Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

Active discussions

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

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Climate change FAREdit

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 AmericaEdit

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, Bboren2, 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)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiserEdit


Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia: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 deletionEdit

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 Wikipedia: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)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

Please note that Huizhou, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Please contribute to the discussion about how sea and ocean currently overlapEdit

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?Edit

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#Article_name so maybe at Gdansk? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some inputsEdit


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

  • 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 discussionEdit

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 weekEdit

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)

RfC: Survey on importance of the 50 U.S. StatesEdit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus was reached to remove the principal article on all 50 U.S. states and reassign their importances at "Geography of _____".theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 17:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

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

the 50 states in the US by article importance, in WikiProject Geography

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.


  • 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:

theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 23:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Need The article is of priority or importance, regardless of its quality
Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid Subject fills in more minor details
Low Subject is mainly of specialist interest.
Bottom (Optional) Subject has no real significance to the project.
No (Optional) Subject is a disambiguation or redirect page, residing in article space.
  • 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 Wikipedia: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)
    @Chipmunkdavis: 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 (talkcontribs) (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 (talkcontribs) (they/them) 04:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Theleekycauldron: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 2,200 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: Added a statement, not sure how to get legobot to take it– can you help? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (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. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: 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 (talkcontribs) (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). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Redrose64: Well, it looks like i did it right now, and it'll update correctly when legobot runs again, right? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (they/them) 18:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Redrose64:   Done theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (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, (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit

Please note that Huizhou, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

The Core ContestEdit

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)


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)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Geography".