User talk:GeogSage/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi GeogSage! I noticed your contributions to Superpower and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for the message! The Wikipedia community is certainly a fun way to spend time. I appreciate the tutorial, and will take a look at it. I hope I didn't do anything to noobish on the superpower page that prompted this message.

Have a great day! GeogSage (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

At a glance I didn't see any problems with it. Well-cited, clear expansion of the definitions and examples we already have. Of course someone else may have a different impression, but collaboration and discussion are what make the wiki go 'round. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization

Links to technical geography shouldn't be in title case per MOS:CAPS; I corrected this in your recent edits. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm learning the format as I go. Appreciate the help/feedback. GeogSage (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, GeogSage! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello!

Thank you for the welcome!

I appreciate the links and advice!

GeogSage (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 04:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geographic information system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ESRI.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia categories I originated

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:GeogSage&oldid=1131566743#Wikipedia_categories_I_originated - why as full/external links, not internal, do you know the method using ":"? E.g.:

Euro2023 (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Pure ignorance of the markup language. Thanks for pointing out, I'll fix that. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Technical geography, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Jenks.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Problems in spatial analysis has been nominated for conversion

Category:Problems in spatial analysis has been nominated for conversion. 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. fgnievinski (talk) 02:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Soil Maps

I appreciate your work on categorizing. Soil map doesn't fit with geologic mapping, as reflected in the respective articles' content, neither mention the other. If a geographic map category was ever developed, I expect soil map would have a comfortable home there. Thank you for caring about soil topics. -- Paleorthid (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and sorry for stepping on toes. As you said, just trying to clean up the categories. I'm currently trying to work out one along the lines of "Maps For Specific Applications" that could go either next to or under "Map Types." I don't know if such a category would be in line with what you are thinking of. Geologic mapping as a category would go under that category. I'll respect the argument that soil and geologic maps are distinct (I learned soil mapping from a geology department which is what made me toss it in there, but I can see how they are differnet) and I don't have a strong background in the mapping of either. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Cyber GIS

Hi, a week is not long enough to close a merge proposal with no participation. I'm not going to revert as I agree with it but if someone objects it may need to be discussed, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks for the feedback and advice. In the future, you're right I might wait longer then a week, however I was following the instructions on Wikipedia:Merging that says:

“

During discussion, a rough consensus may emerge to proceed with the merger. Any user, including the user who first proposed the merger, may close the discussion and move forward with the merger if enough time (normally one week or more) has elapsed and there has been no discussion or if there is unanimous consent to merge.

”

On the Talk:CyberGIS page, I actually have posted on the talk page a few times. In December 2022, I proposed merging with WebGIS, but didn't get any feedback on either page and found one mention in literature where a major proponent of Cyber GIS uses the words "Internet and Web GIS," which would imply that it would Interent and not Web GIS. Reading a few more of their journals, and distributed looked like the safest bet (although I'm not a fan of the term after a deep dive into the literature on it). After the suggestion to merge in December, I made another post on the talk page in April about issues of verifiability, and neutrality. I also mentioned that the page needed to clearly establish itself in relation to the other forms of established GIS. That again got no feedback. On Talk:Distributed GIS I posted in December of 2022 on the need to clean up the page, and got no feedback.

My experience with the two talk pages made me feel like I was yelling into the void a bit, and thus when I didn't get feedback (as expected) on a merger, I just went ahead with it after the minimum time on the Merging instructions page. Mostly, this was because it was still on my mind, and I didn't want to forget.

I'm glad that you agree with the decision, however. Please make any adjustments or corrections you think might make the new section better. In the future, I'll wait a minimum of two weeks to allow proper discussion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Nice job on George F. Jenks! I came across it while doing NPP. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 22:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! This is my first award, and it actually means a lot! I'm glad that you think the article is a good start, I'm really surprised as a professional geographer that Jenks didn't already have a page. He is mentioned all the time in classes, and cited in probably every cartography book published in the last 20 years.

Thank you again for the recognition, and have a great day! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 15:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Four traditions of geography has been nominated for deletion

Category:Four traditions of geography has been nominated for deletion. 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. fgnievinski (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Michael Peterson (geographer)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Michael Peterson (geographer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello GeogSage -- I've declined this immediate deletion request but some of the wording is way over the top with regard to what the source say. The subject is probably notable under WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR but book reviews especially of his sole-authored books, would be very useful, as would further sources independent of the subject. I'd also suggest pruning the list of visiting professorships to two or at most three most significant, and removing all the non-notable prizes ie probably all except the honorary fellowship. Hope this helps in improving this article. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work to improve it. I have not met Michael Peterson and am not associated with him in any way besides sharing some overlapping areas of interest. I wrote this to help me with a literature review I'm working on more then anything, although I only made the page because I was surprised he didn't already have one. I have a few of his books on my shelf from undergraduate course work and such.

The guest positions and awards were pulled from his CV and website bios, and agree can be cut down and summarized.

The Honorary fellowship with an international organization, and several widely used textbooks, were the two main reasons I thought he passed WP:PROF. He has also held "head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area" in addition to being president of North American Cartographic Information Society. Although, the journal is not really "major," it is well-established and not insignificant.

I will work to improve it, and appreciated any help/suggestions. One question I had though was on the book table. The award table was just me experimenting with the layout, but overall I thought tables to organize books was a good approach. Why is that not the case in your opinion?

Again, thank you for the help! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 16:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for stating that you don't have a conflict of interest here. One thing that might be generally useful to you, if you haven't already spent some time there, would be to look at AfDs on academics (delsort Academics & educators); it's very rare for someone with 2 or more single/small-group-authored research papers with >100 GS citns (except in some very high-citn fields) to be deleted. Also, an academic with at least 2 authored books with academic presses that have received multiple mainstream reviews is likely to get a pass under WP:AUTHOR. -->If the academic meets one/both of these criteria there's no need to stress about demonstrating notability.

For PROF, the journal needs to be reasonably well known in its field; in practice, it must at least have an article (generally not just a redirect to the society), though I think this is one of the bullet points of PROF where there's less agreement about exactly what counts. The presidency does help, but I'm not sure whether a national society for a relatively niche topic would be enough to sway AfD discussions on its own.

The tables definitely contributed to making it look promotional to me; I've never seen them used like that in academic bios before. Generally the books in the publications list should be split into headings for authored and edited. Discussing major books in the body with quotations from reviews is a good way of including reliable/independent opinions on the research of an academic who is still active. Hope this helps! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and links! I'm appalled at the state of geography on Wikipedia, which I think is largely due to the lack of emphasis on it in public schools and the Ivy league schools in the US. So many high impact professionals, concepts, methods, etc. are completely absent in the project. This feedback will be helpful as I try to increase the representation of the leaders of geography research.

The tables for publications is kinda something I've been trying for academics. In my opinion, the bios of a lot of academic authors that use bullets look lazy. I got the idea from the J. K. Rowling bibliography, and thought it would be good to give academic authors the same effort/format as other authors. In my opinion, the academic pages on Wikipedia would all benefit from being placed in a table format, rather then left as bullets. The awards table was on the recent page was excessive though, you're right. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Scientific Geography Series for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scientific Geography Series 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/Scientific Geography Series 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 until the discussion has finished.

Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Unnormalized choropleth category

I don't know if this is directly relevant to that talk page discussion but I found this Commons page that I suspect will interest you, Category:Choropleth maps using absolute numbers. It's not comprehensive (it didn't include the country population map in question until I added it today) but it shows that at least one person on Commons has noticed and put some work into solving the same problem, and that it's much more pervasive than this one map. It looks like diaspora maps are especially guilty. I have other map-related projects I'm busy with at the moment but at some point I'll try to create alternatives to more things on this list and start replacing them. Justin Kunimune (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! This restores a bit of sanity to me, the response to my attempts to remedy this have been disheartening. I'm considering how to put together a task force to specifically address misinformation in maps, but am in the process of figuring out the technical details. Will let you know when I do eventually get that together. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 06:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For overhauling the discipline of geograhy at Wikipedia! gidonb (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, GeogSage. Thank you for your work on Michael Dacey. SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the article Geomatics Engineering

Hello there! I hope you're doing some good faith edits and I would be immensely happy to help you in those actions. I see you're destroying article content of Geomatics engineering in a known or unknown way. Recently, you mixed the paragraphs of geopatial engineering to survey engineering in sub discipline section. And be sure university data's which I've added suggest them as sub discipline of geomatics engineering. A research place, university can't be wrong on it's perception. I would invite you to make a final edit even if you accept your knowledge to be higher than faculties of university. I suggest going thoroughly into article contents and maybe you lack knowledge on geomatics though having knowledge on geology probably. Thank you and expect some constructive edits in future. Franked2004 (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I request you to study this article too for a detailed knowledge on what is published by concerned professors of Tribhuwan University and see the requirements to study the course which clearly suggest geomatics as head branch and geospatial sub branch of it. For your information, geomatics engineers study all aspects whether that be spatial, remote sensing or surface and sub surface by various equipment use while geospatial is a part of which. Finally I suggest you discussing over onces article before making some changes while you find them equivalent experiences on wiki platform and having knowledge of concerned subject provided you may lack information on the same.[1][2] Franked2004 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

My personal qualifications do not matter however, as all that matter are sources. On that note, I have found that large sections of the geomatics engineering are directly copied, or inadequately summarized, from at least one article without proper attribution. Claims made on the geomatics engineering page are not substantiated by the sources given, such as including terms as subdisciplines within geomatics engineering like geospatial engineering. University sites can be wrong, as can peer-reviewed literature, and textbooks. One of the sources linked (here) is to a Wordpress site, and looks self published. While this page uses the word geospatial, it does not use the word "geospatial engineering." Geospatial engineering seems to be used as a synonym to geomatics engineering, and I've seen not reason to list it as a sub-branch.

Geomatics, geoinformatics, geographic information science, and scientific geography all emerged as competing terms during the quantitative revolution in geography, and the differentiation of quantitative geography from more traditional approaches. These terms all sprung into existence within a very short period of time, but in different locations. Geomatics was French, and later popularized by Canadians. Geoinformatics was popularized in Sweden I believe. Geographic Information Science was popularized in the United States, and the term Scientific geography seems to have fallen out of popularity. All of these can be linked to within the literature to the geographic subdiscipline of technical geography. These terms are all often used interchangeably or misapplied. Geomatics engineering seems to be another, more specific term, to add to this list. However I don't think there is enough literature to substantiate an entirely separate page from geomatics, and am advocating for a merge of the two pages. I have sought comment on other Wikiprojects, without any additional feedback. In preparation for that potential merge, I looked at the content and sources of the geomatics engineering page, and found substantial problems that I've tried to point out through tags rather then outright deleting the content in hopes that it is either reworded, or better sources are found.

Plagiarizing a peer-reviewed publication is "destroying" the article contents in my opinion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Dead Internet theory

I've seen you actively editing on the Dead Internet theory article and its talk page. Would you be willing to co-nominate it for GA sometime soon? — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I would certainly be willing to work towards that if you're interested in it, but I imagine the article probably needs work. I currently have an article in Peer review, so I can't nominate it there yet (policy is only one article at atime). If you want, you might consider adding the page to the peer review requests here before nominating it to GA status. This could help us get some decent feedback to move towards GA.

I have not ever gone through the process myself of nominating an article to GA, so it would need to be a learning experience for me. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Technical geography

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Technical geography, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Your gb

Hello GeogSage; Signed your guestbook. Saw that it wasn't on Jack's list and added it on your behalf. Have a great week ahead! Volten001 ^☎ 17:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that! I thought I had added it, but must have forgotten or messed up along the way. I appreciate your help! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem... It's alright and I'm glad to help out. Cheers Volten001 ^☎ 19:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Bling, bling!

		The Geography Barnstar
		For your arduous work in creating and improving geography articles, namely Waldo Tobler related ones; your expert input is much appreaciated! The Blue Rider 21:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Technical geography

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Technical geography you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of The Blue Rider -- The Blue Rider (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

About your post on the proposal to add human and physical geography to the Level 4 VA list

Actually the word you typed "phycial" should be spelled "physical" instead. Hope that you proofread what you type carefully prior to submission. RekishiEJ (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch, I'll go back and fix my spelling. I type fairly quickly and tend to rely on Grammarly and spellchecker to highlight my mistakes when I'm done. I'll try to be better about that, but even if I proofread, it is highly likely I'll miss any major misspellings as my brain will fill in the gaps for me. Human problems, am I right? Thanks for the catch though! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)