Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

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

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

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

Demonyms in infoboxes[edit]

Geographic infoboxes include a demonym parameter to indicate what to call a person from the place the article is about. But that really isn't adequate, and is also imprecise. Illustrative examples:


Noun
Place Adjective Masc. sing. Fem. sing. Plural (nongendered) Collective Current infobox value
Spain Spanish Spaniard Spaniard Spaniards the Spanish Spanish • Spaniard
France French Frenchman Frenchwoman French people the French French
Wales Welsh Welshman Welshwoman Welsh people the Welsh Welsh (cymry)
New South Wales New South Welsh New South Welshman New South Welshwoman New South Welsh people the New South Welsh New South Welshman*
Luxembourg Luxembourgish Luxembourger Luxembourger Luxembourgers the Luxembourgers Luxembourger
Turkey Turkish Turk Turk Turks the Turks Turkish

* Read "New South Welshmen" till I changed it to the singular.

There can be a plethora of adjectives and nouns describing or referring to people from a given place. The single demonym field seems inadequate to encapsulate these and, moreover, it isn't being used consistently: sometimes adjective, sometimes noun.

One thought I had was at least to add an attribute, adjectival, for the adjective, while reserving demonym for noun forms. Beyond that, though, I'm interested in feedback on (a) consistent use of demonym and (b) going beyond a single demonym field to cover all the various applicable forms. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Categorising buildings by streets[edit]

I would encourage editors to vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 17#Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by road & all subcategories on whether it is a good idea to categorise buildings by street. – Fayenatic London 15:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Spit (landform)[edit]

May I draw the attention of geographers to Talk:Spit (landform), where I have started a discussion about the problems with the section "Spits around the World"? (Though the whole article looks like it could do with an audit by someone who understands the subject better than me.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I love the grammar of the section header. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there really no geographer out there who will take this on? Shame on all of you. If you have a geography degree, dig out some of your old textbooks and spend half an hour setting this straight. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Physical geographers??[edit]

I am puzzling over the absence of a category for physical geographers. We have a whole array of categories for geographers in various branches of geography, yet somehow there is no Category:Physical geographers. Is there a reason for this? Or is it just an oversight? Thought I'd inquire and (hopefully) nail it down before I proceed (to create the category). Cgingold (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Rakhshani listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Rakhshani to be moved to Rakhshani (village). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Starting a Discussion?[edit]

How do I do start a discussion about radically changing the contents of one of the articles?

Under the Geography Portal, there is Western Hemisphere, which describes it only in terms of geography. This is so different to the common meaning, that I feel it is truly misleading. I would like to start a discussion of changing this to a disambiguation page or changing it to include my suggested edits, which can be found in the "History", and which I discuss on the "Talk" page there.

Although I am a long-time editor, with ten years editing, and well over 4,000 edits, I have no idea how to start a discussion, about fundamentally changing the meaning of an article. So any help would be appreciated.

Nick Beeson (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mass consolidation of geography stubs[edit]

So it seems like nearly a third of the encyclopedia is composed of a bunch of geographic place stubs, and pretty much none them are ever going to have any sort of notability. Shouldn't these kinds of articles just be merged into larger articles based on a higher jurisdiction, such as "List of places in X district"?--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is our intention to eventually fill out all of these geographic stubs. Small communities and geographic features usually don't have resident advocates, so it is up to geography, geology, and history editors to fill the void. Yours aye,  Buaidh  15:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
In the mean time, can't they just get merged together until there's enough content to split them off? I mean it'll just be a lot easier to navigate that way. Besides, it's not explicitly stated at WP:NOT, but it doesn't seem like Wikipedia is supposed to be some platform for the advocacy of farflung communities across the world. (Edit: Actually it seems like there's WP:NOTADVOCATE)--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 22:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
A place doesn't have to be big to be considered notable. In England, any place that is a civil parish is considered notable - and some civil parishes have less than 100 residents. I'm not sure that consolidating such small entries is more helpful than having them as stand-alone articles.PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The current guideline for Australia as I understand it is that any legally-defined town/suburb/locality is by definition "notable" and could have its own article. Places that only used to be separate are noted that way in the government gazetteers, and are generally covered by the article for the current address. It would be theoretically possible to aggregate these into the next larger legal entity (local government area), but this would tend to lead to undue emphasis in the wrong places. Perhaps we need to be more precise on when to remove "stub-status" from a small article. If a place article has cited sources for being on a road, a railway, and having a former politician born there, with an infobox and a photo, is it still a stub? What if it only has 2 out of three? or only one of those? --Scott Davis Talk 12:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC on removal of native state names from article lead sentences[edit]

There was an RfC opened that might affect tens of articles. Your opinions would be welcome. WarKosign 05:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:USPLACE and Guam[edit]

Does WP:USPLACE article naming guideline apply to the U.S. territory of Guam ? See Talk:Dededo, Guam for the discussion -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently it does, seeing as Hagåtña, Guam is named as such instead of Hagåtña--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Listing all the rivers of a country in the category "Rivers of [Country]"[edit]

There is an ongoing debate in Category talk:Rivers of Spain, on which is the best solution:

  • either listing all the rivers of a country in the category "Rivers of [Country]," as for example in France and Portugal,
  • or including them only in sub-categories and listing the rivers in list pages, as for example in the United Kingdom, the USA, Ireland and Germany.

I think a global solution should be adopted, so that all the countries have a consistent categorization. --Xabier Armendaritz(talk) 16:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Cape of Good Hope"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of Cape of Good Hope is currently under discussion at multiple locations, see the multiple conflicting discussions at Talk:Cape of Good Hope (landmark) and Talk:Cape Colony -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan[edit]

Comments requested at Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan#comment requested.

Article is a general overview of the Balochistan region. The dispute seems to be about whether any content about insurgencies, human rights violations, etc. belong in this article.

Arguments against inclusion seem to center on POV, UNDUE and COATRACK. Some have argued that since articles exists at Balochistan conflict and Human rights violations in Balochistan, no summary of these subjects should exist at Balochistan, Pakistan. Instead, links to the relevant articles should be added to the See also section.

Arguments for inclusion center on insurgency and human rights violations being intrinsically tied to the history, government and culture of the region, so including a brief summary of the subjects and links to the main articles is proposed to be reasonable.

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for a new WikiProject[edit]

Hello there, I have just proposed a new WikiProject be started; National Parks of the United Kingdom and I was wondering whether you would be able to come and have a look at the proposal and join the discussion. Thanks for looking.  Seagull123  Φ  15:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)