Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject iconGeography Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Signups open for The Core Contest[edit]

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Move discussion for 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis[edit]

An editor has requested that 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis be moved to 2023 Guyana–Venezuela crisis, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Organizing categories for subfields of geography[edit]

The category for the Four traditions of geography has been deleted, which has caused some issues that need to be discussed to reorganize the categories for geography. The initial consensus to delete had relatively little discussion, and after I preposed for deletion review, the deletion was endorse with the encouragement to discuss organization structure in this group. This is a complex discussion on the ontology of geography, and the book "The Philosophy of Geo-Ontologies" by Timothy Tambassi is one of the best sources to understand this. The four traditions are not the only method, for dividing geography; various methods have various levels of support in the literature, and the reorganization largely involves three former categories now that the four traditions are deleted.

tl;dr at the bottom.

1. Before deletions, the category for the four traditions of geography was a container that held Category:Spatial analysis, Category:Human-Environment interaction, Category:Regional geography, and Category:Earth science. The Four traditions of geography are likely the most consistent and strongest supported method of dividing the discipline proposed in the past century, originating in the 1960s, a search on Google Scholar shows the original peer-reviewed publication has over 600 citations, with other well-cited papers on the topic existing. This topic is taught to geography undergrads, and the paper is required reading for many geography graduate programs in my anecdotal experience with two of them. Outside the practical usefulness, being one of the four traditions is a defining characteristic of each subcategory that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic (The Human-Environment interaction category now is just in the general Category:Geography as it's only parent category was the four traditions.)
2. Category:Branches of geography was parallel to the "four traditions of geography" within the category Category:Subfields of geography. It is a container with holds Category:Human geography, Category:Physical geography, Category:Technical geography. Branches of geography are less consistent within the literature then the four traditions, with different sources having different organizations for what they call a "branch" (this is important to note, as specific term choice for the branches is less well supported then the four traditions). The three branches here are based on a few sources, but mostly the UNESCO Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. This is also in line with Tambassi's spatial geo-ontologies (SGO), physical (or natural) geo-ontologies (PGO), human geo-ontologies (HGO) model, which adapted Patterson's "Spatial tradition." Branches are a term that exist in the literature to organize the discipline (you can read about them on the main geography page), so we can't just dump all fields into them or it's original research on ontology.
3. The category "Subfields of geography" was created to maintain consistency with other disciplines on Wikipedia within the category Category:Subfields by academic discipline. This category does not have strong supporting outside literature, so the idea was to have the various approaches to organizing the discipline serve as categories within it.

Now that the four traditions has been deleted, "Subfields of geography" and the "Branches" seem redundant, but just dumping everything into either one is not ideal, and choosing one over the other would need to be carefully considered. Furthermore, there are many approaches such as the Five themes of geography, and it may be good to leave room for non-western models as well. The simplest compromise I can prepose for discussion here is to create Category:Traditions of geography to replace the deleted four traditions category. Within the literature, there are preposed "fifth traditions," Exploration and Discovery", or Environmental studies. Eliminating the "four" from the title increases flexibility and offers room to include these and other proposed amended traditions. One of the arguments for deleting the four traditions category was the lack of growth potential, which this addresses.

tl;dr: The preposed organization would be "Subfields by academic discipline">"Subfields of geography" to maintain internal consistency with other disciplines on Wikipedia, and then within "Subfields of geography" would be the two container categories "Branches of geography" and "Traditions of geography." This should satisfy the two largest historic models for organizing geography and keep the geography subdivisions in one category within the "Subfields by academic discipline" category.

Please discuss my preposed solution, or offer alternatives, with consideration to outside literature and Wikipedia policy/recommendations. Tagging several users from the previous discussions: @Hobit, @S Marshall, @Qwerfjkl, @Robert McClenon, @ gidonb, @fgnievinski. Pardon my verbose explanations, I just want to make sure everything is addressed, and feel free to ignore this if you aren't interested in continuing discussion here. Hopefully we can get interaction on this discussion.

- GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for "Geomatics" and "Geomatics engineering" needs participation[edit]

There is an ongoing merge discussion going on to merge "Geomatics engineering" into the page for "geomatics." Currently there is very weak consensus, and the action is proving slightly controversial, so I'd like to get additional knowledgeable people to comment on it.

Link to the merge discussion here. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 08:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any plans on making a page about The Parallel Nile River Project?[edit]

I noticed that there is not yet a page on the The Parallel Nile River Project is anyone planning to make one? Space772 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do it! GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Cornish flag[edit]

An RfC has been opened at Talk:Cornwall about ncluding the Cornish flag in the article infobox. Please contribute if you would like to do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute#Requested move 12 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red: Geographers[edit]

As I'm sure some of you have seen, there is currently a few events around International Women's day, including "Women in red." One area on my radar that could be of interest to Wikiproject Geography is the American Association of Geographers list of current and past presidents. There are many red links in there, and many of them belong to women. As each link belongs to a current or former president of a national organization, they should all pass verification checks for notability. If anyone is interested in creating a page, these could be fun projects. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 18:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested for innovation made[edit]

Hello. There is a discussion that might be of your interest and it would be great if you can provide your feedback at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps#Feedback requested for innovation made. Sincerely,--Thinker78 (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia nation discussion[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Catalonia#Lead whether the phrase

is a historical European nation, currently administered as an autonomous community of Spain

should be used as the first sentence at Catalonia. Thanks DankJae 11:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preference of using OpenStreetMaps[edit]

Hi, I really think that OpenStreetMaps are preferred over topographic maps. By these reasons:

  1. OpenStreetMaps presents the least but most important metadata at each level of zoom.
  2. The ability of zooming is only provided by OpenStreetMaps
  3. If any change occurs for the river, for example the path changes, this is rapidly applied for OpenStreetMaps
  4. language of metadata changes automatically for each Wikipedia
  5. font-size of text of metadata is automatically adjusted
Traditional map New Maps
Map

Thus we should show OpenStreetMaps and hide topographic maps. But in many rare cases that topography is preferred version, we can hide OpenStreetMap in the template:Hidden begin but render both of them.

Please read this discussion on idea lab and discuss and vote for my idea. Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing Assistance (Cross-post from WikiProject Caves)[edit]

Good afternoon! My work on the page Perry County, Tennessee led me down the path of doing more to expand articles on the geography and protected places of the county, including Alexander Cave. There's just enough information available to establish notability, but not enough to truly expand the article beyond stub status right now. One source that I've found that might have information on the cave is Caves of Tennessee, by Thomas Barr Jr.. Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find a copy of this available online or in any local libraries. Bit of a long shot, but does anyone here have access to a copy of this publication? If so, would you be willing to help expand information on the article, or make scans of any relevant entries in the book? Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few library copies I see, I can't find a digital copy though. I DID find a review of the book though, all be it a short one, in The American Midland Naturalist here.
Maybe it can help you hunt down a physical copy. Maybe there is something in the review that can serve as a source for you. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 05:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]