Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography

Requested move at Talk:Atacora Department#Requested move 24 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Atacora Department#Requested move 24 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 03:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

By continent or by region?

After recent discussions disputing the appropriateness of "by continent" categories and lists, I've opened Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 December 15#Category:Mythology by continent as a test case. Please feel free to participate there. -- Beland (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:King Buppan Peak#Requested move 30 November 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:King Buppan Peak#Requested move 30 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 10:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

RFC - mosey on over and review a new proposed template

{{User:The Equalizer/sandbox/Template:Capital Distance3}} - a new template to add geographic distances between locations into an article, could do with recommendations and suggestions for and against it, thanks. Regs, The Equalizer (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Standardize infoboxes and leads for former municipalities

I've opened a discussion regarding also this wikiproject here. --Friniate ✉ 20:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at the village pump (proposals) on the matter. --Friniate ✉ 14:27, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ma'ayan Harod#Requested move 28 December 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ma'ayan Harod#Requested move 28 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 08:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Statistical amassments in town articles revisited

I've opened a discussion in the Village Pump, see there. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

GeoHack appears down

In the past week when I've clicked coordinates in articles I get this page that says "Template:GeoTemplate" and seems to want me to log in. Is this the new normal? I hope not, because it doesn't work. Who do we contact to get this working again? Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

CIA World Factbook Shutdown - Best steps moving forward

Hi everyone. As you might be aware, the CIA World Factbook has been shut down completely as of February 4 2026. You could just as easily have not, given the fact that the news was very quietly disseminated, and the shutdown was implemented extremely abruptly, with little warning or explanation. In any event, this leaves us with a serious problem, given the fact that a significant number of pages rely upon the Factbook as a generalized reference for geographic data, demographic and commercial statistical figures, and concise geopolitical history. Most crucially, the first and second of these are widely present in the infoboxes for numerous countries and ethnic groups. The fact that the website was effectively shut down entirely as of the 4th makes the matter of reviewing and overhauling affected pages all the more urgent.

Though relatively few in number, these pages make up a rather outsize share of our subject area's visitor traffic, making it critical that pages that use the Factbook as reference are either updated with the most recent archived version of the page (in the worst case scenario, all pages of the Factbook have been archived up to 2020 here), or given alternative sourcing (e.g. UNSD, IMF, World Bank, UN Comtrade, WTO, etc.) to ease accessibility and reduce complications for updates moving forward.

If anyone has thoughts, proposals, or suggestions, they would be greatly appreciated. Wishing everyone the best, and sharing in the frustrations of those who see no quantifiable or justifiable reason for which one of the most widely cited and easily accessible geopolitical reference guides was so suddenly and inconspicuously dismantled by its publisher.

Regards, CSGinger14 (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I'm entirely unimpressed in the FactBook as a source for ethnic groups, for a start, and don't consider its demise any great loss. It is at best a tertiary source on the subject, and contains swathes of dated, inconsistent and otherwise questionable content on the topic. Such material is much better cited to specialist academic sources with proper credentials, rather than to an agency running a sideline in subject matter it has no obvious expertise in. I suspect, though I don't have the subject-matter knowledge to confirm it, that this is likewise true for other subjects. Sadly, I think too many contributors have adopted some sort of 'It's from the CIA, so it must be true' rationale for its use, rather than looking at it more critically. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, I agree with you on a few of these points. However, I think the critical points you're missing are recency and accessibility. You're right that often the deliberated information was dated, but the tangible data was updated yearly and, in some cases, was the only thing approaching a specialist academic [source] on certain groups or regions going back 20 years, or that at least could be found online at no charge. I think you're a little harsh on the point of it's accuracy. Readers and editors alike have a responsibility to challenge the accuracy of the sources they consult. The fact that such a significant number of pages host it as a reference seems to suggest that, in many cases, the wisdom of the crowd did determine that it generally was. That matters if we think highly of ourselves. This site has far more serious issues if we spurn that notion entirely.

Though it's reasonable to suggest that the information was dated in certain cases, regardless of your views on the United States government, it's not outlandish to suggest that it would have been necessary for the world's most extensive and consequential intelligence agency to have access to reliable data on the regions it operated within and the peoples it operated among. Whether such data was always shared with the general public remains an open question. Nevertheless, the fact that it was used so extensively is testament to the fact that many editors recognized it's value as a convenient and approachable reference for non-specialist audiences. It was easily intelligible to younger readers, and offered data that gave a generally verifiable picture of other parts of the world.

Ultimately, I think this further complicates the task of making knowledge accessible to the general public. We might feel assured by relying upon sources from specialists in print or subscription publications. Our readers, however, may be further restricted to what our site can provide if they lack the resources to invest in the sources we use. I don't think that bodes well for our goal of encouraging the wider public to engage with the knowledge at their disposal, to improve themselves or their communities. I think that if your hope is to encourage the development of critical thinking skills among our audience, this move ultimately only complicates that task further.

Best, CSGinger14 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I expressed no opinion on the US government. My comments concerned the reliability of the CIA as a source on ethnicity. I'm fairly sure I'd have said the same thing had a similar tertiary source from an intelligence agency from another country been under discussion. As for 'convenience' etc being a factor, I prefer accuracy, and I simply wasn't seeing it. Certainly not with the level of consistency that suggested that the FactBook might be based on any research being conducted by the CIA itself. It was clearly doing nothing more than compiling material from old sources, and not making a very good job of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump You make a fair point, but it seems we'll have to agree to disagree on the value of accessible sourcing. Do note that I made no indication that you had expressed on opinion on that matter, the phrasing was simply an object of rhetoric.

All the best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I think this quote from CNN sums it up well:

The elimination of The World Factbook has left educators and others in the information space scrambling. Hale was able to complete his lesson by pulling up the Internet Archive, but he expects that the loss of the Factbook will make his job more time-consuming. The World Factbook served as a one-stop shop where his students could easily obtain data about a country’s economics, demographics or culture, which he then used to inspire more fruitful discussions. Now, he and his students will have to gather that data piecemeal — and he doesn’t trust the other sources that are out there.

“It’s so hard to use corporate or private company resources, whether they’re talking about international data or banking or currency exchanges or whatever, because they have a vested interest to lie,” Hale said. “I can go debunk stuff, I can go redact stuff, but I don’t want the kids exposed to the lie in the first place.”

...

News organizations are also feeling the loss. Lizzie Jury, director of CNN’s editorial research team, said the research desk recently did away with subscriptions to other databases because similar information was available through the Factbook, which she called “the gold standard for country statistics.” On Thursday, she checked Britannica’s World Data to see if it could serve as an alternative but found that it, too, used The World Factbook as one of its sources.

— CNN

CSGinger14 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This project lists such resources at Wikipedia:Geographic references. I've updated the entry for the Factbook but this would be a good time to make a general spring clean of the page. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Population#Requested move 2 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Population#Requested move 2 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 14:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Orne (river)

The title Orne (river) seems ambiguous, since Orne (Moselle) is also a river. Should the disambiguation be more specific? ~2026-98545-5 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Orne (river) appears to have been moved to River Orne (Normandy). The original could be converted into a disambiguation page as you suggest. CMD (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Images

Geography without pictures is like a redhead without freckles!

Janet McIver, Penticton, BC

L ~2026-11251-44 (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Şanlıurfa Province#Requested move 23 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Şanlıurfa Province#Requested move 23 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:34, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Reef, 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, 9 March 2026 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Rescue page Lev Bondarev please

I think Lev Bondarev probably passes WP:NPROF, but much of the page is unsourced. I have removed obvious non-encyclopedic content, but Geography is not my topic so I cannot do more. The page is too old for draftification, and I am reluctant to send to to AfD to enforce draftification. Can someone repair it please.

Courtesy ping of User:Ivtorov, and I am also going to post to Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia due to the language issues. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)