This is an archive of past discussions about Land. 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.
This is a potentially vital new article. i added a small section, which was removed with a good faith, reasonable rationale, but as I am not sure what the parameters of this broad article are, im adding my section here in case others later decide it does belong.
Anthropocene Era
In the current Anthropocene Era,agriculture has grown to utilize almost 40% of the land surface area of Earth.[1]
I think it can be merged with and at land. I don't know what can be added here that shouldn't be/isn't at the land article. I don't see what's that different from land mass, landmass, and land. In 2007 one user reverted the redirect to land and commented that "Land mass is an area of land's mass". see Talk:Land_mass. Clearly the "mass" of the land is hardly ever spoken about. Even if they meant area not mass there is no reason why it is a separate term to just land. Carlwev (talk) 12:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
keep as is. There is no way that 'land' can be substituted for 'last mass' in the locations where Land mass is linked. Clearly, 'land mass' involves a discussion of area, while 'land' is that part of the earth which is not ocean. Hmains (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Photo in lede
It seems inappropriate to have a photo that's mostly water in the lede for the article about land. If others agree, any suggestions for a better option? - Sdkb (talk) 04:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree, and have substituted a picture with a better land to water ratio, although I am open to other possibilities. Perhaps this article could use a gallery. bd2412T17:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Land Cover Table - FAO Code and Type
I have looked reasonably hard to find a complete list of the "FAO Code" in the 1st column of the table in Land_cover#Types (table below the map).
The document pointed to as a reference on the 2nd column "Type" Land_cover#cite_note-8 of the table does provide a source/definition for the labels of each of the codes... but the codes provided in this document do not match the numbers in the FAO code column.
Can someone provide a source for the "FAO Code" and that these codes map to the labels from the reference for the type column? Thank-you --Aupward (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Lead paragraph definition fail
Icebergs and glaciers constitute "solid surface(s) of the Earth" and are "not permanently covered by water." So, do they qualify as land under the Michael Allaby, Chris Park definition in the lead paragraph? I'll stay tuned. --Kent Dominic·(talk)14:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I see nothing in Land cover that could not just be merged into that section of this article. The text is relatively short, and the concept is just a characteristic of land. BD2412T17:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
The land cover mapping article seesm comprehensive and well-sourced and was likely contributed by a domain expert (user User:Yisaginath wrote 90% of it).
WRT the Land cover article: I'm looking at the Wikipedia:Merging guidelines again for the criteria that allow page moves: criteria 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 don't apply IMO, but I'd like other responders here to argue based on these criteria. and whether anyone has time to do so. I supported the merge based on my impression that "short text" would cover the Land cover article, but short text apparently means just a few sentences; so wouldn't apply to the Land cover article. I think "semi-duplicate" is the strongest criteria that could apply to Land cover.
It depends on what our vision for the Land article is. If the Land article will have sections covering the major biomes of earth, have a table of land cover percentages (like the Land cover article) and have a summary section on mapping (linking to the main mapping article), I think it might be appropriate to merge them, because then they would become duplicate. If the Land article is only going to have one section on "Land cover", as it does currently, then the articles should be separate. I don't think we should judge based on what the articles look like today; but based on what they would look like in a "completed" version of Wikipedia. Would there be 2 articles or 1?
If I were a GIS expert I'd have a clearer opinion on that, but as it is I'm withdrawing my Support for the merge, and changing it provisionally to Strong opposeComment (pending deeper arguments from others here, which I'm open to). The articles can remain separate; with a section on land cover here. To be very clear, it isn't so much that I oppose the merge, as that I don't think there are enough people participating in this discussion to be able to reach a consensus (yet); geography experts should pitch in.
Reflecting more widely, I frankly don't know what the Land article is supposed to stand for. "Land cover" is covered in the academic and scientific literature, making it notable and therefore deserving of an article (or at least a section in an article if it's a minor topic among geographers). "Land" isn't discussed in the literature as a topic of its own (since it's a dictionary term). Since it's not discussed in the literature, there really isnt't anything to go off on when it comes to what's relevant, what's not; what should be included, what shouldn't be. How far down the Earth's crust can we include things here? How do we avoid overlap with Earth's crust? Ngram is misleading since it covers all published books, not only scientific or academic books, and "land" is a common colloquial term.
After thinking about it some more, we perhaps should ask for consensus from the wider Geography WikiProject for this merge, especially geography experts, who should debate specifically how best to delineate these topics, avoid redundancies, and be a well-organized encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, doesn't have a Land article (though it does have a Land (economics) article, different from this one). "Land cover", as a concept, probably should have a Wikipedia article. Should Land exist, should Land cover exist, what about Landmass and Earth's crust? Personally, looking at "what links here" for each and at page views, they should probably all exist, but seeing what belongs in each is a tough problem that I don't feel can be solved without domain knowledge. I don't know if the Geography WikiProject should be asked, ideally, rather than requesting consensus from the whole of English Wikipedia; ideally whatever results in the most domain-experts and the least Wiki-guideline-experts-who-aren't-subject-experts.
We can keep editing "Land" whatever the outcome of this merge proposal is; but we should probably get clear on what Land article should cover (and maybe it's far clearer for you people than it is for me, in which case please go ahead and edit). DFlhb (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose because Land cover is a more specific concept, related to the mapping of land, e.g. GISdata. In that sense, it almost seems more related to land use, but the land cover article explicitly states they are different, and the article is correct -- both the land cover and land use articles should be fleshed out, along with this broad article on land. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Merge with Land. I agree with comment above: "If the Land article will have sections covering the major biomes of earth, have a table of land cover percentages (like the Land cover article) and have a summary section on mapping (linking to the main mapping article), I think it might be appropriate to merge them, because then they would become duplicate.". I'm not a geographer or geologist. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
I've had some more time to think about it.
Re: my argument that Land is a dictionary term, and hard to circumscribe:
If we keep in mind the "primary audience" for this article, it's likely elementary/middle school students learning about basic geology and biomes, layers (i.e. in the "Layers" section: how far down below the "dirt" do you usually find rock? what's the range?) and regular readers going down the Wiki rabbit hole to satisfy their curiosity. Our audience is obviously not limited to them, but we should aim for comprehensiveness and clarity.
I think my concerns were overblown. "How deep should we go?" is likely bedrock. There's obviously going to be small overlap between Land and other articles, but that's both necessary and perfectly normal for Wikipedia.
Resources of use for improving this article:
I was neutral on my own proposal (the one quoted above by User:Laurel_Lodged) and had only posted it here for comments; but I've come to support it. Merge, combined with an 'R with possibilities' would be appropriate (also, I should not have changed my vote to "Provisional strong oppose" but just struck out "Support" and replaced with "Comment"; what I did was unnecessarily confusing).
I've found the National Geographic Education site to be a nice resource: [2]. I think we should have a top-level "Biome" section, with subsections: desert, tundras, etc. The articles on each of these biomes on Wikipedia are quite good and detailed, so it shouldn't be too hard to summarize them. I'd add the Biome section above "Layers". I think there should also be a Topology section. The sections can be short for now (e.g. put a short biome sections with mainly pictures across the full page width, gallery-style, until we can fill it out; or just mostly copy the respective article leads).
The textbook "Essentials of Geology, 13th edition" by Pearson is fantastic, especially the soils, running water, groundwater, glaciers, deserts, and shorelines sections. DFlhb (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Just made another discovery: the Sea article is Featured. I think that makes it significantly easier to get inspiration for the ideal structure & depth of this article. (Also looks like Cacti authored 14% of it, nice!) DFlhb (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Land as a system; land's relation to climate
Good sources for the Climate section within Physical sciences:
Tarbuck, Edward J.; Lutgens, Frederick K. (2017). Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology. Pearson. ISBN 978-0-13-407425-2. (textbook; already cited here), especially:
chapter 1.4 The Earth System
chapter 6 Weathering and Soils (not mentioned currently)
chapter 16 Running water
chapter 17 Groundwater
chapter 19 Deserts and wind (already mentioned, could be expanded).
Re: the physical sciences section: its contents may fit together a tiny bit awkwardly since these sections were mashed together, but I think they all belong there, and the section can be expanded quite a bit using Tarbuck, Edward J.; Lutgens, Frederick K. (2017). Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology. Pearson. ISBN 978-0-13-407425-2. Biomes should maybe be taken up an indentation level instead of being sub-subsections. DFlhb (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Pollution
Reading through this, I felt the "Air" and "Pollution" sections (and probably even the Biodiversity loss section) don't fit, as they have nothing to do with "Land" and more to do with "Earth" which is a separate concept (Earth = land+water+air+life). I believe we should either write out how air and water pollution (and biodiversity loss) relates to land degradation and other forms of "land pollution" specifically, or just take out these sections completely and only focus on land-relatedenvironmental issues e.g. the specified land degradation. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
See citation 11, UN.
land is defined as “a delineable area of the Earth’s terrestrial surface, encompassing all attributes of the biosphere immediately above or below this surface, including those of the near-surface climate, the soil and terrain forms, the surface hydrology (including shallow lakes, rivers, marshes, and swamps), the near-surface sedimentary layers and associated groundwater reserve, the plant and animal populations (biodiversity), the human settlement pattern and physical results of past and present human activity (terracing, water storage or drainage structures, roads, buildings, etc.).”
Even this definition doesn’t include “Air.” The article currently has the sentence “Water pollution is the contamination of lakes…” and I feel this needs to say something like “Water pollution of land includes the contamination of non-oceanic hydrological surface and underground water features such as rivers, streams, wetlands, ponds, aquifers, and groundwater." LightProof1995 (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I think air is included, since it's "immediately above the surface".
Shouldn't lakes be included in land-water pollution? It's freshwater. The article currently reads Water pollution is the contamination of lakes, rivers, aquifers, reservoirs and groundwater as a result of human activities. According to the Essentials of Geology textbook that I've cited before, lakes are 20% of "surface water and other freshwater". It also says:
(paraphrasing to avoid COPYVIO) oceans are 97% of the Earth's water, "however, the hydrosphere also includes the freshwater found underground and in streams, lakes, and glaciers."
In the chapter about Groundwater flows, it says groundwater flows to discharge areas, and that discharge also occurs at "springs, lakes, or wetland" (page 375)
To me, these aren't strict delineations. We're talking about systems, which are closely connected. The textbook explicitly says land is part of all systems (hydrologic, atmosphere, biosphere, geosphere), the hydrosphere too. I do feel quite strongly that Biodiversity loss belongs; since for example aquatic biodiversity loss would belong in the Sea article. DFlhb (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Right BD2412, I agree with you. Currently the Pollution heading has two subsections: Air and Water. It should at least be Ground, Air, and Water. I agree pollution of aquifers and groundwater counts as land-related water pollution. I understand why it is currently like this, as "Ground pollution" and "Life pollution" are perhaps too closely related to Land degradation and Biodiversity loss, although I feel Soil contamination is the true "ground pollution" and would probably be the focus of the Pollution -- Ground section. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
I was actually thinking of things like landfill and litter. There are landfill sites the size of small towns. The Brownsville, Texas, landfill, for example, is over 250 acres of piled up garbage. BD2412T06:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed landfill and litter, should definitely be mentioned. And perhaps the current stuff should be moved into some kind of "Ecosystem degradation" section and trimmed somewhat, to make it more specific about land. DFlhb (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Another issue I have with the "Air" section -- the definition of "land" may include near-surface air and its biological inhabitants, but it doesn't include the air above the ocean, nor the higher layers in the atmosphere. Currently this reads as as a general description of the pollution of all air, e.g. the mention of ozone depletion is important to the stratosphere alone. This is a problem because it comes across as not neutral, and I say this as a huge environmental science nerd[3]. Like, if an truck-loving Republican came to read this article, they'd want to read about mud and worms, (neither of which are currently on this article), but instead they are accosted by what reads as a liberal's very not-neutral point of view about how their truck is causing air pollution. Just because "air" is technically a part of the definition of "land", doesn't mean the section isn't currently being given undue weight. The Republican is much more likely to care about environmental issues (like they should) if the article presents them neutrally and relates them to the ground (which is the first AKA name in the article), i.e. "the solid surface of the Earth". LightProof1995 (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
That's very fair. Wikipedia neutrality is important for both individual page quality, and for the encyclopedia's overall reputation, and I do agree that it shouldn't read like a political screed. I'll try to balance it out. DFlhb (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Outline question
I wonder if I made a mistake putting Biomes (and possibly Layers too, though that might be fine to leave in) in "Physical science". Seems like they could just as well be brought out than left in. I'm thinking we could dedicate "Physical science" to plate tectonics, the rock cycle, soils & weathering, erosion, volcanic activity,, topography, groundwater, and possibly shorelines. DFlhb (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Sections to Add
Just quick notes on sections that probably need to be added, or areas that need to be elaborated on.
Simply brilliant; I'll start on that. Though I do think we should fit "physical science"-related things in the physical science section, and avoid excessive hierarchy depth if we can, because on Vector 2022 it just looks quite messy to have "subheading 2's". Sea has few of them. I'll add something on elevation within terrain (feel free to add a separate section if you want). DFlhb (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
"Exploration" is basically the same thing as "travel". I think the sentence of how exploration has led to conquest and colonization should've been left in. If we made this section just "History", i.e. so it is the "History of humans and land", we can fit topics such as war in it easier. LightProof1995 (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
With this edit summary: "Merged Land Degradation section with intro -- A lot of it was identical to the intro paragraphs of the Land degradation page, so I took that out/edited/merged it in here, e.g. with mention of topsoil loss. Added to Ground pollution section" LightProof1995 (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
P.S. I'm really sorry that I've not been able to dedicate a lot of time towards improving the article (hypocrisy!). From now on, I'll try to improve the sources and images a bit, and see what goes from there. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Major Restructuring
@CactiStaccingCrane Hello, I was going to undo all of your edits and say I had to respectfully reverse all of your edits, but I see you are still editing. Please stop and discuss instead.
I feel you have missed some points in the discussion as you were out, which is fine, I will catch you up to speed.
In order to get this article to GA status, we decided the best article to mirror is the Featured Article Sea.
While I understand sometimes it is better to take stuff out to make an article more concise, I feel you may not have realized this article is going to have to be an exception to regular WP:SIZE standards, which state an article of >100 kb in size should almost certainly be divided. The Sea article is 183 kb in size but is still FA. Why? Because part of the criteria for GA/FA is scope. The Land and Sea articles have way, way more scope than most articles on Wikipedia.
Before your edits, Land was still a smaller article than Sea. Given the fact humans live on land, I wouldn't be surprised if in order for Land to be FA, it has to be even longer than Sea, but I feel we should aim for the same size as Sea.
Throughout the history of creating this page, we have had headers with even less text than the ones you combined. However, eventually they became larger. My point -- the headers need to be filled with more text, instead of combined to where editors don't feel as invited to add to them.
For example, next I was going to add more to the Agriculture and Urban Development sections, which are now gone.
Again, I understand where your edits are coming from, as I'm sure such edits are usually useful for articles with less scope. I'm just pointing out to you, you may not have realized, this article is an exception to the norm.
Furthermore, to help us achieve scope, I made a list above of terms to add, one of which you also took out -- Petrology. Not all terms have been added yet, and now even another one has been taken out. If I were trying to decide if an article met the scope requirement of GA, I'd list a bunch of terms I'd feel the article should mention, and currently, the lack of mention of mud or petrology would get a fail from me.
I'm not saying I disagree with all of your edits, but I do believe all the ones that take out text need to be reversed, and most of the headers need to be added back (I think what you did with the biomes is okay). The Landforms header certainly needs to be added back. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Sea is 70kB, you need to look at prosesize, not wikitext size. And the primary criteria is quality, not length. I brought up that article as a reference point for copyediting more than length.
I also agree with Cacti that the article contained quite a lot of cruft. I especially agree with removing almost every "Subheading 2", since they look hideous in the ToC, and make the outline confusing. DFlhb (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
LightProof1995, I do value your edit and understand your frustration, but there's a lot of tangential information that was in this article that could be deleted to make space for other content. For example, why should we give 2 paragraphs about water pollution when the article is literally talking about land? We don't want this article to become the next Italy, but rather to become Earth – comprehensive yet consise. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm with Cacti. I hadn't taken a look at the article until a couple of days ago, but my first impression was, "wow, this is varying offtopic and needs trimming". High article length / prose size should not be something to be aiming for just because it's a vital. Most vitals benefit in being much more concise in terms of topic anyways, since they almost always have summary style child articles. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I would respectfully say that this is still a work in progress, and we should leave everything that is in it now until it has much more firmly taken shape. There is no WP:DEADLINE to reach GA status. BD2412T00:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:DEADLINE in a nutshell is to chill out and don't rush things for the sake of rushing things, not procrastinating forever. There is a deadline for our work, just an invisible and uncertain one, so we need to make use of our time as best as we can. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Strongly agree with you on the Pollution section -- I actually pointed this out above, in the "Pollution" Talk Page section. I'm taking out the "Air" part now. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply... How do I check prose size? I believe this article is still smaller than Sea per their scroll-bar sizes, but checking prose size is the only way to be sure. Also, I agree with your evaluation of the Sub-Heading 2s, although it does make me sad the headings I pointed out as needing expaning next, were (the only?) Sub-heading 2s, and I'm not sure there is a way we can fix that. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Humans and land section
Information from the sub-section "History" should be moved to the respective sections. Describing land's history with human is extremely complex and disorientating. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Well that's not exactly what I meant. My idea is to put content from the history section to other sections to make it easier for ourselves – it is much easier to write an aspect of land's history rather than wrestle with whole land history. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Bibliography
I think the Bibliography section makes it inconvenient to quickly see citations when reading the article, since the link back to the relevant place in the article become two steps removed. Thoughts? DFlhb (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
The bibliography is currently the only semblance of citation organization in this article, so I would be hesitant to see it removed. If anything we should be using many less sources (i.e. more citations from the same books/articles); using different sources for every section will naturally result in OR and SYNTH. Aza24 (talk)21:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
That's because a lot of the citations are ported from other articles. To me, it's not ideal, but it's a good starting point to write better content. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I'll add that both of Aza's points are due to borrowed content from other articles, not just the excessive sources point. The few citations I fixed that looked really messed up all came from those. DFlhb (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that citations need major work; but splitting into a separate Bibliography section creates a few problems:
Users who click on a citation, then the bibliography ref, can't go back to the text without scrolling manually (which I mention above); splitting breaks the anchoring.
The above makes it harder for users to fact-check article claims, which is the whole reason citations are there.
It's easy for typos and errors to be introduced, as you can see with the misspelt Land#CITEREFNield2012 which points to nowhere; it increases maintenance burden. These errors would be impossible with the standard reference style.
It's far harder for editors to improve citations, since they need to fix or replace them in multiple places, make sure there's no errors, and must use the source editor to create or make any changes to these citations, instead of using VisualEditor's nice citation tool.
I only speak for myself, but that's sufficient friction that I avoid touching those references altogether. Given that the bulk of the remaining work is referencing (+ copyediting) this will just slow us down. It also plain doesn't make sense, since I have no clue what the criteria are for "bibliography" vs "references". DFlhb (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Works very poorly for me, and doesn't address most of my concerns (nor is it in any way noob-friendly for other editors). HarvErrors finds three sources that are unlinked; we should stick to a standard References section, with only WP:GENREF listed in "Sources", a far more standard format.
I don't understand any of this, it seems like mostly personal preference. The bibliography formatting is normal and practical method of citation formatting widespread across WP and academia. Calling other formats a "a standard References section" is misleading. There are huge benefits in being able to present an organized biblgraphy in one section, rather than random references scattered throughout the article. Aza24 (talk)20:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Option 2 Web cites as inline citations; book cites using bibliography and {{sfn}}.
This option is beneficial for when you need to attribute citations to page numbers
Option 3 Every source using author-date citations, with multiple in each inline. (see A Crow Looked At Me for how this works)
Beneficial since multiple sources can easily be attributed to a single statement without causing clutter.
All sources are neatly organized alphabetically.
The current article is a strange hybrid of all three (but closest to #2, which is why I've tried to move it closer to that). Sources are arbitrarily in the "bibliography", and some book sources not in the bibliography section. In my opinion, it doesn't really matter which one we pick, as long as it's consistent. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
For context, the article followed option 1 since its creation, and was switched to Option 2 10 days ago without consensus [4], prompting my post here.
I find it very important to cite page numbers, but prefer the {{rp}} tag, with the benefit that it doesn't require us to switch the article's citation style, and can be reserved for more contentious claims if inline concision or minimalism are concerns. Given how tedious working with option 2 is (especially for newbies who don't have userscripts, or the majority of editors using mobile who'll need to constantly scroll around), you can guess I heavily prefer option 1, as well as it being the one we should stick with pending any consensus, per WP:CITEVAR. DFlhb (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm only just starting to look at this article now, but I agree that option 1 is probably the best for this article. With as many references as this article has, it would be an even bigger pain than usual to expect people to jump around between sections. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Last 2 steps
The content is now mostly comprehensive (though editors are still encouraged to add relevant things). We should turn our attention to the last 2 steps: citations first, then once that's complete, copyediting. Then a few general reviews, and we can nominate. DFlhb (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I think we should do spotchecks. If a bunch of editors each do 10-20 spotchecks, we can reasonably double check most of the article's content. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 14:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Everyone should read the userpage of Levivich. This article is a conglomeration of too many sources as we have been too busy trying to "find citations" rather than using the ones we have. This UN report for instance is a hugely beneficial source, and we should have cited every page of it by now, but instead we have a hundred year old Sanskrit dictionary (Macdonell 1927), Darwin (for an entire paragraph??), and sometimes multiple different soures used for entire sections (Desertification; why not use Geist more?). We should also using publications of Tarbuck and Allaby way more. Aza24 (talk)20:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. The problem is that "land" isn't a topic that is covered on its own, or comprehensively. Tarbuck is indeed a fantastic resource, but it's about Earth's geology. The UN report is great, and we should cover more of its contents, but we should mostly cite what they cite (standard practice), rather than citing the report itself, so that wouldn't solve your concerns.
It's perfectly normal and inevitable for a summary article of a far-ranging topic to have hundreds of citations, so it can cover the topic sufficiently. Besides, citing just a few articles introduces strong bias concerns (including WP:SYSTEMIC) and generally results in poor coverage of a topic. DFlhb (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC) To better address the core of the argument: I agree that we should reorient the content towards a few "core" sources, though I think that would still lead to a few hundred citations overall, so that would be a poor metric by which to judge how well we're doing. DFlhb (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I have already spotted a ton of source-text integrity issues just by quickly glancing the text (not to mention bad sources as well). We should start to find sources for ourselves instead of copying them from other articles. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
B-class
This article is an easy B-class IMO. Tagging User:LightProof1995 and User:Cdjp1 since they've changed this previously. The assessment criteria are all met; this isn't GA-class yet, but it's well-referenced with 200 citations, has a good structure, and is mostly comprehensive. ORES rates it as B-class with "94% probability", and I concur. DFlhb (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm really sorry about this, but this article is absolutely not a B-Class. Based on Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria, I think that the content is still missing major details about use of land in agriculture, plant and human settlement. The article's citations are spotty and the article's prose is butchered. We need to work a lot harder to make it a B-Class. The article as it currently stands does not achieve it yet. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Proposed lead changes
Sorry User:LightProof1995 but I just don't understand the changes you made in this diff. I've reverted them for now since I feel they make the lead less clear, but feel free to discuss them here.
The lead definition was from Allady (2013), which I just added back. I think we took it verbatim ("permanently submerged"), but I can't check right now. Tides are not relevant here since the coast is measured using its baseline (mentioned in 3rd paragraph of lead). This is a great book chapter on baselines, easy to read.
I was unclear in earlier discussions but "real" lakes don't count as land, only shallow lakes, so changing "water" to "ocean" doesn't quite work. I also think the UN definition of land is too complex to go in lead, and it's already covered in the Definition section. However, I agree both that definition, and the simpler "permanently submerged" one should be better explained in the Definition section. DFlhb (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks DFlhb. My reasoning for replacing "water" with "ocean" is we can't have the phrase "permanently submerged in water" as that definition also applies to wetlands, which are land. Baselines may dictate where the coastline is when governments define land, but not earth scientists. It's definitely going to be tricky to get the lead exactly right; my edits were just a start. LightProof1995 (talk) 02:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Re: the tides, I managed to get a hold of Allaby again, he defines land as The solid, dry surface of the Earth, or any part of it. (in the Oxford Dictionary of Environment and Conservation). The Oxford Dictionary of English defines it as the part of the earth's surface that is not covered by water. Removing "permanently" might better fit sources, though it would actually allow for less of the ambiguity of wetlands, shallow lakes, etc. to be included, which I feel would be a detriment since those definitely fit in this article. "Covered by ocean" doesn't feel grammatically correct to me, and would incorrectly include deep lakes as land (e.g. Lake Superior, Lake Victoria, etc.).
Re: wetlands, they seem to be usually defined as shallow water (see Ramsar convention), like shallow lakes" are. Both are interesting enough to talk about in "Definition", but too minor an exception to change the lead definition. Mitch et al.'s 2007 Wetlands also seems to define wetlands as an interface between land and aquatic ecosystems, not as purely "land". Tarbuck & Ludgens Earth: an introduction to physical geology (Pearson) has great sections on wetlands, including their recent rapid disappearance, so there should be a subsection on them here too.
I think it would be best if we separate out the "basic" definition from the "extended" definition of land, so only the "basic" definition is in the lead. The "basic" definition being, something like, "land is the solid surface of the Earth separated from the ocean or another body of water by a littoral zone"; and the extended definition being the UN/government definition and my mud sentence. The extended definition conflicts with the basic definition considerably which is why we are having such issues. My lead sentence was focused on the "solid" aspect of the basic land definition, more than the "dry/not covered by water" part, as the extended definition includes air as well. LightProof1995 (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any conflict between the two definitions, one is just wider. The plain one is colloquial (what this article focuses on most) and the wider one is a scholarly definition (which this article also talks about). I view this article a bit like Sea, which is mostly about the human experience and only partly about physical science. And I think we already separate the basic and extended definitions pretty well. I'm just not sure what your specific issue with the lead is. Earth scientists don't talk about land that much, they talk about ecosystems (which we lack a section on), but this article doesn't just focus on them, and I think the lead is fine since it's supposed to be general. It doesn't need to hint at all the nuances, that's what the Definition section is. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The conflict is this...
Rivers, shallow lakes, near-surface air, etc. are not solid features of the Earth.
Also, I should mention that not only do I have a background/degree in environmental science, but I also have experience as a wetland scientist. I had to take out the wetland source (not sure who put it there, or when), because from what I could tell, it described wetlands but didn't say anywhere they specifically are "land". Currently the statement that "wetlands" are land is unsourced, and I wrote it, and doesn't even sound accurate--I think your assessment of wetlands was better, i.e. that they are an an interface between land and aquatic ecosystems. So I might go put something like that in. LightProof1995 (talk) 06:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
The reason I don't feel there's a conflict, is that land is the solid surface of Earth, and that [air/fauna/flora] are not land by any colloquial definition (which the dictionaries you cite reflect), but that all ecosystems analyses related to land (which most scholarly analyses of land are concerned with, including the UN) have to include those things (fauna, flora, air, etc).
Since it's plainly redundant; and this would sidestep your wetlands concern by keeping "body of water" as a replacement for the original "water". DFlhb (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I was saying the conflict exists between the colloquial definition and the extended definition, not within the colloquial definition itself. I respectfully oppose the lead change taking out ocean -- while technically your shorter sentence is true, I feel the ocean deserves a mention here over all other types of bodies of water. LightProof1995 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Another thing with the lead -- I feel we should include all three AKA namesground, earth, and dry land in the article. But to have all three in the lead is too much, right? Which two (or one?) are best fit in the opening, and which are best strewn throughout the article? Right now I put the AKA name earth under the Geology section, but I'm thinking Earth would belong in that sentence better still. I'm leaning towards having ground and earth in the lead, and using my mud sentence again for dry land, but I am not sure that is best -- mud could be mentioned in another way. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Non-Western perspectives for humans and land section
I started editing the humans and land section a few hours ago, and one thing I noticed is that it seems to have a huge bias towards a Western perspective. In particular, the Culture section focuses a lot on tracing flat earth/round earth through Western history, the Law section is almost entirely written from a European perspective, and giving a whole paragraph to explaining Lebensraum seems like giving undue weight to a single state (also European) that only pursued this policy for a couple of decades. Surely there's a better way to talk about territorial disputes leading to war than to focus on Nazis.
As a Westerner myself I'm not an expert on non-Western perspectives, but I'm going to try to help refocus this section a bit and would appreciate any help/advice. I'm gonna see the best way to incorporate the idea of Indigenous land rights into the section more explicitly since that's a global issue these days (and since Indigenous peoples hardly get a mention in the article at the moment). OliveYouBean (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I have time and time witnessed huge skewing in global perspectives on WP, but in this case, it is not a particularly pressing issue. Yes the Lebensraum section is a bit strange, but WW2 was a global event, and the paragraph before only concerns non-Western cultures. I would agree the Law section could be diversified, but the flat-earth section you mentioned comes right after two paragraphs that concern cultures world-wide.
I would say that we should be avoiding specific examples as much as possible, otherwise it is going to end up being a mess of WP:Synth from cherry-picked sources. If anything we should have less Western-specific and more general examples instead of more non-Western, but again, I would not characterize this as "hav[ing] a huge bias towards a Western perspective". Aza24 (talk)08:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you're absolutely right that avoiding synthesis is something to keep in mind. That's why I'm actually a little bit concerned about that paragraph you mention which concerns non-Western cultures, because it's just a list of different deities without any reference that shows it's a common theme. I've been looking for something to reference for that (as well as something to reference for the creation myths part) but haven't been able to find anything yet. OliveYouBean (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I selected Lebensraum as an example because it is one of the relatively few instances in which the conquering force has sought to expand on the express basis that "we need more land", as opposed to some more subtle geopolitical or economic narrative. A comparative concept to add might be the American idea of Manifest Destiny. BD2412T19:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a link to Crater in the article, which is a disambiguation page. However, I think that there is a clear primary topic of the term, and have created Draft:Crater as a primary topic page to usurp the current disambiguation page. If anyone would like to pitch it there, it should be fairly quick work to put something together that is of sufficient quality to move to mainspace and displace the current disambiguation page. BD2412T19:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I unfortunately don't currently have access to the Ludgens textbook, and won't until tomorrow, but it should cover it; if it does, it would be a great resource. DFlhb (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikidata
If anyone has edit access to the Wikidata for this page, please change the link to the French version of this article to point to fr:Terre émergée. The current link is incorrect.
I propose we merge Landmass into this article, and turn it into a redirect to our Landmass section. I checked the links to Landmass in other languages; most of them refer to land, rather than "landmasses" specifically; so this would also solve the problem I note above, that the article isn't linked to other languages properly. DFlhb (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you suggesting changing the title of this article to Landmass? I would rather not, as "landmass" can be read as excluding islands, which are definitely "land". BD2412T22:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
No, on the contrary, just merging Landmass into Land. Most alternate language Wikipedias listed for "Landmass" are actually about land (including the French one), so those alternate language articles should be linked to this article rather than Landmass. DFlhb (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
That still hardly makes a landmass fit into the correct definition of a landform (see National Geographic Society: "A landform is a feature on Earth's surface that is part of the terrain. Mountains, hills, plateaus, and plains are the four major types of landforms". What kind of a mountain, hill, plateau, or plain is a "landmass"? BD2412T01:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument. Landmasses are a subset of land, since they are by definition solid, and non-submerged. We have a section on Landmasses, that's better than the standalone article, so merging would be beneficial; and it would help us fix the incorrect language links where "Land" articles (in other languages) are treated as equivalent to "Landmass" on en.WP. What do landforms have to do with this? DFlhb (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
See also vs Also vs also
I'm being entirely nitpicky here, but I realize I was letting the fact I added some of the "Also" articles, cloud my judgment of whether saying "Also" truly belongs, or if it should be "See also" to match what others are doing. Is "See also" the norm? I've also seen "also", and I might even have seen that the most on other articles. Here are my thoughts on this...
1. We should go for uniformity on this if we can, but it doesn't affect how the actual article looks, and it does not matter compared to other work that needs to be done. This is absolutely not worth edit warring over and discussion on it should be limited -- consider this a note with replies-optional if anything.
2. If there is an official source anywhere that specifies which is best or most-used, or if any editors with like 1 million edits have insights, they are appreciated.
3. My original thinking with using "Also" was that I felt it was cool to see "also" or "Also" code to "See also", and I prefer the capitalization.
4. Later as I thought about it more, I decided "Also" may actually be better than "See also" from a coding perspective -- less characters are needed to achieve the same result. LightProof1995 (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I feel we are all essentially edit-warring over the section merges, splits, and headers -- unsurprising given this article's scope and the interest in getting this to GA.
A concern with this is that, I know at least for FA status, the article is supposed to be so good, it hardly is ever changed -- including its structure and headers. If a single editor here decides a header isn't great, they might go ahead and change it, but that could be minority rule if all the other editors felt it looked best. For example, I just changed "Ecosystems" back to "Ecology" because I added Terrestrial ecosystems as its main article, and because ecology and ecosystems are referring to the same thing, to take out the redundancy of saying "ecosystem" too many times, but everyone else here could disagree, but also felt they can't couldn't change it back. We can discuss header changes here, to try to reach consensus.
I know I said earlier the Landforms header definitely needed to be added back, but when I went and only reversed some of Cacti's changes after their first major restructuring, I actually left the Landforms header out -- Landforms are technically a part of terrain. I am still conflicted on it, but I do know this: Coasts and islands are definitely landforms, and if there is a Landforms header, the Coasts and islands section needs to be under it. So I will go try to fix that, but others may disagree with whatever I decide.
I understand the need to have a clear and concise article. However, we can't take out too many headers, to where the prose doesn't even make sense.
Here are some headers we may need to discuss to reach consensus:
Formation vs Chronology -- My vote is for Formation (I also changed it back already before I made this discussion topic, sorry haha)
Surface divisions vs Delineation -- I am neutral on this, but leaning towards Delineation, per what others say.
Terrain -- Should it have subheaders? I put "Elevation, altitude, and relief" and "Uplands and lowlands" as headers, at one point.
Should Landforms be a header under Terrain, its own header, or not a header at all?
Geomorphology vs Interactions -- My vote is for Interactions to reduce "Geomorphology" word redundancy, similar to me switching Ecosystems to Ecology with Main: Terrestrial ecosystems.
Geology header -- I had this with "Formation" and "Interactions/Geomorphology" -- maybe this was split again because Geology could also be seen as encompassing Terrains and Landforms?
History header -- I had the Exploration section and Conflicts section under this, and this was also split again. @DFlhbI admire your work on the Exploration section -- could we work to differentiate it from the Exploration article? I feel it matches that article better, so your work is best left there, and here I feel it needs more focus on "land" exploration specifically, but I'd appreciate your insights.
Territorial Disputes vs Conflicts -- My vote is for Conflicts.
A major problem with this article is the section layout. At present, it looks to be organized horizontally (with a profusion of level-2 headings), rather than vertically (with less level-2 headings, maybe around five or six), which inhibits both article expansion and co-ordination. If the aim is to reach A-class or equivalent standard, I would recommend the following changes:
Addressing all discussion of physical features and processes in one level-2 section. At the moment, it is divided between surface divisions, terrain, landforms, layers, geomorphology, and climate.
The humans on land section is deeply flawed. Most of it has no explicit reference to the article subject, and is just an off-topic ramble through human activities, which are apparently defined as relevant to the article because they occur on land.
Lastly, and most obviously, the article is still greatly lacking in content. If I were conducting a GA review right now, I would have serious doubts about whether article 3a) of the good article criteria could be fixed within a reasonable time-frame, and might even consider quick-failing the article on those grounds.
That last point is by far the most important. Right now, the article is so much shorter than it should reasonably be expected to be (look at Sea for comparison) that I cannot say my section advice above is completely correct. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply... I have brought up Sea before as the size we needed to aim for, but was shot down. My "irresponsible" edit, I thought was good, as anyone can quickly click on the scientific disciplines now to see what they are from a single list, instead of constantly seeing them be defined throughout the article. If you think it is better to define scientific disciplines throughout the article, you can say so without insinuating that I'm carelessly destroying the article instead of trying to improve it.
Do you know how to check the prose size of an article, so we can compare this with Sea? I appreciate your analysis of the headers -- so for example, you'd think a single Geology header with subheaders in Formation, Terrain, Landforms, Geomorphology would be good, with the text explaining what Geology is added back in at the top of it (which I added in the first place, by the way)? LightProof1995 (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
For the prose size, you can enable the prosesize gadget at this link. If someone somehow rejected the idea of aiming for the quality and size of Sea, which is not only a featured article but the closest related to this, I would like to hear their logic. By MOS:LEAD, significant facts should not appear in the lead if not covered in the rest of the article body, and as such the lead should be the last section to be written. As to your last question, I would actually just ape Sea#Physical science, as that term encompasses any feature or process, geological or not. I am sorry if you thought I was trying to insinuate something — there is no point to doing such on Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
I feel that with the somewhat haphazard deletions (as opposed to summarising or contextualizing), sections being moved around up to half a dozen times, deleted, reinstated, merged and split, mostly with no discussion on the talk page or rationale in edit summaries, we've reached a state of design by committee where no one is happy with the layout, and where it in large part no longer makes any sense. I question whether the article is any better today than it was a week ago, save for a few content edits. It's even hard to keep track of, and review, these drastic changes, since such large diffs are obviously hard to go through.
I fully agree with Sea being the standard we should aspire to, and with combining all discussion of the physical science aspects into one section; this article was much closer just a week ago, and was fully there 12 days ago. There again, we've hustled backwards.
There's certain issues with the Humans on land section, due to major parts of it being copied from other articles; but I think all the subheadings belong in there, though the specific content should be refocused to be more specifically about land-related trade, land-related travel, land-related exploration, etc. Though I'd caution against excessive deletions to avoid repeating the same issues that brought us here.
Let's focus on getting back to an outline that makes sense (the one from 12 days ago), and adding content that's specific to land, rather than removing stuff, for now; what we have now can be either contextualized or summarized to be more relevant. The UN Global Outlook on Land, version 1, would be a great source to add material. We should also remove the {{Sfn}}s and go back to the "normal" referencing style since there was no consensus for any change.
Indeed. If you have any desire to meet your deadline, I would recommend focusing entirely on adding information from high-quality, reliable sources—as much as possible, and as quickly as possible.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your response :) I respectfully disagree that we had/have not made good progress with the headers.
I edited the headers the way I did after I received the feedback from @AirshipJungleman29 here about there being too many "horizontal" and not enough "vertical" edits -- or at least, that's how I interpreted their analysis. I understood this to mean a general rule here: "No single-topic sections, if they can fit under another one." I appreciated their insight because I felt implementing this rule truly improved the layout of the article.
Combining this idea with your suggestion of "No Subheading-2s" which you mentioned in a couple of different sections above, which is another brilliant analysis of header structure that I agree with, I created this header categorization:
Defining land (You changed this to Definition, which I agree with)
Etymology (Note @PerfectSoundWhatever took this back out with the synopsis of Etymology is different from Definition. I respectfully disagree -- I can't find any articles (GA, FA, or otherwise) that have both Etymology and Definition sections, but the definition of definition is "meaning", which etymology also entails. However, we could still keep Etymology and Definition separate by putting the Definition part back at the top, so this doesn't matter too much, either way.)
Delineation
Geology
Formation
Terrain
Geomorphology
Features (aka Landforms)
Coasts and islands (I strongly oppose not having Coasts under Landforms, and I also strongly oppose only having three out of the four coherent "Landforms and landforms" titles -- I feel it should have all four, or none. Preferably we'd keep per its prose, but that'd mean Features/Landforms needs to be its own section.)
Mountains and plateaus
Plains and valleys
Caves and craters
Layers
Climate (Climate is not physical science aka geology, I feel it belongs under Layers and we potentially need a "Mantle" or "Asthenosphere" section)
Land use
Soil
Continental crust
Ecology (aka Ecosystems) -- I respectfully disagree "Life on land" works here as the title over Ecosystems or Ecology. This section is about both the biosphere, and how organisms interact with their environment, barring humans, which are covered later).
Biomes
Fauna and flora
Humans and land
Exploration (I agree with you this can be separate from History, but we should still put more emphasis on "land" exploring here, which I might do)
Culture
Law
Trade
Travel
Land use
Territorial disputes aka Conflicts, now Borders.
Environmental issues (Same as current)
Pollution
Biodiversity loss
Desertification
Resource depletion
I'm going to go edit back some of the headers to match the two "rules" we've established -- 1. "No Subheader-2s", a rule that does seem to be common across Wikipedia including the Sea article, and the "No lone sections if they could fit beneath another," which applies to Etymology/Definition, and is how I determined Climate should go under Layers. Feel free to also discuss here header change proposals and then make edits too :) Thanks LightProof1995 (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Etymology is the study of the origin of words. Definitions are the meanings. They are completely separate and do not belong in the same section. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you are right and they are indeed separate from each other, but perhaps they would both fit under a header, like "Meaning", although I don't think that is a common header. It looks like we'll probably just have a Definition section with no Etymology section anyway. LightProof1995 (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Re: exploration:
I wrote the exploration section for this article, and then copied it over to the lead of Exploration since that article had a very poor lead. I feel it's quite relevant here. "Exploration" refers specifically to humans moving out of Africa to other lands, as well as rediscovering other cultures through land travel and trade (the Age of Discovery and such, though that was mostly focused around the Seas, but I contextualized it here so it wasn't off-topic).
It's a purely historical concept, unlike territorial conflicts, trade, and travel (which are still relevant today, and are far more general topics). DFlhb (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The elimination of the etymology section, whose first part belongs on Wiktionary and the second part just defines land in two languages.
The elimination of the formation section, which was far too focused on the earth as a whole. The most useful parts have been kept and dispersed elsewhere.
The merging of "Layers" and "Features" with the physical science section.
The deletion of individual section headings for different landforms, and the splitting of the coast section, as parts of it belonged better in the ecological and human-related section.
The splitting of the flora and fauna sections into terrestrial plants and terrestrial animals. Both of these sections naturally have to be greatly expanded.
And other changes I have no doubt forgotten about.
I hope you will find this helpful. Of course, it is only a recommendation, but fewer section headers generally make it easier to add content (the main stumbling block at the moment) as there is less overlap, and consequentially less debate as to where a paragraph should go. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 and @DFlhb Thank you both (and others) so much for this, sorry for the late reply, there was too much to go over between the two and I haven't had time. I do agree this is an acceptable layout on the basis of it uses the two "rules" as well. I like the Plate tectonics section and don't mind the splitting on the Formation section. I think having Definition instead of Etymology is probably better as well per your reasoning. I don't think "Climate" can fit under "Physical science" as climate is atmospheric science (gaseous "land"), not physical science (solid "land"). Similar idea with Land cover, it's not exactly physical science as it includes water and urban areas. If Features is moved under Physical science then its subheaders would have to be erased, which I don't particularly like per the prose I wrote it in, but I wouldn't go against the consensus if it is decided that is better. Obviously "Soil" and "Continental Crust" and "Landforms" do fit under "Physical science"; but they could also be placed under "Layers" and "Features", it just depends on whatever consensus we reach :) I agree we can split Flora and fauna when more is written, although it should be noted neither of these terms include fungi, protists, or bacteria. I like what's been done with the Plants section on both articles :) LightProof1995 (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Uncited sections
I'm concerned about the amount of text lacking inline citations. On October 15, 2022, @LightProof1995: added the entire sub-section "Overuse of natural resources", now "Resource depletion" containing only a single inline citation. This lacks verifiability and is certainly not up to GA standard. LightProof1995, where did you get the information from? As Aza24 brought up above, we shouldn't be writing prose then finding sources to back it up, but rather, writing prose as a result of sources. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
LightProof1995 also added the entirely unsourced "Fauna and flora" section. Either these need to be immediately cited, or completely removed and rewritten. We cannot have uncited content in a GAN. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
These sections were quickly written for citations to be added later :) Most of the time, when I did this, others were coming in to cite so quickly, with their sources formatted correctly, it felt better to leave it open for others to cite. However, these passages may not as be as easy to cite, and could come from my environmental science background, so I'll add citations to them sometime today. LightProof1995 (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Of course, thank you for bringing it to my attention :) I still have a lot of work to do with adding citations for information I've added, unfortunately... LightProof1995 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm also kind of confused by this. The first paragraph seems like it would fit better in the "Travel" section, talking about human migration over land, and the second paragraph (other than the mention of maps, which I added myself the other day) doesn't seem relevant to land at all. OliveYouBean (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Edit: I was understanding “Physical” to mean tangible, like the solid ground, but apparently the phrase “Physical science” refers to anything inanimate as opposed to “Life science”. So I guess it could go in either header. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Divisions in "Features" section
What is the basis for dividing the Features section to "Coasts and islands", "Mountains and plateaus", "Plains and valleys", and "Caves and craters"? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
I've upgraded this article to B-Class for the Vital articles WikiProject. There are still a few citation needed tags but I think all necessary topics are covered in a well-written way. LarstonMarston (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I updated the ratings for other projects. Standout issues were sourcing and coverage, but I think we've addressed both very well. Don't think we should interpret B-class criteria as being stricter than they are, or they become indistinguishable from GA criteria. DFlhb (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
GA nomination
I believe that after citations are found for the missing statements, this might pass GA-criteria. Those are often interpreted very strictly, but under WP:GACN, I think we more than meet all criteria (save for the few citation needed tags). DFlhb (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
BTW; I should note: despite being opposed to {{sfn}}-style months ago (the change was made without discussion) I've now grown fond of it, so zero opposition whatsoever if anyone still thinks it would be an improvement. DFlhb (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Article seems fine at a glance. However, I will need to take a closer look before deciding whether to pass or fail. 141Pr {contribs}16:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Land terrain varies greatly, consisting of mountains, deserts, plains, plateaus, glaciers, and other landforms. - add the at the start of sentence.
Land is commonly defined as the solid, dry surface of Earth. - add the at the start of sentence.
the shoreline is defined as the area where dry land meets any body of water. - seems to contradict with the definition in the coast article.
Etymology
Is the second paragraph related to the etymology of land?
Physical science
This section is quite long and probably goes into to much detail on the formation, and maybe geomorphology of the land.
Formation is mostly talking more about the Earth than the land.
Terrain refers to an area of land and its features, or landforms. - I don't know, but I feel as though the at the start of the sentence reads better.
Terrain seems to be filled with definitions.
More definitions in geomorphology.
Features
The area where land meets the ocean or another large body of water like a lake is called a coast or, alternatively, a "coastline". - same thing as with the lead.
The line of mountains in a mountain range are usually formed from the same orogeny events, and their study is important to historical geology. - add ref.
Life science
Check whether ref 122 references everything before it. Otherwise, add some refs in that desert bullet point.
ref 127 - page needed.
Environmental issues
More refs needed near the start of subsection biodiversity loss.
@Cdjp1: All the issues raised are above, I will give you a while to work on these. As stated above, I will pass this if issues are fixed. 141Pr {contribs}20:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is NOT a good article. I feel that there's a sense of vagueness and the lack of actual detail here. For example, Land#Features have a very unscientific way of grouping terrestrial features together. There's too much focus on the human stuff and not enough focus on the animal/plant stuff. Also, there's no talk about extraterrestrial surfaces, which for solid planets such as Mars they can also be called as "land". CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Helped with a few, but I have to agree that the article isn't GA material yet; hadn't realized how much work still remained DFlhb (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
Proposed horizontal gallery before the See also section
(There don't need to be two NYC images, I just placed a couple of choices.)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Option 1. This is a very high-quality image, and is recognized as a featured picture on Commons. It stuck out to me the first time I visited this article, which is why I was disappointed to discover that it had been recently changed. I think it's a great fit for this article because it focuses on land as its main subject with a large mass in the center, while also contrasting it with its primary alternative (water) around the edges. It showcases different types of land coverings (grass, dirt, sand, rock, and even a few trees). The dramatic rises give it a dynamism that makes it infinitely more interesting than flat option 2.I reject the implicit argument from option 2 that we ought to deliberately use a boring image, and I also think that option 2 features water as more of a main subject, which is not what we want. I also reject the idea that, because it is impossible to represent all of the earth with just one image, we should have none. There is clear benefit to having an image in the lead: It results in an image in page previews (i.e. what shows up when you hove over the wikilink to Land), invites the reader into the article by being an appealing visual element, and helps us fulfill our encyclopedic obligation to provide information on the subject at its article (which includes visual information). There are plenty of broad-scope articles that include a lead image — we can trust that readers are smart enough that, just as they don't assume the humans used at Human represent what all humans look like, they won't assume that the piece of land here represents all land. It's just a good example. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1, which shows several different kinds of land contrasted against a body of water. I believe this was discussed and agreed upon before, which would require a new consensus to effect a change from the longstanding status quo. BD2412T23:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Note: Since the possibility of having a gallery has been introduced, I would like to qualify that my first preference would be option one, but if the choice were to come down to either having no image or having a gallery, I would prefer the gallery that I have proposed in the section below with the current lede image as the top image in the gallery. BD2412T04:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
NoteA: There is no current lede image now. I think we should move beyond that whole concept for the quality of the discussion. Castncoot (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Either Option 4 (no image) or a {{multiple image}}gallery. The sole images are poor because they give a tiny representation of an extremely broad subject. The only connecting attribute of "land" is the fact it isn't submerged in water. An editor below brought up Horse or Mountain but these don't compare; horses and mountains are distinct, distinguishable things with many common attributes, while land varies much more greatly. Removing the image allows for no bias to be created, simillar to how ethnicity articles have no images of people. I said a few other things in my edit summary. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Castncoot's proposal: I agree with PerfectSoundWhatever that there's a potential for western-centric bias here, but NOETHNICGALLERIES doesn't seem like a good analogy to non-persons. A gallery that captures the diversity of land on Earth seems appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I wrote WP:COLLAGETIPS and have made collages for many city articles, so I have a lot of familiarity with them and their strengths/weaknesses. They're good for situations where one image could never possibly be representative, but that's not the case here unless we confuse representative for comprehensive. In situations where a single image can suffice, it's better to just use it, since it's cleaner, doesn't require us to make individual images within a collage smaller, works better on mobile (where half our readers are), and leaves us more options for images to use later in the article. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it needn't be comprehensive, but for a lot of people on this planet, their experience of "land" is not grass leading into the sea. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1 by far, based on picture quality; oppose other options. Images help engage readers and introduce the topic; they're great for readers who, like me, have a more visual learning style (the majority of the population, according to studies). I don't think image 2 looks good. The concerns related to ethnicities don't seem to apply here, and I don't think a gallery is necessary on this topic, despite really liking them on articles about cities. DFlhb (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1 As a geologist and a photographer, the content of option 1 is perfect, option 2 lacks a central subject and the subject really does sort of appear to be water. Warrenmck (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The photography of Option 1 is excellent and isn't the issue here, it's the bias of its content as a very specific and fairly "niche" type of landform that the vast majority of humankind across the planet would not identify with in their experience. It does belong as one image within a gallery, but a gallery shouldn't favor any one natural image. Hence I had proposed the schematic diagram of the continents to be a unifying capstone, but it sounds like others feel that the continents diagram should probably stay where it currently is at in the article. Castncoot (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 3. would be my preferred choice. It's balanced, comprehensive, instructive, interesting, and it's got something for everyone; while Option 4. No image would be my second choice, as PerfectSoundWhatever has made the most legitimate argument of all and has persuaded me (even against my own previous choices) that no single headline image standing solo can possibly capture the essence of all of Earth's diverse landscapes, including the Sahara Desert and Antarctica. And at this point, it will take a new consensus to add any image. Conversely, as is painfully apparent, Option 1 appears to be the most polarizing and LEAST consensusible option of all as a stand-alone image: PerfectSoundWhatever, voorts, and myself are all very much against using Option 1 as a standalone image, although it sounds like all three of us would welcome it or (at least not mind it) being part of a collage/montage. Castncoot (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 3, why are we choosing a picture of not land with land. Pick something else, like [Dry land 77.jpg this].--Ortizesp (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
This demonstrates exactly what PerfectSoundWhatever and I have been trying to point out all along: that every human being envisions land differently! There simply is no single "correct" solo image as the answer. Come on folks, let's try to rally around a consensus here. In my humble opinion, the basic choice now is between no lede image at all (which I'm OK with), OR a gallery which is built on logic and consistency, as I've demonstrated below in the 6-picture collage with Central Park at the top left corner and the Himalayas at the lower right corner. Castncoot (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
"why are we choosing a picture of not land" - because there is no meaning without difference. The best way to know what something is, is to contrast it with what it is not. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1 by a mile. It's obviously a higher-quality picture, and more importantly, it puts more emphasis on the land. A coastline like this with prominent land also preferable because it places some emphasis on what the land is. Option 2 is so low-quality that it's baffling that anyone added it, and places far less focus on the land itself. I don't think there's any reason to omit images entirely. This isn't a controversial topic, or one where favoring one particular bit of land over all the others would cause any real problems; the longstanding image has nothing particularly identifying it as being from any one region. This also means a gallery wouldn't be worthwhile (all the usual reasons we avoid galleries for people do apply here; it would be ugly and cluttered to boot.) And beyond all that, option 1 is good enough that it doesn't really make any sense to look further; certainly there is no convincing argument for how the article could possibly be better with nothing - editors who feel that there is some danger to having this image need to be more specific, because I'm simply not seeing it. Truthfully I'm a bit baffled that the 28 May 2023 change wasn't instantly reverted given what a stark drop in quality it was and the total lack of any valid rationale for changing the image. (Actually, looking at the history, it appears that it was instantly reverted but was edit-warred back in? Note to closer: The article was stable a lengthy period of prior to this edit and was starkly unstable after that, with one editor aggressively edit-warring to remove the previously-stable image: [8][9][10][11][12]. Option 1 ought to therefore be considered the last stable version in a WP:NOCON situation, though that seems unlikely right now.) --Aquillion (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe you're being melodramatic here. Multiple editors between 28 May and 7 July edited this article, some of them robustly so, but not one of them (or any other editor with free will from around the world) reverted Option 2. I don't see how you can call that "starkly unstable" or say that people didn't quietly support Option 2. It sounds though like the 7 people thus far who like Option 1 as a solo picture are OK with shoving it down the throats of four of us who don't appreciate its solo feature despite nice photography, That is not consensus in my book. Castncoot (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't four people (who don't agree among themselves on an outcome) "shoving it down the throats" of seven people be somewhat worse? BD2412T02:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
No such valid comparison, as neither is acceptable. The idea of consensus is to find some middle ground that people feel they can live with rather than polarizing people to the extent where one significant group gets excluded from the decision-making process and does feel like a particular image is being shoved down their throats. Let's keep moving toward consensus and keep the tenor positive please. We've already made good progress at the bottom of this page. Castncoot (talk) 07:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1 is fine. Per Sdkb above, there's no need for the lead image to comprehensively depict "land". A representative will do. This image nicely contrasts some land from some non-land with no other distracting features. Ajpolino (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
A single gallery as the opening picture makes for a "scrolling nightmare"? A nonsensical exaggeration and false statement, respectfully speaking. Castncoot (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1: it's clear, it shows land and water, the land is varied, it is a quality picture, the subject is obvious. The other one is somewhat dark and less immediately recognisable. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk]14:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1. It's a good, clear picture, and shows the distinction between land and water, which is a primary point in the definition of "land". The fact that land is "dry" and not covered by water is emphasized in the first sentence of the lead and the picture should demonstrate this. Option 2 is very poor and it isn't at all clear what the subject is (is it the land, the water, the unidentifiable linear feature extending into the water, the area in the water surround by posts, or what? CodeTalker (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1. - FIrst image shows exactly what's on the tin - We don't need to be so nitpicky over an image - Land is land. Also agree with CodeTalker it also shows land, sea and sky. Can't get much better than this image to be honest. –Davey2010Talk17:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the fact that the Option 1 folks are outnumbering by a 2 to 1 margin. What I don't find helpful is the way that those who prefer Option 1 are so dogmatic about it as being the ONLY correct answer and discount any other possibility as also being constructive. Those preferring Option 5 (including myself), on the other hand, also do appreciate the merits of the Option 1 image, but wish that the Option 1 side would understand that no single image on the face of the earth can possibly represent all "land" with justice; and that Option 1 is used more constructively, for the sake of the article, in conjunction with, and in the context of other, diverse and contrasting images. That's the disconnect that's impeding a clear WP:Consensus here. Castncoot (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Castncoot I feel you may be misinterpreting those you disagree with here. I don't consider Option 1 the ONLY option, I merely prefer it to the other options in this survey. I have read and understood your concern – that a single image cannot fairly represent "land" – I am just unmoved by it. Many of our articles are challenging to represent in a single image (e.g. Human, Tree, Candy, Encyclopedia, Painting), and yet we make do with a single image that editors feel nicely illustrates the subject matter. I'm sorry you feel strongly opposed to a single image for this article, and that you feel misunderstood. I hope you can accept that perhaps some of us understand your concern, but just disagree. Ajpolino (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
No misunderstanding on my part, Ajpolino, I understand your point very well. However, I think you might be misunderstanding my point, but I'll take responsibility for that, let me try again to rephrase it properly. Roughly a third of the group (give or take) would like to see a collage at the top because we don't feel that the Option 1 picture alone suffices there; which means we're running into an issue of no consensus here. I understand your point regarding the other articles mentioned above, but I don't know what discussions occurred there to arrive at those consensuses, so those are non-sequiturs, just like the Drought article with a headline collage is a non-sequitur here. All I know is that in this particular article, there seems to be a complacency by those preferring Option 1 from reaching out further to to those who don't prefer it there as a solo picture, to think outside the box at what other solutions might achieve a genuine consensus for this article. Maybe Option 1 at the top but then a series of vertically aligned pictures following? Perhaps a horizontal gallery down below? Or maybe Option 5, where the Option 1 pic serves as the lede image within the collage? So a little effort to reach consensus rather than the smugness of simply being in the majority on the Option 1 side would be appreciated. If 8 billion people on Earth iVoted, perhaps 2.5 billion of them would choose the collage. That's a large number of voices to be heard rather than ignored, is that not? Castncoot (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
From what I read those who oppose the gallery are concerned about accessibility ( related to scrolling, editor retention, fragmented image display and about teeny mini images that are not all that viewable in mobile view.) This are valid concerns all based on our manual of style ( that are recommended to make reading as easy as possible for all). Why would we compromise these points. Moxy-03:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry Moxy, but to me your statement makes zero sense. If that were true, then all galleries would be banned from Wikipedia. And they're not banned for a reason- being that when used judiciously, they can make a significant positive impact upon the reader's education and understanding. The minor inconvenience of a fraction of a second of additional scrolling needs to be weighed against the beneficial impact that more info can engender when expressed appropriately. Castncoot (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I am somewhat less concerned about having a gallery on technical grounds, but it is not a zero-weight concern. A gallery can go at the end of the article. BD2412T03:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Moxy, those who oppose the gallery are concerned about accessibility, at a quick skim I believe you're the only editor who raised that concern. Ajpolino (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I say this because it's part of our MOS ..... that has been discussed multiple times and a consensus reach for wording. Let's try and make our articles accessible for all...... as interpreted by our MOS. Moxy-02:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Why not simply include an alt for every caption? Wouldn't that actually make the images more inclusive for users? Instead of taking the extreme step of banning galleries? Castncoot (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 5 or 1. I prefer the collage showing the extreme forms that land can take, but option 1 looks very pretty and serves a purpose of contrasting land with water. SWinxy (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1 It's the first word that would come to mind if I was on a ship sailing from a distant place and saw this for the first time - "land!" That being said, I also support a gallery depicting other types of land, my first choice being farmland, meadow, or another wide-open space. Theoretice (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
As background on the editing history, Option 1 was adopted by BD2412 in May 2019 following talk discussion. Castncoot changed it (with minimal edit summary) to an aerial photo of NYC a little over a month ago. CactiStaccingCranereverted, and Castncoot then restored the change. PerfectSoundWhatever reverted it, at which point Castncoot again edited to switch to the Option 2 picture. At that point, it seems the page's watchers decided it wasn't worth it to keep fighting. When I noticed the change yesterday, I restored Option 1. Castncoot brought back Option 2, and then did so again after I reverted and warned them in my edit summary against edit warring. At that point, PerfectSoundWhatever changed to no image. We can take up user conduct issues in another forum if necessary (and hopefully it won't be), but I think any reasonable editor would conclude from those diffs that Option 1 has the stronger claim to being the status quo, and that to the extent Option 2 has any claim, it's due to edit warring (Castncoot has changed it now five times with zero talk discussion) that should not be rewarded. {{u|Sdkb}}talk23:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
As I have stated above, PerfectSoundWhatever has made the most legitimate argument of all and has persuaded me (even against my own previous choices) that no single headline image can possibly capture the essence of all of Earth's diverse landscapes, including the Sahara Desert and Antarctica. Right now we're even debating the definition of status quo ante bellum, which I believe goes to Option 2, which has been intact since May. That definition should be a moot point in any case, however, because at this point, it will take a new consensus to add any image, regardless of an old consensus from 4 years ago. Castncoot (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
@Castncoot: Intentionally or not, you are misstating the facts here. I know this because I am the editor who created this article. It has had lede images ever since I added them minutes after creating this article, in 2013. Aside from the first few minutes after its creation, it has never had any sustained period without a lede image, so, yes, a consensus would be required to overturn that permanent state of affairs.
Furthermore, the assertion that an image should be excluded where there are many possible forms to illustrate is contrary to Wikipedia practices. If that were the case, we would not have images at Horse or Foot or Rainforest, since there are so many variations on each of these things. BD2412T00:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
You know that's nonsense BD, you've done this long enough. As I'm sure know extremely well, there is no "permanent state of affairs" on Wikipedia, and that you don't WP:OWN this article, and additionally that the RfC here is to sort out what should become the lede photo, if anything. Option 2 had stood intact since May until the lede image was removed entirely within the past 48 hours or so. And by the way, a rainforest is one very specific biomic subset of land. Let's just stick to this article please. Please just let this RfC process play out and be patient. Castncoot (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
You are avoiding the point. There has always been a lede image in this article, for the relevant duration of its existence. That is not a "since 2019" state of affairs, but an historically permanent state of affairs. There is no period that can honestly be referred to as a "status quo ante" where the absence of a lede image is an option. It is therefore inaccurate to suggest that an absence of consensus would result at this time would result in anything other than a continuation of the longstanding state of affairs. The administrator who closes this discussion will not somehow have a lack of access to the page history. They can see what the default status of the article is. If you don't like Rainforest as an example, fine, how about Galaxy. How about Mountain. How about Sea, which is a direct counterpart to this article. BD2412T02:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@PerfectSoundWhatever: I would consider that a reasonable solution, and it happens to be the one implemented at Rainforest. I would still consider the current lede image to be the best image for the top of such a box. BD2412T03:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, the critical flaw with Option 1 is that it shows bluffs—and immediately and instantly misleads the reader into thinking that by necessity land must be elevated. Option 2 is clearly preferable over Option 1 because it conveys no such bias into the reader's mind. Option 2 also shows different land features without the reader specifically having to look for them. Castncoot (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Option 1 misleads people into thinking that land must be elevated any more than Option 2 misleads them into thinking it must be flat. And I think we can trust that the vast majority of readers will not be kindergarteners and will therefore know what land is regardless of the lead image. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
What would be the downside of simply moving the 7-continents image (above, and that is aready part of the artcle) into the lede position? It's all-encompassing of all land. The caption could read something like, "Earth's land surface comprises all seven continents." Castncoot (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
What would be the downside? A world map highlights water as much as land. In this case it highlights the different ways to think about continents, which is not the focus of this article. The country borders create infinite opportunities for disputes (the lead image of List of sovereign states is not a world map for a reason). It conveys nothing about the physical properties of land (e.g. it doesn't show what dirt is). It's less aesthetically pleasing than a natural image. {{u|Sdkb}}talk20:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with User:Sdkb on this. A colorful illustration of continent shapes on Earth is practically the opposite of what is needed here. BD2412T21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe a montage of five pics, with the 7-continents image at the top in its own row; then the second row consisting of NYC (the best-known city) and the Sahara Desert (the best-known desert); and finally the Amazon rainforest (the best-known rainforest) and Antarctica (the best-known frozen land) composing the third row? Castncoot (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The continents map shows continents, but does not illustrate land. The view of New York City shows buildings, which are on land, but are not themselves "land". BD2412T21:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Forgot to include the mountain landscape. The continental landmasses are outlined in the diagram, I would surmise most would understand that concept, and perhaps more importantly, there's nothing else to conflate that with. How about this?
I respectfully disagree, and I believe that the (second) montage I've posted is justifiably the most optimal, as it consistently follows the theme of extremes and superlatives. But I've made my case, and now we have a whole community who gets to weigh in on consensus. Castncoot (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I actually find the continents to be highly pertinent, as they are indeed landmasses. That diagram is already in the article by the way, in the Landmasses section, so it's not something new I came up with. But setting that aside for the moment, are you OK with this then? Castncoot (talk) 04:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
One issue is that the definition of "continent" very much isn't fixed, so leading with a changing image which amounts to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ or choosing one which risks confusing people is potentially a challenge. Warrenmck (talk)
This is the lede photo on the Drought article. This montage sets a precedent and is an exemplary template for
Land, which is actually more multidimensional than "drought". Castncoot (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't care for the bottom image, because I think those strings of flags in various states of degradation distract from the land itself. If we were to go with a gallery, I would prefer something like:
We've crossed the 72-hour mark now, and there's been no organized opposition to this Gallery posted just above here (most recently slightly cropped by BD2412). I take this as a tacit agreement of editorial consensus, meaning that nobody is getting exactly what they wanted (including myself, who would love to have seen the schematic diagram of continents be the capstone to the Gallery), but more importantly, most people are getting at least something that they like. Such is the reality of consensus. With all due respect, I request the admin closer to please proceed to place this Gallery as the lead montage in the main Land article and to close out this RfC. Best, Castncoot (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
You appear to be completely ignoring the technical concern raised by User:Moxy. This is rather perplexing, since you engaged that comment in the section above, and is frankly rude. BD2412T17:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Think best let more time go by as option 1 is clearly the choice as of now...this could change to Castncoot POV over the week or so. Moxy-22:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I totally disagree with this reading of the discussion. Most editors above expressed a clear preference for "Option 1", with just one for "Option 5" and a couple mentions of galleries in other comments. I appreciate that you feel strongly about this, and that you and BD2412 have put time into exploring collage options, but I'm not seeing much interest from participants in actually using a collage as the lead image. Ajpolino (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Option 1 has an 8:5 iVote, and the sole reason people have supported Option 1 is for the photography, not for the encyclopedic content emanated by it. Thus there is no ACTIVE consensus. Let's strive for a PASSIVE consensus, meaning one that most people can tolerate and accept, which appears to be Option 5. Several of us cannot tolerate Option 1. Can the Option 1 side hear us? Castncoot (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not swayed by claims that editors cannot tolerate a perfectly reasonable high quality picture that captures the iconic division between land and sea. BD2412T00:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
And yet you're perfectly fine and dandy with the Gallery above such that you designed and created two-thirds of the Gallery's space and then even cropped the Gallery yourself. Aah, the hypocrisy indeed. Castncoot (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
What other reason would 5 editors have given to oppose that image standing solo? We simply want a fair and well-rounded pictorial of the world's lands to represent "Land" in the lede image. Not much to ask there, is it? Will certainly on its own have negligible technical effect, such as with scrolling or accessibility. The only two words that come to my mind when I see the bluff picture are just that- 1) bluffs; and a distant second, 2) peninsula. Never in a million years would I associate that picture solo with "land"; BUT, when combined in conjunction with the other representations of land, the puzzle makes perfect sense and I would then guess, "land". Castncoot (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
My first preference would be option 1. I could possibly support a gallery, but I strongly oppose any gallery that includes a world map. A world map does not at all illustrate the concept of "land" since most of it is water, and it's only a symbolic representation, not a direct image, of land. I oppose (less strongly) any gallery that includes the Central Park picture, since the majority of that picture shows not land but buildings. CodeTalker (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The whole point of the Central Park image is to illustrate the "Cities" theme on land, i.e., that cities, including their buildings, are indeed built on land, and that picture illustrates this whole point very clearly as the caption states, "Central Park in New York City". There's no more iconic image that everyone is familiar with to illustrate this point. Castncoot (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
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.
are unassessed)
New York metropolitan area, from space
.jpg)
Done (Clarified). Castncoot (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
00:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
