Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR. Census designated places are mentioned there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Geoland discussion at VPP

Basically the proposal that was thrashed out above. See here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Changes_to_GEOLAND FOARP (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Requesting feedback re. GEOROAD

Following confusion at this AfD, I originally planned to clarify whether or not GEOROAD applies to roads that were planned, but never built, and would normally be within its scope. In looking for an answer, I investigated the origins of GEOROAD. The discussion that led to the addition of GEOROAD was, at best, unclear. That raises the question of whether or not GEOROAD accurately reflects community consensus at all.

For additional context: this became a guideline here following this small RfC, and the version at the time included a version of GEOROAD that is substantially identical to today's.

Accordingly, I'm looking for some feedback on GEOROAD in its current form, and if yes, to define its scope more clearly. My thoughts on that below.

  • Option 1 – GEOROAD reflects current community consensus and does not need to be fundamentally rewritten.
    • Option 1a – GEOROAD includes roads that were planned, but never built.
    • Option 1b – GEOROAD is limited to roads that were actually built, or for which construction is ongoing.
  • Option 2 – GEOROAD does not reflect current community consensus; a rewrite is needed.

My thoughts: It is a bit unclear to me why roads of any kind are "typically notable", but the inclusion of "provincial highways" stands out in particular. A lot of interstate highways in the US are notable by the standards of GNG, and it's reasonable to presume that the same applies for highways of similar importance in most other countries. But beyond that, I'm not sure that all highways are notable in the way the guideline currently assumes. What is the basis for this presumption of notability? While roads, especially highways, will be included in dozens (if not hundreds) of maps from plenty of different sources, that is simply trivial coverage.

Thanks for your time, everyone! Happy editing :) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 18:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally, we're a gazetteer, roads serve a built geographical function, and may not have been significantly discussed by secondary sources. But it also doesn't look like any notability should necessarily be assumed except in obvious cases - for instance, we'd want a complete set of motorways. Other roads would need to meet WP:GNG. But WP:GEOROAD appears irrelevant - it tells me all roads need to meet GNG in my reading... SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not exactly, combined with WP:NEXIST one should presume that for the classes of roads given, there are sources. And there generally are, just in newspaper archives and not easily searchable on the Internet. Unless we have arbitrarily determined that "local news", whatever that is, no longer contributes to GNG. Rschen7754 00:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The state of affairs, based on many VfDs and AfDs over the preceding years to that RfC is that articles on state-maintained highways in the United States had been routinely kept. (Note: Interstate and US Highways are maintained by the state departments of transportation; they only differ from other state highways on the basis of signage/numbering and construction standards and are actually all state highways. Many states have freeways built to Interstate standards that do not have Interstate numbers.) Now the equivalent to a US state in Canada is a province, and non-federal countries have national highway networks, which is why national and provincial highways are listed there as well so that the guideline has international applicability in a concise statement.
The guideline has a prioritization function, recognizing that primary classifications of highway have been judged as more important by their appropriate agencies than secondary or even tertiary highways. This also recognizes that a roadway maintained and numbered by a county, as a lower level of government, has a lower importance to the overall transportation network. If that road was more important, it would be transferred to state/provincial maintenance and integrated into the higher priority network. In my home state of Michigan alone, there are 122,040 miles (196,400 km) of public roads, but only 9,649 miles (15,529 km) are state highways, according to MDOT. Thus 8% of our roads are state highways and carried 52% of our traffic volume in 2022 to the tune of 44.5 billion vehicle-miles. Based on this real-world prioritization, we prioritized the roads we covered for inclusion and wrote a full set of articles on the state's highways. This is the obvious case based on the statistics: these roads are designed and designated to carry proportionally some 6.5 times more traffic than the rest of the state's roads. Imzadi 1979 → 20:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
These statistics are genuinely quite interesting, but I'm not sure how to read this comment in terms of what to do with GEOROAD. It's plausible that state highways are generally notable, but how about the other categories of road listed by GEOROAD? Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 20:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Actualcpscm: I discussed that briefly in my first paragraph. We can do a lot of analogizing just by comparing roads from country to country. E-roads in Europe have a similar function to the United States Numbered Highway System in the US in that they carry a common designation across member jurisdictional borders. That's why GEOROAD references international road networks. For other countries, a national highway network is the equivalent of a state highway network in the US, so GEOROAD already handles this by equating international, national, interstate and state or provincial highways together. This simplifies the equation and helps to minimize systemic bias concerns exacerbated by availability issues for equivalent sources. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The opposite happens in sparsely populated states and provinces though, for example in Wyoming many state highways would be country or local level roads in other states but due to a lack of local tax base have to be state. Not all states and provinces are created equal, some are smaller than cities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, in particular, how many proposed and unbuilt state highways have articles? I'm sure there are some, but by no means all. For example, there was a planned interstate through the city I grew up in and for many years, this interstate appeared on maps for the city (probably due to developers promoting the hope for easy access). But there is no article for it. older ≠ wiser 20:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
More to the point, what are the chances that an unbuilt highway would be covered in reliable sources the way any comparable finished highway is? In my opinion probably quite low. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 20:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Actualcpscm: my comments here primarily address "option 1" vs. "option 2" from your query. In terms of the remainder, "option 1a" vs. "option 1b", any article requires sources to avoid WP:OR concerns. It is possible to find sourcing on planned and unbuilt highways, see Interstate 335 (Minnesota) or County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan). (Yes, that second one is a cancelled county road.) At least for the US, once we get to actual concrete planning by FHWA/state DOT/etc. (not "it would be nice if..." statements from a local chamber of commerce), we will have enough documentation to start an article.
@Bkonrad: which city/Interstate is this? Now I'm curious. Imzadi 1979 → 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Parma, Ohio. I forget the numerical designation, but there were plans to build a short, mostly north-south connector freeway between I-71 to the N and I-80 to the south. older ≠ wiser 10:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Option 1b. Proposals come and go and we should limit ourselves to only covering proposals that received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the way GEOROAD is written. For as long as I have been on Wikipedia (over 16 years) and going back even before that to the early days of the site, the consensus has been that international, national, and subnational (state/provincial) roads are generally notable enough for individual articles while lower classes of roads (such as county or local roads) are only notable if they meet the GNG. The notability standard for state highways and above is based on the premise that the system meets the GNG, being covered in multiple secondary sources, and we have individual articles to cover the component highways that make up the system, ranging from long roads with a lot to say about them to short roads that may have little information. In addition, the roads in these systems typically meet the GNG as they are often covered in multiple secondary sources, including newspapers/media sources and books, some of which are not easily accessible to editors. Lower classes of roads typically have little to no coverage in multiple secondary sources, hence why they should only have articles if they meet the GNG. The higher classes of roads (state highways and above) make up less mileage but carry way more traffic than the lower classes of roads, so in reality Wikipedia is only covering the most important roads to society. In regards to highways that were planned but not built, they can typically have articles provided there are sources to verify that there were official plans for such a road to be built and not just a pipe dream by someone. Dough4872 00:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Unbuilt highways run the gamut from Unconstructed state routes in Arizona (numerous proposals that were cancelled without fanfair or SIGCOV) to Bay Freeway (Seattle) which has 60+ sources along with detailed coverage of proposals, controversies and related legal action. GNG serves us well for these cases; otherwise we're looking at a great many roads that were never anything more than a line on a map with no potential for a well-developed article. –dlthewave ☎ 01:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like it explained to me why having fewer articles covering fewer subjects is seen as better than having articles covering a wider range of subjects, when the sources exist, the articles are already written, and BLP does not apply. There is apparently something fundamental about Wikipedia I have utterly failed to grasp after eighteen years of editing here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOT goes a long way towards trying to explain this Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not finding anything in there that seems relevant. Could you elucidate for the morons like me that don't get it? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
If none of that seems relevant to your concern I'm not sure I can help besides suggesting a closer reading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
What you are describing/ advocating already exists, it's called the internet. :-) . A part of Wikipedia's value comes from being more selective than that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Can you explain how "a part of Wikipedia's value comes from being selective"? Because to me "increasing the value of Wikipedia by deleting shit" feels a lot like an attempt to increase the value of one's home with arson. Incredulously, —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Notability is a guideline that supports some of the most important policies, particularly WP:V and WP:OR. If there are no good sources about something, what is an article supposed to say to comply with those? Again, nobody is saying „we should delete all articles about roads.“ For example, I think it would be good to require roads to have significant coverage in at least one reliable source (not necessarily independent), because Wikipedia articles that say „Highway XY123 is a highway that connects CityA and CityB“ are not particularly helpful, and if that‘s sourced to a map, the second part is probably WP:SYNTH. This is the kind of threshold we‘re looking at, not „roads are never notable and we should delete all those Featured Articles about important infrastructure.“
To address your point more directly; yes, it does make Wikipedia better to delete articles that cannot comply with its core content policies. The community almost universally agrees on those (principles, not necessarily wording of the policies), and if an article can never contain content in compliance with those principles, deletion is the only logical course of action. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 08:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
That all may be so, but given that we have an editor that has brought every road that meets GEOROAD in the state of Michigan to either FA or GA, that reads like a bunch of theoreticals and what-ifs that don't have any bearing on reality. If it can be done in Michigan, it can be done anywhere. GEOROAD is fine, it's GNG that sucks.
And I disagree that simply because an article doesn't comply with a rule some dork wrote up in 2004 it needs to be deleted NOW NOW RIGHT NOW RIGHT FUCKING NOW NOW NOW NOW OH MY GOD DELETE IT RIGHT NOW CAST IT INTO THE FUCKING FIRE AT ONCE. It will get fixed when someone gets around to it (I have had the sources to fix on some of these articles in my userspace since 2008! But real life doesn't stop happening), and in the meantime it will be a good starting point for a reader to conduct further research. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Is anyone actually arguing that "simply because an article doesn't comply with a rule some dork wrote up in 2004 it needs to be deleted NOW NOW RIGHT NOW RIGHT FUCKING NOW NOW NOW NOW OH MY GOD DELETE IT RIGHT NOW CAST IT INTO THE FUCKING FIRE AT ONCE"? Is it a straw man or do these editors actually exist? And if they do exist can you name them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. One of them is playing flat out naive and ignorant to these said actions. But we both know that they know exactly what they're doing. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Would that be me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure you can guess the answer, whatever it may be. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 06:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The suspense is killing me, just provide the diffs already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can help besides suggesting a closer reading. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
You can provide diffs, as required by WP:ASPERSIONS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
Ah, just one more thing sir. It's questions like this that keep me up at night. Why do you have an axe to grind with WP:USRD? The constant interactions between yourself and members of USRD across the site seem to suggest it. Somehow you prefer to keep going after articles under the project's scope. Then you give people reverting your edits a hard time on their talk pages, even going as far as to ping them on the talk page in hopes of baiting them into an argument or fight. Like the one over at US 11. As for the user talk page, User talk:Imzadi1979 should cover that. Something ain't adding up and I think you know that too.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 15:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Not a single one of those diffs supports the assertions made. If you would prefer I can join USRD, I have no axe to grind. Pinging someone when you open a talk page discussion is considered a common courtesy, if you do not do that I suggest you start now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Not if it's to do what you did with Fredddie on US 11 in an attempt to gaslight others or bait them into a fight. You want to join WP:USRD though, be my guest. Doesn't change what I said about the axe to grind. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 00:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Your repeated description of following WP:BRD as baiting people to fight is out of synch with my understanding of how consensus works on wikipedia. Those are invitations to discussion, which is exactly what is supposed to happen in that situation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
And these editors would be who exactly? Nobody in the current conversation has made that argument and I don't actually think I've *ever* seen someone make that argument so if anyone ever has some diffs would be nice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
That‘s quite impressive about the Michigan road articles! I hope your hyperbole is not referring to me. I have my own opinions, but I‘m primarily trying to gauge what the community thinks. It‘s not my intention to have as many road articles as possible deleted as quickly as possible, or anything like that. Re. rule-lawyering and IAR, I replied below. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 05:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO Dough4872 summarized it very well. Including my opinion on the "never built" question. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been watching this slow-moving trainwreck from the sidelines for several months but I can stay silent no longer upon seeing this discussion. I just feel I have to get something off my chest before this whole thing ends with roads editors being driven off Wikipedia entirely, which appears to be the end goal of those on the more stringent side of this debate.

When I started editing Wikipedia in 2012, I was a bright-eyed high-schooler who truly believed in the Wikimedia vision. I did everything from content creation to anti-vandalism, even dipped my toes into a few other WMF sites. For a few years, this place was my life. I honestly believed I was meaningfully contributing to something much bigger than myself, and I cherished every moment of it, from the articles I wrote to the friends I made along the way—friends I still keep in touch with today and whose pursuits I have of my own accord kept tabs on throughout; I was not canvassed to this discussion and I actually imagine some of my friends may be upset with me for spouting this out.

What eventually drove me away was everything else: the labyrinth of bureaucracy, the needless red tape, the unending drama (ironic, I know). People whose main purpose seemed to be to tell other people what they couldn't do. People for whom positively contributing to the encyclopedia was secondary and preventing what they perceived as negative contributions was primary. I do not for the life of me understand these people. For some of them, I don't even think it's an inclusionist vs. deletionist thing; it's just people waking up and dedicating their free time to "Wiki-lawyering" subject matters on which they seem to have limited interest or knowledge, making the wide majority of their edits outside mainspace. They operate as if their actions are unimpeachable, casually stating their opinions as if they're facts backed up by the highest laws of the land. If other people in your circle show up to the discussion, they immediately accuse you of canvassing despite the base behavioral assumption on this website ostensibly being good faith. When you try to defend yourself against these obvious bad-faith accusations, you get told to assume good faith yourself. It's a joke, and avoiding this carnival is why I've stuck almost entirely to minor copyedits for the past half-decade.

So I ask these people: what exactly is your purpose? You can say you're just interpreting WP:NOT or any other policy, guideline, or even essay, but in the case of GEOROAD, it's been clear that different interpretations of these bylaws have been the consensus for eons, and the result has been a whole bunch of excellent content from highly skilled writers and researchers. What makes you now so intent on trying to change that consensus? On axing a veritably phenomenal resource on the history of North American transportation that's still getting better and growing each day, as it has been for the past 18 years? You really want to throw almost two decades of hard work (and the thriving community responsible for it) in the trash on some arbitrary technicality, the merits of which are dubious at best? For whom? For what?

On a site that was originally conceived of to be "the sum of all human knowledge", this nonsensical mindset boggles me to no end. More than that, the manner in which this metaphorical burning of the Alexandria Library is being carried out is shameful. It's just people roleplaying as politicians, redlining the USRD community with questionable authority and for utterly unknown reasons. If (and probably when) Option 2 earns the consensus in this discussion, I hope these people find what they're looking for. TCN7JM 21:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

In this topic area we also have a lot of low quality content from unskilled writers and researchers. Nobody is proposing that we throw the baby out with the bathwater unless I'm missing something. I don't see a rational basis for this hyperbolic rant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The basis is that you and a few other editors have been playing every card in your deck for months to try to make the community consensus that roads content does not belong on Wikipedia.
It's not just random stubs from outside the USA; it's well established articles from well established editors (even Featured Articles have become the subject of seemingly undue scrutiny), as well as other articles in the same secondary highway systems that people simply haven't gotten around to yet (this is allowed per NEXIST).
After several pointed XfDs, an RfC in which people tried to disqualify maps on the bogus basis of being primary sources, and this attempt to fundamentally rewrite the notability guideline at the core of the project, I don't think it's that far a leap to the conclusion that roads being cut from Wikipedia is the objective, especially given your insistence that subjects can be undeserving of articles despite passing all relevant notability guidelines.
To call me irrational and hyperbolic shows an astonishing lack of self-awareness. TCN7JM 20:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I don‘t think anybody here has the intention to remove all road articles from Wikipedia, and I cannot imagine how any change to this notability guideline would affect featured articles with their incredibly high sourcing standards. To the best of my knowledge, the coordination you are seeing behind this doesn‘t exist; this supposed feud significantly predates my activity on Wikipedia, for example. I‘m going to respond to the original comment later, but this reply does seem to be primarily hyperbole and unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith or ulterior motives. On the other hand, I understand that this is a highly sensitive topic, and I assume that your worries are not without basis. As I said, I‘ll address the top-level comment in due time. Thanks for your work and input. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 22:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The only possible way that this could effect featured articles is if there was some sort of mistake in the FA process (which happens, especially for FA and GA discussion pre-2015 or so, many of them just don't reflect modern FA and GA standards and their status as such is zombie not legitimate). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no coordinated effort to "remove all road articles". I don't believe a single editor wants that result, let alone an entire group coordinating off-wiki. With that said, there is a group with a secret strategy, coordinating off-wiki, to do the opposite. BilledMammal (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed... I believe I am the boogeyman of the year for the roads editors and even I don't think that more than 5% of roads articles need to be merged/deleted... The numbers probably closer to 2-3%... We're talking a tiny minority of state highways which are only state highways due to geographic, fiscal, and political peccadillos like South Dakota Highway 324. They should never have been created in the first place, if blame is to be placed it belongs with those who created articles for non-notable topics not the competent editors who noticed that the topics weren't notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think their comments are as personal as it might appear, and categorising yourself as a specific victim ("boogeyman") of deliberate attack is probably not a good strategy. It's natural, but these disputes are hardly personal matters, and they're usually not directed at any specific editor. It helps to remember that you're not attacking anyone specific; others aren't doing it (to you) either. Assuming that it's about myself, personally, almost never contributes to my wellbeing. So I assume the contrary. That assumption has been quite helpful for me :) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Its a little more complicated than that, rest assured there are a number of roads editors who see a cabal and me as some sort of ringleader. It hasn't been subtle and it hasn't been pleasant but it doesn't need to be re-litigated here. The core point that even those on the most extreme end of the "other side" from the legacy roads editors aren't actually arguing for large-scale changes let alone to purge all roads articles stands. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm certainly unaware of some of this history, and I don't mean to dismiss it or the effects it has had on people. But my point is: It's not about anyone as a person. I agree that this strawman that has been drawn up is an unconstructive way to argue at best. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 18:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect, if you're self-admittedly unaware of the history of this feud, then perhaps it's not your place to comment on it. What's unconstructive is strongly insinuating that I am an unskilled writer in a public forum and calling another editor who's written multiple Featured Articles incompetent on his talk page. If Horse Eye's Back doesn't earn some sort of block for POINTy editing, violating NPA, or some other behavioral issue, then this site is truly broken beyond repair. I'm simply responding in kind, which is apparently allowed. TCN7JM 21:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I‘m not commenting on this feud, i.e. any past discussions that you or other editors here may have had. I gave my input on how I deal with disputes in general, and on your specific comment here in this section. You‘re right that I‘m in no position to make judgements about past disputes between editors on this matter, and I‘m not doing that.
I do agree that personal attacks (referring to specific editors as „unskilled“ or „incompetent“, for example) are not acceptable, nor constructive. But arguing against a strawman that represents none of the other people in the discussion is not constructive either. Both of those can be true at once. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 21:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like straight up harassment and hounding. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
No one is amused by this baseless accusation of yours. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Follow the link; you will see I present evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back Would you like to explain why you spent 45 minutes targeting articles specifically created by me to be tagged for notability immediately following this comment despite no consensus yet having been formed in this discussion? TCN7JM 17:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
This conversation has no bearing on whether those articles are notable or not. I clearly said we had a lot of low quality content from unskilled writers and researchers. You are now complaining about those low quality articles from unskilled writers and researchers being tagged. I also don't believe that all of the articles I've tagged are yours... If that is incorrect I apologize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
How recently do you think I was born? TCN7JM 21:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd say 2000 or earlier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1, and I strongly object to not taking this question to RFC and changing the policy in a closed door manner. --Rschen7754 23:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    WP:RFCBEFORE requires that editors at least attempt to resolve issues / find consensus without an RfC. I don‘t think anyone had the intention of rewriting without RfC; that‘s precisely why I kept Option 2 so unspecific and unactionable. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 07:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
    WP:RFCBEFORE is a section on an information page; it is not a policy or guideline, and so cannot be said to require anything. Many Wikipedians may consider it to be good advice, but it is not a requirement. Donald Albury 14:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
    You‘re right, I should have said that differently. But it is the source of information that I used, and I don‘t appreciate that Rschen7754 assumed that my intention was to change a guideline without the due transparency. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1a - Being assigned into a system of national or sub-national routes usually does come with coverage if one looks in the right areas (and doesn't disregard maps, which are a valid source as determined in a lengthy RfC). Whether it was built or not doesn't matter; in many cases, the unbuilt road will have garnered far more press coverage because of protracted disputes. The wave of deletions and redirects that seem to outright ignore WP:NEXIST is deeply concerning. I fear that many "undesirable" subjects will continue to be culled until Wikipedia is nothing more than a collection of pop culture and news articles on top of a woefully undersized copy of Britannica. SounderBruce 07:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Passing a SNG or the GNG doesn't mean that a topic is automatically notable, consensus may still be that it should be deleted, merged, and/or redirected... That is a feature of wikipedia, not a bug. See WP:N "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Also note that per that consensus while maps can be used as sources they in general don't count towards notability which is what you appear to be implying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The goalposts keep moving. Rschen7754 20:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
No, that's always been the case. An article which passes WP:GNG may yet fail WP:NOT. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to add that part of the reason notability is exclusively in guidelines is to allow for some additional flexibility in making deletion decisions based on notability. WP:DELREASON states that content "not suitable for an encyclopedia" can be deleted on those grounds alone, even if it is appropriate in other respects (like notability or BLP). Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 11:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Haven't moved anything. Those have been the goalposts my entire time on wikipedia, more likely you just never knew where the goalposts were. Ignorance on your part, not malice on my part. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
And I repeat, Beeching Axe, Great Purge and a toxic mentality of destroying the entire purpose of a public repository of various subjects for the sad and egotistically conceited purpose of becoming an Encyclopedia Britannica ripoff.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 01:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Please tone down the rhetoric, and keep Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions in mind. Remember, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Donald Albury 14:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not rhetoric. It's the truth. There is mass deletions snd attempts to purge the website of content. The Great Purge is a very real threat. And I attacked no individual personally in my statement, it was a generalized comment. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 00:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Article deletion does not equal "purging content". Content can exist in forms other than standalone articles. Wikipedia is also not a "public repository" of information, it is a curated summary of encyclopedic material. JoelleJay (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @TCN7JM. First, I'd like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that this discussion, whatever its outcome, does not drive you away from Wikipedia. Competent editors are the most valuable resource we have, and I'd never intentionally try to drive one away. If this discussion is discouraging to you, I hope that you stay around anyway.
I understand that past discussion on notability have been frustrating. AfD, notability, and deletion are notoriously touchy subjects; that much I know even from my somewhat brief tenure as an active editor. I hope this discussion goes better; I think we can all contribute to an environment where WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are upheld even when we are fiercely disagreeing on something.
Really, my original purpose was to see how much support GEOROAD currently has from the community. It was not to open old wounds, nor to bring about any specific outcome. I have my opinions, but those are only a small constituent part of broader consensus. I don't want to throw away decades of commendable work.
As for my opinions, I don't think permastubs along the lines of "Highway XYZ is a highway that goes from A to B." are particularly useful, nor are they the result of the hard work you want to protect. I don't think anyone in this discussion wants to remove all articles on roads, or anything remotely like that. I certainly don't. But it's good for Wikipedia when its core content policies are upheld, and notability is an important mechanism for upholding WP:V and WP:OR, amongst others. I hope that you understand where I'm coming from with that.
We'll see how the discussion goes. To me, it looks like there isn't widespread agreement on this guideline. But it shouldn't be substantially changed without an RfC, so if no consensus that GEOROAD is widely supported develops here, that'll be the next step. But I don't see this going as far as "Roads need to meet WP:GNG." That's not an outcome I'd hope for, anyways.
Thanks again for your hard work over the years. As I said, I hope you stick around, because Wikipedia needs people like you who write on topics outside the mainstream that are still immensely useful to readers. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it's important to have the historical context that the roads projects have had to have this fight over and over and over again and again and again, ever since 2005 since I first set foot on this website. If we didn't have to keep having this discussion at various forums every six months, we'd probably have half as many stubs, as recurrent existential crises are a rather large distraction to productive editing. That this conversation is occurring yet again right after recent mass-deletions/draftifications and notability limitations like the Olympian and area code discussions is bound to get everyone wound up. So you may have simply accidentally stumbled upon the worst possible time to ask this question. It happens...
I actually rely on these "Highway XYZ is a highway that goes from A to B" articles as an essential resource for my day job, since there's really no other easy way to look them up, short of poring over a map playing Where's Waldo to spot the highway you're interested in, or learning where fifty-plus different transportation agencies keep the raw data. (If it's even online in searchable form!) It's important enough to me that I've taken steps to ensure I have a copy of all of them in case they do get destroyed, but I really shouldn't have to be in the position of having to cross my fingers and hope Wikipedia doesn't decide it would rather slavishly follow some policy than do its job as a useful reference tool. I'm in the same boat as TCN7JM; if Wikipedia's road articles are curtailed to the extent that some people seem to be gunning for, my plan is to turn in my bit and ride off into the sunset, since there's really wouldn't be much for me here anymore. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
So you may have simply accidentally stumbled upon the worst possible time to ask this question. That indeed appears to be the case. I‘m here because from my (limited and recent) experience at AfD, there are both disagreements on interpretation of GEOROAD and a lot of people who say „well we have to accept that it‘s notable because of GEOROAD but I‘d really rather not.“ If nothing else, I hope this discussion yields an answer to the question on unbuilt roads.
There‘s a case to be made that those permastubs are useful in some cases, like yours. But they do need to be compatible with the core content policies, in my opinion. I don‘t intend to blindly enforce policy for its own sake, and IAR gives us all the leeway we need to deviate from policy when it makes Wikipedia better. So really, the question I was asking myself was whether or not the community supports such a derogation for road permastubs, because that‘s implied by this notability guideline.
Thanks for your input :) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 05:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
List articles are also great for containing articles about roads that are part of a larger network which would fall into permastub category. Often times the include vs remove debate ignores the fact not everything needs a stand-alone page, but that we should be trying to include as much information as possible about everything we can. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
That's a really good point to remember during this discussion, thanks! Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The RFC is inadvertently structurally defective because the wording for option #1 has a very high bar ("reflects community consensus")/ poison pill instead of what it should have been which is that the status quo is simply preferred / better than option #2. Per my previous post, Dough4872's 00:04, 18 August 2023 post is same as my opinion and what I would have written myself. Which is option #1 but there's no way that any actionable result should come out of an RFC with the described issue. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Sincerely,

  • While I don't like how this is worded, I agree with the status quo, so Option 1b. I don't think GEOROAD covers unbuilt roads per se - considering the guideline's wording of "road network," a nonexistent road would not have ever been part of a physical road network. However, something like the Bay Freeway where there are dozens of sources because of the public opposition and lawsuits clearly meets the GNG and wouldn't be in question. --Sable232 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - There simply is no such thing as automatic notability (which is what "typically notable" ends up being interpreted as). There is also no good reason for distinguishing between one type of road and another - they are all roads. This discussion about "unbuilt roads" is emblematic of the problem we create when we go down the road of saying some things just don't need to have any real sourcing at all - there's people on here who literally argue that "the road is a source". FOARP (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 As FOARP says, there is no automatic notability. Too many SNPs have been built on the assumption that enough reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability can be found for every item in a class, and interpreted to mean that there is no need to demonstrate notability before creating an article for any item in that class. The real world is not that neat, and we end up with articles for which notability cannot be established even after extensive searching for sources. Sometimes, we end up with thousands of articles in a class for which notability cannot be established. Beyond that, even if a item can be demonstrated to be notable, it may not need a stand-alone article, but more appropriately be included in an article of larger scope. - Donald Albury 13:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 — not a fan of the exact phrasing, but I do agree that it's not broken and doesn't need fixing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1b is how I read the guideline right now, same as Sable232. If a word tweak to make that more explicit is really needed, fine, but I don't have a fundamental problem with WP:GEOROAD as it stands. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)


Listed buildings

I am going to revert this edit. There is no consensus for this change and it is based on a pseudohistory argument that because the population of the UK is smaller than that of the USA today, the UK should have fewer listed buildings than the USA. In fact, buildings are not normally listed in the UK unless they were built before 1840, and are not automatically listed unless they were built before 1700. The UK had a much larger population than the USA before 1840, and a vastly larger population before 1700. The UK has a much larger number of pre-1840 buildings, and a vastly larger number pre-1700 buildings, than the USA. Therefore the UK should have a much larger number of listed buildings than the USA, because the UK has far more historic buildings than the USA, and the UK's historic buildings are generally far more important than those of the USA. The reality is that the NRHP largely consists of late 19th and 20th century buildings that would never get listed in the UK in a million years, because their historical importance is very low. The number of grade II listed buildings in the UK is reasonable for a country that has a massive concentration of medieval and early modern buildings of immense historical importance, something that does not exist in the USA, which has no medieval buildings and almost no early modern buildings.

This edit has been made during an RfC in which it was proposed to eliminate articles on villages that contained listed buildings. Presumably the purpose of the edit is to deny that the villages in question satisfy GEOFEAT despite long standing consensus in numerous AfDs (including quite recently) that a place with a sufficient concentration of listed buildings is notable and satisfies GNG as well as GEOFEAT (because the "list" entries are often very detailed). Since that RfC has not finished yet, or reached any consensus on this point, I do not think that any changes should be made to this guideline while that RfC is in progress, and that the proposed change should be discussed in that RfC. James500 (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Concur. SportingFlyer T·C 12:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I would support further discussion here. There is no justification that any Grade II listed building should have a article absent additional significant sources. Listed_building#Grade_II says 1 out of 50 buildings in the country is listed! Just because a building is old and shouldn't be demolished or changed doesn't mean it should necessarily have a stand-alone article. Reywas92Talk 14:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
That seems extremely unlikely; unfortunately the link dates from English Heritage days, and the replacement article does not make any estimate.[6] Espresso Addict (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Checking the Wayback Machine, the source does support the claim. It might be unlikely, but it's also true - and demonstrates the issue with the current wording of the guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I do not think it is appropriate to discuss this here when it is already under discussion in an RfC at the village pump. There are forum shopping issues with holding two parallel discussions. At the very least, some kind of notice of this discussion would have to be placed in the RfC, if we choose to have this discussion here. Even if the number of 1 in 50 buildings is true, it is irrelevant to our normal practices, I will explain below. James500 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
This is a different question from the one under discussion at the Village Pump; there is nothing inappropriate about it. BilledMammal (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Where is this pseudohistorical argument? It isn't in the linked diff and note that what you just described is not a pseudohistorical argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Any argument that claims that 21st century population figures are relevant to the history of the pre-1840 period, when the population was radically different, is certainly a pseudohistory argument. There was a previous discussion on this talk page, that was invoked in RfC at the village pump, where the said argument was given as a reason for rejecting the listings. It will be in the archives of this talk page. I'll try to find it as soon as possible. James500 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
In what way is that pseudohistory vs an approach to notability which you don't agree with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Claiming that 21st century population figures are applicable to the pre-1840s is "the rewriting of the past for present personal or political purposes" [7]. Those 21st century population numbers clearly did not exist in the pre-1840s. It is factually inaccurate to claim that the pre-1840 population relative numbers were identical or similar to the present relative population numbers. Factual inaccuracy = rewriting. James500 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
But thats not what happened, nobody is claiming that the 21st century population figures are from the pre-1840s. I don't see anyone claiming that the pre-1840 population relative numbers were identical or similar to the present relative population numbers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
For an example of such a claim that was made in the previous discussion, see "The US NRHP has only 80,000 individually listed sites for a much larger (albeit younger) country". The problem is the words "much larger". The population was not "much larger" at the time. James500 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
But notability isn't determined by population at the time, its determined by modern coverage alone and modern coverage is roughly correlated with modern population. There is no historical statement being made there, a statement is being made about notability on wikipedia. Sorry you misunderstood. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there is an exact correlation between population and publishing. IIRC, there are more books and newspapers published per capita in the UK than in the USA. IIRC, this is generally true of English speaking areas in Europe, North America and Australasia, compared to Continental Europe. Conversely, the UK has, IIRC, a relative paucity of audiovisual publications, such as paintings and music, compared to Continental Europe. I will have to check these numbers mind. I can remember reading about this, but it was a long time ago. James500 (talk) 02:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that there is not exact correlation, but there is rough correlation and I believe that is the argument that was being made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
If I remember correctly this was based in part on the US National Register of Historic Places which includes a narrative describing each place in great detail and often cites several other sources, so it was considered a reasonable indicator of GNG. The problem is that in other places, "protected status", "national heritage" etc can mean many different things that don't always align with GNG. This really illustrates the core problem of trying to define characteristics of topics that are likely to meet GNG - Why not just make GNG the standard? –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The British national heritage "listings" typically describe each listed building in great detail and cite several other sources. There may be a few relatively brief entries, but they should not exclude the more detailed entries. James500 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@James500 - "There may be a few relatively brief entries" - nearly all of them are actually quite brief. These sources simply aren't written for the purpose you want to use them for: they are verbatim descriptions of the buildings, without commentary. They are a primary source. I mean here's one of the more detailed descriptions I could find:

STANDISH STANDISH LANE SO 70 NE (north side) 6/244 Quintons (formerly listed as Pair of cottages formerly 1.0.1.55 Manor Farm or Whitlow House) II Detached house, previously in use as pair of cottages. Left hand side probably late C16/early C17, refronted probably in 1698 when right hand side built by or for William and Hannah Lediard, initials and date around oval window to right hand gable. Originally timber-framed with pair of crucks on left gable end, possibly true crucks with base obscured by half-height brick facing, rear rendered and probably timber-framed, front refaced to match right hand in coursed and dressed stone. Concrete tile roof, half hipped to left, very large ashlar ridge stack on later half with 3 diagonally set square flues with brick caps. Single range of single storey and attic, 2 large coped gables to front, with cross gable to right. Right hand side is rear lobby entry plan. Both gables have 2-light stone mullion and square hoodmould over 3-light similar with oval light in apex to right; 3-light to left offset from centre with former chamfered stone doorway to right, blocked with recessed stonework. Central small single light probably for newel stair in line with rear entrance and stack. Rear gable is brick above ground floor and has 2-light on ground floor. Small C20 lean-to to each end. (V.C.H., Gloucestershire, Vol X, 1972)

FOARP (talk) 10:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
A historian would tell you that the building is the primary source. It is not even certain that the list entry was entirely compiled from direct examination of the building, since it cites the Victoria County History as a source. You would need to examine the VCH to find out how much information has come from that source. A list entry asserts that a building is historically or architecturally important, because that is the criteria for listing. "Probably late C16/early C17 and "refronted probably" and "possibly true crucks" and "probably timber-framed" and "probably for newel stair" are not mere description, they are expert analysis and commentary. I particularly suspect that "originally timber-framed" and "refaced to match" are most probably not mere description either. Unless you have actually examined the building, and you have the expertise to perform that examination, you do not know for certain what is mere description. In any event, there is nothing in GNG that excludes sources that consist of description. Further, the recent NOTPLOT RfC rejected that idea that mere summary does not count towards GNG. If mere summary counts, then description will also count. Unlike a photograph, a written description of an object must necessarily be selective (and they are specifically describing the original features that are important enough to need protection from modification) and must involve some interpretation of the object being described. A list entry written between 1955 and 1986 is not a primary source for things that happened in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (when the building was actually built). A list entry based on the VCH cannot be primary so far as based on the VCH. Since the list entry states that this building has coverage in the Victoria County History, there is clearly more coverage. James500 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
"A historian would tell you that the building is the primary source." - No historian would argue any such thing. A verbatim description of a building is a primary source, similar to a picture of the building, not the building itself. "Primary Sources are immediate, first-hand accounts of a topic, from people who had a direct connection with it." - this is the desciption of someone who has visited the building and is describing it. FOARP (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
"the building is the primary source" do you mean plaques or descriptions placed on the building? For example if a cornerstone has "1901" carved into it or if a brass plaque with a brief history of the building has been affixed to a wall?Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I expect this is the same "the road is a source" argument made with relation to roads. No, the road is not a source. It is not a source because it is not a published work, it is not indexed in anyway that would make it available. Driving down the road and reading the signs, and writing an article based on that, is the essence of WP:OR. Same thing with "the building is a source" - if you go there and write a description based on that, you've engaged in WP:OR. FOARP (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
A building is a historical artifact. Such artifacts, including buildings, are considered to be primary sources by historians and archaeologists: see, for example, the following sources: [8] [9][10] [11] [12]. The number of books etc that say this is so large that I could not possibly list them all. I agree that it would not be appropriate for a Wikipedian to cite a building as a primary source for a his description its appearance etc, and I certainly would never use a building as a source for a Wikipedia article. (Although I should point out that photographs are extensively included in articles on buildings, and your argument would require the complete removal of all those photos). That is why we need the list entries, and other written sources, to describe the listed buildings. Conversely, if a historian says that a building was probably refronted in 1698, he is certainly not a primary source for something that happened in 1698. A primary source would be something like a manuscript written by the builder that says "I refronted that building in 1698". A person in 1955 or 1986 cannot give a first hand account of a refronting that took place in 1698, nor does he have a direct connection with it. He was not even alive when it happened. The real problem here is that many Wikipedians do not know what a primary source is, and use the word "primary" in their attempts to exclude sources that they consider to be unreliable, unverifiable, impossible to use without original interpretation, or otherwise unsuitable, instead of giving the real reason why they think those sources should not be used. To sum up: the list entries are valid sources for Wikipedia, but the buildings themselves should not be used as sources. James500 (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
If I have understood you correctly: You are saying that the artifact is the primary source, and a description of the artifact is a secondary source, even if the writer of the description did so on the basis of their personal observations and experiences? BilledMammal (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the essence of the "the road is a source" argument being made on here. And your response is the correct one - even if "the building is a source", it is a primary one and descriptions made of it by people simply going to the buildings and writing their observations are also primary. Driving down the road and noting your observations is still WP:OR, as is the electronic version of it using street-view. Ditto the descriptions in listings. FOARP (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Since this discussion has resumed below James500, I am still interested in an answer to this question. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this change and it is based on a pseudohistory argument that because the population of the UK is smaller than that of the USA today, the UK should have fewer listed buildings than the USA. In fact, buildings are not normally listed in the UK unless they were built before 1840, and are not automatically listed unless they were built before 1700. That's not my argument; my argument is that because the criteria for inclusion is so broad, the building being listed isn't a reasonable predictor of coverage sufficient to build an article.
Can you (or (Espresso Addict or SportingFlyer) explain why you disagree and see it as a reasonable predictor of such coverage? BilledMammal (talk) 19:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
In my experience, UK listed buildings almost always have some coverage, in the Pevsner architectural series and other architecture books/journals/magazines, local history books, conservation area appraisals, local plans, and the like. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The Pevsner series will have sufficient coverage for an article for the more notable buildings, but not for less notable ones such as the vast majority of Grade II listed buildings. The rest of the sources are harder to assess, because the list seems to be a general hand wave; they aren't convincing to me. BilledMammal (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
"conservation area appraisals, local plans, and the like" don't count towards notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Even if the number of 1 in 50 buildings is true, it is irrelevant to our normal practices. They are as follows. If a village has a sufficiently large number of listed houses or other listed buildings, that village satisfies GNG and GEOFEAT and is notable. If a street consists of two rows of listed houses or a sufficient number of them, that street satisfies GNG and GEOFEAT and is notable. I should point out that villages and streets with sufficiently large numbers of listed buildings will certainly satisfy GNG on the "list" entries alone and will, in any event, invariably have a huge amount of coverage in history books, such Wheatley's London. We generally create standalone articles for listed buildings if they are particularly large, public, old or etc: Medieval buildings, castles, fortresses, city walls and other fortifications, palaces, great houses, manor houses (typically medieval or early modern mini-palaces), cathedrals, churches (typically medieval), Westminster government buildings, Whitehall department buildings, shire halls and county council HQ buildings, courthouses (typically former Assizes), prisons, Inns of Court, guild halls, big Victorian railway stations with gothic architecture, university colleges and large university buildings, museums, art galleries etc. To claim that grade II listing is not notable is a complete oversimplification that does not reflect our actual practices or the reality of the massive GNG satisfying literature that exists. James500 (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
This begs the question: If they meet GNG, why do we need the SNG? We're not saying they're not notable, we're just saying that historical listing doesn't inherently establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm beginning to suspect that this is based on a misunderstanding on James500's part. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
That begs the question: If SNG are supposed to identify topics that are likely to satisfy GNG (and that is very often said to be their purpose), why do we need any SNG? The answer is probably "to save time at AfD" or to provide a cushion for stubs etc that need to be expanded, while they wait for expansion. James500 (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I should point out that villages and streets with sufficiently large numbers of listed buildings will certainly satisfy GNG on the "list" entries alone
No number of "list" entries that look like this:

TM 02 SE GREAT BROMLEY HARWICH ROAD HARE GREEN (north side)

6/66 Hill House

- II

House. C17 with later alterations and additions. Timber framed and plastered. Red plain tiled roof. Off centre red brick chimney stack. 2 storeys and attics. 3 window range of C20 small paned casements. C20 entrance porch to right. Interior features include ceiling and stop chamfered bridging joists. Back to back inglenook fireplace.

is going to make a town meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Having lived in a couple of listed buildings in my time, it is beyond bizarre to me that anyone would think they conferred notability on the settlement in which they are situated. I mean looking at the register, I see such scintillating listings as this one:

Heritage Category: Listed Building

Grade: II

List Entry Number: 1261615

Date first listed: 09-Dec-1986

List Entry Name: UNIDENTIFIED MONUMENT, ABOUT 5 METRES SOUTH EAST OF ANDREWS MONUMENT IN CHURCHYARD OF CHURCH OF ST NICHOLAS

Statutory Address: UNIDENTIFIED MONUMENT, ABOUT 5 METRES SOUTH EAST OF ANDREWS MONUMENT IN CHURCHYARD OF CHURCH OF ST NICHOLAS

Details

STANDISH STANDISH VILLAGE SO 80 NW 7/259 Unidentified Monument, about 5m south east of Andrews Monument in churchyard of Church of St. Nicholas GV II Chest tomb. Unidentified, 1706. Limestone. Flat top, moulded capping and wide plinth, lyre ends with acanthus returns and high relief cartouche with cherub's head to ends. Recessed moulded rectangular side panels with flanking drapery drops.

Indeed I would be very interested to know if Espresso Addict can identify significant coverage for this listing in the Pevsner series. A farm near where I live has three listed buildings on it (the farm house, the barn, the granary), so that farm is notable now and no need for a WP:CORP pass? But this is the logic of what you are saying. FOARP (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the listing you mentioned, there are ~18 listed memorials in that churchyard; the attached church is grade I and there's a war memorial, a gII* gatehouse and something called a 'court', which turns out to have been built by the Abbot of Gloucester in the 14th C, as well as a bunch of other listed buildings; I think it extremely likely that one could find other sources sufficient to write a decent article on Standish, Gloucestershire, which for the record appears to be a civil parish, and therefore a legally recognised settlement. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Many grade II entries contain far more information than the examples FOARP has selected. This is an example that I hope is as random as a human can achieve. It is important to bear in mind that the list entries were compiled over a long period of time by many different hands, and their length and detail varies. Three or six examples do not prove anything for a list with the number of entries that this one has, especially when FOARP has generally not disclosed his sampling methods. They are not a statistically significant sample. James500 (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
To be trueful James this is a relatively modern listing of a modernist building which was listed in the lifetime of it's designers. Most of the 360,000+ Grade II listing are properties beyond 100 yrs or more old. Churches and Stately piles definitely have very good listing, and will have mentions probably in Pevsner and on British History Online so would clearly meet GNG. However many domestic properties don't. Take [13] Chalkwell Hall, a grade II listed property which doesn't get a mention in Pevsner and has a very small listing. In fact Pevsner only mentions domestic properties built later on the surrounding Chalkwell Hall Estate. [14] I think Grade I properties and Grade II* are definitely notable and will have had other material than a listing to prove notability. However Grade II are likely not to meet notability on a listing alone, and other secondary sources are needed. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Pevsner does mention Chalkwell Hall. He refers to "The Hall itself . . .". That means Chalkwell Hall. Pevsner is also far from being the only book or other source eg [15], so the Hall might satisfy GNG on the strength of other sources. And sources on the Hall will contribute to the notability of the surrounding manor and estate. I would suggest, to begin with, just putting the hall, manor and estate in the single article at Chalkwell (which be WP:SPLIT if and when it becomes too big) or at Chalkwell Hall, including all three manor houses and the full history of the manor and estate from 1381 onwards [16]. I think we can treat the manor and estate as a settlement that is more than just a building built in 1830. James500 (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I have a draft RFC at User:Crouch, Swale/Listed buildings. IMO most Grade I and some Grade II* listed buildings will be notable, exceptions may include ancillary buildings and other unnamed buildings, most Grade II listed buildings aren't notable and should be covered in the listed buildings in X parish list. I think most public buildings like parish churches and pubs even Grade II will be notable as there will normally be other coverage. Otherwise they should be covered in the parish like Listed buildings in Dalston, Cumbria or see de:Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Kauns for an Austria equivalent. I'd suggest modifying GEOLAND and this would likely apply to similar buildings in other parts of the world. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
    In my opinion, the listed buildings in X lists are of limited use to readers (they are of limited use to me as a reader), and it would be better to have (at least in addition to the lists) articles on villages, civil parishes, streets, squares and etc that contain listed buildings. The Dalston article is only 5kB long, and says almost nothing about the buildings. The Dalston civil parish list does not even tell you whether the buildings are in village of Dalston or in one of the other villages in the parish, and the co-ordinates are not a satisfactory subtitute (I as a reader do not find it helpful to have to click on links to find out where something is, or to have to check the whole of a list that is not grouped by location, and which sorts by name and number instead of by village and street). James500 (talk) 22:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  • If I was writing a notability guideline for grade II listed buildings, it would probably look something like this: "Villages are presumed to merit an article, and the presence of grade II listed buildings in a village increases the strength of that presumption in proportion to the number of listed buildings. A street that includes X number of grade II listed houses is presumed to merit an article." I am not sure what number X should be. In each case the presumption would be rebuttable as usual. Then I would proceed to give a list of specific types of buildings that are presumed to be notable such as castles, medieval churches, Elizabethan manor houses etc. Finally I would point out that a grade II listing means that other coverage in books and periodicals (especially those relating to history and architecture) is likely to exist, and that coverage needs to be considered, and common sense should prevail. James500 (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
    If I was writing a notability standard, I would not judge the notability of something by the number of single-paragraph verbatim descriptions in a primary source associated with it. FOARP (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    Good reminder to never let you write a notability guideline. There's common sense on one side here, but its not with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back: Please remember to comment on content, not a contributor. Thanks. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
    Both are comments on content, the first is a comment that I would not want someone to create a specific form of content and the second is about what content common sense supports. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
    @Horse Eye's Back: No, "Good reminder to never let you write a notability guideline. There's common sense on one side here, but its not with you" is absolutely and unambiguously a comment that prioritizes criticizing the contributor. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, we are allowed to prioritize criticizing the contributor in a comment. You will note that is not my only comment, that does not appear to be the case for you... You've made exactly no comments at all about content, you've only commented on a contributor. Note that the whole idea of commenting on a talk page solely to say "Please remember to comment on content, not a contributor" is hypocritical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
    Moving this discussion to your talk page. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. There is absolutely no consensus to add this. It would simply be used as a deletionist's mandate to delete as many articles on listed buildings as possible. I do agree that not every listed house should be regarded as individually notable, as often we have a case where an entire street or terrace is listed, but in these cases the street or terrace should be considered notable and the houses on it described in an article about it. However, named buildings should be regarded as individually notable whether they are Grade II or higher. The wording is fine as it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
@Necrothesp: do you mean should be presumed to be individually notable rather than "should be regarded as individually notable"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
That's what it says! The presumption of notability should stand, with common sense being applied in some cases. You know, that thing that some editors seem to have a distinct lack of and be terribly uncomfortable with employing! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
"should be considered notable" and "should be presumed to be notable" are completely different standards, one of which is a recognized wikipedia standard and one of which isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)At some point I am intending on creating lots of new articles on listed buildings but yes I don't think they should all be presumed notable. Yes many Grade I and Grade II* and Grade II that are/were public buildings will likely qualify as notable. I think we need to reword GEOFEAT to say that such buildings (whether in England or not) should not be presumed notable. I don't think we should be basing a settlement's notability on listed buildings and lists like Listed buildings in Wharton, Cumbria do a good job for those that don't need separate articles. If a street has many of them then yes that may be an appropriate place to discuss them but in general I'd use the parish lists. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Grade II listed buildings are "officially assigned . . . protected status on a national level" within the meaning of the guideline. Further, grade II listed buildings are "national heritage" within the meaning of the guideline, because they are officially classified as being of national importance. Before 1970, the non-statutory grade III listed buildings were listed by local authorities (and not by the national commissions on historic buildings and monuments), were then considered to be of local interest below the level of national heritage, and did not then have the protected status that grade II listed buildings have or any "protected status on a national level" whatsoever. We could not generally exclude grade II listed buildings without removing the entire "protected status on a national level" and "national heritage" language from the guideline. Otherwise we would be creating a systematic bias against the UK. It has been reported that the number of listed buildings relative to population in the UK is similar to other European countries: see the SAVE report described in "Gambling with history" (1979) 250 Estates Gazette 735 (26 May 1979). It does not therefore appear possible to claim that the UK has an unusual, let alone excessive, number of listed buildings. James500 (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
"Otherwise we would be creating a systematic bias against the UK." you made me snort coffee on my keyboard. Systemic bias is there being a large number of extant pre-1887 buildings in London but not in Benin City. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
There are many historic buildings in Asia, in North Africa, and in Central and South America. There are a very large number of historic buildings in, in particular, India and China, which are by far the most heavily populated parts of the non-western world. The historic buildings in China are mainly from the Ming dynasty onwards, but the number of historic sites in China is more than 800,000 according to The Guardian. The number of historic buildings in India is up to 700,000 according to the SCMP, with more than 100,000 monuments according to the Economic Times. The one obvious exception to the norm is Japan, which has a paucity of historic buildings due to the bombing that took place in the Second World War (according to the Hutchinson Dictionary of the Arts), but Japan is one of the richest countries in the world and presumably does not lack for media on its geography and local history. James500 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm saying I don't think all protected buildings in other parts of the world always or at least normally require separate articles. If you look at de:Liste der denkmalgeschützten Objekte in Rinn you can see only the church has an article, the other entries don't which is what would probably happen for most parishes in England. For most private Grade II buildings often the only reliable source is the listing, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Thatch, Suffolk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seasons, Suffolk where I argued back in 2010 that they are notable. The fact that the UK has grades unlike other countries (it seems) makes it easier to distinguish on notability. A few years ago I suggested having a bot to create lists of listed buildings for each parish but that never happened and I didn't suggest creating individual articles for every listed building as I didn't think that would be appropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The big problem I see here is that, while I'm entirely sure your motives are good, the deletion of the presumption of notability would lead to the prodding or AfDing of hundreds of articles on listed buildings, as deletionists always seize on these weakenings of notability standards to indulge their weird ideas on what Wikipedia should be. The fact is that Wikipedia is not flooded with articles on non-notable buildings because of the existence of this standard, but its existence does prevent mass deletion "just because we can". You might like to look at this list of AfDs of historic buildings. The current presumption of notability has not led to the retention of buildings which genuinely are not particularly notable, but it probably has saved the deletion of some that are. I see nothing wrong with retaining the status quo. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


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)


Russian Selo - another case of census data not actually being a list of legally-recognised, populated places.

This was flagged up by Mangoe in a recent AFD and I thought it worth discussing here. The Russian word Selo can be translated both as "village", "hamlet", and "rural locality". Typically these are governed by a selsoviet which governs multiple neighbouring selo - as such, unless it happens to be the base of the selsoviet, a selo does not have it's own layer of administration. Selo are thus often just statistical counting-units. Often these selo have very small populations - possibly just 1 - and are in reality single buildings/farms.

Based only on an analysis of the mass-created articles for selo in Kolchuginsky District, these selo appear very similar to the Iranian abadi that we have had so much trouble with under the GEOLAND standard. This extends to:

I do not think we should be creating articles about what are ultimately just non-notable statistical artefacts, not actual communities. Russian Selo should be added to NGEO, alongside Iranian Abadi as an example of something that does not get presumed notability.
I've also got to say that there is something ikky and potentially dangerous about us giving an individual article to what in reality is just someone's house, indicating (with the distance calculated...) that they live alone, a long way from potential help (e.g., Novino). FOARP (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is, the Russian government says these are legally-recognized ρ𝓸𝐩ᵘ𝕃𝓐Ŧ𝐄𝒹 ρ𝓵άℂє𝓼 so therefore they are deserving of standalone articles. 330 such creations in one day is also fine because the community decided that any daily/monthly/yearly limit, or requiring a non-primary or non-database source be used as the basis of a mass creation, was unconscionable. JoelleJay (talk) 03:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
(Obviously I do support adding selo to the list). JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
😢 — hike395 (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I would support adding selo to the list of not-acceptable places in GEOLAND. — hike395 (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Also - it turns out, that also similarly to Iranian abadi, there are a substantial number of selo that have no population. According to a USDA report:
"As of the end of 2012, there were 153,100 rural settlements in Russia, of which only 133,700 settlements were permanently inhabited. In 73 percent of rural settlements the number of inhabitants is less than 200, and settlements with over 2,000 inhabitants comprise only 2 percent of the total."
This is another data-point that casts doubt on the idea that all selo should have presumed notability. FOARP (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Support specifically mentioning selo as disallowed. Mass-creating bad articles like this is and continues to be disruptive. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

comment I will say in all fairness that the reason why the locations are so bad is because the data itself is imprecise. The numbers are given only down to minutes, so N-S the variance could be over a mile (less for E-W). That said, while I wouldn't necessarily say these should be excluded on principle, they need more justification than just DB listings. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Moreso than many other countries, the Russian countryside has been severely depopulated over the last century. Most of these places which have small or zero populations now are old villages with substantial histories, preserved in the name and boundaries of the administrative selo. So, for example, the ruwiki article on Dubki tells us that it had a population of 427 in 1905, and has a sourced, 385 word section on its 400+ year history. Litvinovo was a centuries-old independent village with its own school, library and post office before being absorbed into the urban area of Kolchuginsky in 2005. Metallist is not a factory but a village of more than 400 people, again with its own school, medical centre, etc. Its name comes from the state farm that founded the village—the Soviet Union being fond of names that referenced industrial labour—it's not a description of what's there. There may be some value in merging the articles on villages and the administrative units named after them. But this is not an abadi situation: the major problem there was that Carlossuarez couldn't read a word of the Persian sources he was using, while the creator of these articles is a native Russian speaker (unlike anybody who's commented so far here or in the linked AfDs, AFAIK). You can't judge the enduring notability of a place by just looking at contemporary statistics, maps and satellite photos. – Joe (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    • Then the native speaker could spend another 20 minutes giving any sort of that historical context and sourcing in the articles they are creating, instead of spamming contextless stubs. If there's a better article on ruwiki, why is that not being translated over? It's not too much to ask, since Wikipedia is apparently being used as their therapy regimen anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
      Personally I think we should be grateful that Nikolai has done so much to expand our coverage of Russian geography, rather than demanding he do even more. I definitely think we should refrain from using the mental health issues he has bravely disclosed on his talk page as ammunition in an attack on his work, and am disappointed to see a former arb doing so. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
      I have refrained from naming the author out of sensitivity to their condition. However, Wikipedia is not therapy is a long standing principle. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
      Personally I think we should be grateful that Nikolai has done so much to expand our coverage of Russian geography, rather than demanding he do even more. I don't think that is an accurate way to interpret the statement; I see the statement as saying There are minimum standards for articles for them to be a net benefit to the encyclopedia, and if an editor wants to create an article they should bring them to that minimum standard.
      Personally, I agree with that statement; just because Wikipedia is WP:VOLUNTARY doesn't mean we have to accept all volunteer work. BilledMammal (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
      Of course not, but we should have a good reason for not accepting it. I've explained above that the supposed problems with these articles disappear with some cursory research. What we are left with, for what feels like the hundredth time, is a small group of editors who simply do not like stubs about places and will say or do anything to try and get rid of them. I am this close to filing an arbitration request about it. – Joe (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
      I eagerly await the compelling evidence you'll bring up in such a filing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
      And just to highlight this - none of the problems with these articles were actually rebutted.
      For example, the “rebuttal” of Metallist being an Agro-industrial concern is that it was established as a branch of an Agro-industrial concern. The “rebuttal” of Litvinovo not being a separate village (let alone two independent villages) was that it is not an independent village. The “rebuttal” of Dubki not being two villages was a word-count of the history of one of the supposed villages that is “Dubki”.
      Just being a selo does not mean it is inhabited - and possibly has never been inhabited. There was no attempt at justifying the article that is palpably about the area around a school, or the duplicate articles. FOARP (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
      It's impossible to engage in a good faith discussion with you on this topic, you again and again shift the goal posts. You claimed, based on a naive reading of its name, that Metallist was not a village but a metalworks. I showed that it is a (substantial) village and its name has nothing to do with industrial activity, past or present. You claimed that Litvinovo was merely a neighbourhood, I showed that it was physically and legally an independent settlement as recently as thirty years ago. You claimed that Dubki was merely a "counting unit", I showed that it is a settlement which we can demonstrably write a substantial encyclopaedia article about, because ruwiki already has. I'm not going to go through each and every example you've raised and prove notability, I don't have to. What I've showed is that you are cherry-picking and misrepresenting these articles to fit your preconceived conclusion that selo are "statistical artefacts, not actual communities", when in fact every single one is an actual or former community (yes, including Shkolny). – Joe (talk) 04:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      Shkolny is a community? Really? Indulge me here and defend that statement. FOARP (talk) 05:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      Look at a map man. It's a village, there are houses, there are people. It was named after a school, so what? The village I live in is named after a rock, it doesn't mean it's a rock. Maybe you'd find it neater if it was counted as part of the nearby villages Esiplevo or Sloboda, so what? The Russian government disagreed. – Joe (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      Firstly, but very importantly, the Russian government should not be directly making decisions about what Wikipedia does and does not cover without any filtering or checking.
      More basically, you're starting from the basis that selo map on to anything else but the census. They aren't administrative bodies, so why would you assume that? The address of the school is given as being in Esiplevo, so at least from a postal point of view there is no "Shkolny" as such. The Russian language article also describes it as being part of Esiplevo.
      I'm not sure what you are talking about "moving goal posts" - my arguments haven't changed. I just don't believe that you have actually rebutted the basic problem that when you see selo having no-one living in them and still being selo, this means that selo are not "legally recognised populated places", because they don't have to have a population to be included as a selo on the Russian census. Taking the example of Szkolny, it appears to have never had more than a handful people living it, so I am totally confused why you think that the presumption for selo should be that every one of them was once a genuine community even if they are not substantially populated now.
      Similarly for Litivinovo I don't see the justification for an independent article (much less two just because it has two selo!) - simply having had a school/post office ain't it because these things are notable either. It's part of the local town and should just be covered there. The duplicates are far from limited examples - they apparently exist in every rural district of Russia because, again, selo aren't required to be real communities. A word-count on Dubki's history demonstrates nothing - the content appears to be a copy-paste from clerical sources about churches that are not clearly within the actual village but are in other villages (particularly Троица), and again does not explain why we should have two articles about Dubki just because - again for statistical purposes but not obviously for any other purpose - it is divided into two selo. FOARP (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      Joe Roe, are we confident that these low-population selos always represent depopulated former villages? While I respect the value a native speaker brings to the table, that is not always sufficient - Just look at the number of American geostubs that were created by native speakers but turned out to be utter bunk. "You can't judge the enduring notability of a place by just looking at contemporary statistics, maps and satellite photos" goes both ways: Are we sure that these were all properly vetted given the high creation rate and lack of sources beyond the census? If these are indeed all notable places, that's great news, but I want to be sure. –dlthewave ☎ 22:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
      I would just like an explanation of why, if a settlement can consist of multiple selo - and this happened numerous times in just one district - we should act as if a list of selo is a list of settlements?
      Since, according to the USDA, there are some ~20,000 selo that have no population (and may never have been populated? Or only briefly?) we also have to ask why they should be treated differently to abadi that had exactly the same problem?
      Joe has leaned heavily on the supposed ancient nature of these “villages”. It has to be pointed out that Russia is every bit as much a settler-colonist state as the United States, particularly in Siberia and the far east. Much of this activity was actually quite recent (see e.g., the Stalin-era movement of populations). It is very reasonable to say that the same issues apply to abandoned selo in remote areas of Russia as to the “ghost town” California stubs supported only by GNIS. FOARP (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
      These articles aren't about Siberia. Vladimir Oblast is part of the medieval core of Russia, prior to its colonial expansion eastward. – Joe (talk) 04:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      Yet we have, even here in this discussion, a “village” (in reality a State Farm/Agro-industrial operation) that was relatively recently established as an off-shoot of one elsewhere within Russia. FOARP (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      And Milton Keynes was relatively recently established as an offshoot of London. Is that "settler-colonialism"? Is population growth new to you? – Joe (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      If Milton Keynes established a New Milton Keynes somewhere else as a branch-operation, how would you characterise that? FOARP (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      Milton Keynes is a terrible example here considering that it has no trouble passing GNG, as it has been written about extensively. Mangoe (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
      @Dlthewave: Not always; most are just current, populated villages. My point above is that we have no reason to doubt the notability of these articles, because apart from some minor duplication due to overlapping administrative units, the supposed problems listed by FOARP are all bogus. A selo (rural locality) is a legally recognised populated place in Russia, and as such meets our current policy WP:GEOLAND. I know that you and others would prefer to see this replaced by a coverage-based standard, but you haven't succeeded in forming a consensus for that yet. Until you do, you cannot go around attacking editors simply because they are working toward the current standard and have created a lot of articles. – Joe (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      How on earth can a selo be a “legally recognised populated place in Russia” when ~20,000 of them exist and are unpopulated? As discussed, these are not administrative units - that is the selsoviet above them. When a selo has a population of 1, who exactly is supposed to be the administrator living in that selo and who is it that they administrate? FOARP (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      Do censuses normally continue to "count" depopulated locales as "legally recognized populated places" indefinitely? JoelleJay (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      You’re assuming that something is a “legally recognised populated place” just because it’s a line-item in the census. Since they count their population even when it’s zero, the “populated” part at least is apparently missing. I would argue the “legally recognised” part is also not there: just counting the population living somewhere in a census does not require any form of legal recognition of it. You’re probably tired of me repeating this, but: my house is on the census, and is populated, so does that make it a GEOLAND pass?
      I don’t dispute that some of these selo are independent communities. The issue is that enough clearly aren’t (not least the ~20,000 unpopulated ones) that a presumption of notability is not appropriate. FOARP (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      You know that I'm not assuming this.
      My question was meant to get at whether something can be designated a selo when it had never had a population, or if the selo designation is just retained indefinitely even after becoming depopulated. If it's the former then of course no one should be creating articles based on a list of selo, but I think Joe is assuming the latter is the case. In my opinion even if they were all populated at some point, that doesn't mean they were "legally recognized" as communities in the way intended by the guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
      Sorry Joelle, I had you mixed up with Joe.
      I don't doubt they were (nearly) all populated at some point. I guess like you I don't think that means they were all populated for a substantial amount of time or had sufficient population to be any kind of genuine community. FOARP (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
      Depopulation. I've already explained this above, and you know full well that WP:GEOLAND encompasses former populated places. I'm tired of pretending that you are here to discuss in good faith. – Joe (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
      If the issue is depopulation then what’s needed is a showing that Russia’s low/no population Selo (which lets emphasise can still be Selo when no-one lives in them) all used to be substantial communities - but this is not in evidence. Selo were not required to have a church or other centre that might guarantee a fixed population at any point in their establishment. Selo are not units of governance or administration.
      The situation only gets worse when we look at Siberia, the far north etc. FOARP (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding selo to the blacklist per Joe Roe. GEOLAND is meant to include depopulated former villages. James500 (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
    And what if these selo were never actually a populated village? What if they only ever had a transient population manning a railway station (see below)? FOARP (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
    A selo traditionally possessed an church, which implies that there was a congregation. A selo that possessed a church was certainly a village. A change in the definition of "selo" would not justify adding selos (and especially pre-1917 selos) per se to the blacklist, especially if the change effectively consists of substituting a soviet cinema or school for the orthodox church: [17]. James500 (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
But we can see from the below (and from the Shkolny case) that many, many selo never had any kind of administrative centre (at least not one within them) or substantial population. The definition you are using is more appropriate of the selsoviet which at least would have an administrative centre, not the selo. FOARP (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
No, the evidence is that if a place was considered to be a "selo" before the October Revolution, then that selo actually was a village with an adequate population. Therefore pre-1917 selos should be presumed notable. It may well be possible to push that date forward. As I have explained below, your alleged railway stations may generally just be settlements named after the railway station they contain. For an English analogy, Oxford was named after a ford that was used to drive oxen accross the River Thames (see History of Oxford#Medieval period for etymology). In any event, there is no evidence that any railway station was classified as a selo before the 21st century. James500 (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
But many (the majority?) of selo in the Russian census are new units! The very fact that you have to argue that only the pre-1917 one should be presumed notable necessarily means that selo as a whole should not be presumed notable! FOARP (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Russia has numerous selo that are simply railway stations

And the reason this can be said is they are literally named after the number of kilometres they are along a particular railway line. The populations given for these "villages" are consistent with the staff of the railway stations, some have a population of zero. Most are in reality part of a nearby village as can be seen from their addresses. See, e.g., the following -

I could just go on but they number in the hundreds and I think the point is made. Each of these is a selo. This is again very similar to the abadi and GNIS cases. FOARP (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. JoelleJay (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
"123 km (Russian: 123 км) is a rural locality (a passing loop)" is an interesting way to word things. Razezd 15 km helpfully links "passing loop" to Village#Russia, rather than passing loop. CMD (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
😢
— hike395 (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
hike395 - Quite. And these are just the ones that are easily identifiable by name. Just looking at the map I see hundreds more which are railway stations but which the creator did not bother to note were railway stations/passing loops. See e.g., our article on Shomyrtly, and then look at its actual location - clearly just a railway station, but described as a "village" here on Wikipedia.
There are tens of thousands more selo that could be added as articles but we do not have any articles for yet. We definitely should NOT wait for them to be transformed into misleading, inaccurate, and non-notable articles like the one for Shomyrtly - it's time to act before another Iran/GNIS cluster-&*^% is created that will take years and years to clean up. FOARP (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can see, you have produced no evidence that any railway station was classified as a selo before the 21st century. In particular, Shomyrtly appears to have become a selo in 2005. I have examined the articles on the Russian Wikipedia for the articles you have listed. I am not satisfied that they actually are railway stations (as opposed to being settlements named after railway stations, which is not the same thing).
Generally, these places generally appear to have streets. Railway stations do not normally have streets, which implies that these are not railway stations.
Specific examples: The population of 2647 km appears to have been the farmers who inhabited a dispersed settlement of farms. 18 km appears to be a settlement, originally for the workers of a pioneer camp and now for summer residents, named after a railway station. 6 km, Vologda Oblast appears to be a 1km long dispersed settlement located next to the railway line. 8-y km appears to be a depopulated village, which formerly repaired river traffic, and provided medical services etc. 15 km, Kemerovo Oblast,  123 km and 115 km appear to be settlements for the families of railway workers who built and maintained the railway. 53rd km appears to started as a farm that was expanded into a settlement when a weapons installation of the air arm of the Pacific Fleet was established there. James500 (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but this really does show the extent to which you simply refuse to accept that anything is wrong here. That some of these only became “villages” recently, whilst still having populations consistent with the staff of the railway stations they blatantly are, is a reason why Russian selo should not be equated with villages since the designation is simply given to railway stations.
The “streets” are simply roads (actually, dirt tracks in many cases) on which the station is located, the number of which is counted using an algorithm. A “dispersed settlement” is basically not a settlement - it is a census-taking unit. Dormitories/camps for workers are the definition of a non-permanent settlement. Ditto barracks and military camps. FOARP (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I am really amazed that (i) most participants in the discussion do not know what they are talking about; (ii) nobody bothered to notify Wikiproject Russia or at least leave notices to active members. Well, in Russia legally there are several types of rural localities which include selo, village (this is different from selo), settlements (not to be confused with urban-type settlements, which are urban localities), stanitsas, khutors, railway stations (which are not stations proper but settlements serving the stations) and some more. Historically, selos were the biggest ones and before 1917 always had a church. There are some with the population over 10K (in fact, everything above 3K is reported on the national census directly). Most of the rural localities in Russia are in fact not selos but villages. There are probably some exceptions, since the type of locality can change (for example, several urban-type settlements were for some tax reasons declassified to selos in the last 10 years), but as a rule smth with the name 17 km can not be a selo. It most likely would be a railway station. Again, possibly there are some exceptions, but I would say every selo has secondary sources sufficiently describing its history. (Can not say the same about villages in Russia). Pinging Ezhiki who knows more but sadly has not edited in the last three weeks. No opinion on mass creation.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
  • You say all this, but (picking one at random) 17 km, Sakhalin Oblast is a selo according to our article, and wasn’t populated when it received the designation in 2004, nor in 2010, before finally having a population that of exactly 2 people counted at it in 2020 (a population consistent with the staff of the railway). Talking about the pre-1917 status misses the basic point that the status continued to be given to many new locations afterwards. FOARP (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    I said there are exceptions. 147 km is not a selo, despite being in the list above. Razezd 15 km is not a selo. You statement that everything in your list is a selo is just incorrect. Shomyrtly is not a selo, never been one. Ymblanter (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    And of course 17 km is not a selo. Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    You’re skirting the issue: there are places in Russia that became selo when no-one was living in them. 17 km, Sakhalin Oblast is one of them. That there are other categories of rural settlement in Russia that are also non-notable (but which we have hundreds/thousands of articles for justified by GEOLAND) is beside the point. FOARP (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • @User:Ymblanter: I apologise if I have made any mistakes. I am going to withdraw from this discussion and leave it to people with more expertise. James500 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
    Actually, I think you made some effort to understand the subject, which is to be commended. Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
    Just popping in for a quick comment in response to Yaroslav's ping. There are "passing loops" which are indeed rural localities and not just railway passing loops, and there are "passing loops" which are indeed just railway passing loops. Same goes for a variety of other railway terminology-looking terms. How to tell the difference? The ones classified as proper rural localities would always be (or have at some point been) included into the list of actual inhabited localities (available from both government official (primary) and from academic secondary sources, if one cares to look), and the ones which are just generic railway features would not be. The former are inherently notable under the geonotability criteria (or at least were at the time when I was creating them), and the latter are not (although might of course still be notable for other reasons, outside the scope of this discussion). I am not aware of any federal subject which indiscriminately and automatically classifies all railway stations on its territory as inhabited localities. Bottom line: just because a place is called "XXX km" does not automatically mean it's just a generic point on a railway. Figuring out which is which requires effort. Only a handful of "xxx km" in the range between 1 and 10,000 should have an article, that's for sure, and I can vouch for every single one I personally created. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 4, 2023; 21:27 (UTC) 21:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
    Help me out here: you’ve !voted keep on the AFD for 17 km, Sakhalin Oblast. It had no population when it was made a “village” in 2004. It had no population at the next census either. It finally had a population of two recorded in 2021, a number which is consistent with it simply being a railway station with a staff of two. The area given in official documents for this “village” covers only the railway station.
    Why should this kind of location be given any presumption of notability when it didn’t need to be populated to designated as such or to keep the designation? FOARP (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    Again, you equate a selo with an Iranian abadi. This is incorrect and shows that you do not understand the structure of localities in Russia. You can of course make a point that none of the rural localities in Russia are notable, well, go ahead. Ymblanter (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    So do you care to comment on 17 km, Sakhalin Oblast or do you have nothing to say about it? FOARP (talk) 06:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    I am sorry but this is not the tone I am going to discuss anything. I remain convinced you do not understand what you are talking about, which is clearly demonstrated in this thread. Have a nice day. Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    So nothing to say about this selo that became a selo when it had a population of zero. Nor about 8-y km (another new selo with zero population)? Nor about Mekimdya (another zero-population selo)? How about Cherendey which became a selo in 2004 according to RU Wiki, when it had a population of zero? And Seyat, which according to RU Wiki has never been populated on the census? And Vorontsovo, Sakha Republic, which has never had a recorded population according to RU Wiki? Are these not selo? Exactly which part am I missing here? FOARP (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    I think the main reason for confusion here is that you think that this place was first classified as (="became") an inhabited locality (a selo) in 2004. That is not the case. 17 km had inhabited (rural) locality status since at least 1948; the term "station" in Sakhalin Oblast can refer to a bona fide generic railway station, yes, but also is a type of a rural locality (along with "selo", "village", and "settlement"). It was not that a random empty railway station was elevated to an "inhabited locality" in 2004 (which would've indeed been odd); it's that an already existing inhabited locality (which happened to have no population at the time) which was previously classified as "station" was reclassified as a selo, along with dozens of other inhabited localities across the oblast (five settlements and another "station" under jurisdiction of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk were reclassified as a selo by the same law, as a matter of fact). It's not at all the same as "creating" a new selo where none existed before! Once you wrap your head around this quirk of terminology, it makes perfect sense why NGEO very much applies to 17 km, but would not be applicable to, say, nearby railways stations (but not inhabited localities!) of 10 km or 19 km.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2023; 16:53 (UTC) 16:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    I'm just kibbitzing here, but I would point out that the etymology of place names isn't especially good indicator of the status of a place. For example, neither 100 Mile House (incorporated) nor 150 Mile House (unincorporated) is actually a house (or a mile marker), in spite of the word choice aspect of the place names. Newimpartial (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    It's not mere etymology, it's the official legal classification (with "legal recognition" being one of the criteria required by the NGEO guideline). Not every railway station is an inhabited locality; only those officially recognized as such are.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 5, 2023; 17:22 (UTC) 17:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    "it's that an already existing inhabited locality (which happened to have no population at the time)" - well, that's certainly not a contradiction in terms right there, is it? FOARP (talk) 09:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Astonishingly, I've just realised that over a week and sixty comments into this discussion of articles written solely by Nikolai Kurbatov, including a proposal to specifically exclude them from the notability guideline, nobody has bothered to notify him of it. I've done so now. – Joe (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

We're dancing around the point here quite a bit

I've complained several times along these discussions about the lack of clarity surrounding the terminology here. But really, here's the issue I keep coming back to: regardless of what the terms mean: when it comes down to it, these places appear to consistently fail GNG, notwithstanding the issue of how we characterize them. We keep being dragged back to this notion of the GEOLAND guideline as being a rule which trumps GNG and requires us to include these places in spite of the reality that we can't say anything substantial about them. I see a number of problems with this, which I am tired of reiterating. But for the sake of argument, can someone give a justification for including articles on each of these places without resorting to the language of the guideline? What I'm seeing here is that these places look like the places we have deleted in large numbers particularly in the US but also in other countries where there have been systematic reviews. So why keep these? I don't think the fact that they are legal classifications or constructs is good enough. Mangoe (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

A large percentage of selos are notable directly according to GNG. Since people above cherry-pick articles, let me cherry-pick some here: Staraya Ladoga, Palkino, Kholmogory, Kichmengsky Gorodok. It is just so many of them that people who work on improving the articles and finding sources (like Ezhiki and myself) cannot catch up. However, other rural localities in Russia, such as villages, rural settlements, or indeed railway stations, IMO, can not be presumed notable, and should be organized into lists (NOT mass-deleted), until shown to be notable individually. Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
The corollary to this is: we also shouldn’t be creating any more of these micro-settlement stubs.
Unfortunately Wikipedia has only a few ways of enforcing this - either on a conduct level, or at a guideline/policy level. Making it a conduct issue means intense drama such as we already saw in the C46/Lugnuts cases. On a policy level, all the mass-creators need to do is point to GEOLAND as a full, no-further-discussion-needed justification of what they’re doing. Anyone who doubts that this is how GEOLAND works at present need only look into the below discussion to see someone doing exactly this. This is also how GEOLAND works in AFD after AFD.
As for making things into lists - that’s great, but GEOLAND is then used as a justification to delistify. We saw exactly that with the mahalle/neighbourhood articles that Lugnuts created and which there was a consensus at AFD to redirect. - all since resurrected “because GEOLAND”.
I don’t know. I’m tired of discussing this and I’m sure all of you are tired of seeing me post about it. FOARP (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
May be you should accept that there is currently no consensus in the community to deprecate GEOLAND. Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I see plenty of consensus that it doesn't work - even your own comment above that "other rural localities in Russia, such as villages, rural settlements, or indeed railway stations, IMO, can not be presumed notable" is evidence of that since everything on that list can theoretically be a GEOLAND pass - the issue is getting the proposed change right. We saw this with NSPORTS, which was debated over and over for years and years before it finally changed. All the same I don't see the point in making any new proposed changes to GEOLAND itself (sources that grant a GEOLAND pass is a different story) this side of the new year and am not going to try.
I've got to say the way some people acknowledge that GEOLAND is problematic and then act as if it were a sacred text that can never be changed gives me whiplash. It's a guideline, one that clashes with policy, and guidelines change all the time. We've already changed it in recent years after the Abadi, GNIS, and GNS cases. In fact a simple comparison of NGEO 10 years ago and NGEO now shows a whole raft of changes, including:
  • The guide used to say that populated places were inherently notable.
  • The guide used to refer to Wikipedia's supposed "Gazetteer function" - a maximalist claim that would have us having dictionary-style entries on every named geographical entity.
  • Simply being featured on a map or directory used to be something that could establish notability.
  • More restrictive guidance has been introduced for roads, railways, etc.
Like I said, I don't see any point making any new major proposal on GEOLAND this side of the new year, and any change would have to be work-shopped on this page first anyway, but GEOLAND can be changed. FOARP (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
GEOLAND is supposed to represent the consensus that is already there. That is how notability guidelines are supposed to work: we don't have to retread arguments over certain classes of things because there is general agreement. That is why the language of GEOLAND describes the typical outcome of discussions on places. And yet, the fact that we keep having these arguments over and over is manifest evidence that whatever such agreement there ever was is gone. And frankly, in my experience a very large part of those who agree with the guideline do so because it looks reasonable on the surface and they don't know any better. In discussions over US places we have seen a steady stream of people come along and invoke GNIS as a notability-creating authority, so that telling people to go read WP:GNIS has become routine in AfDs. And that's the pattern that shows up in the changes FOARP has listed above: when specifics have to be discussed, GEOLAND tends to yield, and we see a new exception carved into it.
Which leads me back to "cherry-picking". AfDs, by their nature, have to look like cherry-picking. People only nominate articles which they think can be deleted, after all, and the much larger class of those which seem likely to survive a discussion go unnominated. In the case of GNIS, most entries classified as "populated places" are probably notable settlements, but plenty of them aren't or for that matter aren't settlements at all. It's looking as though the situation with the Polish entries are going to be the same; the situation with the Russian entries is less clear but it's likely that, in the course of translation, there are some that should be deleted because of errors at various stages in the process, including the designations of the Russian government. It really doesn't matter that some or even a substantial majority of these articles are accurate and concern notable places; the history of these databases is that they do have errors or have entries which are misconstrued, and therefore yes, they aren't so reliable that the mere existence of an entry is sufficient evidence that the data is good. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
And mass-creating articles from databases where most of the entries are notable is not a good way to build out these topic areas. Often they get skipped over rather than deleted during article expansion campaigns, and deletion requires massive amounts of work searching for sources. When they do get deleted, they leave behind numerous mentions in other lists, articles and templates which are very time-consuming to track down and remove, if they ever end up being addressed at all - closing admins do not have the time to do this work and noms are often unaware that it needs to be done. If the closing admin has simply unlinked them, they're practically impossible for others to track down. It's better to slow down and take the eime to ensure that we're only creating articles about notable places instead of indiscriminatey mass-creating based on unproven sources. –dlthewave ☎ 15:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I would actually challenge the premise here, or leadt want to shift the focus. It seems to me that two cases are being conflated: where we have articles created for places that either haven't verifiably existed or aren't verified to meet specified criteria (like having been populated or officially recognized) and a different case, of articles created that do vetifiably meet these critetia but don't meet some higher standard of Notability.
Creating articles of that first class is a drain on the resources needed to build an encyclopaedia, but I don't believe that creating articles of the second class does so - in fact, there has been consistent, substantial support for creation of articles of the second class each time I've seen the community's views about this tested. So any discussion of this that obscures this distinction strikes me as unhelpful in addressing the actual problems the project faces in this area. Newimpartial (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
100% agree on this point with @Dlthewave. Today I've been looking at the Polish Geostub articles that Kotbot created (which are ridiculous). One example is we had three different articles for essentially the same place (Łuknajno-Leśniczówka, Łuknajno Lake and Łuknajno, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship - all the same place referred to in different ways) - a human being who wasn't just robotically going through a directory would realise this and merge them to get an article that actually had some content, but since they were created in 2008 nobody was motivated to fix them, and actually their existence probably de-motivated anyone to fix this issue. I've now done the merge (except for Łuknajno-Leśniczówka which is pending at AFD) but sheesh.
Take another example: Ktery A, Ktery B, and Ktery SK - Ktery SK doesn't exist as far as I can see, and I can't think what "SK" could stand for in this context (it could be something to do with railways?). Ktery B is Nowe Ktery (New Ktery) on the map, whilst Ktery A is just Ktery, which we have no actual article about because it wasn't an item in the list but is actually the place that exists in real life. A human, writing normally, would realise this, but not a bot or a human acting like a bot.
Take another example: Wały A and Wały B - the addresses in the locations on the map say only Wały, and so does the sign on the road into town. There is no real-life Wały A or Wały B, but they are divided in that way in TERYT, the Polish version of GNIS, and in Polish census data, so that's what they're called on here. But the real place called Wały? The one that isn't a line-item in some directory that was never intended to be used in the way Wikipedia uses it? That doesn't get an article, but it probably does get confused people asking where Wały A and Wały B are and why Google Maps displays their town in a weird way.
And this is leaving aside obvious hoaxes that Kotbot created like Zielony Gaj, Mrągowo County, which doesn't exist anywhere but on here (and on Google maps, because they scraped data from here).
I don't see anyway that this mass-creation could be anything but a drain on the community. Every one of these one-sentence stubs is the subject of repeated gnoming edits, not least because many of them included spammed inaccurate information about what the German place-names etc. were that had to be removed en masse a couple of years ago. The alternative to them being created en masse is not them not being created, it's them being created more slowly by actual humans to make actual articles, without first having to clear away the nonsensical bric-a-brac resulting from bot creation. FOARP (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more that I think that what's really needed is a workable guideline/policy against mass creation of stubs. I've always thought that the best was to describe/creates things like that is to look at mainstream views/common sense or mainstream practices and put those into words. For example, under ngeo a small village/town is not excluded on notability grounds and per the unwritten factor, is very enclyclopedic. There are about 1.6 million of those in India and China that don't have an article. Let say the an editor created one of those the is a bit more developed than just a stub. It would probably be kept, and supported by most of the folks here. Besides the reasons already described in the paragraph, there are these two more:

  • an editor has invested some real time in this article....maybe at least a 1/2 hour in the one article. And that matters to the community. And it also means that (by most definitions) that it is not a part of a mass creation binge.
  • While it's not fully recognized that a stub us usually near-worthless (like someone setting a windshield wiper on the floor and saying that that they created an automobile that just need finishing) folks nevertheless give it extra brownie points for being more than a stub

If an editor just created one stub on such a village, such would probably also be widely accepted, including by most folks here. It meets the SNG and if there is any downside, it's low impact.

If an editor did a mass creation of stubs, such would probably be widely rejected.

Note that the difference in outcomes / degree of acceptance had nothing to do with the notability criteria....it was the same for all of them. Besides the notability criteria being not relevant to the difference, it seems that the community will not agree to a significant tightening of NGEO. So IMO what is needed is a clear guideline or policy against mass creation of stubs. While this is a wiki-wide measure, I think that it is particularly relevant to geo (and perhaps we should take the lead)) because of there being millions of additional villages etc. that meet the current SNG. Targeting situations which are both mass creation and stubs IMO would make it likely to pass. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Too bad the community decided any curtailment of mass creation was an assault on the Purpose of Wikipedia... JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Snark I know, but for the record the real issue was the community didn't make decide much at all on mass-creation. Just loads of digital ink thrown at the screen for little outcome. FOARP (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Despite best efforts (which I applaud), that was framed in a way destined to fail. IMO a proposal for a guideline that discourages mass creation of stubs has a good chance of succeeding, and geo is that area that needs it the most. Note that "mass creation of stubs" discourages only joint occurrence of those two things. And the proposal doesn't include the poison pill of of trying to implement remedies. "Discourage" is influential without the poison pill of trying to be explicit/prescriptive/ specify remedies. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"distinguished"

The guideline says "aggregate sources tell us nothing about why a particular object is distinguished". The definition of distinguished at Websters doesn't make sense in the context of, say, a barren rocky island. They don't win prizes or achieve things. It merely exists. If those rocks caused a shipwreck that was notable, does that make them "distinguished rocks"? It sounds.. odd. -- GreenC 18:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

IMO its more the British use of distinguished than the American one but yes it doesn't appear to be the best word to communicate what we're trying to communicate. Perhaps someone went to a thesaurus because notable was used too many times? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Synonymous terms for "notable", like distinguished, see WP:The problem with elegant variation, are dangerous in documents like guidelines. It's self-referential, notable because it is notable. -- GreenC 19:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_10&oldid=1254519391"