Talk:Central place theory

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 June 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Urban studies and planning

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Geography Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

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

Plagiarism[edit]

The formatting and sometimes exact wording of this article looks like it was copied from the third external think (a pdf from thinkgeography.org). Someone have the time to investigate/rewrite/cite properly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.4.164 (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into it. Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at this in some detail and I find it unlikely that the thinkgeography pdf was plagiarised. No specefic examples were given but I assume the "Building the theory", "Predictions of the theory" and "Evaluation" sections are the ones in question. This material was moved from the Walter Christaller article as it existed on 21 May 2005.[1] The material there was unsourced. A search of the Internet Archive (archive.org) shows only one version of the pdf, from 28 Sep 2007, although it is possible the pdf existed in 2005. Is is also possible the pdf was written using the Wikipedia article as a source.

The structure of the material is somewhat similar, but will likely be similar in any writing on the theory, since it builds in a logical manner: basic principles, simplest first, structure of the theory, predictions, shortcomings. The list of assumptions is similar but note for instance that the equal transport cost assumption is written up in a completely different manner.

It's quite possible that the original writing copied someone's textbook or course notes but we can't tell for sure what that source was. It's also possible that the original writing was, well, "original" and the similarities are a result of there being only so many ways to explain a concept in a logical manner. More sourcing would be good (more sourcing is almost always good) and the thinkgeography source would be acceptable, but I don't think we can say there was any plagiarism. However if you have specific areas of concern, please describe them in more detail and we can have another look. Franamax (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the source in question definitely existed before our article was first written, hosted here from at least 21 May 2003. I now have to revise my opinion a little bit, there is a possibility the wording of the "assumptions" was copied, even though the structuring is different in places. It is still also possible that this wording is the standard presentation. Even if we wanted to add attribution, there is now the question of where that document actually originated. We shouldn't be attributing a source if that source is itself a copy of someone else's work. I may ask over at the Economics wikiproject. Franamax (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that it's a copy. There are some similarities in wording, such as "isotropic (all flat)" but not much more than that. When describing the assumptions that a simple abstract model is based on, there's not really much wiggle room - there are bound to be strong similarities, certain keywords are likely to be reused &c, even if two people devise texts completely independently. If there were similarities in other bits of the text (for instance, in the choice of real-world examples) then that would be much more suspicious, but I don't think that's the case here... bobrayner (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this - I really appreciate it your thoroughness. Hopefully this article will be improved through the Public Policy Initiative sometime this year! Awadewit (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CPT & SIM[edit]

"Following a thorough investigation via computer simulation, they reached important theoretical and practical conclusions." Which are??? Let's not leave this hanging. Referencing legitimate research should cite the researh conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by American In Brazil (talk • contribs) 01:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Central place theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]