Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Archive 4

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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

I have started a page, to give guidance on adding coordinates to articles about linear features such as roads and rivers. I intend to use it to document current practise, and develop polices for future use. Please feel free to add to it, or to discuss the matter on its talk page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geography topics (0-9) discussing a replacement of the current indiscriminate series of lists with "a page solely for the terms used in the science". Please render there your thoughts on the best way to organize the topic. 192.42.92.28 (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please consider commenting at Wikiproject ExtinctSettlements proposal. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks,

The template {{overlay}} might be of interest to this project. It allows images of geography to have features of interest marked, linked, and legended.

Peet Ern (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the names of geotagged articles are used on things like Google Maps & Google Earth (and others), should articles about planned (or planned, but aborted) features reflect their status? For example, Allandale railway station was recently moved to Allandale railway station (proposed), but that move was reverted. I don't think that this should be decided on a per-article basis, without an over-arching policy, so I've started a discussion at Naming conventions#Planned or aborted geographical features. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please give your input at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 11:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone with expertise in drafting Infobox templates create one for plains? We have them for bays, canals, islands, lakes, mountains, mountain passes, mountain ranges, rivers, etc. and Template:Geobox|Region seems so cumbersome. --Bejnar (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I could do it, but it will be 2, more likely 3, months before I can get to start it.

In the mean time though, for comment and consideration, having a look at the plethora of specialist geo infobox templates leaves me wondering what good one more will do. In my humble opinion there should be one infobox template for all primary geo features, for example Template:Geobox|Region (?) but with templates for bays, canals, islands, lakes, mountains, . . . providing a tailored parameter subset and then transcluding over to, for example, Template:Geobox|Region, thereby providing an editor with an interface pruned back to only what is needed for the particular article, but at the same time ensuring a universally consistent info box style, layout, and consistent content across all geo articles. BUT, while the template restructuring would be only a few weeks work (because I am a part time volonteer), it is possibly many months of work for several people if the articles have done a "Galápagos" (specialised parameter speciation) to standardise the articles.

Peet Ern (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that your Wikiproject's banner Template:WikiProject Geography included an absurdly large 1.36 MB animated gif of a spinning globe. This was making any talk page containing the banner very slow to load, especially on non-broadband connections, and was a completely needless waste of bandwidth. There is no good reason to have such a large animated image in a Wikiproject banner which is transcluded on 1000s of talk pages.

By the way, it's not even the file size of the image which is the real problem, it is the animation. Still images with large file sizes are OK if used in Wikiproject banners, due to Wikipedia's excellent image caching mechanism which automatically stores and serves a much smaller reduced resolution version of the original image. For example, Template:Volcano links a huge 3.77 MB image (2,925 × 1,977 pixels, Image:MSH82 st helens plume from harrys ridge 05-19-82.jpg), but the actual image served by Wikipedia's caching mechanism is this one [1], 95 × 64 pixels and a miniscule 2037 bytes in size.

However, with an animated gif which contains several dozen frames, there is no way to cache a much smaller image, since each frame would still need to be stored, and so the full image must be served each time. Everytime a talk page containing Template:WikiProject Geography was loaded, the full 1.36 MB image was being sent, with no smaller cached version available.

I have taken the liberty of changing the image to a still image, the same as that used on Template:User wikigeogproject. Of course, feel free to change it to something else, but please choose a non-animated image file to avoid needlessly inconveniencing other editors and readers of the encyclopedia.

Thanks, --Seattle Skier (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a disagreement over the proper name for a mountain and its article, currently residing at Sveta Gera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Outside input would be sincerely appreciated at Talk:Sveta_Gera#RfC: Article naming. Thank you! Vassyana (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI... Some time ago I created the List of mountain ranges of California based on USGS Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) data. With the help of a Perl script (computer program) to generate stub text from GNIS data, I added 216 stub pages to fill in the list. It was still a manual cut & paste process as I tried to collect some additional info for each one when available. There are no more redlinks on the list - meaning there is at least a stub article for every mountain range in California. (Well, that's for the ones listed in GNIS.) Also, all the mountain range pages in California which already existed now have a geobox, locator map, coordinates and a reference from USGS GNIS if they didn't already have these. Enjoy! Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Impressive effort. Thanks for your dilligent work. Unschool 08:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Western Pacific Cordillera was renamed from a US only title, and Pacific Cordillera was prodded because the editor said the US based article was the same topic, instead of merging the articles. I've deprodded it, because the newly renamed article is US centric, so the Canadian centric article shouldn't be deleted until the US article is no longer a US article. I have problems with the title "Western Pacific Cordillera", since this Cordillera is on the edge of the Eastern Pacific, not the Western Pacific, which would be Japan. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've initiated a move request for Western Pacific Cordillera, because this name does not appear to have ever been used to refer to what is usually called the Western Cordillera or Pacific Cordillera, and the scope of the article is more than just the western part of the Pacific Cordillera. Please leave your opinions at Talk:Western Pacific Cordillera 76.66.198.171 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have traveled from WikiProject Geographical coordinates, where we seek wider opinions on whether {{coord}} should offer a N/S/E/W labeled format for decimal coordinates (example: 43.12° N 79.34° W) either as an option or by default, or if the existing unlabeled format (example: 43°07′N 79°20′W / 43.12°N 79.34°W / 43.12; -79.34) is sufficient. Please comment there if you have an opinion on this. Thanks! --GregU (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 21:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange question for the day: Does anyone know of any cartographic conventions which stipulate the descriptive order of an island archipelago? For example,how would one describe the Hawaiian Islands? From right to left (SE to NW) or left to right (NW to SE)? Are there any other factors that would determine the order of description? So for example, if I wanted to make a list from 1-8, which island would I start with? Viriditas (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such convention applying to the UK at least. Ben MacDui 18:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange? No, but definitely made me think. As far as I know, there is no general convention. But if an archipelago has at one terminus the largest island of the chain (e.g., Hawaii, Unimak) it would seem natural to me to start there. But I'm just talking out of my ass, I have no idea, really. Unschool 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been working on a number of articles where where the primary unit of area is acres (they're US features). On some occasions conversions have been for square meters (e.g. 7 acres (28,000 m²)). Should these be converted to hectares instead (e.g. 7 acres (2.8 ha))? Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Macula (planetary geology) has been nominated for deletion at WP:AFD 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I second the motion I think the term should be moved to wiktionary.

Ridoco234 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is Shoal and Rip current (including rip tide), but I cannot find an article about the cuts that form between barrier islands. Does one exist? --Una Smith (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Regions of the Middle East has been sent for deletion at WP:PROD 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yea it should be deleted it does no good.

Ridoco234 (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:11, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

See User:Buaidh/List of countries.

The Transhumanist 21:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I am User:The Rolling Camel and i often create articles about small settlements in Switzerland. But i have some real problems to find sources for this. What can i do? The Rolling Camel (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

British Isles has been requested to be renamed to something else at WP:RM, see Talk:British Isles. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

why would we rename it?

Ridoco234 (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are geographic terms like [uvala] part of your project. I am currently looking at this word in German and answers.com does suggest it is also used in English. Can anybody confirm this? I need this for the article Funtensee Agathoclea (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, Ford Motor Company → Ford - a WP:RM rename request has been filed. The discussion is occuring at Talk:Ford Motor Company. As ford is a word that is related to your wikiproject, this is an informative notice.

70.29.208.129 (talk) 06:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:

• Europe (current)
• Asia (former)
• South America (current)

I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:

• It's an SVG instead of a PNG, so can be scaled easily.
• New maps can be relatively created from existing SVGs (i.e. Europe's map - or the other SVG maps visible at File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg - can be recycled).
• As an orthographic projection it allows the maps to be centred on the relevant continent or territory.

Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!) However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)

Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.

This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We agreed not to do this for Antarctica. See discussion Talk:Antarctica#Lead_locator_map_-_Editor_opinions_requested Polargeo (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replied (well, I've asked for clarification) at Talk:Antarctica, but I'd read the discussion you reference before posting (it was for that reason that I mentioned that Arctic and Antarctica might need to be treated separately) and it looked like the opposition there was to this style of map? (I'd certainly agree that that style is inappropriate for the poles; I'm none too keen on it for the non-polar areas either).

If there are valid reasons to prefer the current Antarctica style to the Europe style my proposal would then be that we get Antarctica's map changed to an SVG, and use that as a template for the rest of the maps.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes: I fully concur with this proposal. And, the tortured debate referred to above (which I was involved in) dealt only with the preference of one map (having Lambert azimuthal projection about the south pole) over the long-standing one (Robinson projection), not the insertion of an innovative map (orthographic projection) which more harks of the former. Wikipedia, in this instance, is sorely lacking of a consistent map format for all continents and countries. Bosonic dressing (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with Bosonic. I have made a comment on Talk:Antarctica#Maps for continents - proposal. I am adding this comment back in to the discussion because my lighthearted comment (based on Bosonic's mention of the tourtured debate) was strangely reverted by User:Rosiestep. Reverts should not be made without any warning that remove users useful contributions to discussion (I don't watch this page so was unaware my comment was removed). Polargeo (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I did NOT make the revert! And I have no involvement in this discussion. I've been traveling since June 13 and it appears my username has been compromised. I will try and get that figured out asap. If anyone here has thoughts on who might have resorted to this tactic, please let me know. Respectfully, --Rosiestep (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I went to ANI in order to find out who did the rollback, and it appears it was me after all... after I turned on my computer at my secondary location. Until today, I was unaware of the edit -- it was absolutely an accident. I apologize for the disruption and for rollbacking Polargeo's comment. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've also proposed this at Talk:Eurasia, Talk:Australasia and Talk:Afro-Eurasia. As an Australasian I'm slightly embarrassed I forgot these...! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To establish a standard that overrides local (article-specific) consensus, you'll probably need to get a lot of community support, and propose it as an addition to one of the WP:MOS pages. The Transhumanist 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

My thinking at this stage is to gather local consensus, rather than override it. So far most continents' editors seem happy. An issue has been pointed out with Eurasia and Afro-Eurasia (they're too big to fit in one hemisphere) by the editors at those articles, but the other continents' editors all seem OK. If local consensus changes later, so be it - that's their choice. If another editor thinks it's worth going down the manual of style-route then I'd certainly welcome that, but it's not something I'm planning on at the moment.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Requests submitted. I'd like to reiterate that I have no intention of enforcing these new maps on articles - if there is any objection I'll understand. My intent here is to make uniformity possible, not to enforce it. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting the map for Antarctica. I see you requested a map of Oceania and we have got one of Australia which is good because this is arguably the continent. Would also be good to get a map for Oceania and Australasia. Tricky region. Polargeo (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update: this has largely been actioned now, with (no?) few complaints. Still outstanding is Arctic, which is a special case due to the need to show both land and sea as part of the region (OK, so it's not a continent, but since Antarctica has been done...!) Also outstanding is Australasia, Eurasia, and Afro-Eurasia - the latter two because they can't be adequately shown in one hemisphere, and the former to maintain consistency with the latter two. How to best show mega-continents is left as an exercise for the reader ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that creators of map files start them out with the region name, which makes sets very hard to find. It would be easy to find all maps, and eachset of maps if the names started with "map" followed by the set qualifier. Such as File:Map (orthographic projection) of Canada.svg. Then you could use Special:All pages to list them all.

Just a thought.

By the way, can you rename image files?

The Transhumanist 20:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate if those who know what they're doing with map modification behaviors and patterns, please look into this disconcerting matter. Thanks. -- Thekohser 16:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to replace a WikiProject Geography tag on a topic's discussion page with a subproject tag (For example, WikiProject Caves)? It would appear to be less cluttered that way, than including both tags. Ian mckenzie (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST).

I noticed that there is no template for the 200-something Geography of XXXX articles. See: Geography of Tajikistan, Geography of Canada, Geography of Cape Verde, etc. As this labelled by this WP as your top priority (rightfully so), I feel a template is long-overdue. I would create one but I feel this project is the place to start it. I don't know what the best parameters for such an infobox would be either - I assume basic stuff like area, border length, lowest/highest elevation, etc. I look forward to seeing this template on articles in the future. Thanks! Andyo2000 (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Category:Astroblemes has been nominated for merger at WP:CFD

76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Outline of geography#Landforms lists deserts as an example of landforms. The article Landform, however, notes: "Landforms do not include ... geographic features, such as deserts, forests, grasslands, and impact craters." Which is correct? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a contradiction that should be resolved. I appreciate your alacrity and perceptiveness in noting this discrepancy. —Matheuler 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Two category renaming proposals were made which I think are completely unnecessary. One proposes to rename Category:Impact craters by geologic time scale to Category:Impact craters on Earth by geologic time scale. (See the CFR.) The other proposes to rename Category:Impact craters by region to Category:Impact craters on Earth by region. (See the CFR.) Both topics already imply that they're on Earth. There is no potential for subcategories about alternatives off Earth in either case. Please comment on the CFRs to prevent unnecessary lengthening of the category names. Ikluft (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• There is a possibility for renaming to make Category:Impact craters by geologic time scale consistent with Category:Volcanism by geochronology. I'm not sure that "by geochronology" is necessarily the best choice - it isn't a bad one. But one way or another making them consistent among each other makes more sense than the current proposal. Ikluft (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Impact craters on Earth by region was emptied out by someone, recently. This appears to be out of process since there's a message at WP:CFD saying that categories should not be emptied, but should be nominated for deletion before being emptied. The contents appear to have been dumped into the parent category, Category:Impact craters on Earth.

Does this category matter to you, or is it not a useful categorization? I will note that at a recent CfD discussion on the matter, no one voted to delete the category in question.

76.66.197.30 (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi I have an idea to create a new wiki project "Weather and Eco systems" which would combine smaller projects like WikiProject Deserts it would give us more expertise and able to improve articles like List of extreme weather events, tell me your views, Mark999 14:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I know this may be a bit late but i dont follow this page. Isnt it redundant with WP Meterology.

Jason Rees (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to be some weird combination of WP:METEO, WP:ECOLOGY and WP:DISASTER ; Why not just tag it with the three wikiprojects? 76.66.197.30 (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically The main purpose

1) Weather and Climate
2) What Weather and Climate effect
3) What effects Weather and Climate

Mark999 12:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IOW, you're replicating WP:METEO, that's not nice 76.66.197.30 (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As published in the most recent Signpost, Wikipedian Fg2 has passed away. As a memorial for him, a group of editors has chosen to collaborate on his beloved Mount Fuji article to improve it towards featured article status. The expertise of this project's members would be much welcome. Please consider. Thanks. - Draeco (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be wise to set up a geographical guidelines page similar to —city guidelines City guielines 2—which might suggest that editors include the Five themes of geography in country related articles? SriMesh | talk 03:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where to request this, but somebody ought to write an article about Falling Rain Genomics (see [2]). I noticed WP's geography articles cite fallingrain.com as a source over 9,000 times according to Special:Linksearch. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 16:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Would this WikiProject be interested in take up the use of this template? It is a "request box created in 2006 by an editor who was working to add climate sections to articles about geographical regions", and is currently nominated for deletion due to non-use, but the nominator stated he would withdraw the nomination if someone is willing to take up use of the template. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

A proposal has been made to move Playa (disambiguation) to Playa; discussion is here. --Una Smith (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been much talking on the world page about improving the article it is a problem that must be addressed. There is little focus, citations are needed and much other controversy revolves around the article. the world seems to fall under the scope of this project and I think the page should be assessed and improved to meet wikipedia's standards please give me feedback. I have noticed other deficiencies. There are no demographics, cultures, religions, politics, etc. or anything else related to the human world. The talk page has not been edited since april besides my post this project needs to act on this tragic deficiency and I am going to volunteer on doing it. The article needs to be totally redone! I would excpec this to be rated as top priority as it is one of hte most important parts of the concept geography. I ask you to look at the article World and give me feedback as well as the go ahead to make this a better article.

Ridoco234 (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a new article world (adjective) and it is excactly what this article should be I suggest a merge. Also the article world adjective could be improves as well.

Ridoco234 (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Should Bavarian geographer be the only person in the Category:Geographers, or should he be in the German geographers category, or maybe the Geographers category should just be removed from the article on him? I am unsure, so I raise the issue for editors more expert in Geography questions and the history to answer. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)