Talk:Recursive islands and lakes

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 March 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

Lakes List‑class Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Recursive islands and lakes is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Islands Unassessed

	Islands portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page was proposed for deletion by Roscelese (talk · contribs) on 10 March 2020.

On 19 January 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Nested islands and lakes. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Removal of rank column

As many islands and lakes are yet to be discovered it is impossible to give a rank to certain islands or lakes. In the majority of tables the rank column is unused and in one of the ones it is used, it is very incorrect which could possibly cause confusion and the circulation of false information. I am removing the rank column. Just your average wikipedian (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larger island found. Guinness incorrect

Guinness world records list Treasure Island (Ontario) as the largest island in a lake in and island in a lake, they state its area as 0.4km2 and 0.15mi2 (0.39km2) and my measurements using google earth put it at 0.41km2. I recently found an unnamed island in René-Levasseur Island that google earth measurements put it at 0.44km2, larger than both Guinness's number and my number which I got from the using the exact same method as I did on Treasure island. whilst I know the google earth measurement is not an exact science so I will not be giving this island number 1 spot until a number using more sophisticated measuring techniques is used. But I do feel that this is enough evidence to removed the number 1 rank of Treasure island and for Guinness sources more heavily scrutinised when being used on this article. Feel free to find the area of the islands yourself using "measure distance" tool on google earth/maps.

45°45'49.2"N 82°10'42.8"W (Treasure island)

51°33'04.1"N 68°49'04.0"W (slightly bigger unnamed island)

Just your average wikipedian (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Do not add rank to islands/lake in which the area is not known, The phrase "worlds largest" is often thrown around and is not reliable Just your average wikipedian (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Just your average wikipedian, which sources are you using for the other entries in this list? It would be great if we could cite a reliable source for each entry and remove those that don't have one. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is something here -NASA is involving citizens and scientists to measure lake volume etc. There are newsletters as well. I'll look through it as well. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

terminology

I see that recently the order naming system (order 2/order 3) has been replaced with "island in a lake in an island ect" naming system, I personally feel that the order naming system is more better and harder to miss read than this "island in a lake" system. Maybe you would rather use a variant of the order system, like level 3, rank 3, 3rd sub, sub-sub-sub, 3rd recusion or something else. maybe there is a good reason for this "island in a lake" system that I haven't realised. Reply with your opinions so we can find a good solution. Just your average wikipedian (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason was that this was the terminology used by the only reliable source I could find (Guinness). We try to always reflect what sources say instead of using our own terminology (WP:NOR). There are two additional reasons: using accessible terms makes the article far more understandable by readers (especially young readers), and it allows us to discuss both "islands in lakes on islands" and "islands in lakes on islands in lakes", which previously used the same term (second order). – Thjarkur (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The order naming system is commonly used when talking about recursion in general or other types of recursion. With respect to islands, some of them are originally in the ocean, not a lake, so if it is not too confusing using the "in a/on" terminology provides added detail that would be lost of we used orders.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion and discussion of man made islands

Should we include man made islands? I Feel then when including man made islands in the same way as natural ones in decreases the uniqueness and impressiveness of the natural ones because man has the ability to easily make recursive islands far larger and recursive than nature does. I personally think they should be included but distinctly marked to distinguish them from natural islands, and this should also be the case for man made lakes. Please give your thoughts. From Just your average wikipedian (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that including them but marking them would be good, apart from that we should just reflect whatever reliable sources do. René-Levasseur Island is also an artificial island according to our article Artificial island. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lets add them, the article is not near large enough for us to worry about trimming.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

Are maps allowed sources?. As we continue with this article I think we will run into a problem, the lack of sources. larger and populated islands often has sources but most of the thousands of islands in arctic Canada don't have names and have never been mentioned on the internet or in literature. But these islands are visible on google maps as well as other mapping software. So this leaves the question, can maps be used as sources? We allow the websites talking about the island on Victoria island as sources , but none of them have gone to the island, they all use maps as their source. So if we use sources that source maps, it seems that we should be able to source maps directly. Just your average wikipedian (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not, that's original research – we can use reliable sources that make novel conclusions, but we can't make novel conclusions ourselves. (Note that new sections go at the bottom of the talk page, you can click on the "New Section" button on top for example) – Thjarkur (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how using a map is original research when someone else researched the area to create the map, not me. Also the third paragraph of the original research section of the article [maps and similar sources in Wikipedia articles] states that "When describing the route of a waterway, mountain range, road, railroad, etc., a single map should not be used the sole source used to provide the description. While a map is useful to source details in a general description section, other types of sources should also be used, if available. For some subjects the only sources available will be maps and it will be necessary to have the entire general description sourced from comparing details from several maps. However, this should be done with care.". I'm assuming the ect includes islands and lake. This seems to say that we can use maps as a source as long as we use multiple to back up the claim and take care to see if the maps consistently agree. Just your average wikipedian (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern maps are not original research, but using orthography could be if it is unclear or debatable. For example, orthography might show two seasonal pools in the largest island inside of Chambers Island, but I might be choosing only the orthography at a certain time of the year. As Just your average wikipedian noted, someone else made a judgement when making a map. I would imagine mapmakers are aware of recursive islands as part of their training. As maps show up under coordinates, filling out the coordinates could be enough without the need for < ref > type references.-Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Rila Lakes

Are any of these recursive? Seven Rila Lakes --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Dakataua

small lake on island in lake on island 5°01'06.6"S 150°05'50.3"E Dakataua 01:52 4 August 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.179.167.244 (talk)

Recursive?

These islands and lakes aren't so much recursive as nested. I suppose it's not a big problem, though. 71.228.112.175 (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. As commented, no evidence provided for either titles. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recursive islands and lakes → Nested islands and lakes – As suggested in the section above, "nested" is a more recognizable, and probably more precise, word than the current "recursive". No such user (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 20:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Any sources or evidence for either title? I find a few web results for "recursive" and none for "nested", but the former might be from WP:CITOGENESIS. — AjaxSmack 05:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.