Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Geography (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

CfD on Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges etc[edit]

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_17#Category:Rivers_of_the_Boundary_Ranges on the Categories for discussion page.

One of your project's articles has been featured[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Exploration, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Wellington (region)[edit]

The usage of Wellington (region) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) is under discussion, see talk: Bay of Plenty Region -- (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Weather box[edit]

Discussion started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#Weather_box on the use of Template:Weather box in articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Notability (geographic features)[edit]

FYI, I've re-proposed Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) for guideline status. Kaldari (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Lunar coords and quad cat}}[edit]

Template:Lunar coords and quad cat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been nominated for merger. -- (talk) 06:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

UN Maps in country infobox[edit]

I would like to have your opinion about the insertion of the Maps issued by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the country infobox, below the locator map. You can find them under Commons:Category:Maps by United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. I am well aware that they are far from perfect, but nevertheless I find them good, since especially small and middle sized countries can hardly be distinguished on the normal locator map and, moreover, also the main cities, bordering countries and main islands (these with their native and english names) are present on these maps. Last but not least, being maps of UN, they are an independent source that could avoid many edit wars which plague Wikipedia in conflict areas. I am asking it since I see that these maps have already being inserted in many articles (I inserted some of them too today), but this wikiproject can give an authoritative opinion. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Well said. There has to be a regulation indeed. Help us out please.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 05:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Infoboxes are meant to be extremely short summaries of the article's critical points. Country infoboxes are already some of the longest (if not the longest) infoboxes on wikipedia. The UN maps give UN names of neighbouring countries, names of surrounding bodies of water and some islands, and the location of a seemingly arbitrary collection of cities and towns. None of these are irrelevant, but neither are they key critical points to obtaining the shortest of overviews of a country. Neighbouring countries and water bodies are, at any rate, usually covered in the first paragraph of the lead. The spread of various cities and towns is interesting, but is not information about the country as a whole, which is what country articles should focus on. It may also be misleading to imply cities and towns between maps have similar status, when the Unites States map shows 9 cities (not the 9 largest), and the Trinidad and Tobago maps has 7, presumably of a very different scale. Saying this, alterations of this map would actually be very useful in our current Cities and towns boxes located in the demographics sections of appropriate country articles, instead of the 4 random citiscapes we currently use. CMD (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
If you see here, you understand that there is clearly no consensus about the optimal length of an info box. Why another map? Information can be conveyed not only in written form, but also graphically, and in geography maps play a central role. What is missing in the articles devoted to the world`s countries until now is a real map, since for the reason explained above the locator map is in many cases useless. Of course a map can be put also somewhere else in the article, but I find that the top of the article should be its place. Alex2006 (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I personally like the CIA World Factbook maps much better if we're going for the simplistic style. Thricecube 20:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Like i said in Azerbaijan mate, how can a single map complicate things for readers, as Alex said Information can be conveyed not only in written form, but also graphically, and in geography maps play a central role. . Indstead of complicating, it could be very useful... elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not about it being a complicated subject, it's about reducing the impact of everything else in the infobox. That there is no agreement on establishing a maximum limit for an infobox does not change the fact that it is optimal to have them as short and concise as possible. What is a "real map"? The maps under discussion are white shapes with a smattering of arbitrarily selected cities and towns. What makes that a "real map"? If one is going for geographical knowledge, a topographical map would be much better. If the display of random cities and towns is intended to show population density, a population density heat map would be immensely better. One could also use a road/rail map (with large cities/towns to boot if brave) to show how the country is interconnected. The list goes on.
Even if it was agreed we should have more than one map in the infobox as a global standard, the UN maps are not nearly the top choice. No map is going to be perfect of course, but what the locator maps do is give a global positioning for a country, useful for a global encyclopaedia (with the caveat of a European position for most European countries, due to a very old decision, although Europe does tend to have small countries). Regional position can be just as important as directly neighbouring countries. Locator maps even often have inserts enlarging small countries to show shape.
This is not to say however that if a useful purpose for a second map is found it should definitely not be inserted. France and Denmark have two to help try and display their confusing internal setup separating the 'main' bits of those countries from the rest of them. These, unlike the UN maps, introduce new information that can't actually be directly taken by a comparison of the first paragraph with the existing locator map (I do note as an addendum that within the arbitrary cities and towns found in the UN maps the location of the capital is shown, which is new information that can't be obtained from the text and existing map, but I really don't think capital location is enough to justify a whole new map, and it's also something that could be easily incorporated into existing locator maps with consensus). CMD (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point, but do you agree that the locator maps are largely insufficient, and that we need better maps in all these country articles, or are you happy with the present situation? Alex2006 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't call them largely insufficient, I think the location on a globe is a good way to give readers an instant idea of where the country is, especially if there's a good insert. If there's a series of better maps, then that's of course very worth discussing. CMD (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
And what if we substitute the locator maps with the UN map? Each of the UN maps has a small locator map on the edge. In this way, the infobox length would remain the same, and the new map would convey more info (location, cities, capital and borders) than the old one. Alex2006 (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The UN globes are small black blobs without any borders or scale. There's absolutely no indication of size. In this, the UN maps deal with location in a far poorer way that the existing maps. With regards to cities, as I've pointed out and there's been no response to, the cities chosen seem extremely arbitrary, so no information is given other than that some cities exist, which is actually misleading for the reader. A reader would be led to think, for example, that Honolulu is one of the 9 most important cities in the US, when it's the 54th in population and holds little other distinction I know of. This is bad. Capitals I already said are a positive, but that does not remotely outweigh the negatives. Borders as I mentioned above are only slightly better in that there are country names, but these are easily found in the text and in locator maps all borders are shown, along with the relative sizes of the surrounding countries. Another couple of points I haven't mentioned yet is that the UN maps are an incomplete set with regards to countries, and we have no control over the creation of other ones, say Kosovo. They also suffer problems in that they follow official UN POV, which would lead to a great deal of justifiable disputes around articles like Serbia and China. As a last addendum, a benefit of the UN maps you haven't mentioned is quantifiable scale (as opposed to relative scale which location maps do better), in that they have a scale bar. It'd be very interesting if we could include these in locator maps. CMD (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, I got your points. I think that until now there is no consensus about using these maps: Let's wait some more day to see if some fellow geographer gives his/her opinion, then we can close the discussion. Alex2006 (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I like the maps, but I believe we already have a lot of such maps already present. For example, instead of introducing an entirely new category of maps, we can simply reuse the Location Maps such as Armenia location map.svg and add place names to them. I find these maps are actually better because they include water bodies and rivers, and they follow the standard Wikipedia colour patterns. Also, if we ever do end up using the UN maps, I believe we should remove the logo and country's name text as they don't blend into Wikipedia's design and the logo might suggest some form of affiliation with the organization. I won't say I dislike the idea of having location maps also included in the info box (I have nothing against big info boxes either), because someone looking for a quick glance at the country's geography would have search deeper into the article. The purpose of the info box is to allow people to get the most info possible at a quick glance. However, when I made the orthographic projection for Armenia, I included Location Map inside the Globe, which is another solution we can use for smaller countries (I know it's loosely against the design guideline of the Orthographic Projection maps, but Armenia was too small on the globe). I do find it would be a little awkward and repetitive to have a location map and a globe side by side for large countries like Russia, Canada, China or the US as they would essentially be identical (except one has some text). Kentronhayastan (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Alex2006, what do you think of this? Armenia location map with text.svg
Kentronhayastan, I think that it is a good idea. The problem for me is that for medium and small sized countries there is no map, and for geographical articles I find this really bad. But if we can use locator maps at a larger scale, that`s fine. Alex2006 (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Those one with the city names on it may create complication according to Chipmunkdavis, as he said above. We really need others to state their thought about this issue or we are in dead end. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 07:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The only time I've ever mentioned complication was above when I explicitly noted this was not about "it being a complicated subject". Every other time was you. Please actually read and address what I said rather than arguing with yourself. CMD (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Every other time it was me? I've only wrote two or three sentences be smart mate... elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 10:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Places of the Portola expedition[edit]

Category:Places of the Portola expedition, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. 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.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


Please join the RFC discussion in Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features) about promoting this essay to guideline status. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

catchment area[edit]

The usage of Catchment area (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) is under discussion, see talk:Catchment area (human geography) -- (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Geography At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC for Template:Geographic reference[edit]

I started an RfC at Template:Geographic reference regarding Template:Geographic reference. In my opinion, the template does nothing more than provide a hard-coded instance of ten separate and very loosely connected sources. The RfC asks if we should split the references out into separate templates. Given that this is likely the biggest wikiproject where that template is used, I'd like people's views from here. I have no zero ideas of which of the sub-wikiprojects would be a better place to post this since this is such a widely template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

CfD on Category:Chinook Jargon place names[edit]

Category:Chinook Jargon place names has been nominated for deletion/upmerging, with a suggestion that List of Chinook Jargon place names be upmerged. Please add any comments to the CfD.Skookum1 (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at Donets Basin (uka. Donbas/Donbass)[edit]

There is a move request at Talk:Donets Basin that could use the commentary of members of this project. RGloucester 03:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)