Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Geography page.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|WikiProject Geography||(Rated Project-class)|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of geography, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.|
CfD on Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges etc
- Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges
- Category:Rivers of the Canadian Rockies
- Category:Rivers of the Omineca Mountains
- Category:Rivers of the Pacific Ranges
- Category:Rivers of the Kitimat Ranges
- and various others by-region
Demonyms in infoboxes
Geographic infoboxes include a demonym parameter to indicate what to call a person from the place the article is about. But that really isn't adequate, and is also imprecise. Illustrative examples:
|Place||Adjective||Masc. sing.||Fem. sing.||Plural (nongendered)||Collective||Current infobox value|
|Spain||Spanish||Spaniard||Spaniard||Spaniards||the Spanish||Spanish • Spaniard|
|France||French||Frenchman||Frenchwoman||French people||the French||French|
|Wales||Welsh||Welshman||Welshwoman||Welsh people||the Welsh||Welsh (cymry)|
|New South Wales||New South Welsh||New South Welshman||New South Welshwoman||New South Welsh people||the New South Welsh||New South Welshman*|
* Read "New South Welshmen" till I changed it to the singular.
There can be a plethora of adjectives and nouns describing or referring to people from a given place. The single demonym field seems inadequate to encapsulate these and, moreover, it isn't being used consistently: sometimes adjective, sometimes noun.
One thought I had was at least to add an attribute, adjectival, for the adjective, while reserving demonym for noun forms. Beyond that, though, I'm interested in feedback on (a) consistent use of demonym and (b) going beyond a single demonym field to cover all the various applicable forms. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Categorising buildings by streets
I would encourage editors to vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 17#Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by road & all subcategories on whether it is a good idea to categorise buildings by street. – Fayenatic London 15:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
May I draw the attention of geographers to Talk:Spit (landform), where I have started a discussion about the problems with the section "Spits around the World"? (Though the whole article looks like it could do with an audit by someone who understands the subject better than me.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I love the grammar of the section header. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I am puzzling over the absence of a category for physical geographers. We have a whole array of categories for geographers in various branches of geography, yet somehow there is no Category:Physical geographers. Is there a reason for this? Or is it just an oversight? Thought I'd inquire and (hopefully) nail it down before I proceed (to create the category). Cgingold (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Rakhshani to be moved to Rakhshani (village). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Starting a Discussion?
How do I do start a discussion about radically changing the contents of one of the articles?
Under the Geography Portal, there is Western Hemisphere, which describes it only in terms of geography. This is so different to the common meaning, that I feel it is truly misleading. I would like to start a discussion of changing this to a disambiguation page or changing it to include my suggested edits, which can be found in the "History", and which I discuss on the "Talk" page there.
Although I am a long-time editor, with ten years editing, and well over 4,000 edits, I have no idea how to start a discussion, about fundamentally changing the meaning of an article. So any help would be appreciated.