The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 13 days, 4 support, 2 oppose. I was going to leave it a few more days, but the nominator asked for a decision to be made. Yes, there is more support than opposition, but there is clearly no conensus to promote the list at this time. Fail. Scorpion042217:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tables of contents aren't sourced. And this is a table of contents on Geography. Therefore an exception should be made on sourcing for this list. Sources shouldn't be required to verify that an article belongs to a core subject, because it's fundamental. Geography is well known. It is common knowledge that continents and other landforms are geography topics. Providing a source for each landform that states it is a geography topic seems ludicrous. The Transhumanist03:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is obvious, it needs some kind of source, otherwise it's OR. For example, wouldn't Pingos count as being a basic geography topic? And yet it's not included here. Done As well, a source is needed to confirm that countries like Armenia are considered part of Europe despite being entirely in Asia. I'm uncomfortable about supporting an FLC with no sources whatsoever. As well, there should be a longer lead. -- Scorpion042202:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The table in external links has alot of white space to its left (under all the links) possibly it needs to be moved up to get rid of all the white space (or atleast some of it). Done
I dont like having the portal tag so far up in the article. Id prefer it to be in external links or atleast futher down the page. This prob isnt nescessary. Done
That's the standard location for it on basic topic lists. If we change it on this list, then it would need to be changed on the over a hundred other pages in the collection. It was placed at the top since portals are also a type of introduction, and so it is covered in the introductory areas of the basic lists. The Transhumanist08:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the references is an issue, as it should be dealt with on all of the sub-pages, so possibly making sure it is dealth with on those pages might be important? (i presume it is). TwentyYears16:11, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that there are hundreds of articles contributing to this subject, sourcing them all is a collosal undertaking, but it is happening in due course (as is the case with all of Wikipedia). In time, most if not all of Wikipedia will be sourced. Keep in mind that this list is primarily a navigation aid. The Transhumanist —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the format and content of the two are so different that their purposes are just as distinct. Portals are glitzy pages modeled after the main page, and like the main page they provide a sampling of material with similar feature names and in a similar format. Lists of basic topics serve as a particular type of reference tool (the table of contents) and they adhere much more closely to the structure of their subjects. Portals can't portray a subject in the same way and with the same utility as a subject outline (list of basic topics) can, but after all, that is not the intent of portals. Portals are samplers, like a small box of chocolates. The Transhumanist02:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not portals. But (as you say on the newborn WikiProject Lists of basic topics), "Lists of basic topics … are part of the Wikipedia:Contents navigation system". By their nature, they are largely exempt from WP:V (no refs as no information that might be challenged is presented), WP:NPOV (as they don't offer any opinion, other than a hopefully neutral classification), WP:NOR (as they contain no non-obvious information). The entry criteria are much larger than we expect at FLC. They make heavy use of navigation templates and link to other more detailed lists. Both FL and FA have content that can be judged against WP's content policies and guidelines. The FLs tend to serve a navigational purpose too, but an FL that was merely a raw list of article titles wouldn't pass. Wrt assessment, I don't think the FL criteria are useful here. I suggest you open a debate on whether Featured Lists or Featured Portals are best suited to assessing such "Lists of basic topics". I accept these are not portals, but I think they are closer to portals than articles/lists. Colin°Talk08:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed with your assessment of the situation. Though I believe that the exceptions can be thought through right here, and a determination made as to whether or not the quality level of the list is worthy of featured list status. Is it easy to understand? Does it represent the topic well? Is there anything missing? Is there anything non-obvious that needs to be referenced (as per Scorpion's observation above)? Is the formatting appealing to the eye? Is the material presented in the best logical order? And so on. That is, How is the topic coverage?!The Transhumanist09:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're topics. They're just not articles yet. They'll turn blue as people create them. We could delink them, turning them black, but they'd just have to relinked again later. 10:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Transhumanist (talk • contribs)
original discussion by Circeus
Oppose
The lack of a proper target for "Human-environment interaction" severely undermine this list's usefulness as a list of "basic topics"
Actual section text and more illustrations (as in Lists of mathematics topics) would be useful to help clearing up what the header means
Actual section text Done
Illustrations Done
Many links to improper places (I doubt the value of links to disambiguation pages) Done, and Highland has to be a joke (what is it doing in that section anyway? Even the proper target doesn't clarify that!)
Something for "essence of geography" is probably a good idea (and will likely require some sort of sources, give that the five elements are supplanted as a teaching standard). Might as well give something for "history of geography", "earth spheres" (something about the origin of those terms would be nice), "manmade geographical features" (what angle are they studied on? are they more relevant than natural features?) and "geography awards". While o the topic, either use no emphasis ("main article" a pretty good one!) or choose one and stick to it. The italics are disconcerting. Circeus20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another query - There's some whitespace under the chart under "Sub-fields of physical geography". I'd like to place this pic there Pangaea, but can't get it to show up in the right place (I've used various parameters). The Transhumanist03:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was your the cell-padding adding extra whitespace between the bottom of "Fields of human geography" and the bottom of the larger table. I think I dealt with it. Circeus20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I've no objection to a meta-list like this being featured, and indeed supported Lists of mathematics topics when it came up, but this is not up to scratch. I agree with Circeus's comments - in particular:
It needs more introductory prose for some of the subjects. Done
Too many links go to the wrong topics or to disambig pages. Done
Wow, Featured Lists got a lot of reviewers in those days! I wish we had that level of participation now. Don't let my "oppose" be a block if consensus goes the other way, but I still think this sort of contents-page isn't what FLs are about. A brief look at that Lists of mathematics topics discussion shows I'm not the only one. I guess we haven't had many such nominations for this issue to have been decided. Colin°Talk15:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That one was particularly controversial, and also benefited (if you want to call it a benefit) from a message on a number of people's talk pages encouraging them to vote on it. If you have a look at the featured log for October 2005 you'll see that most nominations back then got a similar number of reviewers to now. You're right that it's not an issue that I think has come up much - though I believe, if my memory serves me, that it was the rejection of a portal as a Featured List that led to the Featured Portal process being set up. (In a similar way, Featured Lists only came about after a few lists were rejected as Featured Articles). I doubt we're ready to spin off Featured Navigation as a separate process, but that might be one way round this.--OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver16:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this is FL stuff, no doubt. I send Transhumanists a few pointers for references on his talk page. We're not exactly talking about anything overly complicated, mostly some good, generalist works that can be used to check the organization against. Circeus18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are lists, as are lists of lists. Portals are modeled after the main page and have WikiProject elements. We covered this above. The difference between lists and portals is like night and day. To remove lists from the main namespace would be like ripping the table of contents out of a book. To do that makes no sense. The Transhumanist01:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All lists, indeed all pages, with links in them are defacto navigation aids. This list doesn't differ much in this regard from other lists. Lists are also topical treatments of a subject, which is why they are in the encyclopedia body. Each can theoretically contain topics that are not linked. The primary criteria for being included in a list is not that an entry is an article, but that it is a member topic. A table of contents is restricted to what is in the work it tables. Topic lists are not. The topics exist in the world, and not necessarily in the encyclopedia. Expansion lists are an exception, of course, since they are simply multipaged lists (and each page needs a title, thus the root list links to other lists rather than the end subjects). So this list is not primarily a table of contents, but a topical breakdown of a subject. As such, it belongs in and is part of the encyclopedia body. The Transhumanist04:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've have added pics to the article. If there are any more sections which you feel must have an image, please let me know here, or forever hold your peace! :-) The Transhumanist02:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Supportif the "essence of geography" section can be revise completely. By currently giving only topical interest to a now outdated American teaching standard, it displays an obviously improper (what is the "essence" according to actual geographers?) and a national (U.S.) bias.Circeus16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that the lead should be a little expanded, instead of a one-sentence intro, you could make a very general overview of the differents topics and divisions of geography. Done And could you replace the animated US state map Done, with a non-animated one just showing the different states, it's not a history-related section but a section about subdivisions, plus it is heavy to load. And finally the list could benefit a lot if images were diversified, that is they represent different part of the world (currently there are 4 Europe-related pictures and 4 US ones), the world is much larger than the Western world :) DoneCG15:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been asked to have another look, so I'll leave aside the issues I raised above. This is a huge topic and I don't envy anyone trying to encapsulate it in one list. The main problem I see with this list is that it doesn't define what is "basic" about the topics included. The "Geographical features" section includes lists that are far from comprehensive wrt basic geography. Where are Moorland, Bog, Mudflat, Highland, Lowland, Cirque/Corrie, to list just a few? All were basic subjects where I grew up. The categories do a better job for such raw lists; at least they are fairly comprehensive. For an introduction to geography and WP's geography articles, I'd rather read Geography than this list, I'm afraid. IMO, the list would be improved by cutting back on links to minor articles (the landforms, bodies of water, man-made features, geographers). Find articles and categories that list those well and link to them instead. The "See also" section should be eliminated and I can't see any reason for including an "External links" section in this list. Colin°Talk10:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing out the missing topics. I've added them in. Done With respect to categories, lists do a better job presenting this type of material because of consolidation, structuring, formatting, image support, scrollability, and ease of maintenance supported by edit-tracking, watchability, and centralization. If a link is removed from a category, it can't be spotted as easily from a category page, because the edit histories of those pages don't include edits to the category itself (which is autogenerated). The basic topic lists are also more useful for Related changes tracking, due to the range of topics covered; to get the same coverage from categories, you would have to execute Related changes from several category pages. The see also section, and external links sections are very useful in an introduction to a subject, especially a reference aid and "cheat sheet" like this one. The Transhumanist04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on the list as much as I have time for right now. Somebody not involved with the above discussion please close it out. The supports outweigh the opposes, but I don't know if it is enough to tip the balance to be considered approved. I look forward to your decision. Thank you. The Transhumanist04:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done As well, a source is needed to confirm that countries like Armenia are considered part of Europe despite being entirely in Asia. I'm uncomfortable about supporting an FLC with no sources whatsoever. As well, there should be a longer lead. -- Scorpion0422 02:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
