| Revision as of 10:37, 13 October 2012 editPaleCloudedWhite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers19,026 edits →Article's layout: Further comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:08, 13 October 2012 edit undoDispassionatepers (talk | contribs)26 edits →Article's layoutNext edit → | ||
| Line 294: | Line 294: | ||
| ::One argument that supports putting the geography prior to the other sections mentioned is that islands are defined geographical units, unlike administrative units such as counties or countries. With administrative units, which are human constructs, it is common to place the history first and geography subsequent to that, and maybe such a treatment gets carried over to islands by a kind of default, when as you say, it arguably makes more sense to put geography first (though of course I would say that, I studied geography...) ] (]) 10:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | ::One argument that supports putting the geography prior to the other sections mentioned is that islands are defined geographical units, unlike administrative units such as counties or countries. With administrative units, which are human constructs, it is common to place the history first and geography subsequent to that, and maybe such a treatment gets carried over to islands by a kind of default, when as you say, it arguably makes more sense to put geography first (though of course I would say that, I studied geography...) ] (]) 10:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Of course, where an island ''is'' an administrative unit, then discussion of that unit will probably tend to place the history first. I guess that how such articles have been treated probably depends on how the island is perceived - as first and foremost a physical entity, or a political entity. Unfortunately humans always tend to be more interested in the latter than the former.... ] (]) 10:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | ::Of course, where an island ''is'' an administrative unit, then discussion of that unit will probably tend to place the history first. I guess that how such articles have been treated probably depends on how the island is perceived - as first and foremost a physical entity, or a political entity. Unfortunately humans always tend to be more interested in the latter than the former.... ] (]) 10:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::OK thanks for your advice guys. I have a strong liking for Geography so I'll try to put Geography section in that local article first too see if people revert it, :) but if someone wants to gives more advice, I'm grateful to that. Nice weekend! ] (]) 17:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:08, 13 October 2012
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Geography and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
 Archives |
Geobox
I have proposed that we delete {{geobox}}. That may effect articles curated by this project. You are invited to particiapte in the Geobox deletion dicussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:04, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
RFC for Indian subcontinent and South Asia merge
There's an RFC at Talk:South Asia#Merging "Indian subcontinent" here which needs comments on the geography related reasons being discussed there. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Periyar (river) Origin.
Hi, i have added multiple references to the article for its Proof's for it's origin in Sundaramala in Tamil Nadu.
1: http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/documents/rivers.htm
2: http://www.indiawaterportal.org/sites/indiawaterportal.org/files/Joseph%20M.L.pdf
3: http://www.irenees.net/fr/fiches/analyse/fiche-analyse-633.html
But the article may need more source for the same. Please assist me in finding them.Pearll's Sun 16:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
handbag
view , just clicks away — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.161.90.114 (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Project Page footnote & flagcons in settlement infoboxes
This introductory page to this Project is hardly the best place to give footnote style guidance (or policy) for infoboxes. In particular I am wondering about settlements, which often have higher level political entities listed in their footnote. E.g., the settlement infobox has a line for the flag (which is simply and purely a political symbol) of the settlement -- but where or what is geographical connection between the higher levels of government? Moreover, how does adding flagcons to the settlement infobox comport with the guidance that the WP:IBX#Purpose is to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears.? (Consider -- the settlement may have a flag, and then the county or parish will have a flag, and then the state or province will have a flag, and then the country.) With these thoughts in mind, I propose that this single Project page footnote be deleted and appropriate discussion be undertaken on the template talk pages. --S. Rich (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- There are literally thousands of GEO articles that have flag icons in them. As has been discussed, there initially was a bug in the settlement template that made use of such icons problematic - documentation of the template was drawn to reflect that known problem. That's well behind us now. Debating the flag icon issue is best not put to each template, because that decentralizes the discussion and begs the creation of "settlement with flags" and "settlement without flags" templates - so everyone can have what they want. The more prolific GEO editors should comment here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I see three issues/concerns: 1. Is the Geo project page the appropriate place to provide (or discuss) WP:MOS guidance? IMHO, no, such guidance (and discussion) should take place in MOS forums. Moreover, it seems that of the 7 infoboxes listed (on the Project page), only Islands and Settlements have lines for political divisions. (Is is a geographic concern that a crater or lake have a flag icon associated with its' infobox?) 2. Along the same lines, settlements are not strictly a geographic topic. Such articles (and infoboxes) come within the purview or interest of other projects (for example Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Cities). Simply because thousands of GEO articles have flagicons in them does not mean the WP:GEO is the group that determines what template guidelines should be. (It's a sort of Argumentum ad populum justification.) With these two considerations in mind, my third point/issue/concern is this: 3. The discussion regarding the issue of flagcons in infoboxes as a matter of style. Do they add to clutter or do they assist the reader? As this is the concern, and as this concern goes beyond the GEO community, the discussion should take place on the settlement template talk and/or MOS:FLAG talk pages. --S. Rich (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- The footnote was added in June 2011 by Carlossuarez, . I removed this yesterday with an edit summary of "Removed note that has no talk page discussion to back it up and most of the infobox specifically say not to see flagicons". I was reverted and on my talk page was told that there was discussion here, but until this discussion was started here there had been no discussion of flagicons in infoboxes at WP:GEOGRAPHY. Since there was no discussion and hence no consensus, it simply looks like it was Carlossuarez's opinion. It is hard to say the note is true when only one of the infoboxes, islands, talks about using flagicons and two other ones, settlement and lake, specifically say not to use flagicons.Aspects (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you think that it's solely my opinion, why are there thousands of articles never touched by me sporting flags. What I do see is that you ripped the flag icons out of Detroit then used their absence to support your position that they ought not be there - all rather surreptitiously. This has been discussed off and on at the settlement template (the venue is now changed, but the topic's the same). See Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 19 and earlier Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 16, where the removal of the prohibition was not objected to - you should have commented there, rather than impose your will against the established precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll say it again -- the question of putting flagcons in article space is a WP:MOS issue. Using a project page footnote to justify MOS edits is not a good practice. The guidance should be clarified on the template and/or MOS talk pages, not here. Archive 16 had no real discussion (back in 2009) and Archive 19 had no real decision, so I'm renewing the discussion with a request that we take it to the proper page: Template talk. (Also, thousands of WP pages with poor editing does not justify more.)--S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- (In Reply to Carlossuarez46) I said "...it simply looks like it was Carlossuarez's opinion." because there was no discussion here at WP:GEOGRAPHY about flagicons in infoboxes to back up the note's addition and since there is no one else to back up the note, it makes it look like it is simply your opinion. As for Template:Infobox settlement, the documentation has said for three years not to use flagicons, clearly that is the established precedent, otherwise it would have changed after the two discussions you mentioned where there was objection to the removal and thus it was not done.
- I also suggest taking it to the template talk page like I suggested to Carlossuarez numerous times, so we could see if there was a consensus for the removal of sentences about not using flagicons. Aspects (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I support Carlossuarez46's position. MOS is a guideline, not a policy and the endless discussions on its sub-pages are tedious enough there - I see no need to discuss them here as well. Ben MacDui 10:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I also support Carlossuarez46's position whole heartedly. There is no consensus over not using flags in infoboxes and its hardly as if there is flag clutter. Look around on wikipedia and you'll see them everywhere. Discussing this again would be a complete waste of time as you'll always have people opposed to them. I say the best thing would be to permit them and have a user preference to suppress the appearing of flag icons for those who don't want to see them. Just let him get on with his important work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm with Carlos on this one. Shahid • 10:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Is Carlos saying that the Geography Project intro page is the place where we publish MOS guidelines? I think not. MOS pages are the place for that. It makes no difference to me whether flagicons are on the templates or not -- but let us discuss those guidelines on the MOS talkpages, not here. Then, when we reach consensus over this important issue, we put the guideline on the MOS page. So I propose that we end this page's discussion – and take it up/continue it on the Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Icons talk page. I provide a link to that page because it has the most recent (e.g., current) discussion. (BTW: I did a series of "random article" clicks until I was able to look at 10 different settlement articles. Only one of the ten had flags.) --S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'll say it again -- the question of putting flagcons in article space is a WP:MOS issue. Using a project page footnote to justify MOS edits is not a good practice. The guidance should be clarified on the template and/or MOS talk pages, not here. Archive 16 had no real discussion (back in 2009) and Archive 19 had no real decision, so I'm renewing the discussion with a request that we take it to the proper page: Template talk. (Also, thousands of WP pages with poor editing does not justify more.)--S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you think that it's solely my opinion, why are there thousands of articles never touched by me sporting flags. What I do see is that you ripped the flag icons out of Detroit then used their absence to support your position that they ought not be there - all rather surreptitiously. This has been discussed off and on at the settlement template (the venue is now changed, but the topic's the same). See Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 19 and earlier Template talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 16, where the removal of the prohibition was not objected to - you should have commented there, rather than impose your will against the established precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- The footnote was added in June 2011 by Carlossuarez, . I removed this yesterday with an edit summary of "Removed note that has no talk page discussion to back it up and most of the infobox specifically say not to see flagicons". I was reverted and on my talk page was told that there was discussion here, but until this discussion was started here there had been no discussion of flagicons in infoboxes at WP:GEOGRAPHY. Since there was no discussion and hence no consensus, it simply looks like it was Carlossuarez's opinion. It is hard to say the note is true when only one of the infoboxes, islands, talks about using flagicons and two other ones, settlement and lake, specifically say not to use flagicons.Aspects (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Projects are free to establish guidelines different from or addiitonal to the general as befits articles within their scope. If we want to discuss whether the general guideline ought change, let's mosey on over to where this discussion's initiator has invited further discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- (Archive re-opened to set the record straight.) Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." (As noted in the section below, a discussion is underway to determine if the particular template (e.g., settlements) guidelines should be changed.)--S. Rich (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I only became aware of this discussion after an editor made a change on an unrelated page. The editor then closed this discussion AFTER I enquired as to why he closed it. I think that’s a little unfair, particularly as the editor is the one pushing for the change. I’d like to comment later tonight (in about 12 hours). You can't force consensus - particularly when it seems you are trying to use this to force a change to another page. --Merbabu (talk) 00:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Settlement template talk page for further discussion of the above
Please see Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#flagcons_in_settlement_infoboxes--S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Footnote on Project landing page
I submit that the footnote (about templates) on the Project page is improper. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is a Policy that says that Project participants cannot override WP:POLICY or GUIDANCE. This footnote has been cited as a basis to remove flagcons from infoboxes. As it stands, the settlement infobox template has an admonition to keep Flagcons out. Also, MOS:FLAG says don't put flagcons in info boxes. (There is a discussion underway regarding a possible change to the settlement infobox comments.) Could an actual Project volunteer please remove the footnote please? Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 23:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
- No one has; and as we discussed (yet again) on the talk page of {{infobox settlement}} and settled that national flags are permitted; no one should. And as has been asked over and over, no one anywhere could demonstrate that there was ever consensus on the prohibition in the first instance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Adding a footnote to the Project page, which clearly violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, is improper. There's been lots of talk on the MOS and template talk pages, which are the proper locations. Putting in a unilateral note (which was done without any discussion, let alone discussion by Project members) that MOS does not apply can only lead to individual Projects adding their own footnotes. Suppose WP:CITIES added a footnote to their page saying they could ignore MOS guidelines or seek to impose more stringent guidelines? With the LOCALCONSENSUS guideline in mind, I deleted the footnote, only to have someone else come in and say we should discuss. Again, I say where should such discussions take place? Clearly on the MOS and/or template pages. But LOCALCONSENSUS mandates that Project members seek to convince the larger WP community to make changes, not to add supposed MOS exemptions on their own particular pages. --S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are being disruptive. You started a discussion above - unilaterally; when it was clear that your view was not the consensus one, you moved the discussion elsewhere - unilaterally. You are just forum shopping. That is not of any value to the encyclopedia. It's clear that consensus permits flags in infobox settlement as you recognized and there is no consensus to permit or prohibit subnational flags either. Since infobox settlement is shared with WP:CITIES, their members had just as much say so as anyone else. Indeed, the template does not force flag usage - if an individual editor chooses not to (just as an individual chooses not to use wikimarkup language vs. html or non-Latin characters vs. their unicode equivalents), so what? you gonna sue them, block them? Why don't you focus on building an encyclopedia rather than disrupting the building of this one?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Carlos. Mindless discussion over flags. Do something useful with your time instead. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- You are being disruptive. You started a discussion above - unilaterally; when it was clear that your view was not the consensus one, you moved the discussion elsewhere - unilaterally. You are just forum shopping. That is not of any value to the encyclopedia. It's clear that consensus permits flags in infobox settlement as you recognized and there is no consensus to permit or prohibit subnational flags either. Since infobox settlement is shared with WP:CITIES, their members had just as much say so as anyone else. Indeed, the template does not force flag usage - if an individual editor chooses not to (just as an individual chooses not to use wikimarkup language vs. html or non-Latin characters vs. their unicode equivalents), so what? you gonna sue them, block them? Why don't you focus on building an encyclopedia rather than disrupting the building of this one?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Adding a footnote to the Project page, which clearly violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, is improper. There's been lots of talk on the MOS and template talk pages, which are the proper locations. Putting in a unilateral note (which was done without any discussion, let alone discussion by Project members) that MOS does not apply can only lead to individual Projects adding their own footnotes. Suppose WP:CITIES added a footnote to their page saying they could ignore MOS guidelines or seek to impose more stringent guidelines? With the LOCALCONSENSUS guideline in mind, I deleted the footnote, only to have someone else come in and say we should discuss. Again, I say where should such discussions take place? Clearly on the MOS and/or template pages. But LOCALCONSENSUS mandates that Project members seek to convince the larger WP community to make changes, not to add supposed MOS exemptions on their own particular pages. --S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The two issues under discussion are:
As user Merbabu wants to make further comment, I suggest that two issues are presented:
- Issue One: "Should FLAGCONs be permitted in infoboxes?" -- I submit that an earlier editor's suggestion that "If we want to discuss whether the general guideline ought change, let's mosey on over to where this discussion's initiator has invited further discussion." was well stated. In fact, that suggestion was acted upon and a discussion was initiated on the Settlement Infobox template discussion page. To restate, this talk page is not the proper forum for the topic -- the suggestion was made to discuss the issue on another talk page and the discussion here was closed.
- Issue Two -- which stems from Issue One: "Are Project pages the proper forum to discuss MOS changes?" I submit that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says no. Project members are encouraged to convince the larger community one way or the other regarding the merits of their suggestions, but they are not free to establish (or even describe) MOS or exceptions to MOS.
- With these two issues so stated, I submit it is appropriate to close this discussion.--S. Rich (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- If this means that you are going to take the discussion somewhere else, I think most people here will be grateful. The few of us that are left here are mostly interested in writing geographical content, rather than debating this week's politically correct position. The current outbreak of MOS warriors attempting to impose their guidelines on all and sundry - most of whom have very little interest in this kind of bureaucracy and instruction creep - is in my view simply disruptive nonsense. See e.g. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. When you and the three other people who have the time and interest in this kind of thing have reached "consensus" perhaps you could tell us so that we can all be aware of what we are choosing to ignore? Ben MacDui 09:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree with Ben. Its quite pathetic to continue to see this disruptive nonsense. It does not matter period. Flags are frickin trivial little things and not worthy of endless discussions or "policies". I proposed to delete flag icons from wikipedia previously and they got a resounding speedy keep. If they are not permitted or disliked they'd have been deleted. Merbabu you should know better than this, its disappointing to see you wasting your time. Again I suggest a wiki preference to suppress flag icons for those who dislike them rather than engaging in pretentious bureacracy, attempting to impose rules. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Google Earth .kmz file reference
Hi all,
I asked a question over at the help desk regarding the use of a government produced .kmz file as a reference. I'll copy and paste my original question and some of my other thoughts here:
Hi there,
I'm trying to reference some legal suvey data - specifically a pipeline right of way for the Ibex Valley article. I can see where it is using the Canada Land Survey System overlay (.kmz) in Google Earth. I got the kmz file from the CLSS website. Is this a referencable source? I can't find anything decent that is on their website (I imagine because they have this overlay, but I don't really know).
Its a bit convoluted, (i.e. you have to have Google Earth which is free and then you have to download the kmz file, which is also free and public information as it is on the government website) but it all seems like public info from a reputable source to me. Any advice? Thanks --JonGDixon (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if anyone else is interested, but I did find this: Misplaced Pages:Using maps and similar sources in wikipedia articles. I think that for this application, the NLSS maps are acceptable for showing the pipeline right of way as there is no interpetation of the data, even though it is a primary source. That being said, I will try to find some more references, as the article also notes that it is preferable to reference more than just a map. Note that I'm using the overlay .kmz file as a map - this may or may not be a correct assumption though. Playing devil's advocate in my head, I can argue it both ways. Nothing's ever easy I suppose. Colin, thanks for your help, this exercise has helped me to better understand wikipedia's policies about sources--JonGDixon (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note on the above - so I just revisted the above link and discovered that it is indeed an essay and not a policy (although it is in the See Also section of Misplaced Pages:No original research, which is a policy). Sorry for the confusion and the edit spamming. I am going to try the geography project, to see if they have any thoughts about it. Again, thanks for the help. If it isn't already obvious, I'm pretty new here and still learning the ropes. Thanks for the help and patience. --JonGDixon (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I haven't added discussion by others, because frankly I'm not sure what the rules are about that and I don't want to break any (all of it was helpful and useful though, there hasn't been any arguments or anything of the sort). Regardless, I'd like to hear if any of you have thought about/come to a decision about this topic.
Tag and Assess 2012
The Tag & Assess Drive 2012 has been devised for pending backlog in WP India to achieve
- Quality assessments for unassessed WP India articles.
- Adding importance missed during previous assessment.
- Bringing more articles into the scope of the project and subject them to assessment.
So far 8706 assessments (including quality and importance) have been performed in a span of 10 days. The drive is still open and we encourage participants from WP Geography to enroll themselves. WP Geography is one of the daughter projects having huge assessement backlog. The participation would be very much appreciated - thanks in advance.
AshLin (talk) and ssriram_mt (talk).
Geography_of_China (2012/03)
I made a push, but the article about China's geography still need a lot of improvement ! anyone interested ? Yug (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Ahem
Will someone take a look at the article on Subcontinent? Too funny to be real. The way it's going, everything landmass is going to end as a subcontinent. Aditya 11:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Unit of Coastal Length in the list using World Resource Institute's data in the article: List of countries by length of coastline
In the article List of countries by length of coastline, unit of coastal length data in the list using World Resource Institute's data is shown to be square kilometers, while it is mentioned as kilometers on the webpage mentioned in the reference. I tried to discuss this on article's talk page but it seemed to be not much active. Alok Bansal (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Satop
Template:Satop has been nominated for deletion. Among other things, Template:Satop links an article to its relevant outline, index, and portals. You may wish to comment at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Buaidh 01:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:HighBeam
Misplaced Pages:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Misplaced Pages editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Need opinions on inclusion criteria for list
List of the most common U.S. place names is in need of an overhaul, but before I begin that, I would like some opinions on:
- What should count as a US place name (for instance, should a census-designated place count?)
- What resource(s) would be best to get this information
The list gets around 4,500 pageviews per month, so I think it's worth the effort, but I want to get it right. --JaGa 17:46, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- The present version appears to me to be satisfactory, and not in need of an overhaul. What deficiencies do you notice, and what needs to be overhauled?
- —Wavelength (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Check out the talk page. The article seems to exclude many place names. --JaGa 16:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Notability (geography)
As of now Misplaced Pages:Notability (geography) is an essay. Unlike the previous failed proposal, Misplaced Pages:Notability (Geographic locations), it looks like a reasonable starting point. I would like to invite you to Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (geography) page to make it into a solid Guideline Proposal. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Order of sections
(Originally asked at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Order of sections; advised to move here.)
Hi, in articles about geographical or political regions (e.g. islands, countries, states) are there any guidelines about the order in which standard sections (e.g. "History", "Geography", "Economy" etc.) should appear? 86.160.84.125 (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I am not aware of any formal guidelines. For island articles I usually use the following section ordering:
- Lead
- Geology/Geography/Geomorphology
- Etymology
- Prehistory/Archaeology
- History
- Economy
- including Transport, lighthouses and sometimes shipwrecks
- Religion and religious history
- Media/Arts
- Wildlife
- Prominent residents or natives.
This usually works although some GA reviewers have their own ideas - which makes consistency across the project hard to achieve. Ben MacDui 09:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. BTW, looks like impressive work that you guys are doing over at that project... 86.160.213.189 (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Assessment
Hello. Over on Misplaced Pages:Vital articles/Expanded/Geography there are a few Geography articles that are lacking an assessment, per the 
icon. Please take a look if you have an interest. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the update. For your convenience, here's a list of the remaining unassessed articles:
- Altiplano
- Bab el Mandeb
- Bay of Biscay
- Borno State
- Boxing the compass
- Datum (geodesy)
- Gulf of California
- Kaduna State
- Koro Sea
- Lagos State
- Mongolian Plateau
- Niger State
- Okapi Wildlife Reserve
- Oyo State
- Phoenix Islands Protected Area
- Plateau State
- Rakhine State
- Serra do Mar
- Southern Europe
- Sunda Islands
- Volhynia
- Regards, RJH (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
subregions
Hi, I've been involved in some editing around subregional classification of Afghanistan; according to the main sources I've found, Afghanistan is in South Asia, but many others claim it's in the middle east or western asia or central asia, and there are sources to be found that defend all of these points.
I don't want to rehash the Afghanistan discussion here but rather ask a broader question - is there any consensus POV on how subregions are used in geography articles? I think which continent a country is in is usually pretty clear, but subregions can differ widely depending on the system and the particular POV desired (are you talking geographical, political affiliation, economic integration, etc?). When I look at how countries are classified according to sub-region, there is huge variation, and the same country might be described in half a dozen different ways across many articles - this seems especially true of countries in the middle east/south asia/western asia/etc.
Thus, I'm wondering if a standard could be found, by which wikipedia always uses source 'X' to determine geographic sub-regions (especially as listed in info boxes and article leads); then each country article could have a separate section that details all of the *other* subregions that various people have placed it in over time. This might avoid a number of arguments, if there was just one source that we just decided on as a default. Personally, my vote would be for the UN statistical geographical regions. --KarlB (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- Afghanistan is often categorized differently for different purposes and at different times in its history. Various cultural ties to the middle east (religion, recent events) are undeniable. Similarly in the 17th-19th centuries, Afghanistan was often considered (in British sources at least) part of the Indian sub-Continent as a place that was (from their perspective, part of their Empire, and) the site of proxy war between Britain and Russia. Earlier, kings of Afghan origin sat on the Indian throne (the Mughal Empire). And, certainly from a climatic and physical geographic perspective Afghanistan is Central Asian. Also, in the times of the Khan conquerors (from Central Asia, Afghanistan was routinely part of the drama). So the answer to your question is not easy and dependent on context and time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi; yes of course I appreciate that what part of the world does Afghanistan belong to is complex; however my question was more whether Misplaced Pages could have a standard for how countries are listed, in their lead paragraph and in various categorization schemes (for example, the infobox for country). We can't hope to embed the complexity you described above, but we shouldn't just let each country article choose an arbitrary standard either; selecting, then sticking to a standard, would prevent tons of edit wars, while allowing people to describe the history as you note above in a different section of the article. --KarlB (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- see here for example:
- Geography_of_Afghanistan: Afghanistan is a landlocked nation located in the heart of Asia between West Asia (Middle East) and Central Asia.
- Afghanistan: A landlocked mountainous country with plains in the north and southwest, Afghanistan is described as being located within South Asia or Central Asia. It is part of the Greater Middle East Muslim world...
- Afghanistan: Afghanistan, is a landlocked country located in the centre of Asia, forming part of South Asia, Central Asia, and Greater Middle East, it is also considered to be part of a broader West Asia.
- Middle_East Afghanistan is often considered Central Asian
If you look at the edit histories of these articles, and others, there is a frequent back and forth as people try to prioritize one 'subregional' classification or another. This is why I'm wondering if we can just come up with some guidance, for example, something like the following:
In info boxes in Geography of X and other articles, the subregional classification devised by the UN will be listed. In other sections where geography is mentioned, the various, well-sourced sub-regions a country has been placed in will be listed, in alphabetic order.
- With guidance such as this, there would be a clear line for editors to follow. Any thoughts? Again, this problem is not specific to Afghanistan, you can see similar things with Iran, Turkey, etc.--KarlB (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- If there's substantial difference of opinion between reliable sources, I think this fact should be noted in the body of the article.—Stepheng3 (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I completely agree. However, from looking at the sources, it's not really a question of disagreement, but rather of different categorization systems - the UN classifies things this way, the Canadian census classifies them another way, the World Bank classifies them a third way. I haven't found many sources that say "Iran is *not* in the middle east" or "Iran is in West asia, not south-west asia" - it's much more frequent that a source just has it's own way of categorizing. I think it is useful to have these different categorizations in the article, but should they show up in the lead, and should they show up in the info box (in the case of Geography of Afghanistan that would suggest the subregion should be listed as "South Asia, West Asia, Central Asia, Greater Middle East"--KarlB (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- If there's substantial difference of opinion between reliable sources, I think this fact should be noted in the body of the article.—Stepheng3 (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Globalization proposal
Hi WikiProject Geography Members, A few of us are trying to get a WikiProject Globalization up and running. Members of this project would work together to improve the quality of articles on Misplaced Pages on Globalization, global issues and related topics. If you're interested in globalization, please come by and check out our proposal. We'd appreciate any feedback about our ideas, and of course your support if you were interested in lending it. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Related - The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Geography members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
New WikiProject Globalization
Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Globalization is a new project to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Meclee (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Category for Discussion
There is a discussion for the category: Bodies of water of the Caribbean, that could do with your input. Thanks Brad7777 (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Notability (geographical features)
Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (geographical features): the discussion to make it into a guideline is rekindled. Please joinStaszek Lem (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Template:River Geography
Template:River Geography has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Marine terrace
An article that you have been involved in editing, Marine terrace , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Foldo Squirrel 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Burma → Myanmar requested-move notification
A requested move survey has been started (by Marcus Qwertyus (talk)) at Talk:Burma, which proposes to move:
Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Featured articles listed?
It seems that about a third of the pages listed as 'featured articles' are not - including Johannasberg, Bangalore, Bangladesh, Malwa, Marshall, Texas, Moorgate, Mount Pinatubo, and Mount Rushmore. Some of these were delisted as FAs seven years ago or more - is the project page just very, very out of date or am I missing something? Span (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Lake Michigan–Huron
Lake Michigan–Huron is little different from many obscure geographic entities which have their own articles, and yet has been repeatedly deleted over the past few days without RfD discussion. Several commenters have explicitly said they're upset with it because it's not what they learned in school, and opposing editors have presented such rationals as it doesn't exist, the sources don't exist, the sources don't say what they say, or that it's FRINGE since it's just hydrology (which is therefore a pseudoscience?). Comments from editors actually conversant in geography would be welcome. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- The article has not been deleted (one of Kwami many disembling statements lately), it's merely been moved to a section of Great Lakes, specifically, Great Lakes#Lake Michigan-Huron. And none of the commenters have made anything like the statement that they objected to a separate article because it "wasn't what they learned in school" (another bit of dissembling from Kwami), what they have said is that every source provided by Kwami has said that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron can be considered to be a single lake hydrologically. Not a single source has said that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not separate lakes. Kwami seems determined to push an extremely WP:FRINGEy viewpoint that there is no Lake Michigan and there is no Lake Huron, there is only Lake Michigan-Huron. Unfortunately, he's not been able to provide a single source which supports this.
Editors should read this AN/I thread and this section of the "Great Lakes" article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, a lot has happened and been discussed at those 3 places and it is not as Kwami described. North8000 (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- A pair of neighboring lakes that are shown as two lakes on every map in the world are connected by a strait that flows one way sometimes and the other way other times. The elevation of the water is the same in both lakes. In hydrology, the two lakes may be treated as one lake. In geography however, the two lakes remain what they are: separate bodies of water. Binksternet (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- I can add little to the specifics of the discussion and can only add the example of Loch of Stenness, which bears a similar relationship to the adjacent Loch of Harray, both of which are always treated separately in my experience. Ben MacDui 18:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- It would help if someone could add the geographical argument for separate lakes to Lake Michigan–Huron, with reliable sources. The discussion on that page is unbalanced. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I can add little to the specifics of the discussion and can only add the example of Loch of Stenness, which bears a similar relationship to the adjacent Loch of Harray, both of which are always treated separately in my experience. Ben MacDui 18:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Discussion is scattered into at least 7 different places
The discussion on this is scattered into about 7 different places. In (roughly) descending order of amount of material they are:
- WP:ANI#User Kwamikagami reported - warring to remove citation-needed tags on assertions that Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are not lakes
- Talk:Lake Michigan–Huron
- Talk:Great Lakes
- User_talk:kwamikagami
- User_talk:North8000
- Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Geology
- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography
So each of these locations is MISSING least 3/4 of the important material and discussions
- Yes, this was meant as a heads-up, not as yet another discussion. — kwami (talk) 22:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Lake Michigan-Huron
FYI given the prior section: an article that you may have been involved in editing, Lake Michigan-Huron , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Notability guides?
Are there any notability guidelines for places, buildings or landmarks, similar to WP:NMUSIC for musicians and WP:NMAGAZINE for magazines? It seems like there should be, but I can't find any. Also, your wiki-project may be interested in this deletion discussion for Stanley M. Rowe Arboretum. FurrySings (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Pô Department and Pô (department)
It's amusing, how editors were able to discreet between these two links, if they were able. I have an insight that Misplaced Pages is currently full of such surprises. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Ryukyu Arc nominated for deletion
Perhaps it can be improved along the lines of Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc? Tijfo098 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Lists of people from settlements
I have started a discussion about making the guidance about lists of notable people on settlement articles developed as part of the UK geography project at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Notable people applicable more generally, including the possibility of merging with Misplaced Pages:Notability (people)#Lists of people. Your comments would be welcome at Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#Lists of people from settlements. Please also link to this discussion from other relevant projects. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Article's layout
Hello, a Wikipedian advised me to come here. My problem is, I don't understand the reason why many articles about islands always put Geography section after History section. Some examples are this and this. This even puts Geography after Tourism and Transport. I think Geography is very important, even more important than History. If those islands didn't exist, no history would be made. I'm improving a local article and really need your advice. Thank you. PID (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- It is very difficult to achieve consistency across articles as the general rule is that consensus should be achieved by article rather than across groups of articles. I can only suggest either boldy changing the order and seeing what the reaction is, or starting a discussion on the relevant talk page. You may find WP:GOODISLE helpful. Good luck. Ben MacDui 09:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- One argument that supports putting the geography prior to the other sections mentioned is that islands are defined geographical units, unlike administrative units such as counties or countries. With administrative units, which are human constructs, it is common to place the history first and geography subsequent to that, and maybe such a treatment gets carried over to islands by a kind of default, when as you say, it arguably makes more sense to put geography first (though of course I would say that, I studied geography...) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- Of course, where an island is an administrative unit, then discussion of that unit will probably tend to place the history first. I guess that how such articles have been treated probably depends on how the island is perceived - as first and foremost a physical entity, or a political entity. Unfortunately humans always tend to be more interested in the latter than the former.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
- OK thanks for your advice guys. I have a strong liking for Geography so I'll try to put Geography section in that local article first too see if people revert it, :) but if someone wants to gives more advice, I'm grateful to that. Nice weekend! PID (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)