User talk:Chipmunkdavis/ArchiveGeography

New Guinea

I remind you of the policy WP:3RR. The lead of the article New Guinea is not the place to debate the merits of whether the term Malay Archipelago is arbitrary or a colonial construct. The term Indo-Australian Archipelago is perfectly applicable and neutral and no editorializing is necessary.

I have not made any reverts or debated whether the term was a colonial construct. Your edit removed more than that anyway. Bring it up on the talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. If I change the name of the archipelago back to indo-australian archipelago, logically I would revert the comment that inclusion in the malay archipelago is arbitrary. Is this okay with you? It would only leave your linkification later in the first paragraph. If this is not okay, and you want to say that its inclusion in the malay archipelago is arbitrary, let me know on the talk page of the article. (I have no problem with explaining this in the body of the article, if you think it is important, but it is to much a fringe issue for the lead.) If I don't hear from you, I'll revert to indo-australian archipelago. in the first sentences.μηδείς (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I explained my inclusion in the talk page. Hope it helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

East Sea

While I appreciate your edit on the East Sea question, I kept both names as an effort to keep the Koreans happy. While driving on the freeway in Los Angeles yesterday, I saw a big, well-placed billboard in one of the outlying K-Towns that pronounced that "East Sea" was always the proper name!--S. Rich (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I could take a wild guess at the nationality of the people who bought that billboard ;) I was simply editing per the convention, I won't object to an undoing of what I did, although I don't think it's necessary to have it in all of the time Sea of Japan is mentioned. I do find it an interesting debate though! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oceania

Just a heads up that I noticed that the IP that has been edit warring on Oceania made the same edit again; I did not revert because I do not consider myself familiar with the subject, but as their talk page is empty, I did leave an edit warring template on their talk page. Perhaps a note on Talk:Oceania would help in clearing up the issue? Thanks, Kansan (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not a content issue for me, but a style issue. There's probably a better way to write it, I'll post on talk. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

6 continents

Hi. I think all these continent models are current and used in differents regions of the world. The 6-continent model is used in Latin America and South Europe, and being the references in Spanish it is logical to use Oceania instead of Australia. In this case and in general, Oceania is not a synonymous for Australia, and they have different articles. To many non-native English speakers, Australia is an island and a country, but never a continent. Puting Australia in this context is misleading and normally unacceptable. What's your point? Regards. --Mauricio (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is there is a long-standing consensus to keep Australia instead of Oceania on that article. Every model, 6-continent, 5-continent, 7-continent, in English and other languages can interchangeably use Australia or Oceania. Australia has been chosen, being an actual continent rather than a collection of everything that didn't fit in other continents, and the footnote below explains the interchangeability. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sea of Japan naming dispute

Hi Chipmunkdavis. I changed the level of the split section. I realized your intension after the reversion by you. I didn't noticed the level of the section. Now that I lowered the split section, you will understand my edit. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, your change in prose was a good solution for the flow. Still questionable whether those subheaders are needed, but they work better now. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea

It is how a sovereign state refers to body of water so it's definitely not some sort of "neologistic synonym" or whatever you call it. Like I said in the Talk page, the term passes the Google test and the term can even be found in official state correspondence. Besides, my version looks similar to East Sea, so your argument about "This is a disambiguation page" and "Leave disputes to the actual articles" does not hold. Pleasure doing business with ya~! Xeltran (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Middle East: Istanbul

Hi CMD, I think you need to bring in an Admin per WP:3RR for the problem with User:Justinian-of-Byzantium. --24.44.84.169 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:RfPP for page protection, to promote discussion. I attempt to avoid reports unless I have tried other feasible options. CMD (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Xe did it again. --24.44.84.169 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Why do you think adding LGBT info to the Europe article is "undue"? Pass a Method talk 16:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a whole section devoted to one specific set of laws. CMD (talk) 21:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Europe, you may be blocked from editing. Pass a Method talk 00:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have difficulty understanding the English language or something? How could you possibly misinterpret my question about parallel articles as meaning i want you to delete content from another article? You're starting to annoy me with your non-answer replies reckless deletions. Pass a Method talk 00:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

"Why dont you delete that too? Pass a Method talk 23:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)" That's definitely written as a suggestion, a sarcastic one yes, but even sarcasm can bring good ideas forth. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the proper application of warning templates (keeping in mind points such as that an editor who has edit warred in their own inserted content on multiple pages should consider the irony of posting a disruption template). Another editor could take offense. CMD (talk) 00:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing of the Eritrea page. If you want to make changes, please discuss them on the talk page before deleting other people's additions.Cluckbang (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"If you want to make changes, please discuss them on the talk page" is good advice. In fact, it's in line with WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD. Considering I've been using the talkpage, I don't see where you're really coming from. CMD (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Outline of S Asian History

I agree with your revision, Chipmundavis. I agree that Iran should be near the bottom of the list on this page since it is S Asian but not totally. Thanks for the input! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtheory1 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Help!!!!!!!!!

Hello, would you mind to help me with something because I really need assistance? --Gironauni (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll help if I can. What is the cause of concern? CMD (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind to re-write and correct what I added to the article Europe? I hoped to make it more universal and objective. I would be really grateful. --Gironauni (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with your edit was that you made it without a source. It is called the western world yes, but you'd need a source that says 1) That the "western world" is a civilisation, and 2) that it was named as such due to its being in west Eurasia. Sources are needed due to out WP:V policy. I've reinserted your directions bit, as after checking it turns out it was in Britannica. CMD (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Chip! you're amazing! --Gironauni (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase Eastern Europe offensive nowadays? I heard it is --Gironauni (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not particularly, although almost anything can be offensive to someone. Eastern Europe is in any case a widespread and understood term, especially for times where the iron curtain was up and history relating to that. CMD (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw all over the Internet that there are issues about it. I mean... I agree with you in one way but actually even I don't know what Eastern Europe is exactly... European Russia alone is 40% of all Europe's landmass, so there is not much room for any other European regions percentage-wise. The midpoint of the continent is actually somewhere in Lithuania. I don't know... I know that to you it is all very clear but for others it might me not. I think we should avoid this kind of phrasing, especially if it offends people and impacts Wikipedia's objectivity... --Gironauni (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

English terms are quite often not created with mathematical precision, English geographical terms even more so. They're determined by convention. This goes not only for smaller areas like Eastern Europe, but even Europe and the rest of the continents themselves. The boundaries they have are merely the ones that have been given to them. English speakers are probably much more likely to understand "Eastern Europe" vs "Western Europe" than any other conventions, as they were well established in world politics for decades. Using Eastern Europe has no detriment to Wikipedia's objectivity, and if some people choose to be offended then that's their problem, rather than Wikipedia's. Similarly, we haven't renamed Americas to America based on those who feel offended that the USA uses "America" as a synonym, we don't change Persian Gulf to Arab Gulf based on Arab's feeling offended, and we don't call the Armenian Genocide something else, despite the fact that government's choose to use or not to use the term. CMD (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, CMD - a lot of things are the matter of convention. Not only in English but also in Catalan. However, conventions change and we may like to follow them to stay up to date. Please, don't get me wrong. I know that Eastern Europe is in use but so is the Balkans, or Central Europe, or Russia, today. Eastern Europe is at least a little bit prejudiced, isn't it? We don't say 'gypsies'. This is very difficult to understand without the identity theory. If people change their identity, we should respect it. In Kosovo, they say that they are not Eastern Europe but the Balkans. In Spain, people prefer Southern Europe, or in Sweden - Northern Europe, to Western Europe. We respect Spain, Sweden's identity... I think we should treat Kosovo or any other EE country equally. And, to be fair, Western/Eastern Europe are now becoming rare. --Gironauni (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I never once heard of Eastern Europe being pejorative before I encountered it on wikipedia. It means different things to different people. Your example of Balkans shows how much it's a matter of identity. You suggest using Balkans instead of Eastern Europe, but I have many times encountered users who want to say thisorthat country is not in the Balkans, or that the Balkans should be replaced by Southeast Europe or some similar formulation. Western/Eastern Europe have definitely become less well defined and the other terms more common, but in my experience, none of the new terms have the sort of consistency Western/Eastern Europe seemed to have. In addition, many uses seem to be situational. Using Spain as an example, when discussing the Euro crisis, it's often referred to as part of Southern Europe. However, when discussing NATO, it's often referred to as part of Western Europe. One way in which Eastern Europe is still often used is when discussing communism, its fall, and its lasting effects. CMD (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I will be the first one: http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2012/07/%E2%80%9Ceast%E2%80%9D-dead It looks like most comments do support it. Communism didn't last forever. It was just a few decades and in many countries it was lite (Yugoslavia with opened borders, private farming in Poland...). I don't think we stick to ideas that seem to be outdated. I don't know... maybe the language has to change... but it is changing already. We should follow it. --Gironauni (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has indeed come up ever more often. As I said before, new terms have come up. That doesn't mean the term is replaced everywhere by new terminology. When discussing the fall of communism, you don't discuss the fall of communism in central Europe. What that video you provided does is provide a bunch of new non-arbitrary divisions, which are definitely interesting, if not common parlance. It doesn't however replace it with new arbitrary terms, such as central Europe. Some sources have, but this is mostly in modern contexts. CMD (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In Spain we say that the communism fell in Central Europe, actually - you know - Germany, Poland, Hungary... Few years later it was the Soviet Union. I agree that we should put always specific terms if we can, like names of the countries or supernational organisations. I hope this is where we could finally agree. --Gironauni (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If those in Spain say it in Spanish, it's irrelevant to usage on the English Wikipedia. Anyway, I don't deny that it may have been used in quite a few instances in English. What I doubt is that it has come anywhere close to the usage of Eastern Europe. Specific terms should be used when appropriate. CMD (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is more than Wikipedia for English speaking nations. English is the most widely spoken languages. It is a lingua franca. Are my edits going to be reverted even without looking at them properly? --Gironauni (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a wikipedia for the English language, other languages have their own wikipedias. CMD (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

True. Still, English is the world language, isn't it?--Gironauni (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what they say, which is the reason we have pages such as wp:engvar and wp:commonality. So for terms we'll examine worldwide usage, and take what is most common. On the other hand, if a term is used differently in a few areas but worldwide retains another usage, we're likely to use the majority usage. CMD (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't know that. It seems interesting. What I need to do in order to discuss something? Would you mind to tell? I am new :( --Gironauni (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you want to discuss. For article content, mostly the article talk page. Policy and guidelines are discussed on policy and guideline talk pages. There are various other places to discuss different parts of wikipedia, discussion and noticeboards and the like. CMD (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of useful map NOT

ERROR LAYING OUT AS PDF... YOU CAN TRY IT WITH YOU'RE USEFUL MAP ..

Can you Understand??? Oceania WARNING: Article could not be rendered - ouputting plain text. Potential causes of the problem are: (a) a bug in the pdf-writer software (b) problematic Mediawiki markup (c) table is too wide An orthographic projection of the Pacific Ocean showing much of Oceania.Map of OceaniaOceania ( /ˌəʊʃɪˈɑːnɪə/ or /ˌəʊsɪˈɑːnɪə/)Pronunciation: The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) ISBN 0-19-861263-X - p.1282 "Oceania /ˌəʊsɪˈɑːnɪə, -ʃɪ-/". is a region centered on the islands of the tropical Pacific Ocean.For a history of the term, see Douglas & Ballard (2008) Foreign bodies: Oceania and the science of race 1750–1940 Opinions of what constitutesAustralia had ruled International cricket as the number one team for more than a decade, and have won four Cricket World Cups and have been runner-up for two times, making them the most successful cricket team. New Zealand is also considered a strong competitor in the sport, with the New Zealand Cricket Team, also called the Black Caps, enjoying success in many competitions. Both Australia and New Zealand are List of International Cricket Council members#Full MembersFull members of the International Cricket CouncilICC. Fiji, Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea are some of the List of International Cricket Council membersAssociate/Affiliate members of the ICC from Oceania that are governed by ICC East Asia-Pacific. Beach Cricket, a greatly simplified variant of cricket played on a sand beach, is also a popular recreational sport in Australia. Cricket is culturally a significant sport for summer in

Notification

Didn't you receive a notification for being mentioned at Template talk:Europe topic last week or did you just not reply? (Not mad or anything, just wondering.) SiBr₄ (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been busy. I saw it, made a note to comment later, and forgot. I'll respond there, thanks for the reminder. CMD (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Greetings, Chip; I see you have reverted an edit of mine (correcting the name of the Persian Gulf on Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, citing the reason as "per article title". Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. The title just refers to the Gulf (which is wrong in itself, but that's a whole other discussion), so I cannot see why you have reverted my correction of a geographic name. May I preempt by saying that just because the article's focus is on Arab states, doesn't mean the legal name of a geographical feature is to be changed. Out of respect, I will not just go ahead and revert it back ... but will leave it to you to explain/convince me, or change it back, please. Yours, Kamran the Great (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Eurasia?

Eurasia IS NOT a continent under the 5 continent model!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capleri (talk • contribs) 05:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Eurasia?

Eurasia IS NOT a continent under the 5 continent model! The 5 continent model is just like the Olympic rings describe: Africa, Asia, America, Europe and Oceania, refrain from re-editing this as it it patently wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capleri (talk • contribs) 13:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

List of sovereign states and dependent territories by continent‎

The earlier version appears to be more comprehensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.198.53 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It was comprehensively wrong, with entries not belonging on that page. CMD (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The five continent model is widely used and NEEDS to appear. Deleting it is just plain stupid and ignorant

Are you stupid? Or just ignorant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capleri (talk • contribs) 16:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend mentorship or editing different pages. Pinging the involved admins, with apologies for the bother: User:CambridgeBayWeather, User:Yamla, User:BethNaught, User:Boing! said Zebedee, User:DoRD. CMD (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not missing anything, this is ONE model of several models listed. This is the most used as it states populated areas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capleri (talk • contribs) 16:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

West Philippine Sea

Following on this revert, please see this related edit to a more topic-specific article. Please comment/discuss on that article talk page as may be appropriate. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Dividing line between Europe and Asia

Back in 2011, you and User:Dbachmann discussed borders between Europe and Asia. See User talk:Dbachmann/Archive 39#European countries. The thread cites File:Possible definitions of the boundary between Europe and Asia.png. There is now an open 3RR case — edit warring on whether Turkey is in Europe. I would like to find a linkable consensus somewhere on where Wikipedia thinks the boundary of Europe is. Do you perchance know of a discussion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston, I'm afraid so far as I'm aware there is zero consensus on Wikipedia about this topic (the same issue that led to edit warring on List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe which you intervened with not long ago). If I could restate your concern, the issue at hand is not what the precise "boundary of Europe" is (the broad contour of the line is not in too much dispute), but the "categorisation" of various countries as "Asian" or "European". Other disputes occasionally flair up over continental or sub-continental categorisation, but Asia/Europe is the big one. Countries are flipped between these all the time on articles and templates. For foreign relations templates the best solution would probably be to find some other form of categorisation (likely tailored per country) relevant to foreign relations, or remove continental categorisation completely in favour of a simple alphabetical list, as continents have only an oblique relevance to the matter. CMD (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

At List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, Turkey is included, perhaps on the rationale that it has *some* territory in Europe. So each transcontinental state could wind up on more than one list. That avoids a decision on whether it is primarily in one of the two continents. I suppose such a plan would not work for the diplomacy templates, where a clear all-or-nothing assignment to continents is expected. So an alphabetic solution for the templates might be the best. EdJohnston (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You've summed it up nicely, the longstanding solution at the continent lists was to include boundary information but be broadly inclusive, and countries do appear on multiple of those lists. CMD (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Tibesti thanks

Hey, just wanted to leave a quick note of thanks re the Tibesti Mountains FAC. Although it's a bit of a bummer the article was archived, I've seen you around the Africa articles before, and I think we have at least have another decent Africa article sitting out there now. I'm not sure the paucity of sources on the Tibesti nor my writing style would ever meet the standards of FAC, yet I'm also not sure that matters in the larger scheme of things. I really appreciated your feedback though, and if you ever need a hand with anything on here later, let me know. Brycehughes (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Brycehughes, what a disappointment, it's a great article. FAC is tough, and your chosen topic is clearly not an easy one to find information for. Who knows, perhaps current events will lead to more information turning up? If you are looking for something to do in the Africa sphere, I might ask that you consider looking over/keeping an eye on the Chad article itself. It's an old FA, and is going to be hit by Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020 at some point, and, well, it's not as good as your Tibesti article. Perhaps you have some sources you can easily transfer across to bolster Geography for example. In any case, I do hope you'll return to Tibesti if new sources come up. Best, CMD (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot... To be honest with you, I'm not looking for more work. In fact, my activity here over the next several months (years?) will probably wane a bit. I was in a unique position (pandemic) where I had the time to devote to FAC. However, I enjoy being given a mission. I have been looking forward to gnoming it again, without the obligations of FAC. So what I think I'll do instead is devote this relaxing gnome time to the Chad article.

Re Tibesti, are you referring to the killing of Chad's president in the Tibesti a couple days ago? (At some point I need to add that to the article!) Brycehughes (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow I just gave Chad a look. Jeeezus. I see what you mean. Brycehughes (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I do agree that there is something about happily gnoming about that is often far more enjoyable than more focused work. I am referring above to the recent presidential death, the immediate impacts of which include a tenfold jump in views for the Tibesti Mountains article. Funny how things time together sometimes. CMD (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I was literally just putting the finishing touches on Tibesti, and then in boredom happened to switch to BBC News, and I was like... fucking hell. Of all the times when you'd want a stable history. I don't think this will lead to more sources. I mean, it will give us more AFP, Reuters, etc., but in terms of actual scientific or even anthropologic studies, this just shows that it'll be that much harder. It's an incredibly unstable region. Anyway you've got my attention with Chad. Brycehughes (talk) 13:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)