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: 15 days, 5 support, 5 oppose. No consensus to promote. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

previous FLC

Self-nom. Renominating the list because it appeared to have consensus in its previous FLC discussion, but was mysteriously closed as failed by one of the only two objectors (versus 5 supporters), even though a request was posted for it to be closed by someone other than a participant in the discussion (I refrained from closing it myself due to conflict of interest, but if that is not an issue here as it is at XfD, then I'll be glad to close this discussion). The points at issue, which were the basis of the objections were:

1. whether or not lists like this should be included in FLC or another department created for them called "Featured Navigation"
2. whether or not sources are needed and what exactly needs to be sourced
3. whether or not geography features should be included on the list, with the alternative to including them being the providing of links to comprehensive lists instead.
4. whether or not geographers should be included on the list, or just have a link leading to a comprehensive list of geographers instead
5. whether or not the article should include a see also section
6. whether or not there should be an external links section

The Transhumanist 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no opposition, then self-closures is not an issue. However, in cases where there is opposition, you should not. I am going to refrain from voting, but I still dislike the lack of sourcing. Without sources, it means that the topic may never be complete, I have been able to pick out several things that were missing, as well as some things that need sources. Featured lists should be as complete as possible, and with such a loose and expansive definition as "basic topics", this list never will be complete. As well the nations that are on one continent but are considered part of another need sources. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't "votes" exactly, but opinions. And you've just expressed one. Thank you for your participation.  ;-) These are discussions, and therefore somewhat informal. The Transhumanist 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if the list is incomplete, by all means point out the missing topics, so that they can be added. The Transhumanist 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are admitting that the list is incomplete and could easily have more added doesn't sit well with me. Featured lists are supposed to be as complete as possible, and if an IP could come along and easily add a dozen important things to the page, it's not very complete, is it? The way I see it is that this list is basically a category, that isn't (and likely never will be) complete, and has no sources whatsoever. I can easily pick out several things that need sourcing: the "Branches of geography" section, what the definition of a "basic topic" is, why are countries that are clearly in Asia listed as a part of Europe?, why are awards part of list of Geography topcs?, what makes a person a "Influential geographers"? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am unaware of missing items. Which is why I requested that you point them out. Your objections concerning sources are noted, and I'll do my best to track down sources for each of those, when I have the time. I agree that inclusion criteria for "basic" need to be specified. Any ideas? And lists and categories overlap in subject matter almost entirely; the purpose of lists is to present information in ways that can't be done on categories, such as with structure, etc. The Transhumanist 23:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Missing items can be uncovered by spending a few minutes with the categories and searches. You shouldn't expect FL reviewers to do the work for you. As Scorpion says, if, by the time you come to FLC, it is still easy to find missing entries, then that is a big clue that the list isn't ready. Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right department for lists like this?

• Yes - they're topical, and though they serve as tables of contents, they are still lists. The Transhumanist 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If you want to have a discussion about whether or not this type of list should be an FL, you've picked the wrong place. Perhaps you should finish this discussion at a more appropriate place, THEN renominate it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the list doesn't belong here, then this is precisely the place to determine that, but it wasn't my objection. It would be unfair of me to repost this FLC without covering each of the objections from the previous discussion. I nominated the list for featured list status, and this is where lists are covered, so here it is.  :-) The Transhumanist 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are sources needed and if so, what needs to be sourced

• No - As with categories, only obvious items are included, and since sources should be included in the articles listed, no sources are needed here. The Transhumanist 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly if one wishes to use a source in order to better define the scope. Without it, the list is open to the charge that the selection is a personal choice and WP:OR. Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the lists of geography features be replaced by links to comprehensive lists instead?

• No - This list isn't intended to be comprehensive, except in the context of "basic". The Transhumanist 23:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly If this is meant to be a list of all "basic" geography features, then it should be comprehensive wrt its scope. It may be that a comprehensive list of such fine detail would unbalance this list and be better off elsewhere. Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should geographers be replaced by a link to a comprehensive list of geographers?

• No - This list isn't intended to be comprehensive. The Transhumanist 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Except in the context of "basic". The Transhumanist 23:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the FL criteria specifically says that FLs should be comprehensive
    • In this case that means "comprehensively basic". So all "basic" topics should be included. The Transhumanist 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be your distinction between a geographer that appears on a basic list and one that appears on a full list? FWIW, we didn't discuss any geographers in my school geography course. Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the see also section be removed?

• No - it's a standard article feature. Especially useful in a beginner's-level page. The Transhumanist 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. The purpose of the "See also" section is to note some wikilinks that couldn't be incorporated into the body text. This list has no body text and it has multiple tables/lists where related topics could be mentioned. So the list is really one big, organised, see-also section.

Should the external links section be removed?

• No - it's a standard article feature. Especially useful in a beginner's-level page. The Transhumanist 23:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes It is not a standard article feature in the sense that one is mandatory. See WP:EL. The external links, if at all appropriate, belong on the article pages. The only sort of external link I would consider appropriate here would be one that details/discusses a "List of basic geography topics" (which is distinct from the topics themselves). Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is an acceptable definition for the term "basic geography"?

• Define "basic topic". -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for prompting thought on this. How about "topics appearing in introductory-level textbooks on Geography. Topics covered through primary school to 100-level 'Introduction to Geography' courses in college." How's that? The Transhumanist 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Scorpio0433 Scorpio0422, A basic topic is a major branch of a subject. All the core topics (Mathematics, Science, History, Geography, Philosophy, Arts, Technology and Society) have both a list of basic topics (Major branches, science would have chemistry, biology, physics etc. and their subranches) and a list of topics (A list of all parts of that field). See List of basic history topics and List of history topics for an example. You also had concerns that this list was incomplete. By their nature, lists of topics are dynamic lists, meaning that they may never be able to fulfill certain standards for completeness. I support this becoming a featured list--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phoenix-wiki's history examples don't help since the non-basic list is far less comprehensive than the basic one. Really, I'm struggling to see how an encyclopaedia for the "general reader" could possibly contain "advanced geography" topic articles (as distinct from advanced sections within an article). No, these lists are not dynamic (except perhaps for the people list bits). Geography isn't developing new topics at a rate that would be considered rapid for an internet encyclopaedia. The only reason that new topics might keep appearing on this list is because either they were overlooked to begin with or someone has written a new article (probably by spawning off text from an existing article). Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but the comprehensive history one is incomplete. If it was complete they would be perfect examples. Better examples: List of philosophical topics and List of basic philosophical topics. The basic topics contain highly notable stuff while the normal topics list contains all major topics--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is the official definition--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 19:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "fundamental concepts and key subtopics of a subject" would not include a list of every minor land/sea/urban formation. I see the need for a hierarchy of lists, not one trying to achieve everything a beginner might want to lookup. If external sources are not used to craft such a list, then its formation is Original Research. As part of the "table of contents subsystem" (per your definition), I'm not uneasy about that since such pages are Wikipedia-specific and are of course going to be the product of Wikipedia editors making the best presentation of Wikipedia content. That doesn't make it Featured List-material any more than this nicely presented list. Colin°^Talk 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support and further objections

• Support - as nom. The Transhumanist 23:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It is comprehensive, and satisfies all criteria. Twenty Years 04:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not comprehensive and does not have a well-defined scope. The detail-level varies from the sub-fields at the top to all the little geographical features at the bottom. There is no attempt to refer to an independent source for either a definition of "basic geographical topics" or to use such a source to validate each entry. It therefore appears to be a subjective and incomplete list. [Note: such a list might still be useful and worthwhile, it just isn't Feature quality] Colin°^Talk 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detail level? What do you mean by that? The branches section is complete, and thus fully detailed, as far as I can tell. How do the other sections differ in this regard, in the context of the list's title? The number of members in each section differs -- that appears to be an inescapable feature of the subject itself. How can it be the basis for an objection? The Transhumanist 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Within one list, I'd expect the brush strokes to be either broad or fine. This is a collection of lists, all at different levels of detail. That might serve the "cheat sheet" purpose but doesn't make for a tidy article. We have a hyperlinked encyclopedia, with a summary-style guideline, and so we should have a hierarchy of articles/lists where each level is at a similar level of detail. Colin°^Talk 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • By "detail", you mean the number of items in a subsection? A subsection with 20 items is "more detailed" than a subsection with 10 items in it? The Transhumanist 06:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, very interesting. Here is my take on it.

Fails 1a because it does not bring together a group of existing articles that are related by a well defined entry criteria. Also fails 1c as there are too many red links and no well defined criteria of entry, it is too basic (no pun intended). References are required for a list to be featured or it is not factually accurate.

fails 2a because the lead does not summarise the scope of the list and doesn’t prepare the reader for the higher level of detail in the article…because there isn’t any.

In any case, this probably does represent Wikipedia’s best work, but I cannot compare it to say Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori or FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives because this is not what Wikipedia has defined as a featured list. Perhaps we should create a new namespace and move this article to Pist:Basic geography topics. .....Todd^#661 08:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - By not citing sources or exactly defining criteria for inclusion, the list basically fails WP:NPOV. If there were some sort of source which also listed basic geography topics, and that source were cited, that would help immeasurably. John Carter 21:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose with the greatest of respect to TT and with kudos for a humungous amount of work put in so far, I have left detailed comments at his talk page. The essence of the problem is, as Warlordjohncarter says, that this list is currently inherently POV. Crack that and all the other problems will fall into line. --Dweller 10:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I can't really see why it's failing WP:NPOV. Auroranorth 08:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this is a typo and should be WP:NOR. Colin°^Talk 20:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think they assert that choosing a list of topics without having a source for which ones to include is inherently POV. (I don't share that view.) —Nightstallion 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. In this special case, I think not having explicit sources is not an issue. —Nightstallion 13:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for clarity, since people seem puzzled by my objection and I think the talk page I referred to has been archived, my concern is "who says so" over various aspects of this list. Who says that these are the basic topics? Who says others, unlisted, aren't basic topics. Who says that some listed should be listed? With the geographers particularly easy to see this. Who says those geographers should be listed and others excluded? Thus, the list must fail NPOV and, arguably, the comprehensiveness criteria. The fact that the comprehensiveness criterion is arguable is because we can argue depending on our own POV. This for me is fundamentally cause for objection as it undermines everything Featured status is about. Sorry. :-( --Dweller 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This isn't a simple list. It is a compound list with multiple sections. There's nothing in the FLC instructions that states that a structured list can't have a section that presents examples. Examples abound on Wikipedia, and even featured articles have them. If featured articles can, why can't featured lists have them? See the list of examples of notable temples in Hoysala architecture. The Transhumanist 14:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please explain how the selection of images as illustrative examples, as used in many featured lists (and a great many featured articles), is not POV. In this list, for example, nobody complained about the selection of an image of China's divisions. Why shouldn't that be an image of Great Britain, or the United States, or some other country? How was it selected and not one of the others? The inclusion of such pics fits your definition of "inherently POV". But it is common practice on Wikipedia to use images as examples, including on featured lists, and the same thing should apply to links when those links are provided as examples. It is common practice to do so in articles, and I pointed out a feature article above that does so. How can FLC set a double standard on Wikipedia? For an example of images presented as examples, see List of Florida birds. I look forward to your response. The Transhumanist

If this were a list of images, then the selection of examples of images might be a problem. But it isn't, so it isn't. This is a list of "basic topics". Who says these are the basic topics, or the examples chosen are the "basic" examples? I could Google geography topics not included here and you could only defend their absence by them not being "basic" according to your POV. Or, you could add them. In which case, there's a problem with the list not being comprehensive now. And there's still the problem of who says that the ones that you have got already are "basic". And sorry, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is never the best argument. I know we disagree and I wasn't posting here a second time to try to convince you... only because it seems others misunderstood my objection. --Dweller 15:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS Re Hoysala architecture - the article includes a footnote showing that the notable temples have been selected by a RS. That's exactly my point. --Dweller 16:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did disagree. But in view of apparent inconsistencies, I simply didn't understand your position, which is why I kept asking questions. Thank you for the explanations, you have been a great help. The Transhumanist 20:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for the reasons presented by Dweller. The list clearly needs reliable sources to justify its inclusion, some which I question. In the "Geography awards" section is the Geography Cup and the National Geographic World Championship really basic and reference competitions in geography? they seems to be some local recent competition in the US solely. And second, I might be wrong, but doesn't the list emphasises too much on Physical geography and not enough on Human geography? Thank you -- CG (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - this list still fails to clearly define its topical scope, thus it cannot meet the comprehensiveness requirement. It must cover all aspects of the topic it defines its scope as. However, with no reliable sources being placed to define what precisely those topics are, this list is fundamentally incomplete, and thus subject to the author's opinion concerning what constitutes a "basic topic." Until source(s) can be provided to show the topical scope, then it is ultimately subject to the author's point of view, failing WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Not to disparage the author, who indeed has put forth herculean efforts in making the list, but a clear defining of the topical scope using such sources would settle these issues. Is there perhaps major geography organizations that publish such a scope? Regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]