Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Requirement for sourcing beyond primary sources

A major issue with this guideline is that it results in editors creating articles sourced solely to primary sources; while this is already against policy due to WP:OR explicitly stating Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them, I think it would be worth restating that in here, by saying that articles on geographical features must include at least one reference to a non-primary source.

Given that this is already a requirement I don't think we should need an RfC for this and can add it boldly? BilledMammal (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with both your line of reasoning and the conclusion, but I think a lot of editors would object to this anyway.
Since we‘re working on a notability guideline here, we‘re basically saying that notability requires coverage in non-primary sources. It does per WP:OR, but I‘m not sure everyone will agree. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 08:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I see it more as just reminding editors that an article requires coverage in non-primary sources, with the question of notability being moot until that coverage is identified, but functionally I suppose they're the same thing.
I suppose you're also right about the objections; how does Should NGEO be clarified to state that articles on geographic features must include at least one non-primary source? sound for the RfC question? BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it becomes a notability requirement simply by being here, in a notability guideline.
Re. the proposed question, I'd go with Should NGEO be clarified to state that all articles must include at least one non-primary source?. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 09:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense; no need to restate the scope, since it is already defined by the guideline it is in. BilledMammal (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I would support this change, but I think there's clearly a lot of editors out there who think that statistical databases (i.e., primary sources) are sufficient to support the notability of literally anything. FOARP (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe an RfC would be required - the bullet at NOR is bounded by other policy considerations and is not an absolute prohibition; the question here is whether the community sees the GEOLAND principle as permitting the retention of articles relying on independent but primary sources. Given that multiple editors have, without being asked explicitly, raised this as an objection to the (more moderate) proposal at VPP, I believe any bold proposal to add an inflexible requirement for a secondary source within this domain would be seen as out of process and might even be understood as GAMING the system (e.g., as an attempt to circumvent consensus formation in the area by appealing to a peculiar minoritarian interpretation asserted by some to have a higher CONLEVEL than and therefore to supercede an ongoing discussion). Newimpartial (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Do not base an entire article on primary sources, emphasis as in original, seems very unequivocal to me. (I also haven't seen editors argue that we should be basing articles entirely on primary sources in that debate, but I may have missed something and in any case it's not really relevant) BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
They probably don't realise that this is, in fact, what they are arguing for. Frankly I'd expect a 1-2 combo of "this isn't needed because of course no-one can base articles on primary sources" and "primary sources are cool" as the response to any RFC. FOARP (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The bullet is in a passage that explicitly recognizes, at the top, that other P&G considerations may limit the application of these bullets. To pretend otherwise woukd be bad exigetical practice IMO. And that we should be basing articles entirely on primary sources would be a straw goat position that nobody is arguing - it would be a false dichotomy to argue that either articles must always depend for notability on primary sources or, as the only alternative, that we should be basing articles on primary sources. Other considerations may apply. Newimpartial (talk) 11:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone argue that it's generally desirable to base articles only on primary sources, but a significant number of editors seem to think that it's appropriate when no other sources exist and the subject meets the appropriate notability guideline.
I think this may be better discussed in a larger forum and with a broader scope – Is it ever appropriate to have an article on a subject only covered by primary sources? I would argue that it is not, and that restriction could be implemented either on the policy level through WP:OR or on a guideline level by introducting coverage in secondary sources as a necessary condition for notability that applies across both GNG and the SNGs. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 11:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
We already have a consensus that it isn't, implemented in WP:OR: Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. I wanted to focus on NGEO because outside of NGEO people don't really forget that we're not allowed to source articles only to primary sources - I'm not against a broader discussion, I just don't see the benefit. (In regards to the broader forum, I plan to open the RfC at WP:VPP and list it at cent - I'll probably do that the middle of this week, depending on how this discussion is going) BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
If there is policy-level consensus on this, and it‘s perfectly appropriate to add a reminder in a guideline. I‘m just not sure that consensus still exists because it directly contradicts how people apply this guideline. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@BilledMammal - I'd let the current RFC finish first. " I wanted to focus on NGEO because outside of NGEO people don't really forget that we're not allowed to source articles only to primary sources" - 100%. It's bizarre seeing people argue that you can write an article based entirely on maps, statistical databases, and other primary data. I think most of the people doing this, though, would argue (incorrectly in my view) that a statistical database/map is not a primary source. FOARP (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm starting to realize that a lot of this is based on the misconception that governments maintain definitive lists of legally-recognized places. Any effort to change the status quo would need to involve a clear explanation of why geo database entries and census records aren't the same as legal recognition, even if they're accurately written. –dlthewave ☎ 18:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I think the assumption is just that when people came up with this standard they just didn't pull it out of nowhere. The problem is, that's wrong. FOARP (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd let the current RFC finish first. I'll wait till discussion on it dies down, and then open this one at VPP; I suspect they'll both have long tails and slow closures and I don't see a need to wait for that.
I think most of the people doing this, though, would argue (incorrectly in my view) that a statistical database/map is not a primary source. I'll just be happy if people stop basing articles in sources that reliable sources explicitly say are primary sources - such as the Iranian census. BilledMammal (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Are you referring to Unless restricted by another policy? It isn't talking about restricting the applicability of those bullet points, it's talking about restricting the use of primary sources beyond what those bullet points already do. For example, you can say that even primary sources that have been reputably published can't be used in a topic area, but you can't say that adding material from your personal experience is acceptable - or that basing entire articles on primary sources is acceptable.
And in any case, there are aspects outside of those bullet points. For example, Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
To answer your question, I don't think you are reading the Unless restricted by clause in a plausible way. When P&G language says "Unless restricted by A, do not do X" the straightforward reading is that circumstance of exception (the "A") may permit "X". It doesn't seem likely that such language should mean "never under any circumstances do X, and specific circumstances may prohibit Y also". That meaing would require different language from what NOR actually contains.
And as I have suggested elsewhere, the "needed to establish" is in a "should" (normative) paragraph and is not, I believe, generally understood to impose the strict obligation you are proposing to enshrine here. Newimpartial (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Unless restricted by A, do not do X would be an extremely odd way of saying Unless permitted by A, do not do X, almost to the point of being nonsense - while not perfect ChatGPT has been able to understand every one of our policies that I have run through it, but it was unable to understand that sentence.
And as I have suggested elsewhere, the "needed to establish" is in a "should" (normative) paragraph That's also a quite bizarre interpretation; I'm not sure how you can interpret X is needed to establish Y as being anything other than a strict conditional. BilledMammal (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Yep, I am baffled how that sentence could be interpreted as anything other than "other policies may further restrict use of primary sources", e.g. what NOTCHANGELOG does. JoelleJay (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
My understanding - which seems to reflect a broad understanding in the community at VPP - is that the principles articulated in 5P and NGEO amount to a "restriction" on the application of the bullet in question. The term "policy" always carries multiple possible meanings, and the fact that neither of the links I mentioned designate a "policy" in the strictest sense of a Wikilawyer doesn't mean that that current of community opinion is "wrong" in interpreting the situation thre same way I do. And the idea that Unless restricted by A, do not do X "actually means" do not do X even if A applies seems like an unusually strenuous reading of the passage in question.
As far as the "needed to establish" passage is concerned, it is in a paragraph that constructs normative, aspirational standards for what articles should be; the idea that an article not containing OR by anyone's interpretation of that concept should be deemed non-Notable and therefore inadmissible because of an overbroad statement on WP:NOR doesn't, as far as I can see, represent an intention the community has ever formulated. Newimpartial (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
And the idea that Unless restricted by A, do not do X "actually means" do not do X even if A applies seems like an unusually strenuous reading of the passage in question. You're forgetting that some of those dot points permit uses of primary sources; a full reading is "Unless restricted by A, you may do Y; do not do X."
If the intent of that sentence was to allow some of the restrictions to be ignored by other policies it would read "Unless permitted by A, do not do X; you may do Y" or "Unless supplemented by more specific guidance, you may do Y but do not do X".
it is in a paragraph that constructs normative, aspirational standards for what articles should be The paragraph contains explicit instructions for how articles should be constructed; Secondary or tertiary sources are needed, analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Claiming that these are not instructions but are instead merely aspirational is not supported by the text; if you want them to be merely aspiration I suggest you open an RfC proposing that the wording is changed to make it so, although I am certain that such an RfC will be rejected by the community. BilledMammal (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
I sinply do not find your reading of the paragraph in question to be at all plausible. The section opens with, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. It seems quite obvious to me that the paragraph overall is making a statement about what encyclopaedic articles ought to be, in order to provide a foundational understanding or why original research is not OK. Indeed there are instructions about how as well as why OR is to be avoided, but the sentence about primary sources and Notability is not that. I have not examined the circumstances in which this sentence was added or amended, but the suggestion that it has some kind of CONLEVEL standing overruling the entire WP:N ecosystem where Notability is concerned - well, this may not be what you intended, but it reads like Wikilawyering casuistry to me and against the clear sentiment of the enwiki community as expressed repeatedly and in multiple fora. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC) revised by Newimpartial (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC) in response to comments below
I have not examined the circumstances in which this sentence was added or amended There was no discussion about the wording Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources; SlimVirgin added it boldly, and sadly she is no longer with us. However, the intent of Unless restricted by another policy is clearly established; Anythingyouwant added it here, following a discussion on the talk page. The concern was that the wording conflicted with the wording at BLP which restricted the use of primary sources beyond what OR did; the intent was to allow policies to further restrict the use of primary sources.
overruling the entire WP:N ecosystem where Notability is concerned That's a bit of an exaggeration; the requirement for secondary sources is already followed in every other area of the "WP:N ecosystem"; it's even in the text of WP:GNG.
reads like Wikilawyering to me and against the clear sentiment of the enwiki community as expressed repeatedly and in multiple fora Please strike that comment; it is neither productive nor accurate - and in general, if you think that the sentiment of the enwiki community is to allow articles to be based solely on primary sources, you should open an RfC proposing modification to WP:OR to permit that. I doubt such an RfC will succeed. BilledMammal (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The text of the lead section of WP:N does not require secondary sources; it requires "independenrt, reliable sources". I assume this language did not arise by accident, as it is one of the most visible parts of the Notability ecosystem.
The text of GNG does not require secondary sources, either. It uses "should" rather than "must", does not establish a bright line about secondary coverage, and the only statement that aligns with your interpretation comes in a paraphrase of NOR peovisions offered ik the section "Why we have these requirements" - this section seems indended to be more of an explanatory essay rather than to impose additional restrictions.
extended content

For example, the section offers the following opinion: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. Taken literally, this passage from WP:N could be interpreted as a complete ban on stub articles and as requiring that onnly whole articles be permitted to exist. Yet I think it is clear that there is no consensus within enwiki that all stub-like articles be eliminated - this reflects neither the result of AfD discussions nor the arguments put forward at policy discussions related to notability. It therefore seems clear to me that arguments based on the premise that "Why we have these requirements" is a source of additional sourcing requirements beyond what WP:N and GNG actuallt require - well, the consensus for that has not been shoen to exist.

It seems obvious to me that, in the case of geostubs, there is a large strand of conmunity sentiment to permit articles to pass WP:N without secondary coverage so long as they are covered by independent RS. If you believe that this does not represent community consensus you are welcome to launch an RfC on the topic, but to pretend that the community has already determined the question based on text constructed to address other questions strikes me as, well, casuistry. Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
At the moment, WP:OR and a common interpretation of WP:NGEO conflict. Per WP:POLCON, we need to resolve that conflict one way or another, and until we do we should assume that WP:OR takes precedence.
That’s why I’m encouraging you, if you are confident that the community supports your interpretation, to open an RFC on the text of OR. BilledMammal (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Since the text of OR seems to recognize already that other policy considerations take precedence in certain cases, I am not seekng any urgency in clarifying the situation further. The status quo seems fine to me. Newimpartial (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I thought we had settled this, when I demonstrated what the intent of the line "Unless restricted by another policy" was? (Not to mention, interpreting "restricted" to mean "permitted" is bizarre) BilledMammal (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
And what other policy would be restricting the restriction on primary sources? NGEO is not a policy. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Structural note: If it's already policy, why would be duplicate it here? Answer: Because, in the fuzzy Wikipedia system (including on the definition of primary, and the extra slack given to geo articles) putting it here as discussed would have the effect of significantly tightening it up for geo articles and thus be a significant change.North8000 (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think its a result of this page, I think its a result of some editors refusing to conform with wiki norms/policies which can't be solved by changing those norms/policies. Yes there's probably room for improvement but I don't think it will actually solve the issue you want to solve (as frustrating as that may be). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I'm afraid that my post may have been confusing. I was not stating a problem or saying that there is one, I was merely stating that this would be a significant change. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The current guideline is generally understood to mean that a single "official" source is sufficient to establish notability for a "legally recognized populated place", and I expect a community-level consensus would be needed to change this regardless of what WP:OR says. I don't think most editors understand what's wrong with these databases; they probably assume that governments maintain reliable lists of legally-recognized places and any that aren't reliable can be dealt with case-by-case. How many American editors looked at the Carlossuarez case and said "Oh, I guess Iran has sketchy census records, go figure" without realizing that their own country has the same problem? I certainly agree with the change, I think a sourcing requirement like SPORTBASIC #5 would greatly help, but to accomplish that we would really need to educate folks on why these primary sources are such a problem for not just notability but also reliability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Dlthewave - Yeah, the assumption is we can "fix" issues like GNIS, Iranian abadi, Turkish Mahalle, just by black-listing certain sources. The truth is those are just the sources we've analysed most closely and really most database-style sources have these problems (i.e., they include items just for statistical purposes that in reality are streets/single buildings/farms/dormitories or are unpopulated etc.). None of them were written for the purpose people on Wikipedia want to use them for.
    Partner this with the insistence that we are somehow helping countries by creating thousands of articles about villages that don't exist, and that opposing doing that is racist. It's a recipe for disaster - we're going to end up with "lol, Wikipedia created villages that don't exist" stories in the media. FOARP (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sort of middle of the road. I think that the net effect of our current system has been OK. My concern is that there are 2,000,000 - 4,000,000 yet to be written permastubs which could pass the current SNG. North8000 (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

  • I think there's enough reasoned opposition above that no, I don't think you can add the sourcing requirement boldly. I would support an explicit requirement for a non-primary source, and I think the OR argument is persuasive. Because it would entail a change to common practice, I expect some pushback. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    I agree. If you started a discussion asking if every article should be supported by at least one secondary source, I think the response would be people telling you not to waste time since it was already a requirement. If you ask whether that includes GEOLAND suddenly it becomes a different story for some reason. FOARP (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    Or journals, or species, or old sportspeople... JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    @JoelleJay - "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information unless it's about something that you are really, really a fan of" - the secret protocol of WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think it is reasonable to parse the arguments in favor of articles (even stub acticles) for legally recognized, populated places as FANCRUFT. Or the parallel arguments concerning species, or journals for that matter. Sometimes the caricatures editors sketch out about arguments with which they disagree offer more insight into the editor drawing the caricature than they do into the arguments caricatured. Newimpartial (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    Can you explain the argument that “the road is a source” without having in the back of your mind the idea that perhaps the person saying it is really enthusiastic about the topic of roads?
    Frankly I would hate it if the people who spend dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of hours of their own time each year writing large numbers of stubs on particular topics weren’t fans of that subject. FOARP (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
    To the best of my knowledge, "the road is a source" is not relevant to the discussion in this section. That is a separate heading above. As far as I know, the argument that roads qualify as "legally recognized, inhabited places" has yet to be made. And WHATABOUTISM as a rhetorical technique doesn't really generate much sympathy with me, in general. Newimpartial (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
    Yet ”the road is a source” (or the building version thereof) is being advanced as a reason for anywhere (including streets) with listed buildings (or more than a given number of listed buildings) getting presumed notability in a discussion above this one. FOARP (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
    Being advanced ... by a single editor. Let's not overstate that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
    @User:The ed17: I did not advance any such argument. What is happening is that my words are being twisted, and words are being put into my mouth, in a manner that is rising to the level of a personal attack. If this kind of thing does not stop, editors are going to have to be banned from purporting to paraphrase or purporting to explain other people's comments, or, indeed, attributing anything other than direct verbatim quotes to other people (not being quotes out of context). James500 (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
    @James500: I apologize if I misread your posts! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
    @User:The ed17: That's okay. Thank you. James500 (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
    Yep take [[Wikipedia
    Articles for deletion/Earlham Road (2nd nomination)]]!
    Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
    Seriously... and yes, a street totally can be a "legally recognised populated place". We even have a statutory procedure for naming streets in England & Wales, and a database of them (the National Address Gazetteer).
    And of course the response to point this out is always "Yeah, but nobody is talking about justifying articles about streets using GEOLAND", but then that's exactly what Turkish Mahalle and Iranian Abadi can be - a small neighbourhood or even a street. It's a motte-and-bailey style argument where in the general RFCs the argument is that we have to have GEOLAND because of course it's about creating featured articles about super-special places, and then at AFD it becomes about tiny places for which we have no data other than a person may have lived there at some point, and some grainy over-head photos with which we then play at being sat-recon-interpreter. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

What tree are we barking up here, exactly?

Having been going through geography articles en masse over several years, it has always seemed to me that the principal geostub issue was use of now-known-to-be-somewhat-unreliable secondary sources. GNIS, for example, is a secondary source: it is compiled from topo maps and some other sources (which are always cited) and our problems with it stem from the various errors made in interpreting those sources. I've occasionally found people looking at current aerials to claim that a place no longer exists, but that's relatively rare, and if I may be frank, it's a strong argument for tightening up our standards of notability when we can't state the truth about a place because there's not enough reliable interest in it to note this. But at any rate I'm puzzled as to why we're worrying over this. Perhaps there is some strong disagreement as to what constitutes a primary source here? Mangoe (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

While GNIS could be interpreted as a "secondary" source in that it is compiled from primary data, so too could the constituent topo maps themselves since they are compiled from even "rawer" data. So is GNIS really meaningfully distinguished from a primary source in the sense intended by NOR -- that is, does GNIS sufficiently contextualize its underlying data such that any educated person could discern and summarize the relevant info? Is software that automatically renders a graphic out of objects in a database actually a secondary source, or is it merely transforming primary data from one form to another? When I pull up a published annotated genome browser for a gene, am I free to describe the exact structure of that gene, its polymorphisms and transposon insertions, its position relative to other genes, its predicted protein motifs, etc. because the browser is compiled and curated from the individual primary sources containing that info? What context has this "secondary" database provided that I can now state "the e1873 anc-1 allele features an early stop codon" without that being OR? JoelleJay (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
While we have had issues with some sources whose primary or secondary status is debatable, like GNIS, we have also had significant issues with sources that are indisputably primary, like the Iranian census - and those issues come because of the primary nature of the source, because to create an article solely on the basis of them requires interpretation, and our editors, not being experts in the field, inevitably made mistakes in their interpretation.
The purpose here is to remind editors working in this area that, for very good reasons, it is policy not to base an article entirely on primary sources, to avoid more of these mistakes. BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Interpretation is an issue with sources in general; if it always be an issue for that which is primary, moving a step away from that doesn't mean that the resulting text/whatever doesn't require further interpretation. That's the issue with GNIS's classifications, partly just due to errors but also due to the way they lump so much into "populated place". By contrast, the locations given in GNIS are almost always quite accurate (that is, when tested against aerial photography and the source maps), and nobody is contesting citing them for those locations except in the rare case of an error (e.g., I've found a very few cases where there was a data entry error of an incorrect digit). They are manifestly a secondary source for those, being read off maps which are themselves secondary to the original surveys/photography; the difference is that they did a very good job of that, and a pretty spotty job of classification.
The issue with the Iranian census, I am given to understand, is that not being able to read Farsi, the person in question couldn't tell that the tables in question were not what he thought they were. Being unable to properly read the source language has little to do with whether something is in some sense primary unless you are willing to to say that we cannot use sources that have to be translated.
And the thing is, when we try to talk about this abstractly, it seems to me that we don't have the same viewpoint on the sources. If we lack consensus on the nature of a source, then saying "don't use primary sources" is just the starting point for an argument. For this guidance to be useful beyond being platitudinous (since, after all, we have a general rule against such sourcing) we need to record consensus as to how various classes of sources fall out. For example, we just had a long argument over the use of maps, and it isn't clear to me that it resulted in a consensus.
Finally, about that "educated person": we don't require people to be educated to participate. We don't even require knowledge of the field. On some level, the point of these guidelines is to educate. My point here is that talking abstractly about primary sources isn't good enough education. Mangoe (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
It's not "don't use primary sources", it's "don't use primary sources exclusively"; to create an article from primary sources requires more interpretation than creating an article from secondary and primary sources, and as a consequence is far more likely to be problematic. Simply enforcing our requirement to use at least one non-primary source would have prevented many - though of course not all - of the largest issues in this topic area, while not affecting the vast majority of editors engaged within it. BilledMammal (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I think something that would go a long way toward clarifying the primary-secondary distinction as it is intended to be used on WP would be to add a requirement that the source be in prose and created by a human directly. That would mean excluding sources that simply present raw data in a more user-friendly form, or curate data into databases, without any person specifically writing (or whatever) prose in their own words that discusses those data. Because really, in the age of automated data collection, organization, and retrieval, virtually every new piece of data will have undergone some degree of "secondary analysis" by software without any supervision by a human. We used to run into this so often in the sportsperson arena, with editors claiming the stats databases that maintain athletes' results/teams/biometrics were SIGCOV in secondary independent sources, but thankfully it's now broadly accepted that such databases are not secondary and do not have SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
"add a requirement that the source be in prose and created by a human directly" - unfortunately, it appears that a proposal the core of which was requiring this has been defeated.
"We used to run into this so often in the sportsperson arena, with editors claiming the stats databases that maintain athletes' results/teams/biometrics were SIGCOV in secondary independent sources, but thankfully it's now broadly accepted that such databases are not secondary and do not have SIGCOV." - Yeah, GEOLAND is basically where NSPORTS was 3-4 years ago. Worse because the present discussion is as if people had just said "WP:5P says that Wikipedia is a sport almanac, and therefore we should have the same level of coverage as every sports almanac combined. Anyone who opposes this is an anglocentric white supremacist." FOARP (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
To indulge the digression for a second, some of the major impacts of the NSPORTS changes have been to make it easier to pursue deletion of articles on female athletes, non-Western athletes, and especially on female non-Western athletes, all of whom benefited from a stronger presumption of Notability under previous guidelines. So your caricature may carry with it an (unintended?) element of truth... Newimpartial (talk) 02:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for the claim that some of the major impacts of the NSPORTS changes have been to make it easier to pursue deletion of articles on female athletes? BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
You mean besides the nomination of articles on female athletes for deletion? Newimpartial (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
To clarify: You are not claiming that it has had a negative impact on the gender disparity, just that it has made it easier to pursue deletion of articles on athletes in general - including female athletes? BilledMammal (talk) 10:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I believe that, because of systemic biases in the reliable sourcing that disproportionately affect female athletes, the stricter recent standards for source inclusion affect female athletes disproportionately (with the same also being true for non-Western athletes). If you look at the actual articles nominated for deletion, in relation to the achievements of these athletes, I think this differential impact is evident.
However, due to the efforts of editors such as the Women in Red project to save articles about women, it is likely that the raw number of female athlete articles deleted is fewer than the logic of the rule changes would lead one to predict. Newimpartial (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence for this claim or is it merely a belief? BilledMammal (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I have *extensive* familiarity with the RS coverage of female and male athletes (specifically in association football), I have read the sports biographies nominated for deletion and compared the careers of nominees, and I have also compared the corpus of extent sports biographies for the membership of certain national (football) teams. It is not merely a belief on my part. Newimpartial (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
If you don't have any evidence then it is merely a belief. Meanwhile, my belief is the opposite; that the former standards of NSPORT worsened the gender disparity because men were far more likely to be in the comprehensive databases that it permitted articles to be created on. Further, my belief was backed by evidence; analyzing the creations of editors like Lugnuts we see that they created articles on women at a rate significantly lower than the site as a whole - I believe I have presented this evidence at WIR. BilledMammal (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing "having evidence" with "presenting evidence" - just because I haven't presented you with data here doesn't mean that I haven't examined relevant evidence in forming my conclusions; this appears to be a WP:SATISFY issue on your part.
Also, you seem to be confusing the issue I am actually talking about with issues I am not talking about. For example, I am not defending bot-like mass article creation, which (in the domain of sports) undoubtedly resulted in the disproportionate creation of articles on male athletes.I am also not talking about provisions presuming notability for "fully professioal" athletes, which also resulted in enhancing the bias in favor of male athlete notability.
What I am talking about is the move away from presumptive notability based on an objective stsndard (such as national team participation) towards a pure "GNG"/SIGCOV standard. It is the latter move that has a disproportionate negative impact on female athletes, and I have never encountered anyone with even passing familiarity with the RS on women's participation in sports who did not see this bias within sources a pressing problem.
We have a situation where, until the last 5 years at best, most of the coverage of women's professional football was published on platforms where uncharitable editors can (and have) questioned their RS (and therefore Notability-granting) status even when the accuracy and quality of the journalism itself was not in question. The reason I am aware of this is because of the nomination of women's national team footballers for deletion, and ensuing RSN discussions. If you haven't seen the diffs, I can share them, but this doesn't represent some unfounded "opinion" or "belief" on my part. Newimpartial (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
this appears to be a WP:SATISFY issue on your part; SATISFY isn't relevant here; when an editor advocates a position other editors are allowed - and even encouraged - to ask for evidence, and to assume that such evidence doesn't exist if the editor refuses to present it.
With that in mind, if all you have are beliefs this discussion isn't going to be productive, so I will step back now. BilledMammal (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The criterion of "playing on a national team" helps male athletes much more. In Asia and Africa there have been up to 159,000 men's national team players and only 49,000 women's players since their respective teams first played an international match, and that's without considering the fact that many women's teams have not existed continuously since their founding (several have only played in a handful of years scattered across decades). JoelleJay (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
That's a ratio of 3.2 to 1, which doesn't seem too bad. Is there any way of knowing the current ratio of male football articles to female football articles? Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
@Harper J. Cole, it's actually more disparate than I realized. I was calculating this by taking the number of years since a team played its first international match and multiplying by 23, with the assumption that participation was continuous. However, looking into this more it seems the large majority of women's (but generally not the men's during the same period) national teams have significant gaps in the years they were active. For example, Djibouti first played in 2006 so my spreadsheet gives them 17 years of playing, but evidently they actually only played in 2006, 2019, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Syria has 7 active years rather than 18; Hong Kong has 19 years, not 48; India 15, not 48; etc. I recalculated Asia and Africa and now I'm getting 110,000 men to 25,800 women. JoelleJay (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I would point out here that what is actually relevant is the delta; I am quite confident that on a strict "GNG"/SIGCOV basis and without a presumption of notability, the proportion of the 159,000 men's national team footballers satisfying WP:N is quite a bit higher than for the 49,000 women. In fact, based on the examination I've given to European national team players (and I know the context is different), it may even be the case that the number of "missing" articles for women's national team footballers, that could be created by this presumption, could exceed the "missing" men's team footballers in absolute terms - that is, the number of articles to be created about women could be more than 50% of the articles that we don't have, but could.
In any case, the statment that a presumption benefits male athletes much more than female athletes doesn't seem to take into account the Notability gap in the absence of a presumption - which is, I would have thought, the most salient fact here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the hundreds of thousands of men who have been playing on national teams since the 1800s include quite a few more non-notables than the ~50k women who have been playing since the 1980s.
But even if there are proportionally more men's national team members who get SIGCOV, that doesn't mean they received that coverage because they were on that team. And if they did, so what? Have you considered that a) other places in the world do not place as much significance on footballers of either sex as the West does; or b) the level of accomplishment/skill/renown achieved through making a national team of either sex is going to be extremely heterogeneous across the world (why should someone who represents a country of 20k people be considered inherently more deserving and important than someone who plays top class in a country of 20 million people?); or c) forcing parity in standalone representation, regardless of parity in attention or importance, and based only on what you feel should be how we cover these subjects, is pretty much the definition of RGW? JoelleJay (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Well said. Masterhatch (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
response to JoelleJay - a digression about women in football

To answer your questions: yes, I am aware that association football is not equally prominent in all places and times. It is, however, probably the leading sport in the world in the 21st century for both men and women, whether measured by grassroots participation or by eyeballs on games, and it seems foolish to me to decide that players are only relevant when they play in a rich, Western country with a lush ecosystem of RS journalism. I would also point out that your "other places in the world" argument does not actually apply in Africa, which is one of the places where association football is preeminent for both men and women and which is also part of the statistical example you chose here (for some reason). Football is also not notably a "Western" sport in terms of participation, though of course the multinational businesses that are major European soccer clubs are quintessentially Western. But this discussion, prompted by your comment above, is about athletes, not teams.

To your second question, of course national teams form a fairly heterogeneous ecosystem in terms of their prominence and success, and the "quality" of their players. However, I am not aware of a different criterion that would work better to establish the notability of these athletes: the way media ecosystems work, the Faeroe Islands for example is empowered to bring its athletes to a clear GNG pass much more easily than Zambia or Thailand is, and this is mostly a measure of the disproportionate power of the West to publish RS rather than a measure of interest in or "importance" of football in those national contexts. And since the national teams actually do compete in a fairly homogenous "league" system (at least the FIFA members do, but that is the vast majority of national teams), then it makes sense to me to treat their players consistently.

Finally, I'm afraid I don't understand your third point. I am not suggesting that all international footballers either are equally important, or should be treated as equally important. But we have a situation where women in international football are the largest and most prominent group of female professional athletes in the world, with a system of club and international tournaments going back more than a generation. We are able to reliably document the participation of essentially all women in international football, and it is increasingly true that additional sources are available to add diverse biographical detail for these women. Enwiki has a system of links and categories that would allow these women to be treated systematically in a way that would serve our readers, but one of the reasons we don't do so is the NSPORTS revisions that shifted the onus of notability just as this sport was becoming more visible, globally. In this context, I don't see support for the systematic inclusion of these women in the encyclopaedia as "RGW"; rather, I see the periodic attempts to discredit the sources on women's football, to deny the importance of female athletes and to seek deletion for articles on women who have reached the pinnacle of this field as essentially inexplicable attacks on one of the most prominent and interesting categories of women on the planet. It seems to me that these efforts are often authored and supported by editors who appear to inhabit prejudices rooted in binary oppositions about mind-body and male-female, prejudices that make the activity of these women seem less important to these editors than success in other fields.

As far as the empirical assertion that the smaller number of female international footballers in Asia and Africa are proportionately better-covered than their larger number of male counterparts, that runs counter to everything I know about the association football RS ecosystem, so it isn't something I would accept without evidence.

Newimpartial (talk) 01:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft RfC

RfC: Requirement for non-primary sourcing in NGEO
Should NGEO be clarified to state that all articles within its scope must include at least one non-primary source? 03:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this succinctly and clearly asks the question; it would be asked at WP:VPP, but not for a week or two as the discussion at WP:VPR is still ongoing. BilledMammal (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Obviously I support doing this. There may be a backlash along the lines of:
- "This is already a requirement! Stop wasting our time!"
- "Of course this is not required and should not be! Wikipedia is a gazetteer per WP:5P so GEOLAND articles simply get a pass on this!"
- "Why are you asking this again so soon after the last RFC where a bunch of people agreed on Option 1? Do you really think they didn't realise what it was they voted for?"
I think this may be addressed by pointing out that the (now very likely) outcome in the present RFC on creates a massive question-mark over whether secondary sourcing, which is a requirement of policy across Wikipedia, applies to GEOLAND, a guideline, and that if the community really wants to exempt GEOLAND articles from this requirement then this should be made explicit.
There will also obviously be some subsidiary discussion about what is/is not a secondary source which should be prepared for. I think it is without question that a census, which is ultimately self-reported data, is a primary source (it is indeed described as such in multiple definitions of the term primary source - see, e.g., 1 2 3 ) and that the same is true of any other kind of raw statistical data. FOARP (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The first should be easy to address - just point out all the articles sourced solely to censuses. The second will hopefully be easy to address as well by pointing out that per WP:POLCON a guideline can't overrule a policy, and nor can whatever WP:5P is (which is in any case misunderstood; "elements of a gazetteer, not gazetteer") - and that if editors do want to make an exception, they need to propose a change to WP:OR.
For the third, I think the two are asking very different questions; clarifying that WP:OR does apply to articles on geographical locations will not prevent people from creating articles even when information beyond statistics, region, and coordinates is not known to exist, so long as there is secondary sourcing. BilledMammal (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
On the second point, I think the community consensus is fairly clear that in fact the treatment of legally recogniced, populated places should not be subject to your specific application and interpretation of NOR to Notability. I trust that no editor is planning on implementing a solution of mass deletions, on the basis of this interptetation, without first receiving clear affirmative approval from the community. CONLEVEL does not provide a justification to set aside everything the community has decided about a certain issue because a few BOLD editors have decided that a higher principle applies - barring special cases like BLP and COPYVIO issues, if the community doesn't support the bold few, the higher-level consensus they posit cannot be said to exist. Newimpartial (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
If the community doesn't support the current wording of WP:OR - and I don't understand why you keep referring to it as your specific application and interpretation, given that I have proven that my interpretation aligns with the intent of the editors who added it - then there will be a consensus to change it, and that is what needs to be done per WP:POLCON. BilledMammal (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I have followed and occasionally participated in discussions of Notability on policy pages and at AfD. In spite of all of that reading and occasional discussion, I had never encountered the argument that NOR was understood by the community to establish a sourcing criterion - not about SYNTH but rather about Notability - that overrodes the whole framework of WP:N, until seeing it made by a few editors earlier this year. You may believe that you have shown that the editors who added that bullet to NOR intended to overrode all of WP:N when doing so, but you haven't pointed to any evidence of that as far as I can recall, not have you shown that the community has endorsed your interpretation in prior deletion discussions or discussuons of policy. Therefore I continue to see your interpretation as novel and as unsupported by the enwiki community, until I see evidence otherwise.
I understand perfectly well how POLCON works, but there is a prior question of scope of intended application that needs to be answered first - if the intent of that bullet in NOR was not to override WP:N, then it should not be understood as having the proper effect of doing so. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand; I don't think it overrules WP:N, I think it works in concert with it. First, WP:N only provides presumed notability; it doesn't guarantee an article, and it certainly doesn't mean that topics presumed notable are allowed to ignore our other rules regarding whether an article can exist. Second, WP:PRIMARY aligns with WP:N; for example, WP:GNG requires secondary sources, and as far as I know there is no SNG that says articles can be created solely on the basis of primary sources. BilledMammal (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:N literally says We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.
How can that be interpreted any other way? JoelleJay (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
To answer your question: it has been, and seemingly generally is, interpteted differently based on its context. You are quoting a sentence from the section, "Why we have these requirements?"; it is not reasonable for readers to expect that such a section is intended to offer additional requirements beyond what is specified in WP:N proper, the GNG, etc. The more obvious reading is that "require the existence of" is a paraphrase of what SIGCOV actually says, and that it applies only when SIGCOV applies, rather than presenting a more demanding requirement that overrides the text in the more relevant section.
Both BilledMammal and JoelleJay: unless I am misremembering, there have been some large number of AfD filings over the last decade where a GEOLAND pass based on independent, primary sourcing was sufficient for a keep result, without additional secondary sourcing. Does this, in combination with the explicit support for such a position on the policy boards, not demonstrate a community consensus against your reading of the NOR requirement (a reading that, as I say, I had never seen presented until the last few months)? Newimpartial (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
" there have been some large number of AfD filings over the last decade where a GEOLAND pass based on independent, primary sourcing was sufficient for a keep result, without additional secondary sourcing. Does this, in combination with the explicit support for such a position on the policy boards, not demonstrate a community consensus against your reading of the NOR requirement"
No, because AFD is a local consensus, typically involving a handful of editors on either side. Moreover it is very common for AFD to deviate a great deal from policy and there have been numerous instances where an RFC has been needed to re-assert policy (e.g., the whole airline destination lists debacle). WP:N is a core guideline. WP:NOR is a a core policy. Neither can simply be over-ridden in this fashion.
I have to say also that the AFD voters were rarely explicit about what they were doing either. The closest were those who insist that Wikipedia is a gazetteer and thus GEO articles are basically exempt from having to meet notability requirements, but there has never actually been a consensus anywhere in favour of that and they are a minority even at AFD nowadays. The rest just rely on a "there must be sources" style argument where inclusion in a primary source means there must be a secondary source somewhere, but they didn't need to provide it yet - but this isn't an argument that secondary sources aren't needed per se, just that they didn't need to provide them yet.
It really has to be emphasised that "Wikiproject prevails in keeping articles against policy for a time, until the community at large steps in and stops them" is a repeated phenomenon on Wikipedia and I really wouldn't count on this "me and my fellow fans know best" style of argument working in this case. FOARP (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, it is circular reasoning -- geostubs are often kept at AfD citing GEOLAND without any explicit evaluation of GEOLAND -- and when there is any attempt to modify GEOLAND, participants point to AfD outcomes as evidence to resist change -- without consideration of what role GEOLAND played in the discussions (i.e., frequently there is no evaluation of whether the stub actually has any merit apart from satisfying some ill-defined criteria of GEOLAND). older ≠ wiser 13:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and this is exactly what happens in other contexts too, e.g. with the essays WP:NJOURNALS or WP:NSPECIES being treated as real guidelines at AfD without anyone actually asserting that they are guidelines or even providing an explanation of how the criteria in the essays are supposed to support any policy. Would other non-journals editors jump on the "it's indexed in a selective index" train if they knew NJOURNALS was only an essay and that the criterion being cited is explicitly used to bypass GNG and NOR? JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
It's not offering additional requirements, it is contextualizing the requirement for secondary sources with its policy basis, which it explicitly states requires secondary RS for all articles. JoelleJay (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't really see how an expansion of the range of application and raising the bar on a requirement can be accurately described as contextualizing rather then offering additional requirements, but in any case it seems increasingly clear that only additional RfCs will bring clarity to these matters.
And as far as FOARP's prior comment is concerned, it seems to elide the rather important distinction between something that happens to occur once at AfD and something that is a consistent OUTCOME. And if WP:N as a core guideline cannot simply be overrriden by NOR (when it comes to Notability, quite apart from the domain of SYNTH which NOR rightly governs), then it rather matters that WP:N as written does not offer grounds for the deletion of articles in topics otherwise presumed notable, if the sources grounding the presumption of Notability are independent but not secondary.
The original arguments put forward on policy pages this year don't change this, and I find it telling that no editor supporting the bold interpretation has offered anything beyond "the words can't mean anything but what I say" - there has been no effort to produce evidence thwt the NOR requirement to source Notability to secondaries has been understood as applying more than is already stated within SIGCOV, for the domain to which the latter applies.
Also, re: this "me and my fellow fans know best" style of argument - while this was written in reply to my previous comment, to the best of my knowledge I haven't made such an argument on this page or for that matter anyhere else concerning this topic. So I'm not sure what that was about. Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it's not the text in our rules that is the problem if your interpretation of them rests on ignoring clear-cut statements in multiple places in a policy that are further reinforced in multiple places in a guideline.
Given your very limited and anti-consensus history at AfD, I'm frankly not convinced your perception of how PAGs are applied in deletion discussions is reliable. JoelleJay (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
This isn't a very productive conversation; the words in WP:OR, and their endorsement in WP:N, are very clear; if you disagree with them, try to get a consensus to change them. To try to argue that they mean something very different from their clear meaning, particularly after I have already disproved your rather bizarre assertion that "unless restricted" means "unless permitted" by pointing at the original intent of that line, is disruptive.
To return to the topic, I plan to run this RfC next week; comments on the proposed wording are very welcome. BilledMammal (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I am a bit worried that the consequences will either be a decision saying that secondary sourcing is not needed in the NGEO space or that it is not needed yet, however if that is what the community decides, then let the chips fall where they may.
After the last RFC led to many different interpretations of the proposed amendment, perhaps inevitably given its length and complexity, shorter and succinct is better. The proposed wording is perfectly OK on those grounds. There will be accusations of bad faith, there will be accusations of a hidden agenda, or of trying to carry out deletion en masse - you need only look below to see those being bandied about - but all of these will amount to an admission that in the NGEO space basic tenets of Wikipedia, most notably WP:NOT and WP:N, have been consistently ignored in pursuit of the idea that Wikipedia is something other than an encyclopaedia. FOARP (talk) 13:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
@Newimpartial - " to the best of my knowledge I haven't made such an argument on this page or for that matter anywhere else concerning this topic. So I'm not sure what that was about." - It refers to the idea that consensus in individual AFDs can over-ride WP:NOT, WP:N, and WP:NOR, and exclude the GEO field from a requirement for secondary sourcing that is explicit in at least two of them and create directory-style entries that are against the other of them.
I mean let's read down WP:NOR and see how many of the requirements are contradicted by an article based solely on a census-listing, for a location for which the census is the only source:
  • "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." - a census is by definition not an independent source. It is a survey produced by local authorities in the location covered by the census, who may have interests in either exaggerating or down-playing details about the local population.
  • "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources" - a census is a primary source.
  • "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." - a census is a primary source.
And now WP:N:
  • "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" - a census is not independent.
  • "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. - a census is not independent.
  • "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." - a census listing demonstrates only the existence of the location.
  • " If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." - only a sentence or two can be written about a location that is only listed in the sentence and not covered anywhere else.
  • "We require that all articles rely primarily on "third-party" or "independent sources" so that we can write a fair and balanced article that complies with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and to ensure that articles are not advertising a product, service, or organization." - a census is not an independent source.
  • "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." - already discussed ad nauseam.
  • "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement" - an article sourced only to the census, or only to documents published by a national government, flouts this.
And finally WP:NOT:
  • "Articles should begin with a good definition or description, but articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content. If they cannot be expanded beyond a definition, Wikipedia is not the place for them" - a census listing can at most provide a definition.
  • "Wikipedia articles are not [...] Dictionary entries" - a census/gazetteer listing is essentially this.
  • "Wikipedia articles are not [...] Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated." - a census listing is a simple listing without contextual information.
  • "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." - censuses are not independent. Simple data from a census lacks context.
  • "Wikipedia articles should not be [...] Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context." - census data is exactly this.
Generally speaking (believe it or not) I take a live-and-let-live approach towards these census-based articles - I'm sure plenty of them do have secondary sources that could be added to them. It's the ones that can never possibly have any such sourcing available, because they are ultimately about somewhere that never had a meaningful population and is not really a community of any description, that so obviously flout our most core policies and guidelines, that require action. FOARP (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
FOARP, I would find it more plausible to interpret your stance as "live-and-let-live" if you didn't post "gotcha"-style replies incorporating incomplete or misleading statements. To wit:
  • a census is not independent / a census is not an independent source - it is not independent of the organization conducting the census, but unless that organization exists at a very small scale, the census is certainly independent of the places enumerated.
  • an article sourced only to the census, or only to documents published by a national government, flouts [NPOV] - this I think is the main point where I disagree with FOARP on this topic, since I agree that census data alone should not be the basis of a WP article. But as to the idea that a national government lacks the necessary degree of impartiality to provide a legal framework that allows a systematic definition of the municipalities, etc., within its jurisdiction - I can recognize edge cases, but it seems to me that the assumption FOARP is making is demonstrably absurd for the vast majority of currently existing polities. Meanwhile, the assumption GEOLAND has consistently been based on (that governments do offer a framework for official recognition of municipalities, etc.) seems much more plausible.
  • a census/gazetteer listing is essentially [a dictionary entry] - I see the effort to incorporate by reference the whole "is not a gazetteer"/"incorporates features of a gazetteer" discussion, but the gotcha statement here simply reinscribes without supporting argunent the thing to be demonstrated.
I'm not going to respond to the critique made here about articles consisting only of census data, because I am not in support of such articles. I am in support of articles that represent verifiably officially recognized places (inclusion in the census not having counted in itself as official recognition according to longstanding consensus), to which reliably sourced census information may then be attached. Newimpartial (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I've opened the RfC; please see here. BilledMammal (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Requirement for non-primary sourcing in NGEO

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Requirement for non-primary sourcing in NGEO. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_12&oldid=1195398646"