Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Geography page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:GEOG

Geography Project‑class

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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Divided region for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Divided region is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divided region until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

CMD (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Huizhou, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}[reply]

Please contribute to the discussion about how sea and ocean currently overlap

Please contribute to the discussion about how sea and ocean currently overlap and how this could be improved. See on the talk page here. In addition, see merger discussion of world ocean into ocean here. We need more inputs to the discussion. (But please don't just think of it as a "geography" question as there is more to it). EMsmile (talk) 04:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Help please, anyone here?

Can someone quickly please remind me where the policy/guideline is that says geo article names have to be current not historical? I know it exists but didn't see it standing out at Talk:Braunschweig#Article_name so maybe at Gdansk? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting some inputs

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to article Black Sea and inputs on splitting and restructuring @ Talk:Black Sea#Some article restructuring and overhaul

Also please do have a look at Talk:Black Sea#Coastal cities, requesting help; and help expand Black Sea#Coastal and port cities on Black Sea coast and trade.

And also requesting to visit Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları, an article is about Ottoman times female slavery with a special focus on the state of non-elite common women slavery in those times; presently looking for more specific inputs and expansion regarding female slave trade across Black Sea coastal cities and help expand the same if you find yourself interested in that topic too.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass creation of Turkish village articles discussion

Editors here may be interested in participating in this discussion regarding the potential creation en masse of 50,000 articles related to Turkish villages/neighbourhoods. FOARP (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CCI closed this week

Hello from CCI! We recently closed this case that broadly relates to international statistics. Since this covers so many projects (basically every country, WP:STAT but that's semi-inactive, WP:GEO, etc.) I figured I would leave the notice here. The page is courtesy blanked, but the second newest revision has the full record of articles that required removal. Feel free to take a peek, but this one was not as destructive as some others have been. Happy editing, and kind regards, Sennecaster (What now?) 03:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Survey on importance of the 50 U.S. States

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to remove the principal article on all 50 U.S. states and reassign their importances at "Geography of _____".theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How, in WikiProject Geography, should the articles on the 50 U.S. states be assessed in terms of article importance? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this discussion, "U.S. State" refers only to the 50 states in the United States, and not to other inhabited areas that have active statehood movements such as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Options:

A: Leave all importance ratings as they are
B: Reassess the 50 articles as Top-importance in WikiProject Geography
C: Reassess the 50 articles as High-importance in WikiProject Geography
D: Reassess the 50 articles as Mid-importance in WikiProject Geography
E: Reassess the 50 articles as Low-importance in WikiProject Geography
F: Reassess each article individually
G: Remove from WikiProject Geography, and reassess importance at "Geography of _____"

Here are the current ratings in this WikiProject:

Low: Talk:Alabama, Talk:Arkansas, Talk:Connecticut, Talk:Delaware, Talk:Florida, Talk:Hawaii, Talk:Idaho, Talk:Illinois, Talk:Indiana, Talk:Iowa, Talk:Kansas, Talk:Montana, Talk:New Jersey, Talk:Pennsylvania, Talk:Rhode Island, Talk:South Carolina, Talk:Texas, Talk:Utah, Talk:Vermont
Mid: Talk:California, Talk:Colorado, New York, Talk:Ohio, Talk:Virginia
High: Talk:Alaska, Talk:Arizona, Georgia, Talk:Kentucky, Talk:Louisiana, Talk:Maine, Talk:Maryland, Talk:Michigan, Talk:Mississippi, Talk:Missouri, Talk:Nebraska, Talk:Nevada, Talk:New Hampshire, Talk:New Mexico, Talk:North Carolina, Talk:North Dakota, Talk:Oklahoma, Talk:Oregon, Talk:South Dakota, Talk:Tennessee, Washington, Talk:West Virginia, Talk:Wisconsin, Talk:Wyoming
Top: Talk:Massachusetts, Talk:Minnesota

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need	The article is of priority or importance, regardless of its quality
Top	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details
Low	Subject is mainly of specialist interest.
Bottom	(Optional) Subject has no real significance to the project.
No	(Optional) Subject is a disambiguation or redirect page, residing in article space.

G I don't see how these articles fit within the Geography project. Their scope extends far beyond Geography. Even Talk:United States isn't in the geography Wikiproject. The tags should be shifted over to the appropriate main article, such as Talk:Geography of Alabama. For these, it should be MID/LOW, following the importance table from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria to the right, where Mid is for "fills in more minor details", given these articles aren't about Geography as a topic. CMD (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: are you saying each individual U.S. state article should be removed from WikiProject Geography, and the "Geography of ____" articles should retain the WP tags at mid or low importance? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially yes. As a specific example, Talk:Alabama should not be tagged as Wikiproject Geography (like Talk:United States is not), while Talk:Geography of Alabama should by tagged as Wikiproject Geography (as Talk:Geography of the United States is), which it is currently not for some reason. This is a slightly different question to what the importance ratings should be, and on that question, I don't really see how any "Geography of X" articles would make it to high or top. CMD (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Added a statement, not sure how to get legobot to take it– can you help? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you merely lengthened the existing overlong statement. Statements end at the first valid timestamp, so without copying the existing timetamp to your new sentence, the situation is not improved. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: I'm sorry, please have patience with me. By timestamp, you mean signature? timestamp of the edit itself? there is a signature at the top, why doesn't that take? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RFCST, item 3 about four and five-tilde signatures: the part that identifies you is optional, but the timestamp is mandatory. WP:RFC/HIST will be updated next time that Legobot runs, which will be at 19:01 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Well, it looks like i did it right now, and it'll update correctly when legobot runs again, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Done theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G (remove). Second choice: F (case-by-case); 3rd: E (Low). A U.S. state is by definition a political entity. They may have geography sections, just as they may have economy or crime or politics or history sections, but if they have a geography section, it would (or should) be a brief summary as a parent article section in WP:Summary style. The major information about geography would not be found in these articles, and if there *were* some unique geographical information present here and in no other geography-related article, that would be a failure of WP:DUE WEIGHT which should be corrected by redistributing the content among articles per WP:SS. Hence: G, F, E. Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to go with G here. Agree that the current classification is not great to put it charitably. Arguably this only defers the issue since there may still be quibbling over assigning the importance at GeographyOfState articles. As subnational entities they should probably all be mid or low, but that's beyond this rfc scope and of course YMMV on that topic. I also believe that {{WikiProject Geography}} should be removed from almost all articles focused on political entities and moved to GeographyOfPlace articles except where the latter kind of article does not exist, in which case individual assessments will be needed to determine if tagging is appropriate. Admittedly I haven't done much WP Geography work in forever so I may be out of touch with some current practice. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Huizhou, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}[reply]

The Core Contest

From June 1 to July 15, the Core Contest will be launched in its ninth iteration. It's an exciting contest, running over a period of six weeks, with £250 of prize money for the articles that are most improved. It would be nice if we could get participants to improve a geography article, with the Indian Ocean and Thailand just two of the vital articles judged to be C-class. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otryt

Could somebody take a look at Otryt. I'm all for articles about mountain ranges, but this isn't even a decent stub, and my own attempts to find more sources didn't go anywhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked it to the correct article on Polish Wiki where there is a source viewable online which seems to verify the existence of this range and some of the details. It should be possible to translate the Polish article and import its image and the reference to make it into a more respectable stub. We could also flag this up at the Polish WikiProject. Bermicourt (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Feedback on Improvements to Stub

Hi everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia editing and am working on a stub as part of one of my classes. If anyone could please take a look at the Thal Desert page and provide feedback as well as a rating, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Elma Annick (talk) 02:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good piece of work. I'd have suggested running it for a WP:DYK as it's been expanded more than five times, but it's just over the time limit of 7 days. Something to bear in mind for the future. Well done! Bermicourt (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bermicourt for the feedback! I wasn't aware of WP:DYK so I'll definitely keep that in mind for the future. I was wondering what I had to do to receive a rating from WikiProject Geography; is posting a "request for review of article" the correct way to approach this?