Template talk:Human geography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Criteria for inclusion in the template

I've added rural geography, changed regional science to regional geography and deleted language geography and marketing geography from template. Marketing geography can be seen as a part of economic geography and language geography as part of population geography or cultural geography. I think this two don't need to be in template as there are no articles to them. There are many geographies out there and I think that template should cover only the basic ones. GeoW 10:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is basically one geographical sub-discipline for each and every single field of knowledge. In fact, I myself have never heard of such fields as Marketing geography, although I can easily imagine what this branch seeks to explain and analyze. In any event, we might need to discuss which sub-fields of Human geography are distinct enough and notable enough to allocate an entire seperate mention in this template... :) For instance, "feminist geography" is more likely a type of approach to spatialness (a paradigm within the social studies) while "rural geography" is basically an antonym for Urban studies or Urban planning. BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 10:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also delete feminist and also behavioral geography, which are actually no geographical sciences but rather an aproach to study. For e.g. in economic geography there's an approach called behavioral economic geography etc.GeoW 11:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the "no articles to them" principle, I deleted the religion and rural red links as well. They easily can be added back when "notable" articles about them are added. I assume one criterion will be that it is included in the Fields of human geography table.  ;-) Rfrisbie^talk 16:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Since this template is based on the main article section, Fields of human geography, it seems the main discussions on what are "fields" should be conducted there. Any changes to the table can then be made at the primary source first. After that, this template can be updated to reflect the table. I also would recommend that the template only include blue links, since a primary purpose is to facilitate navigation. Rfrisbie^talk 14:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I will make some changes to Human geography article but I think that red links should remain in order to encourage people to write articles to them. Or if you have time write a basic definition that can be expanded later. GeoW 09:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that red links can be a way of encouraging readers to start an article, if they have the time and knowledge needed. However my point up there was actually that from what knowledge I have acquired on this subject, some of the minor fields mentioned separately in the template ought actually better to be treated as sub-fields of other, more well-established disciplines. Even if these newer smaller branches of HG have had a name coined for them, this does not really mean that their subject matter is not essentially covered by another broader field within HG. In fact, I would argue that we could go on and on adding new names which denote "the scientific study of the spatial/geographical element of [X social science]". Economic and Political geography are very well-established terms, right? But they also cover much of what those more obscure sub-fields are supposed to deal with. That's my two cents at least. =J BigAdamsky|TALK|EDITS| 10:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking that if the article somehow distinguishes "major" and "minor" fields, even if it's just by an indented bulleted list and/or table, then inclusion in this template takes care of itself. If a major field happens to produce a red link, then so be it! :-) Rfrisbie^talk 11:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted behavioral and feminist geography for now. GeoW 11:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)