how to improve the list of 1000 vital Wikipedia articles, as well as on the process of choosing them. It suffers from a severe lack of attention and POV editing. — goethean ॐ 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Chilean-Australian: request for comment

Hi! A vigorous - and now somewhat nasty - debate has emerged over the article Chilean Australian over the size of the Chilean-Australian population. The sole protagonists are myself and User:TeePee-20.7, and much of the discussion is on Talk:Chilean Australian.

TeePee is referring to an essay, written by a student intern and published on the website of the Chilean Embassy in Australia, that details the history of the Chilean-Australian population. Much of the article is quite informative and reasonably well written. However she estimates the Chilean-Australian population to be 45,000 without explaining how she arrived at this number.

In other articles that look at ethnic groups in Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census data is used to present the number of persons (a) born in a particular country, and (b) declare to have ancestry to a particular country (either alone or in combination with one other ancestry).

TeePee is strongly opposed to using this data, and instead insists on solely referring to the essay reference. I do not think the essay's estimate is accurate.

There is one limitation to the ABS data - somebody who has a Chilean ancestry might only choose to declare themselves according to their new Australian identity, or their European heritage. However I have included a caveat which draws attention to this minor flaw, as well as a statistic on how Chilean-born Australians defined their ancestral backgrounds in 2001.

I believe this version should be used.

TeePee has adopted a highly aggressive posture (and has been previously blocked), and has claimed I do not adequately cite references (even though six out of the seven references in the version above go to my ABS sources). No amount of compriming, humouring, reasoning or exercising of a time-out has worked. Wikipedia would benefit from a third party opinion on this page.

And by all means, seek his side of the story. Kransky (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

CFD for provinces of Afghanistan

A discussion has been opened to determine which spelling to use for several provinces of Afghanistan. Please take a minute to share your views. Cgingold (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible subproject

As some of you might already know, we have received approval to run a bot to create missing articles relating to geography at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/FritzpollBot. This is going to take a lot of work from a lot of people. Luckily, about 15 individuals have already expressed interest on that page to work with a group to help generating the new articles. It seems to me that this project, considering it is the one most closely tied to geographical content, seems the most reasonable parent, considering that current discussion seems to be favoring the creation of content of all geographic feautres which are both notable enough and have sufficient material available to them to potentially be well over Stub-Class. The group would still need to have some sort of "home", however. Would the members of this project be willing to take on the new article creation project as a work group or task force? John Carter (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Bot work group sounds plausible ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Are many weeks of discussion and council proposal I have now set up a task force Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Bot. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Cemeteries

Cemeteries are an area of land set aside to engage in a death custom. Category:Cemeteries is a subcategory of Category:Death customs. However, it should also be categorized regarding the "area of land" portion. I think cemeteries fall under Category:Human geography, but I am unable to narrow it down any further. Cemeteries are not limited to Category:Urban geography. Category:Political geography doesn't seem to fit since cemeteries are more commercial in nature (somewhat like golf courses but with significant government regulation). Category:Cultural geography doesn't seem to fit since cultural geography doesn't have finite geographic boundaries. It could be Category:Economic geography or Category:Land use, but when you look at the subcategories, the "area of land set aside to engage in a death custom" doesnt seem to fit well. Following Category:Land use, you get to land management. Template:Developments seems to break things down further, but I'm still having a hard time pinning down where cemeteries fit in the scheme of land set aside. Any suggestions? Bebestbe (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

The image that was used for the geography barnstar has been deleted. I've proposed a basic one for geography at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards#Geog proposal if anyone is interested. Simply south (talk) 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making a replacement, but man, what a disappointment. The Geography Barnstar may well have been the coolest looking barnstar on the project. Anyone know what happened? Unschool (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Ocean

Good day Geographers! I do some work with the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject, so as you can imagine I link to your articles quite often and usually find them to be very informative. Today I was linking to the Atlantic Ocean and decided I would have a quick read of it. Turns out the article is just bare bones, which is unusual for such an important Geography article. You guys generally maintain the WikiProject-Geo articles very well, so it was quite surprising. I don't know too much about your subject but if you guys are looking for a good article to work on, I am sure that you could easily improve the Atlantic Ocean. Plasticup ^T/C 17:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What, are you stupid? That's a "bear bones" atricle? Sure it needs some work, but there's plenty of info on there. This is bare bones, numbnuts. 68.218.189.152 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Plasticup. 68.218, please note that Wikipedia has a policy against insulting other editors. Bláthnaid 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "bare bones" wasn't the right phrase, but you see my point. Plasticup ^T/C 12:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has many pages in the set of Lists of basic topics, with over 200 more under development.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 2474 articles are assigned to this project, of which 381, or 15.4%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Help needed! (opening task force - simple task)

A neutral member of this project is required to open a "British Isles Terminology Task force" (as sub of this project). Please sign below if you are accepting the honours - so we know it is underway, and there is no edit/conflict. A very short intro is all that is needed, although more involvement (from anyone) is of course welcome. You might want to refer to the poll for it here. A prompt uptake would be appreciated! --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be stressed that the taskforce ought to be completely neutral. It should seek to remove the term "British Isles" from articles where it's inappropriate - but equally importantly, it should seek to add the term to articles where it's appropriate, both for geographical accuracy and linguistic conciseness, whilst ignoring all political considerations on either side. This needs to be stated at the outset so as to make sure that no bias exists, and no POV is favoured over another. ðarkuncoll 21:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't you leave it to them? How can you say beforehand we must add it to all "appropriate articles"? It is not at all the same as (or the converse of) removing non-correct use! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: the taskforce just needs to be started with a simple introduction stating it has been started. If you want to add more - this was posed in the poll, to no-ones objection:

"Broadly speaking - I would say it will be for discussing and resolving all removal, insertion and description issues surrounding the term 'British Isles', in view of a wider approach. We best not make any other direct affirmations now: It's basically an open book (ie no initial premise, other than that all options can be discussed)."

This would suffice: "This task force is for discussing and resolving all removal, insertion and description issues surrounding the term 'British Isles', in view of a more universal approach."

It has to start as an open book. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: If any neutral admin has been reading this, perhaps they could step in? It only needs to get up running! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

TO START IT: this can be used. The page heading can be 'British Isles Terminology task force'. Maybe a short parag. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been 'bout 4-days now, and still no member from the WikiProject has chosen to open this Taskforce. What's the delay, folks? GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Done. It's shortcut is WP:BIT.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Update: The kind folks at the task force have been kind enough to allow me to use the WP:BIT for another purpose. The new shortcut is WP:BISLES. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles that cover a variety of taxa

Many geographical articles refer to a wide variety of organisms. Those involved will be aware that there is no agreement as to how the species names should be capitalised across taxonomic boundaries. I have posted a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms to enable some kind of consistency in geography and other articles with similar issues. Please note that as the related essay states, this is not aimed at having individual projects change their policies. Ben MacDui 16:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Arctic Portal and WikiProject?

Would anyone here be interested in helping me start Portal:Arctic and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic? Drop a note on my talk page if you are interested, or if there are any objections. Please also let me know if I've missed any existing projects? I'm notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian Territories and Wikipedia:WikiProject Greenland as well (and have also notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica). Please let me know if you know of any other WikiProjects centred on Arctic areas. Carcharoth (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

RefDesk Longitude Question

Hello all, we have a conundrum at the Science Reference Desk. What is longitude-zero and where does it start, measured by whom? Your input at this thread is most welcomed. Thanks! Franamax (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland vs Republic of Ireland

There is a policy debate at IMOS] about the use of Ireland versus Republic of Ireland where there is ambiguity over the two states on the island of Ireland. The debate is a little bogged down and some outside input would be appreciated. There isn't really that much reading to be done to get up to speed on the issues.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

List of countries in chronological order of achieving statehood

Does anybody want to take a look at List of countries in chronological order of achieving statehood? It is full of dubious countries and other errors. For example, it says that Bohemia, not the Czech Republic, became independent on January 1, 1993 from Czechoslovakia. (An IP keeps changing that one back.) Thanks, Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Disambig-Class geography articles

There are quite a few articles in the non-existing Category:Disambig-Class geography articles. I'll leave it up to you to decide if you want to create it or depopulate it. From what I can tell some projects use it and others don't. Best wishes/ Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox neutrality

There is an RFC discussion at the Liancourt Rocks talk page about the neutrality of the proposed infobox for the page. Please come and offer your opinion. Thank you. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can come offer an opinion, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Geography

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK hook request/idea

Dear all, I had an idea; many of the one-liners that appear on the front page of wikipedia (from wikipedia's newest articles) are obscure - not surprising really with with 2.5 million articles already written. As I have wended my way 'round the 'pedia, I have noted loads of stubs on some pretty notable things. Recently valhalla was expanded five-fold. Thus, a mini/informal competition of sorts, if folks see something notable/general/humorous/essential knowledge as a stub (i.e. article of fewer than 150 words), why not list it here or better still try and expand it five-fold (with appropriate references) for eligibility on the front page? If you have not the time or resources, listing some really obvious ones might be fun for someone to pick up (and there may be some funky barnstars out there...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

2008 Wikipedia for Schools

The 2008/9 Schools Wikipedia is now available for browsing and feedback is welcome. Downloads start in two weeks so final improvements are possible; this is a big project with millions of users so it is worth doing well. The list of geography topics included is vast here. We have also included the Geography Portal which is a bit empty without Wikiproject pages but still worth it. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection. --BozMo talk 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)