Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Archive 7

Request for comment of Israeli neighborhoods
I have opened an RFC for several of the Israeli cities that I think are un-encyclopedic. Therefore, I appreciate input from editors from this WikiProject at that RFC. Thank you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:List of enclaves and exclaves - would appreciate some help
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_enclaves_and_exclaves#What_would_these_examples_qualfiy_as?_(Enclaves_that_are_not_exclaves,_enclaves_that_are_also_exclaves_etc.)_-_need_to_check_first. is the section I've just added to the talk page of List of enclaves and exclaves.

I need some help checking they fit the page's examples and that they're not original research, more on the talk page. --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Water resource regions category tree discussion
There's a discussion at WP:RIVERS talk about creating a category tree for North American bodies of water based on the USGS hydrological unit codes / Water resource regions that may be of interest to participants in this wikiproject. Please feel free to weigh in. -Furicorn (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliable source for distances between cities
What would be considered a reliable online source the for the distance between cities. A recent edit to DeKalb, Illinois introduced an inaccuracy (the distance to Chicago) that I would like to fix but I would like to have a reference to back it up. Leschnei (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

RFC for stub mountain articles
A lot of the mountains at Category:Mountains of Oppland are stubs with little or no facts beyond their stats. I have checked a couple of them and their sources may not satisfy WP:GEOLAND, which states that

Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.

While the mountains might be named, it would fail that criteria because of the bolded parts. Do you think we should combine the mountains into one article (ie merge them) as suggests at Articles for deletion/Vestre Hestlægerhøy. The closing admin suggested that an RFC be opened about the articles in the catagory. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * We should keep them all. There will always be addityional information--if the mountainis named, it is named after something or someone for a reason. It is undoubtedly mentioned in travel accounts. If may not be easy to find this,but the information will be available.  DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * All mountains in Norway are named, sometimes with multiple names. That doesn't necessarily mean anything more than that the local farmers of old found it useful to have known fixed names when describing directions to each other. Many are simply named after the farm they lie closest to, others are basically named after themselves (like Høgkulen from the Oppland category, which simply means the tall lump). The "travel accounts" they are mentioned in may just be simple hunter's logs. Although Norwegians being quite fond of hiking, to the point of having live coverage of it for days on end this summer on prime television, there possibly will be some tour guide mentioning just about every geographic feature in the country. Ters (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep all. As the example of Vestre Hestlægerhøe and Articles for deletion/Vestre Hestlægerhøy clarifies, there is always plenty of additional information to be found beyond the basic statistics. If such information seems not to be available this is because of a failure at WP:BEFORE, for example Vestre Hestlægerhøe was submitted with a typo in the name. Not because of lack of sources. The fact that no sources are in a stub does not matter per WP:NEXIST. The conclusion of the Vestre Hestlægerhøe nomination, including the mid AfD attempt to bundle it with the possible deletion of hundreds of other mountains (!), is that we should correct WP:GEOLAND to hold all mountains notable without very theoretic exceptions, so this fiasco does not repeat itself. An unimportant mountain is a hill. gidonb (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Somehow that isn't any better . The links provided by are bringing up blanks. A Google search brought up links to a couple of blogs about their experience up the mountain. http://www.norge.sandalsand.net/jotunheimen-1-gjendesheim-til-glitterheim-over-hestlaegerhoe/ --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The article has been expanded and references were improved during the failed nomination. As evident from the failed nomination, all of these mountains can be referenced by online (and offline) sources. Note that the bar in WP:GEOLAND that "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist" is intentionally low. The county is information beyond the statistics and coordinates and was in the article at nomination. In other words, even if a WP:BEFORE failed to the degree that it was not understood what was being nominated, even then the nomination should not have happened. That said, there is plenty of information on each and every mountain that can be found in reliable sources. The very low GEOLAND bar still confuses some so we need to lower it more. Let's draw good conclusions from the Vestre Hestlægerhøe discussion that will allow WP to focus on building and improving the Encyclopedia/Gazetteer per our very first pillar, not on discussions. In the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT. Furthermore, this area is a survey of opinions. I gave mine. Please use the threaded discussion region below for discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete all stubs that say nothing more than X is a mountain in Y. These articles serve no purpose. » Shadowowl  &#124;  talk  02:55, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep all. The articles (or their corresponding articles in the Norwegian Wikipedia) generally include coordinates, height, prominence, and sometimes a photo - a lot more than just "X is a mountain in Y." The editors of the Norwegian Wikipedia have already done our reference-finding work for us. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You do realize this RFC asks whether they should be merged as per Power's suggestion. This doesn't ask for them to be deleted. I had a look at a few of the Norwegian ones and the references there too are sparse. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, in general. If there is no information beyond the fact that the entity is a mountain in a particular location then, editorially, a merge could be sensible but that would not (and should not) involve AfD or deletion. If the merge target was specifically about mountains in the locality (rather than features of the locality generally) a redirect could be adequate – although a cautious editor might nominate at AfD it would be better to just go ahead and create the redirect. We aim to improve our encyclopedia, including our gazetteer aspects. Thincat (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep all and concentrate on de-stubbing, in the course of which, each article would be independently assessed anyway and any clearly non-notable ones put up for AfD. Bermicourt (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep all. They satisfy GEOLAND. I agree with what Gidonb says above, in particular that GEOLAND should be modified to prevent a further fiasco, by at least removing the reference to "statistics" which appears to be the source of confusion. James500 (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge some as long as somebody is willing to do the work. Articles that simply say that "X is a mountain in Y of height Z" are not good stand-alone articles, but there's no article Mountains in Oppland to merge to, and a more-specific categorization (such as by municipality) would be even better.  That said, if nobody is willing to do that work (probably somebody who can read Norwegian sources), letting sleeping dogs lie is for the best. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 01:38, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge most of them, no categorical deletion There is a wording problem in the RFC and responses.   The RFC offers one extreme specific choice "delete them all and make a new combined article".  And some of the responses, if followed, could be interpreted a RFC mandate to keep every one of them. The middle ground seems to be missing.  IMO the best idea is to build (OK to start small) an article for the range (including a list of the mountains) and then merge those with zero content and references into it. Looks like that would be about 95% of them.  North8000 (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Very good point. I wouldn't disagree with that, if all we have is the basic data. I guess there are at least 2 ways of doing this: if there is already a well-developed article for the range and, say, 30 reasonable articles on its major peaks, we could add a table listing the highest peaks, merging information into the table from the stubs; or create a separate "List of mountains and hills of Foo" and incorporate the stubs into that. Of course, fleshing out the stubs is always an option too. I have an ongoing project to turn mountain stubs for mountains in Germany (and Austria) into articles, usually by translation from German Wiki. Bermicourt (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Being a excellent gazetteer is a primary function for Wikipedia. But it is more than that. They are also seed articles for the most part and will grow over the years into much bigger articles incorporating information about their uses, and history. I plan to create a list of mountains for Scotland. They have been heavily used the centuries, by different groups, fought over, and so on. GEOLAND needs to be modified to correct this unwieldy clause.  scope_creep (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge most per North8000; then evolve and split where needed, based on the development of the individual sections in the merged articles.  Mathglot (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Requested move of Channel Islands to a dab page
At, I requested input on moving Channel Islands to something like Channel Islands (Europe) and making Channel Islands a dab page. Contributions to the discussion would be welcome. —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 17:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Consistent maps for big bodies of water
I just visited Black Sea and ended up saying to myself "Where the heck is that on Earth again?"

Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Dead Sea, and others could really use a world map with a highlighted area showing where it is. Nice consistency. Good for visitors. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

See also: List of seas

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds right to me, like other place infoboxes (e.g. Kazakhstan, Lake_Charles,_Louisiana, Mount_Whitney). —&#91; Alan  M  1 (talk) &#93;— 19:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi AlanM1. Thanks! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in starting a mini-project to do this?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A map with a highlighted area would be good, or even a consistent map with a red dot using coords. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * there is an interactive map icon next to the Coordinates in the info box of most of these water bodies. Were you imagining a static map inside the info box instead?Jayzlimno (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you mean like Bohol Sea? Looking at List of seas, I'd say that few have that. Most have some map, often needing quite a bit of inspection to figure out. Many have something really hard to figure out. Some have nothing. If you're a kid from Burkina Faso, most of the time, you will not have a clue where the sea is. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * For the interactive map, I mean the little circle next to the coordinates that pops up into an interactive map. Something like Bohol Sea would be nice and would be quicker to see than searching for the coordinates icon. Jayzlimno (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Jayzlimno. Well, I'll be darned. I've been here ten years and never noticed that. It took around 30 secs to load, but I guess it does the job. I wonder how many people notice that. I will now reconsider. Best wishes and many thanks for pointing that out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if a separate "Interactive map" with the icon next to it in the info box rather than buried by the Coords would help people discover it. Jayzlimno (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, Jayzlimno. Consider raising it at the village pump post. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Borders of the Scandinavian Peninsula
Hello! Are there reliable sources for the eastern border of the peninsula (Kemijoki-Inari-Paatsjoki line)? --Insider (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Category hierarchy for rivers and lakes by US State
As an example, Category:Rivers of Massachusetts is in Category:Bodies of water of Massachusetts, which is in Category:Water in Massachusetts, which is in Category:Geography of Massachusetts. Why isn't the rivers category (also) directly in the Geography category? I fixed this for Category:Rivers of Iowa (and Category:Lakes of Iowa), but on discovering that there's a large number of these figured I should discuss before changing any more.

Scope
Hello,

I've marked Red Hills, Tasmania, Naduar, Dugure, Climate and vegetation interactions in the Arctic, Makotopong, SWISS TXT, Theegalagutta Palle, Ciudad Valles, Sierra de Tamaulipas, Kuh-e Shah, Bahanaga, Porto delle Grazie, Ngadirojo with the geography wikiproject tag at their talk pages. Is this appropriate and within the scope of this wikiproject? Please advise. (There is a discussion at this talk page where JarrahTree suggests that marking all locations with the geography wikiproject may not be appropriate.)

Thanks,--Gryllida (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Also Draft:RTA (Niger), Draft:El Grito de Sunset Park, Draft:Port of Moses Lake, Draft:Clady River, Draft:Arthur's Stone, Kerikeri, Draft:Asansol in world war II, User:Sakaplowitz/sandbox, Draft:Rue d'Aubagne. --Gryllida (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I tend to add geographical articles to a subordinate project if at all possible e.g. a river article to WikiProject Rivers. Only if there is no subordinate, do I add this project tag, otherwise I suspect this project will become too big to manage. Other sub-projects are listed here. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants
I don't understand why this page and its subpages are not tagged as part of this WikiProject, but there is a discussion on this article's Talk page regarding whether the content of the subpages should be merged into the main page. See section "Idea: replace 2 pages of multiple sub pages by one huge table?". Jalen D. Folf  (talk)  04:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Useful 2014 document for Cambodia geography articles
Just spotted a useful document for Cambodia geography articles.
 * Cambodia Municipality and Province Investment Information, Japan International Cooperation Agency, 2014 Broomstraw2 (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on template data storage
There's an ongoing discussion that will potentially have significant ramifications for templates used to store population data. Cheers, Number   5  7  01:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Should the Indochina and Mainland Southeast Asia articles be merged?
Hi. Input is appreciated at Talk:Mainland Southeast Asia --Paul_012 (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of World Population Review
I've started a discussion about this source of demographic statistics at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Expert input is welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Disputed title
Your feedback at Talk:Le Marais would be welcome! Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Caribbean for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Caribbean is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Caribbean until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 13:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:British Virgin Islands for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:British Virgin Islands is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:British Virgin Islands until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 13:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Brittany for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Brittany is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Brittany until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 00:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Macaronesia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Macaronesia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Macaronesia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 00:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 00:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

List of enclaves and exclaves - Check needed on definitions
I'm asking here, since the talk page for the article is inactive.

On List of enclaves and exclaves, List of enclaves and exclaves and List of enclaves and exclaves, I have added some definitions, but I would appreciate it if someone could check their accuracy and expand the details a bit more.

On that page, only semi-enclaves and semi-exclaves, pene-enclaves and pene-exclaves (inaccessible districts) have definitions.

I would appreciate any help from members of this WikiProject! --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 12:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see discussion
Template_talk:Infobox_country. Interstellarity (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Crimea for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Crimea is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Crimea until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sea
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sea. Sdkb (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on FreeMapTools on the reliable sources noticeboard
There is a discussion on the reliability of distance calculations in FreeMapTools (freemaptools.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at. —  Newslinger  talk   02:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to geography-related Rfc
Please comment on a Rfc at Talk:Beitar_Illit. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

disputed content tag on Western Approaches
I have put a disputed content tag on Western Approaches. 347 other articles link to this article, so it warrants attention.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Groswater Bay
If anyone has their hands on some official documentation, the exact official provincial/Canadian/IHO definitions of Lake Melville, Hamilton Inlet, and Groswater Bay need to be added to their pages for greater clarity about what is subsumed by what. The unofficial sources are all over the place. — Llywelyn II   19:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Geography/to do...
The "to do" template-page hasn't been updated since 2014. I posted about this over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/to do at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/to do. The template is no longer protected so I thought WikiProject Geography folks might want to update the template. Shearonink (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Asia for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Asia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Asia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Antarctica for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Antarctica is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Antarctica until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Tibet for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Tibet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Tibet until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 01:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Eifel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Eifel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Eifel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Westerwald for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Westerwald is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Westerwald until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 20:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Small lakes proposal
There are millions of lakes, often with the same names, and often with few or no sources that directly discuss the lake. But our readers may want to find out about them. This is to propose a two-part approach to the problem. With this approach, even if there is not enough information for a full article on a lake we can at least show readers where it is and lead them to an article that says something about the environment of the lake. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * First, we encourage development of Set index articles like List of Michigan lakes named Long Lake that give basic information about the lakes, at minimum the administrative region and coordinates.
 * Second, we encourage addition of lists of lakes to articles on rivers, as with MacDonald River (Quebec). The list entries can have anchors like MacDonald River (Quebec) which the set indexes can point to. The lists would a least give coordinates and could give information such as elevation, area etc. if available.

request for addition to Template:Infobox_Country
For those interested, there is a request at the Template:Infobox_Country talk page to add parameters for the judiciary (highest court, highest judge).--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Categorization of craters" essay under discussion at WikiProject Geology
FYI since this is also related to geography... I wrote a user essay User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization of craters as a result of some recent CFD category deletion discussions. It collects best practices over the years to avoid recurring confusion among editors over ambiguous use of the word "crater" for impact, volcanic and explosion craters, as well as common errors categorizing sinkholes as craters. Another editor suggested WikiProject Geology was a good place for it. So a discussion is in progress at WikiProject Geology on moving it from my user space to an advice essay of that WikiProject, because such a move should be a result of discussion. If you're interested, please have a look and comment. Ikluft (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Proposed merger to Cultural mapping and Cultural geography, please discuss ~ R.T.G 14:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Operation Stubmap
I have an idea. A very ambitious idea. There are a lot of geography stubs, right? And not all of them have maps, right? So I have an idea. The wiki community gets together, and creates maps for every stub. EVERY. SINGLE. STUB. It may take months, even years to complete. But it’ll leave Wikipedia a much, much better place. We won’t do this alone. I’m starting with Afghan stubs, then working my way up the alphabet until I’m done with the Asian stubs. Doing this alone, it may take me up until 2022 to finish. But if just 20 people joined in, we could do it in the span of several months, a year at most. Anyone with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewLearnsYouAThing (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Category renaming discussions in progress: Crater lakes to Volcanic crater lakes and Annular lakes to Impact crater lakes
Calling attention to two category renaming discussions currently in progress: Category:Crater lakes to Category:Volcanic crater lakes at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_20, and Category:Annular lakes to Category:Impact crater lakes at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_20. Ikluft (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ The CfRs passed. I updated the "Categorization of craters" essay to reflect those results, and added a table of crater-related CfD/CfR/CfM discussions. The essay is still pending approval to move from my userspace to a subpage of WikiProject Geology. Please comment in the essay's review discussion to give your feedback and/or help approve that move. (WikiProject essays should be approved by discussion, not unilateral action. But that means there needs to be enough response to qualify as a discussion.) Ikluft (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Surkanda Devi altitude
Is there a reasonable way to settle the minor edit war at this article? One IP likes an elevation of 2510 m, while others like 3030/3033 or 2750. The only link in the article that works for me is a Google site which says "altitude of 2903 m", although that does not strike me as a reliable source. Is there a way to reliably determine the altitude? Johnuniq (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Lakes in Washington, DC Area
There's currently a discussion at Talk:List_of_lakes_in_the_Washington_metropolitan_area which would use a few more voices. We're trying to set inclusion criteria and decide how to define the "Washington, DC Area". –dlthewave ☎ 05:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Automatic infoboxes
Infobox settlement/Wikidata is clearly not working as I expected: see Kroksjö, Lycksele Municipality. What should I be doing instead, if not just copying all this data in manually? Is there an automated tool, or some kind of extra parameter or templates I should be using? -- The Anome (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes
Inviting participants to discussion relating to geography infoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Rob984 (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon
Hi. The The Great Britain/Ireland Destubathon is planned for March 2020, a contest/editathon to eliminate as many stubs as possible from all 134 counties. Amazon vouchers/book prizes are planned for most articles destubbed from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland and whoever destubs articles from the most counties out of the 134. Sign up on page if interested in participating, hope this will prove to be good fun and productive, we have over 44,000 stubs!♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

List of fictional counties up for deletion
I've added some sources. More are out there. Important literary device. Important list for some of our readers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (3rd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/List of fictional counties (3rd nomination)

Proposed merger of Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture to Demchok
Hi! There is a merger proposal here for the articles on the village(s) of Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture and Demchok in the Sino-Indian border dispute. Any input is appreciated! — MarkH21talk 23:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Demographics of the Western Balkans has been nominated for discussion
Category:Demographics of the Western Balkans has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Geography related Village Pump proposal
At Village_pump_(WMF).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources for population & country data
Hi folks, I keep seeing [www.worldatlas.com|WorldAtlas] pop up as a source used for general country stats - land mass, population, GDP, and so on. It looks very 'clickbaity' to me and doesn't go into detail about where its data comes from. I'd posted on the RS noticeboard (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard) about whether we consider it acceptable but haven't had any comments yet, so sharing here for visibility - if you could respond on the RS Noticeboard to keep the discussion (or lack of!) in one place, that would be fab. Cheers, Darren-M   talk  15:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal:Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture
An article of interest to the project&mdash;Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture&mdash;has been proposed for merging with Demchok. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Agarum (a humble request)
Howdy! I wrote an article about the Ancient Near Eastern land of Agarum. I know how to add images, but I do not know how to add coordinates, text, &c. on an existing image. Could somebody help me to add a map where the Al-Ahsa Oasis, Bahrain Island, and Failaka Island are marked? (In the same way as the article Al-Ahsa Oasis has a map with a red dot indicating its location?) might be a good starting point, especially if cropped to only depict the Persian Gulf and Eastern Arabia. (Modern state borders might be confusing here.) --Miihkali (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

CAT:NN
There is a huge backlog at CAT:NN, including over 700 articles on geography, some of which have been waiting almost 12 years. Here's the link: Please help us get the Geography backlog down! Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Geography portal
Portal:Geography had not been updated with new content for quite some time, so I have expanded it. A detailed summary of updates that were performed exists at Portal talk:Geography § Portal updates. Feel free to post comments about the portal there, if desired. North America1000 01:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo move discussions
Hello, everybody. There are ongoing, relisted move discussions of several Kosovo-related articles(Vucitrn, Pec, Malisevo). Unfortunately, almost no editors have participated in those discussions since they were relisted. Maybe members of this wikiproject could contribute and provide new perspectives.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

FAR of Earth
I have nominated Earth for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 18:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

List of short place names
This appears to only accept latin-letter place names. There should be a complementary list for non-Latin place names that are short. (non-ideographic/logographic/syllabic scripts; ie. in Korean it would be two letters and not two characters (multiple letters per syllabic character) for a short "2" name) -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Spelling of Kyiv
There’s a broad conversation about using different spellings of Kyiv in article titles in certain subjects, at talk:Kyiv. This may affect some guidelines. —Michael Z. 20:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Topographical Map of the European Continental Divide
A possible suggestion for the European watershed page. I have created an interactive topographical map of the European Continental Divide based on data available from governmental agencies responsible for cartography and water management (continental-divide.eu). I have not incorporated this into the European watershed page, since I have created the website. However, I do believe that the information would be interesting for readers and editors of this article. My project is freely available for anyone to use and is intended to bring together people with an interest in the topic. I'll leave the choice about integrating this to the Wiki-Community. Best, Menasheh --Sledbird (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent
A complex RfC is going on, after a long bout of edit war. Uninvolved editors needed at the discussion. Aditya (talk • contribs) 06:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

List of churches in an article
The question of whether a list of churches with links to their websites is appropriate for an article has come up with regards to the Grunthal, Manitoba article. A discussion has evolved at User talk:Nport. Your input is welcome. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've suggested a compromise. Essentially there's nothing wrong with a section on religious buildings or sites, but a bare bullet list is rather uninformative. It's better to have a paragraph describing religious activity and locations which would logically incorporate information about the churches, etc. Bermicourt (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for articles on the Provinces of Nepal
Your input is sought at the multi-page move discussion currently underway at Talk:Bagmati Pradesh. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Oklahoma
I have nominated Oklahoma for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  06:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Minnesota Featured article review
Another editor has nominated Minnesota for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Europe
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Europe. Generalrelative (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

FAR for Tulsa
I have nominated Tulsa, Oklahoma for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  00:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on IP user keeping removing non-Malay script in places around Malaysia
The anonymous was trying to rise an issue by removing most of the place name in Malaysia that is displayed in Mandarin and also Tamil by claming that those are not official language of Malaysia. I had reported to AIV but the administrator said that these edits are not vandalism, so I bring the discussion to here. Although some of the places are mostly / have a significant population of Malaysian Chinese and the name just another script that display the City name. e.g This anonymous even warn me by saying I am giving the false information see here and have some tight discussiom with another editor at his talk page. This should not be an issue as no one prohibit the usage of other language. He even claimed that here is not Taiwan, BTW this is WIKIPEDIA and it is not under the jurisdication of any country, and not OFFICIAL PORTAL of Government of Malaysia. See here also https://www.malaysia.gov.my/portal/content/30118 So actually my opinion is as long as Malay script is being used, this is not even an issue, as Wikipedia does not represent government of Malaysia, and in most of the place that have a large Chinese/Indian population that are using the script in their common life and newspaper for the name, it is suitable for that to put for a transliteration language like in Singapore and more easier for someone who what to search for the query in other medium. angys  (Talk Talk) 10:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC) for in depth discussion. angys  (Talk Talk) 10:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The IP editor's position appears to be that of a Malay nationalist who does not regard the other races as valid citizens of the country (see his comparison of Chinese in Malaysia with Filipinos in UAE and Qatar). If he persist in large-scale changes to articles without consensus and engage in edit-warring, it can be considered tendentious editing (which is different from vandalism). There is no justification for removing the information in articles with large Chinese and Indian populations, and you can undo those, but otherwise all you can do for now is to engage in discussion, but if it fails, then perhaps take this to ANI. Hzh (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With no comment on the content of the matter, the the best forum for this is probably WP:AN/EW, not ANI or AIV. From the talkpage it certainly looks like they've had sufficient warnings. CMD (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal
Hi there, editors at your Wikiproject may be interesting in the related WikiProject Grand Canyon proposal, which you can see and support here! Kingsif (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge from MOS:CAPS to WP:MOS
For details, please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Indian subcontinent
There is a discussion on the talk page about a disputed sentence. Is it possible for members of this project to make a comment there? Aditya (✉ • ⚒) 03:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Climate change FAR
I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The impact of geography on colonial America
I have tagged the article The impact of geography on colonial America for its essay-like properties. I do think it is a pretty terrible article and I wonder whether it does or should have a future at all. It certainly needs other eyes on it: I would be pleased to see experienced Geography editors – which I am most certainly not – have a careful look at it. It is nearly all the work (see its early history) of a single editor,, whose only contribution it was during their less-than-a-month-long editing career here. This doesn't, of course, automatically make it a bad thing: it just doesn't increase my confidence much either. I wonder if it was a college essay that they decided should be an article? Should it, actually, be an article – does it have a point? I am unsure. I'd appreciate others' responses. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox organiser
Hi all

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

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

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

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CMD (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Requesting some inputs
Greetings,

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


 * Also please do have a look at Talk:Black Sea and help expand Black Sea.


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

Thanks and warm regards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * G I don't see how these articles fit within the Geography project. Their scope extends far beyond Geography. Even Talk:United States isn't in the geography Wikiproject. The tags should be shifted over to the appropriate main article, such as Talk:Geography of Alabama. For these, it should be MID/LOW, following the importance table from Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria to the right, where Mid is for "fills in more minor details", given these articles aren't about Geography as a topic. CMD (talk) 02:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * are you saying each individual U.S. state article should be removed from WikiProject Geography, and the "Geography of ____" articles should retain the WP tags at mid or low importance? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Essentially yes. As a specific example, Talk:Alabama should not be tagged as Wikiproject Geography (like Talk:United States is not), while Talk:Geography of Alabama should by tagged as Wikiproject Geography (as Talk:Geography of the United States is), which it is currently not for some reason. This is a slightly different question to what the importance ratings should be, and on that question, I don't really see how any "Geography of X" articles would make it to high or top. CMD (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,200 bytes, the statement above (from the tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for  to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Added a statement, not sure how to get legobot to take it– can you help? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you merely lengthened the existing overlong statement. Statements end at the first valid timestamp, so without copying the existing timetamp to your new sentence, the situation is not improved. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, please have patience with me. By timestamp, you mean signature? timestamp of the edit itself? there is a signature at the top, why doesn't that take? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RFCST, item 3 about four and five-tilde signatures: the part that identifies you is optional, but the timestamp is mandatory. WP:RFC/HIST will be updated next time that Legobot runs, which will be at 19:01 (UTC). -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like i did it right now, and it'll update correctly when legobot runs again, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * G (remove). Second choice: F (case-by-case); 3rd: E (Low). A U.S. state is by definition a political entity. They may have geography sections, just as they may have economy or crime or politics or history sections, but if they have a geography section, it would (or should) be a brief summary as a parent article section in WP:Summary style. The major information about geography would not be found in these articles, and if there *were* some unique geographical information present here and in no other geography-related article, that would be a failure of WP:DUE WEIGHT which should be corrected by redistributing the content among articles per WP:SS. Hence: G, F, E. Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to go with G here. Agree that the current classification is not great to put it charitably. Arguably this only defers the issue since there may still be quibbling over assigning the importance at GeographyOfState articles. As subnational entities they should probably all be mid or low, but that's beyond this rfc scope and of course YMMV on that topic. I also believe that WikiProject Geography should be removed from almost all articles focused on political entities and moved to GeographyOfPlace articles except where the latter kind of article does not exist, in which case individual assessments will be needed to determine if tagging is appropriate. Admittedly I haven't done much WP Geography work in forever so I may be out of touch with some current practice. Regards, 31.41.45.190 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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


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


 * Thank you Bermicourt for the feedback! I wasn't aware of WP:DYK so I'll definitely keep that in mind for the future. I was wondering what I had to do to receive a rating from WikiProject Geography; is posting a "request for review of article" the correct way to approach this? Elma Annick (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Ratings of stub, start and C may be added by any editor familiar with the rating system. For geographical articles, see WikiProject Geography/Assessment. Ratings of B should really be assessed by an editor not involved in writing the article and higher ratings have to be assessed by 2 editors. The overall guidance is here: Content assessment. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

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


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


 * Since this one is brought up I'll use it as a good starting point to give it an info box, add the photo and import translated information to the article. It will still only be a stub as indicated above but at least it will have more than one sentence. -- A Rose Wolf  19:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Found this which is cool. It's more about the house that was built on the mountain range but does offer some info. -- A Rose Wolf  19:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject
Horseshoe Bend (Arizona)	22,674	755	Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice about ongoing discussion at Template talk:Infobox UK place
Since WP UK geography was informed about the discussion Template talk:Infobox UK place, I think it's only fair that this WikiProject should also be notified. Despite the RfC itself being wrapped in a /, discussion is ongoing. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Cirque
This article has me scratching my head for a couple of reasons. What's the scope of the article, the glacial landform, or the French term? And is it a "vital" article, or a "low-importance" one -- or somehow both? Thanks in advance for any assistance, ideally in the form of comments at, or edits in, the article in question. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

State-line-straddling towns
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States concerning dealing with two cases where towns straddle the MD-DE state line. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Issues with postal village
See discussion at Talk:Postal_village. Mangoe (talk) 04:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

definition of the Donbas
Hello. I ask the users of this project to express your opinion on what definition the Donbas region should have. The problem is that in the lead section of the article, in my opinion, the incorrect definition (due to its incompleteness) of the region was restored. I started a discussion on the talk page of the article. Thanks.--5.167.161.25 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Former settlements in Kent, England
This news article lists some former settlements in Kent that might be worth writing about. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Geographically speaking, this page is somewhat general... have you considered placing notices at more specialised WikiProjects, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (New Zealand) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Baden-Württemberg
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Baden-Württemberg that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 12:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

"US border battle" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect US border battle. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 64.229.90.53 (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC that concerns this topic
There is an RfC there that concerns this topic. Every opinion or other input is welcome. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the reliability of Peakbagger.com at RSN
See here. Site is used as a source in about 5,100 articles related to mountain peaks. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion regarding GEONet Names Server (GNS) at RSN
See here. Site is used as a source in about 43,000 articles related to various geographical locations world-wide. FOARP (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirects to List of geological features on Venus
FYI, a mass deletion of redirects to the list article List of geological features on Venus has been proposed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28 -- 65.92.246.43 (talk) 08:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Maghreb § Proposed merge of Barbary Coast into Maghreb
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Maghreb § Proposed merge of Barbary Coast into Maghreb. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Australia (continent)
There is a discussion at Talk:Australia (continent) which may be of interest to members. BilCat (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it "The [location]" or "the [location]"?


The three articles mentioned above refer to themselves as "The Valley", "The Triangle", and "the Triad", respectively. Notice the lowercase t with the last one.

There is currently a dispute with SFV on whether it should be "The Valley" or "the Valley". On the one hand, sources on the page indicate that "the Valley" is the common name. On the other hand, there's "The Triangle"...and as a former resident of the Triangle who lived there for 30-ish years and never capitalized the first t, that leaves me wondering, is there some some standing policy about capitalizing "The" in region names of this format, even when it feels like they shouldn't be?

If there's a better place to ask this question, please feel free to suggest it. —C.Fred (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The shortened name of the SFV is written only as the Valley in authoritative print publications (official documents, books, large magazines) perused by highly skilled proofreaders . You can see for yourself by searching in Google Books for these two phrases simultaneously: "san fernando valley" "the valley" (the quotation marks are necessary during the search). The highly authoritative references 2, 3 and 4 in the lead-in of this version of the San Fernando Valley article testify that the shortened colloquial name of the San Fernando Valley is the Valley. You should restore this version to keep Wikipedia trustworthy. —178.71.197.203 (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of redirect discussion at Redirects for discussion
A batch of 11 template-redirects are up for discussion at: Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 8 This is related to regions/zones/districts in Ethiopia. Please join in the discussion. Platonk (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Antarctica
I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidgk1 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge discussion
There's a merge proposal here that may be of interest to members of this project. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Turkish village stubs
An RfC concerning this topic has been opened here. Listing here to try to get more input from the community. –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Notice of redirect discussion for Zones and woredas of the Amhara Region
23 template-redirects are up for discussion at: Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 15. Please join in the discussion. Platonk (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ceres Quads - By Name
FYI has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge Orient into Eastern world
An editor has requested for Orient to be merged into Eastern world. Since you had some involvement with Orient or Eastern world, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so). --Heanor (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Project to standardize treatment of place names
The various infobox templates for geographical entities are very inconsistent in the information they accept about place names and the way they validate and display the names. This is to ask for comment on whether there should be a central project to standardize the way infoboxes handle place names, including settlements, regions, bodies of water, mountains, rivers, roads etc. Possibly a standard template or templates could be embedded in all the infoboxes, with standard instructions, or standard modules could be used for validation and formatting.

Accessibility is a basic concern: non-English representations should be marked up in HTML so they are handled correctly by screen readers; Non-Latin text should not be bolded or italicized; etc.

The central project would first agree on the preferred way to handle names, then implement a program to migrate towards this standard with minimum disruption. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Aspects of the problem
A place may have several different types of name: Each name may be represented or described in various ways: To illustrate the confusion, a search on "native_name" (used by the local people? former local people?) found the following examples:
 * Latin text
 * One or more non-Latin texts
 * IPA pronunciation ("Paris" is pronounced differently in English and French)
 * Sound file
 * Etymology
 * |native_name = Torre Pendente di Pisa |native_name_lang = it
 * |native_name = Tywysog Cymru
 * |native_name =
 * |native_name =
 * |native_name = Old Bailey
 * |native_name = 四国 |native_name_link = Japanese language |native_name_lang = ja
 * |native_name = Anadolu Selçuklu Devleti سلجوقیان روم Saljūqiyān-i Rūm

Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
Has this been discussed and dismissed many times before? Is this the right place to discuss it? Should the discussion be advertised elsewhere? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This has been a subject of numerous edit wars through the decades. See, e.g., the history at Talk:Gdansk and Talk:Derry. There's an open RfC for a small subset of the topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section.


 * As I suggested at that RfC, I would strongly advise against a global solution for naming, because I don't think it's possible for a global solution to be neutral and prevent edit wars.


 * Instead, I would suggest that each country Wikiproject come up with a consensus about local naming. Editors involved in such Wikiprojects understand the meaning and connotations of names in the local culture. That's right the place to make guidelines, IMO. — hike395 (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am probably missing the point, but was not suggesting guidelines that would apply to all countries on what names to use. I was thinking of
 * Standardizing the parameters used to collect name information across infoboxes, e.g. infobox settlement, infobox river, infobox mountain. So instead of alternate_name (street), name_other (river), other_name (body of water) etc. we would have one standard parameter name
 * Standardizing validation of things like language, e.g. should always be 2-3 digit ISO Code, or should also allow text like "French" if that can be mapped to "fr" for internal use
 * Standardizing formatting of names in different languages so that, for example, all infoboxes suppress bolding on non-latin character sets, enclose names in &lt;div lang=xx> ... &lt;/div> tags for accessibility, present multiple names of the same type in flatlist format and so on.
 * Stuff like that. So the infobox templates are consistent, even if the information they typically present may vary from place to place. The standardized logic can of course include language-specific and country-specific rules, which would be picked up by all infoboxes that have opted in. This would make it easier for the country Wikiprojects to implement consistent rules for name handling across towns, rivers, counties, mountains etc. in a given country or language. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm probably the editor who is missing the point. If you just want to do unifying technical work (not specify which names go where), then we should ping, who has been hard at work doing this kind of standardization across multiple infoboxes with tools like Native name checker. — hike395 (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also: Trappist started a discussion about this at WT:WikiProject Infoboxes — hike395 (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet another discussion at yet another venue? In addition to the one discussion that I started, there are/were at least two others:
 * The work that I did was intended to solve a problem that was revealed by a change to Module:Lang. That change was evident in articles that used, , , , , and .  All of those infoboxen had/have similar logic.  Not so for other infoboxen so I have not pursued similar solutions elsewhere.
 * I am in favor of normalizing how names are input to and rendered by infoboxen. Every infobox template that might be changed by implementation of the standard must be notified now.  Also, related wikiprojects, if any, must be notified.  Likely there will be little response from those infoboxen/wikiprojects, but, you never know...  And stick to one venue.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If a project were to be started to standardize and improve geographical name handling, this is the obvious place to discuss it. It would have to be advertised at Infobox settlement, river, body of water, mountain, building, island etc., and perhaps at other wikiprojects. I would see the project having separate discussions on migration approach, error reporting, parameter names, languages, non-Latin characters, lists of names, etc.. There would be value to readers, who would see more consistent infoboxes, and to editors, who would not have to worry about formatting. Better validation would mean better data quality. But there would have to be strong consensus for each of the changes, and there could be resistance. Perhaps changing from alternate_name to other_name would be controversial for some reason. Infobox settlement is used on about 543,397 pages, and altogether there may be 800,000 pages in total affected by standardization. Dunno... Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of normalizing how names are input to and rendered by infoboxen. Every infobox template that might be changed by implementation of the standard must be notified now.  Also, related wikiprojects, if any, must be notified.  Likely there will be little response from those infoboxen/wikiprojects, but, you never know...  And stick to one venue.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If a project were to be started to standardize and improve geographical name handling, this is the obvious place to discuss it. It would have to be advertised at Infobox settlement, river, body of water, mountain, building, island etc., and perhaps at other wikiprojects. I would see the project having separate discussions on migration approach, error reporting, parameter names, languages, non-Latin characters, lists of names, etc.. There would be value to readers, who would see more consistent infoboxes, and to editors, who would not have to worry about formatting. Better validation would mean better data quality. But there would have to be strong consensus for each of the changes, and there could be resistance. Perhaps changing from alternate_name to other_name would be controversial for some reason. Infobox settlement is used on about 543,397 pages, and altogether there may be 800,000 pages in total affected by standardization. Dunno... Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, please, anything that adds guidelines on how to use these, or preferably offer a clear field to enter every possible piece of info and make it just work when filled in. Some more examples where we can’t even know how to improve it: multiple names, languages, and scripts in Bilohirsk. A column with name, official name, and native name, but no label to identify any of them. Multiple romanizations in Kharkiv, but the idea was rejected for Kyiv. —Michael Z. 22:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC) For what it's worth, we managed to standardize coordinates in infoboxes at this 2016 RFC, which was followed by a huge project at Coordinates in infoboxes that took about 16 months to complete. If you want to have any chance of being successful at standardizing, I encourage you to focus on a very specific aspect of naming and have a concrete proposal, or focus on a specific infobox first to see if what you want to do is possible. Right now, the problem statement appears too large for a focused project. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple names each with multiple romanizations, where the authority for each romanization is given, may be a stretch ... and infoboxes are anyway meant to just summarize the key information. But we can surely come up with better support for place names, languages and lists, with clearer documentation, common to all the geographical infoboxes. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is sensible advice, but I would like to keep it a bit more open-ended at the conceptual stage, then maybe narrow down to more focused implementation projects. I find it hard to disentangle the concepts:
 * There is the common English name used as the title of the article, the name or names used by the local people in the local language(s), perhaps more long-winded formal names in English and the local languages, nicknames, former names, maybe other types of name. But they are all names.
 * How do we distinguish the different types of name in the infobox? I see very confused litters of names in some articles.
 * A list of several names of the same type needs formatting, maybe as a horizontal list. If there are different languages in the list, I think the languages have be identified. I find that Australian languages often do not have ISO codes...
 * A name may be in a non-Latin script with a romanized form
 * آزاد جموں و کشمیر [āzād jammū̃ o kaśmīr] (Urdu)
 * I think we should first get a general understanding of the overall problem, then look at a strategy. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have written up a more complete description at Geographical names. Any comments welcome. I think this is technically feasible and would be a real improvement, but am concerned that it may be seen as too great a change. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition to the category for place infoboxes, you might also look at Coordinates in infoboxes (make sure you have the feature turned on that makes redirects green) for other place-based infoboxen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Merging Recovered Territories into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II
An editor has requested for Recovered Territories to be merged into Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II. Since you had some involvement with Recovered Territories or Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so).
 * Further input is requested from all interested WikiProjects to establish consensus. Felix QW (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Mexican Plateau capitalization debate
Currently there's a move request in Talk:Mexican Plateau to remove the capitalization of "plateau", with the nominating user citing Google Ngram evidence that the uncapitalized form was slightly more common in sources (argued to be "substantial" before 1950). The actual Ngram evidence looks to be highly debatable to me, and the policies they've cited don't appear to support their stance as strongly as portrayed. I've cited the specific policies in MOS:CAPS and WP:PLACE relating to place names as reasons why the current capitalization is appropriate, but so far I'm the only one out of 3 that agree even though their arguments -- in my personal opinion -- strike me as overly simplistic. So, I'm deferring to people more acquainted with this topic and the policies surrounding it to make a better judgment and encourage input in the talk page since none of us are actually geographers or part of WP:GEOG. TangoFett (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Borders of Belgium
On all the pages of European borders, see for example Borders of France, there is an infobox on the bottom that links to the different border pages for the borders of Europe, of which a lot are not yet created. But the link to the Borders of Belgium, links to a page about a bicycle event that's called inconveniently called "Borders of Belgium". Ideally this page about the bicycle event should be renamed to something like "Borders of Belgium, cycle event" or something like that, and the original Borders of Belgium page should be an empty page till someone makes the actual page. This maintains consistency in naming for all the border pages. I just wanted to report this error somewhere because it's quiet confusing to look op borders and suddenly land on a cycle event page. I haven't been working on an Wikipedia stuff for years, but thought I'd leave a message here about this situation.  Site thief  ~talk to me~ 13:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been handled. CMD (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome!  Site thief  ~talk to me~ 19:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion about linking to historic countries
A discussion about linking to historic countries is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Please feel free to join in. Mjroots (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Survey: Help improve Kartographer
Sorry for cross-posting

Do you create interactive maps with Kartographer (mapframe)? If your answer is yes, we would like to hear from you. Please take part in our survey and help improve Kartographer!

Some background: Wikimedia Germany's Technical Wishes team is currently working on the Kartographer extension. Over the last few months, we have been working on a solution to make this software usable on wikis where it isn’t available yet. In the next phase of the project, we are planning to improve Kartographer itself.

Because Kartographer is used quite a lot on this wiki, we would like to ask you: '''Where do you run into problems using it? Which new features would you like to see?''' Editors of all experience levels and with all workflows around Kartographer are welcome to participate.

Here is the survey: https://wikimedia.sslsurvey.de/Kartographer-Workflows-EN/


 * The survey is open until March 31.
 * It takes 10-15 minutes to complete.
 * The survey is anonymous. You don't need to register, and we will not store any personal data which identifies you, such as your name or IP address.

More information on our work with Kartographer and the focus area of Geoinformation can be found on our project page.

Thank you for your help! – Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"waterbodies" vs "bodies of water" for article titles and templates
Greetings! I have been involved in a discussion at User_talk:Aymatth2 that appears intractable and I was hoping for some other opinions on the matter. The TLDR version is that about a week ago, I moved List of waterbodies of Corsica to List of bodies of water of Corsica, along with several of its related articles, templates, and categories. I admit that my move was initially prompted by an error on my part - I mistook "waterbodies" (a word I had honest to god never heard before) as a mistranslation of the French; it isn't, and I feel silly for not having checked first.

However, I nonetheless believe that "bodies of water" is the more MOS-compliant title for lists, categories, and templates related to bodies of water. "Bodies of water" is by far the more common phrasing both on and off Wikipedia, which makes it more a recognizable and natural title for the vast majority of readers. It's already the title for the main article bodies of water, and for Category:Bodies of water and subsidiary categories thereof, making it more consistent. It is a few characters longer than "waterbodies," but I don't believe the slight difference violates the concision criteria. It has been argued that "waterbodies" is more precise, but I don't believe this distinction is significant in typical use, so using "waterbodies" would not make for a more natural or recognizable title.

Hopefully there are enough active participants here that we can arrive at a consensus to standardize such titles one way or the other. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to force editors to choose one form or another for article titles. "Body of water" is more common than "waterbody", but "bodies of water of Foo", with its repeating "of ... of" is awkward compared to "waterbodies of Foo". That is probably the reason why the majority of waterbody list-type articles use the second form in their titles. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that "bodies of water" is generally more common, but both are perfectly acceptable terms and, in this particular context it is more succinct and less clumsy to use "waterbodies of Foo" than "bodies of water of Foo" iaw WP:CONCISE. Bermicourt (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on improving our management of geostubs
There is currently a discussion at Village pump (idea lab) regarding improving our management of geographical stubs. The thread is Future discussion on improving our management of geostubs. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Permastubs. Thank you. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Otago
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Otago that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The Core Contest
WP:The Core Contest will take place from April 15 to May 31 this year, in its tenth iteration. It's an exciting contest, running over a period of six weeks, with £250 of prize money for the articles that are most improved. It would be great if we could get participants to improve geographical topics, with Geography, Egypt and Algeria just three of the vital geography articles judged to be C-class. Femke (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) has an RFC
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Single or separate articles for coterminous regions of Costa Rica?
Hi, in Costa Rica the administrative territorial division states that there are provinces subdivided in cantons subdivided in districts. Recently two districts became cantons of their own, and both kept a single district occupying the same area. I created articles for both Monteverde (canton) and Puerto Jiménez (canton) and kept the ones from the districts at Monteverde and Puerto Jiménez (The "(canton)" in the title is the consensus for these 84 entities), each entity has a Wikidata item associated and also a separate OpenStreetMap relation, because even while having the same area, those are jurisdictionally different entities. The articles I created where then edited and redirected because the district and cantons are coterminous, but I don't know if this a hard rule here at English Wikipedia? Some guidance would be helpful. Thanks. --RoboQwezt0x7CB (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to just have one article for a single-district canton. The geography, history, demographics etc. are the same, just some minor bureaucratic distinctions between district-level and canton-level administrative functions. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, yes it does make sense and I'm also for deduplication efforts, I was just used to to the other way in other Wikis, and I'm now inclined to do this single article for those cantons elsewhere as well. --RoboQwezt0x7CB (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Where there is very substantial overlap, there is precedent to not pointlessly duplicate articles. Take for example any island country, or the French overseas departments which are also French regions. CMD (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cam River (Canterbury)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cam River (Canterbury) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. BilledMammal (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Fantasy Cartography
Hello WP:Geography, I'm currently working on the page Fantasy Cartography and would greatly appreciate any help/feedback to improve the article! Particularly relevant to your project would be help in developing the concept of "geofiction". I'm working on it as part of my undergraduate degree - I'm taking a course in wikipedia editing so this is my fist serious foray into the wikipedian community. --Twomatters (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) has an RFC
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.— Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 19:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Tykhe, Odessa Oblast notable?
It is a village. I believe that such village in USA or UK would be notable.Xx236 (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes likely, it seems to be a village with its own census data so would probably pass GEOLAND#1.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch § RfC: Relative time references - 'today' or not 'today'?. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Separate articles for administrative units to settlements with the same name
I have created an essay on this at Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements, more input would be appreciated.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The section on different names goes against my understanding of Article titles, which is that article titles are determined by article content, rather than the other way around. If foo jurisdiction is basically the same place as bar municipality, it is better to put a sentence like "In municipal government the area covered by Foo is known as the bar municipality" or similar. CMD (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is intended for cases like Alston (settlement) and Alston Moor (municipality) of which the municipality has a different name and covers a far wider area and other settlements. Often this occurs from mergers such as Nedging/Nedging-with-Naughton or as a result of a rename to acknowledge that there are other important places such as Styrrup/Styrrup with Oldcotes. In cases like Denby Dale where the municipality has the same name as the settlement then only 1 article exists even though the municipality contains other settlements.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That would suggest that the Denby Dale article should be split, one for the village and one for the municipality. There's no clear reason to treat it differently. CMD (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Because in the case of Denby Dale the village and municipally have the same name so per WP:NOPAGE its more logical to have a single article with with Alston/Alston Moor the names are different so are distinct enough to both exist.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Illgraben
Was in the NPP queue apparently because there are no inline citations. I attempted to add another source with inline citation, but my edit was reverted. I posted on that editor's TP because it doesn't appear they understand how citations work. I'm of the mind the article itself needs some experienced eyes.  Atsme 💬 📧 13:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Antarctica
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Antarctica/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on the inclusion of Tbilisi on the list of European cities
There is currently a discussion at Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits regarding whether Tbilisi (Baku and Yerevan) should be included in the list of European cities. The thread is Exclusion of Tbilisi. Please, participate, a third opinion is desperately needed. Thank you. FromCzech (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

129 Iranian "Village" articles nominated for deletion
This is already flagged on the Geo delsort, but see here if you're interested: Articles for deletion/Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 55 FOARP (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Micronesia articles
We have an article about the Federated States of Micronesia, which is OK.

But we also have Outline of the Federated States of Micronesia and Index of Federated States of Micronesia–related articles. I am pretty sure we don’t need both, and even in isolation each of the two could do with a good trimming (for instance, Eastern hemisphere is quite a stretch to include in either; set index articles and outlines should usually include topics that are more specific than their title).

Any opinions / ideas? Pinging the main contributors and, who both seem to still be active. Tigraan Click here for my talk page ("private" contact) 16:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Outlines and indexes are navigation pages. They are standard features of Wikipedia. Outlines are like tables of contents for subjects on Wikipedia, while indexes are like the index of a book, but for a subject instead. Both are intended to be comprehensive, to list every article on Wikipedia about its subject.  Some outlines have become so large, that they have been split into many sub-outlines. Outline of mathematics, for example, splits out to Outline of algebra, Outline of geometry, Outline of calculus, etc. Meanwhile, Outline of geography splits out to outlines of all of the countries, and Outline of the United States splits out to outlines of every state, and some of those further split out to outlines of cities (like Outline of New York City). So, trimming an outline down is inappropriate, but if it has grown too large, then splitting it into multiple outlines would be acceptable. Though the outline you are referring to is of such a small scope that I couldn't imagine it growing very large any time soon.  Outlines are classified (organized by classification), while indexes are organized alphabetically. Both formats are useful for browsing, and each have a department for developing them.  Outlines also serve as a profile of its subject. Outlines on countries, for instance, mostly share the same format and basic organizational structure, including a hierarchical list of regions that the country is located in. Specifying that a country is located in the Milky Way Galaxy, in the Sol star system, on the planet Earth, would be overkill, but covering that it lies in the Eastern hemisphere (along with the other regions it lies in) is geographically appropriate, under the location entry.  As for the index, I've added the note "(located in)", after "Eastern hemisphere", to provide context.  A key aspect of outlines, is that they fit together as an overall navigation structure for browsing Wikipedia, accessible via the Contents link on the side menu on every page of Wikipedia. Getting rid of an outline creates a gap in the outline system at Contents/Outlines, which includes a list of the world's countries and autonomous regions.  The outline you mentioned looks a bit out of date, and could use a search around WP to find missing article titles.   &mdash; The Transhumanist   08:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've begun updating the Outline of the Federated States of Micronesia. Please take a look.  &mdash; The Transhumanist   10:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Caribbean
If someone could take a look at this table that would be appreciated. I've been trying to figure out why it isn't sorting population properly and I couldn't figure it out. Thanks! 155.188.123.90 (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * --- if any entry in a sortable column uses nts, all of them must, otherwise it sorts incorrectly. — hike395 (talk) 05:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Jews of Color
Please contribute to this new article draft on Jews of Color.--Coin945 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

District or Councils
Current at afd is Articles for deletion/County Borough of Southend on Sea where a discussion is taking place. What should come first, a district or the council as the page. The district is just a local government area which is run by a local authority, the council. If you search non metropolitan districts on gov.uk you get a list of councils, not a list of districts. As each district has an authority should the authority be the correct name for the page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In most cases the district should have an article and the council should redirect to it such as Chelmsford, (settlement) City of Chelmsford, (district) and Chelmsford City Council (council that redirect to district). The district council should normally redirect to the district as Castle Point Borough Council also does for example. The district is slightly broader and when it comes to linking in infoboxes or describing what district a place is in its generally more appropriate to state the district not its council which may sound odd/confusing even if the council is better known than the district. In some cases where the district is a single unparished area like Leicester it may make more sense to have an article on the council instead namely Leicester City Council.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is there three different things? A district is a goverment geographical area that is managed by a council. A settlement is the place. So we should have settlements and councils. Why have a district article as well? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We should normally have articles on settlements and districts but not on the councils. That's why as noted Chelmsford City Council redirects to the district but in the case of Leicester there is no article on the district (as its unparished) thus per WP:UKDISTRICTS an article at Leicester City Council exists. With cases like South Woodham Ferrers its generally easier to state its in Chelmsford (the district) than in Chelmsford City Council which sounds odd. In most cases we don't need 3 articles, see WP:Semi-duplicate.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

So we have an inconsistent system that is based on depending if its parished or unparished? It's madness. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If I had my way I'd probably favour having separate articles for all districts but that's probably unlikely to happen. Also civil parishes and unparished areas generally don't have separate articles from settlements of the same name so if the district is concurrent with a single unparished area this is consistent with how we handle parishes/unparished areas.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 21:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Then if that is the correct route the districts should be named under their legal name. I found the latest data (2021) on local authority districts from the ons https://geoportal.statistics.gov.uk/documents/ons::local-authority-districts-counties-and-unitary-authorities-april-2021-map-in-united-kingdom-/about. Therefore City of Chelmsford should be called Chelmsford, and Southend on Sea City Council changed to Southend, as these are the official district names.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

In addition, the Council tax: stock of properties, 2018 on gov.uk which states "Table CTSOP1.0: Number of properties by Council Tax band and region, county and local authority district" does not state City of Chelmsford, but Chelmsford snd describes Southend-on-Sea as Southend-on-Sea UA. Also if you go to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Open data portal, search non metropolitan districts and Chelmsford, the district is called Chelmsford, not City of Chelmsford or Chelmsford City Council. Southend no longer comes under the non metropolitan districts list but under the unitary authority list. So therefore we have contradicting information from government bodies. Therefore whom is correct? Should an RFC be held to decide what name we should use?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia sometimes uses natural disambiguation when the simple name is taken. While "City of X" may not be common for other districts it is generally used by the Ordnance Survey for UAs with city status such as "City of Leicester". It doesn't yet for Southend presumably because the change in status was recent. You could start a multi-move discussion per WP:RMPM if you think they should be moved.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Resolving More citations needed template message from 2018
I've been working on the main article for Geography. We may be approaching the point where we can remove the 2018 template message for more citations. Would anyone be able to give some feedback on this? I think that fixing this template should be a high priority. GeogSage (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Review for Greater Manchester
User:Buidhe has nominated Greater Manchester for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC regarding rules on paged for districts and councils
Hi. I only come across this issue when I saw a discussion on the Talk page of Southend-on-Sea regarding the County Borough of Southend-on-Sea page. I raised this as an AFD, which basically has had little input other from myself and User talk:Crouch, Swale, and then as a discussion on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography, placing notices of the discussion on both the notability page for geography and the WikiProject:Councils talk page. So far there has only been two people involved - guess who!

As Wikipedia is a community and is governed by concensus, I have raised this AFD to bring clarity, as there seems to be no actual rules just opinion.

The first issue is the Metropolitan and Non metropolitan districts of England: What is their correct name? As evidenced from different sources the names are different: Take City of Chelmsford, the Ordnance survey district says City of Chelmsford, the Office for National Statistics  says Chelmsford, GOV.uk (which lists them as Councils although the download page states it is metropolitan and non metropolitan districts)  as Chelmsford City Council,  the Council tax: stock of properties, 2018 on gov.uk "Table CTSOP1.0: Number of properties by Council Tax band and region, county and local authority district" which comes from the Valuation Office Agency  says Chelmsford, or the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Open data portal says Chelmsford. When you look at Southend-on-Sea, the name fluctuates between Southend-on-Sea and Southend-on-Sea Unitary Authority!

As the UK government seem to have an issue to what the naming conventions should be should we:

1. Go with current naming convention, based on Ordance Survey. 2. Go with the Ministry Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government Open data portal.

Second Issue. Do we need to have separate pages for the local authority district and the local authority council? Or could these be combined ?

1. Keep separate pages for both district and council. 2. Merge pages together and name under a. The district or b. The council.

Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The naming conventions for districts are at WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts which says "A district that has city status is named City of Westminster or City of Salford". The OS is generally the best source for deciding the names of places in GB but per WP:NATURAL other names can be used if the "best" one isn't available. It should not be "Chelmsford City Council" as that's the name of the council that runs the district.
 * Generally no per WikiProject UK geography/How to write about districts unless perhaps like Leeds City Council (see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography) if there is a significant amount of content for the council otherwise like Colchester Borough Council just redirect to the district. A clear and obvious exception is where the district doesn't have a standalone article from another geographical feature such as Eastbourne being about the town and district so Eastbourne Borough Council is appropriate.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment playing devil's advocate here. The non metropolitan and metropolitan districts are a geo-political area created by legislation. Therefore should they not be under their legal name as per legislation and not a mapping organisation?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * We've already done all this and it is documented. MRSC (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Then why the conversation on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography Disambiguation of unitary districts? Has there been an RFC before?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there has been a RFC before but at least for England there has been much discussion on English districts for example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/Archive/WikiProject UK subdivisions. The issue of UAs may be more recent since until 2009 there was only 1 UA in England with the same name as a ceremonial county but different boundaries and no article had until recently been created for it (though there was discussion on it years ago). This RFC though primarily aimed at English district does seem a global discussion rather than just for England or even the UK.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I will play devil's advocate again. If Eastbourne and Eastbourne Borough Council are acceptable as Settlement and District, then why is Southend-on-Sea settlement and Southend on Sea City Council not the same. They are the same boundaries. Yes Southend is made up of Leigh on Sea, Westcliff, South Church, Thorpe Bag and Shoeburyness but how are these different from Langney,Holywell and Hampden Park? They were all former distinct areas swallowed up and stand as distinct non metropolitan districts? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Eastbourne is a single unparished area, Southend-on-Sea contains Southend-on-Sea unparished area and Leigh-on-Sea civil parish.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment I have been looking at the Ordance Survey and the latest release regarding boundary changes: https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/product-support/release-notes/Boundary-Line-Release-Notes-May22.docx-v4.1.pdf. in this document the district name for Chelmsford is Chelmsford. The Lancaster District is also District? I then checked the actual live reference for Chelmsford. Again this is Chelmsford.. Can you please why the naming convention was the decided to be different from the actual official title? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

[Simultaneous discussion sections referenced: WP_Talk:GEO#RFC regarding rules..., Talk:Southend-on-Sea#County Borough..., and Talk:County Borough of Southend on Sea passim (none were wl'ed in original RfC; the OP may amend their wls and delete this header of convenience) – SamuelRiv (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)]


 * what is your brief and neutral statement? As shown at Requests for comment/History and geography the matter under consideration is unclear. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , top-posting your "header of convenience" makes it very difficult for anyone to understand what's proposed and even makes it seem as if you've launched the RFC, as you see from Redrose64's response. I've moved it into its chronological place, where it can remain as an ordinary comment that similar discussions continue elsewhere. NebY (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. I don't know how it could have been more clear, and outside the header it defeats the purpose. You can just remove the signature. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the point of this discussion. Its creator seems to think that a district and its council are the same thing. They are obviously not, the former being a place and the latter a group of people, so their legal names are obviously not the same. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Phil. Its not the same thing, I know. The RFC is what we should have. Originally we had councils, settlements and districts. The County Borough page was changed to City of Southend, which was discussed on talk page of Southend-on-Sea. When I started looking, many Council pages were moved into the districts, like Chelmsford and named differently from their official name (Chelmsford district renamed City of Chelmsford, Lancaster district renamed City of Lancaster). This is based on naming convention that was discussed by a few editors on the wikiproject for geography. This is not really a standard, as places like Eastbourne have a council page and a settlement page (because they don't have more than one district, ie a parish which is the level below), since we have a mish mash. I raised the RFC to ask what editors think we should name and have.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Turkish city
We have an RM on giving a city in Turkey the pre-1939 colonial era name. I cannot see any justification for this in post-WWII sources perhaps someone better informed can take a look In ictu oculi (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Inner German border
User:Buidhe has nominated Inner German border for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Draft:List of longest rivers in Eurasia
I recently submitted Draft:List of longest rivers in Eurasia for review, but it was rejected as it "does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own". That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as there already exist List of longest rivers of Asia and List_of_rivers_of_Europe, and Eurasia is bigger than both Asia and Europe. Can anyone advise? Stara Marusya (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's redundant, why would we need another article to rank the same things? It duplicates List of river systems by length too, which easily shows what the longest rivers in Europe and Asia are without an additional article for Eurasia, so I'm not sure what your draft adds to these. Reywas92Talk 01:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So you say there ought not be a List of longest rivers of Asia either?Stara Marusya (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, it's redundant too, but we definitely don't need a third article listing these. Reywas92Talk 16:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If we are to have two, Eurasia is more notable than Asia. Stara Marusya (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is not a function of size. As someone who has created a Eurasia article, it is an entirely pointless exercise. It duplicates maintenance for no benefit. (Whether any of htese articles has much value is another matter.) CMD (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's a better idea to develop the Eurasia article, and perhaps expand some of its sections into articles. For example, there's a History of Eurasia but no Geography of Eurasia. Stara Marusya (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've created Geography of Eurasia. Stara Marusya (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't, you copied and pasted lines from the lead and first section of Eurasia. How useless is that? That's WP:REDUNDANT and WP:DUPLICATE and I've redirected. Reywas92Talk 21:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Eurasia is only 9,000 characters of prose long, far from long enough to need a split! More content about its geography should go there in the main article and only split to a new one if necessary and not duplicative. Creating articles for the sake of creating articles is not beneficial – expand the section first. Reywas92Talk 21:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then how do you explain History of Eurasia? Stara Marusya (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe it could be merged back to the main article! It's actually longer than the main article though so it would be some undue weight! Still baffled why this needs explaining. There's unique and substantive content for that article but the one you made was just copy-pasted, providing no additional benefit to the reader. Just because one concept has a stand-alone page doesn't mean anything should. Reywas92Talk 02:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you're contradicting yourself. Should it be merged or not? Additional benefit is easy to provide, why don't you help? Stara Marusya (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to help, at least stay out of the way. What you want isn't clear, and I'm hesitant to commit to further work on this when you refuse to provide clarity. I can easily beef up the article, or I can put its content in a section on the Eurasia page, beef that up, and then transfer it back to the article once it passes a certain size. Please provide clarity, or you could always help. Stara Marusya (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A Eurasia section would be welcome. I doubt there is enough content on the topic as a whole that is not redundant to Geography of Europe, Geography of Asia, and related articles that a new page will be necessary. To your previous question, yes, History of Eurasia could be trimmed and merged because very little of it is about Eurasia in particular, but rather about concepts of human history or specific parts of Europe and Asia, all covered in other articles already that don't need to be grouped like this as a whole. Reywas92Talk 17:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is a solid case for a History of Eurasia page given the long history of connectivity along its East-West axis, but I agree the current page isn't that. CMD (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR for Isles of Scilly
Isles of Scilly has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR Notice
Shanghai has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Kind-of-an-exclave?
New York City has a geographic oddity; there's a couple of streets which only connect to streets outside of the city. In other words, if you start on one of those streets, to drive to the main part of New York City, you need to drive through a different town. I'm talking about Park Dr (Open Street Map). Is there a name for this kind of thing? It's not really an exclave, but effectively is one. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That would be a pene-exclave. Many fun examples abound. CMD (talk) 01:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Suwalki Gap article(s) in relation to surrounding countries
First, I apologize in advance for the length of this note, but I am NOT as knowledgeable as I ought to be about European borders, NATO memberships, or Russian interests.

So please take these as comments from an ignorant, but intellectually hungry, reader who came to Wikipedia to learn more about something read "in the news".

Today, trying to learn more about which European countries are in/out of NATO, I noticed on a NATO map a small area surrounded by NATO countries named "Kaliningrad" and marked as "Russian". I didn't remember anything about it, so I looked for more info here on Wikipedia.

That article on Kaliningrad seemed great until curiosity pulled me into a "vortex". In it, I found & followed, a reference link to this article on the "Suwalki Gap" [Corridor]. I felt it was very informative on many details, but it left me wondering about some pretty basic information I had been looking for.

I hope mentioning those "missing details" here will encourage experts to supplement this article.

[BTW, I already tried following this article's link to the the "Sulwalki Agreement" article, which also is very interesting, but also doesn't address these seemingly basic details. In addition, that article's accompanying historical maps are themselves very confusing, as they identify totally different countries' names. It would be REALLY helpful if someone would annotate those maps to overlay current boundaries/names (using color, see-thru text, etc.) to make it easier to visualize this area's complicated history.]

The "basic details" I believe are missing about the "Suwalki Gap" (Corridor) today (& in the past, if different):

1. Does the Suwalki Gap have recognized technical boundaries? If so, what are those?

2. How much land is encompassed by the Suwalki Gap (sq. Kilometers, sq. Miles, Acres, etc.)? [By this, I'm trying to get a feel for whether it might be "wide enough" for effective military passage without the necessity of a military unit having to "touch" the border of either Poland or Lithuania?]

3. Is the "Suwalki Gap" recognized as being the legal border between Poland & Lithuania? If not, where is that border in relation to the Suwalki Gap?

4. At different points during my reading, I got the impression that the Sulwalki Gap runs across (or was carved from) either current Poland or current  Lithuania. Which is correct, or is some from each?

5. There is a map in this article under "EU civilian infrastructure" that identifys an "S61" expressway that "passes through the Suwałki Gap", but that map doesn't illustrate the Suwalki Gap at all. It also doesn't identify whether all of the area shown on that map is within Poland or if it includes portions of adjacent countries. Clarification of what this map shows in relation to the Suwalki Gap would be very helpful.

The above seem to me to be important "basic" details that I'm sure must have been inadvertently omitted from inclusion with the otherwise very thorough content of this article.

Thanks, Paul Pdalton (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Pdalton, the Suwalki gap is a geopolitical concept rather than a legally defined space, aligning roughly with the shortest distance between Kaliningrad and Belarus. This happens to be more or less the location of the Polish-Lithuanian border, both of which are in NATO. The S61 expressway is designed to go from the Warsaw direction right to the border, and thus pass between Kaliningrad and Belarus. This sort of chokepoint concept exists elsewhere, for example the Siliguri Corridor. I would encourage posting such questions directly on article talkpages, where they are more likely to be seen. Best, CMD (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Maps and Charts
I have started a RFC at WP:VPP (Village_pump_(policy))asking for clarification of the OR policy regarding the use of maps and charts as sources in Wikipedia articles. I'm posting here as this project would likely be among the most affected. Dave (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The RFC, now at Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, has questions related to notability. --Rschen7754 06:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Fate of Stromboli link
There is a split proposal ongoing at Talk:Stromboli to split Mount Stromboli off from the article about the island which is currently at Stromboli. The split proposal doesn't clearly say what will remain at that location, whether it will be Stromboli (disambiguation), Stromboli (island), or possibly Stromboli (food). Input would be appreciated in that split proposal and especially the subsection Talk:Stromboli. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposed refactoring of geographic feature notability
We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

GIS project or sub project here?
Hello,

So I've been focusing a lot on the main geography page, but also a bit on various GIS pages. I was wondering if creating a spin off project to tackle just those would be meaningful, and then going to request help from anyone who would know how to set that up. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 17:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Sudanian savanna
An article which may be of interest to members of this project&mdash;Sudanian savanna&mdash;has been proposed for merging with Sudan (region). If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 89.206.112.13 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Adam%27s_Bridge
First RM since 2021, please share your opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Czech Republic RM
For the interested: Talk:Czech_Republic Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC on usage of First Nations placenames on Wikipedia
There is an ongoing request for discussion concerning whether First Nations placenames can be used in the infobox on Wikipedia. Please provide your feedback here. Poketama (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Somerset
I have nominated Somerset for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Biledulgerid
Eh... there's a stub article on this imaginary place that someone knowledgeable in NW Africa really should clean up if they can spare the time. We shouldn't completely delete it since it does show up on many many period maps, but we should make it clear that it wasn't a real thing, who the actual people in the area were, and what the actual states were during the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s when Europeans just handwaved the region with this mangled Arabic name. — Llywelyn II   14:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Ptolemy RM
There is currently an on-going requested move discussion pertaining to Ptolemy at Talk:Ptolemy that might be of interest to this WikiProject. Walrasiad (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Input requested
Hi. There is a discussion about the division of the Americas continent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 27. Your input is welcome. Regards, -- Thinker78  (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC on List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom
Hi, I've requested comment on List of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom regarding a dispute about different definitions being used determine which city a tall building is located in.

See RfC about the use of different definitions of a city

ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Isle of Portland
User:Buidhe has nominated Isle of Portland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC on Notability (geographical features)
There is currently an RFC about defining administrative divisions/districts within WP:Notability (geographical features) which you may be interested in.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Geography of Ireland FAR
I have nominated Geography of Ireland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Standard maps to include in infoboxes
There is a discussion at Talk:Russia about the inclusion of several maps in the infobox. The discussion may evolve into an RfC encompassing all pages of countries. Your input in the discussion is appreciated. Regards, Thinker78  (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

3rd opinion needed: How many Republics of Russia are there?
There is a debate on the talk page as to the count. 21 are recognized internationally, while Russia claims (and de facto controls) 24. The argument is that therefore we should say there are 22, because that is the number in a source we have that counts Crimea but was evidently written before the Donbass republics were declared part of Russia, and we have to follow sources. IMO we should switch to current sources, but I'm not going to continue to edit-war over it. Personally I think we should list both 21 and 24, noting that 3 are internationally recognized as part of Ukraine, but that's just a suggestion. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Village pump proposal for renaming US townships
Please see: From the proposal:
 * Village pump (proposals)
 * ”I would propose mass-moving these township articles to a naming scheme that only names the township and state, and only disambiguating with the county when there are multiple townships in a state.”

— A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Green Gully Reserve
If anyone is interested, this nature reserve, which also seems to house multiple sports venues is up for AfD. The original article didn't take into account the reserve and just focused on the stadium, With WP:GEONATURAL ignored, is at AfD. I've changed it a little, could do with input and improvement if anyone can help save it. Regards. Govvy (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Floral emblem
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Floral emblem that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – Material  Works  16:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Manhattan has an RFC
Manhattan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 01:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Help:Elevation
Help:Elevation is a guide to using wikitext to display elevation. Yours aye, Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for input
I recently approved an WP:AFC for Draft:Tenley_M._Conway, you can see some of my rationale here. Within 50 minutes, UtherSRG felt it appropriate to revert this without explanation beyond claiming that she did not meet faculty notability criteria. While I will always respect the opinions of other editors, there is no evidence that UtherSRG has extensive experience in academia. While I am not a geography faculty, I am emeritus at a top R1 university and have been on enough tenure committee's etc and written enough letters to know a strong academic. Her full CV is here. Maybe there are some academics in this project who would like to comment here, or on the Draft page. Feel free to say that you do not consider her notable. Full disclosure of COI -- none. I have never met her, I just feel that rejecting adhoc my acceptance of her page is inappropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC) Retracted Ldm1954 (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Rwanda
User:buidhe has nominated Rwanda for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on Asia-Pacific
Hi.. I have opened discussion on inclusion of Azerbaijan and Turkey (transcontinental country) in Asia-Pacific article on Talk:Asia–Pacific. Looking for comment from members of this WikiProject. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Western Sahara has an RFC
Western Sahara has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. CMD (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Article creation
Hello fellow editors, greetings! I see a need of forming a new article for Geomatics engineering whose scope is increasing and article is yet to be made on wiki. Even Survey engineering can be redirected here. Being a subject of paramount importance and related to this wikiproject I would like to bring it to your kind notice. I would love to assist in the mean process as and when needed but being a civil engineering student I might not be able to accomplish this on my own having been unknown of various terms used. Franked2004 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion at Guayana Esequiba
An editor has requested that Guayana Esequiba be moved to Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You &#32;are invited to participate in the move discussion. --WMrapids (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Richard Hakluyt
I have nominated Richard Hakluyt for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 17:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion for 2023 Guayana Esequiba crisis
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 &#32;are invited to participate in the move discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)