Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Mass-created village/neighbourhood Geostubs

Two recent AN/ANI discussions (1 2) have highlighted that mass-created stub articles can be problematic. There appears to be a strong consensus, at least in those discussion, against editors mass-creating geostubs based on a single source without at least first getting a consensus for doing so. Particularly, where the stub-articles are directed to the lowest-level populated places, and the only source is a table/map containing location and/or population data, best practise appears to be to redirect those to a higher-level entity including a list of them (e.g., villages/neighbourhoods to districts/counties).

I think we should add some guidance about lowest-level geostubs to this guideline. Proposal as follows (addition shown in underline):

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable. Where the populated place is a lowest-level unit (e.g., neighbourhood/village) for which only population/location data is available, best practise is to redirect these to a list of such units within a higher-level unit (e.g., district/county) until further information can be provided."

I think particularly in the Iranian case a great deal of damage could have been avoided had something like the above been followed. The biggest creator of Geostubs (User:Encyclopædius, formerly Dr. Blofeld) also favours this kind of solution. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I don't really have a problem with the stubs (apart from the fact it's not entirely clear if GEOLAND is passed - if these were clearly towns it'd be different), but we're at a point in the project where mass creation of any geography articles should be signed off on by the community. SportingFlyer T·C 11:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer - Agree that some kind of check is needed before it happens. What kind of wording would you propose? FOARP (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• There is a difference between these stubs created based on reliable sources and the stubs mentioned there, for which GeoNames was the only source. Many places in GeoNames were added based on GEOnet Names Server and the Geographic Names Information System, including some that we would not describe as populated places. Peter James (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• This is a good idea. I would suggest omitting the "lowest-level unit" part, since it leaves the door open for the argument that a place should have its own article just because some even smaller sub-unit exists.

There's currently a similar proposal (permalink) at NSPORTS which would add a requirement for "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source".

Looking at the bigger picture, I think the community might support new guidelines requiring sufficient sourcing at the time of article creation and allow speedy deletion (with no WP:BEFORE search requirement) of any mass-created article that fails this. –dlthewave ☎ 18:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Only if the community supports increasing WP:Systemic bias. Is an American village with a population of 1 more important than a Turkish village with a population of more than 1,000? Or should an article about a baseball player whose full name is not known and who only made one appearance be kept and an article about a British footballer or Pakistani cricketer who played a similar number of games (or more) at a similar level be redirected or deleted? One solution would be to split Wikipedia - one site in which articles are created (including mass creation of stubs; there would be some deletion as usual content policies would still apply) and another in which articles are deleted based on GNG or SNG (whichever supports deletion). Peter James (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't pretend the rest of us here think we should have last-name-only athletes and 1-person places, those should be deleted too. If a Turkish village has more than 1000 people of course it should have an article, but the mass-production there was places on the scale on <100, and moreover, the main issue with those articles was an unapproved WP:MASSCREATION using a low-quality source. I agree with the spirit of the proposal. Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter James - I think we should take the possibility of systemic bias seriously. At the same time we should not just assume that we know what's best for editors from e.g., Iran, indeed doing more harm than good is one of the problems of mass creation. FA-language editors have been pretty vocal about how the harmful effect that all those Iranian "village" stubs had on information about Iran and on FA-wiki itself. See, e.g., Shahramrashidi's comment here and 4nn1l2's statement here. FA-language users did not feel "helped" by the mass-creation of stub articles based on a half-understood database. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support intent of proposal. I'm not a GEO editor so I'm not familiar with the practicalities involved, but I strongly support any and all changes to guidelines that limit the creation of GNG-failing articles. I would also support a requirement for a non-database source for all new creations. JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support to any policy to prevent mass-creating geostubs based on a single unreliable source such as census. If the village or place to be notable, The related article will be created by real editors surely. What is the usage of mess-creation article for places which anyone don't know them. Do are they created for quantity only or for using of readers? I believe if a place to be known and notable, one will create it's article surely and no need to articles with no real/ unusable information. I am also afraid, after a period, all alleys, streets, apartments or any similar to be entered in WP by mass creation from any list. Shahram 12:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

  A census is a reliable source, it's just that editors should check what the places mentioned in the census are and if they are not sure then ask on a relevant noticeboard or WikiProject page. This discussion is about populated places such as villages, which have been accepted as notable for most of the time Wikipedia has existed; the guidelines are different for streets and buildings (for a policy-based reason, there is WP:IINFO). Peter James (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue we've got is a lot of people are interpreting "village" as the equivalent of any lowest-level census-taking unit, and many countries have censuses (censii?) that don't work that way. In fact this can have the effect of applying a Eurocentric viewpoint to non-European data. The lowest-level unit also being called "neighbourhood" is a big red warning sign, as is the use of common surnames as the names for many of these units (indicating that they may be more akin to household/clan units), as is their low population, as is the lack of any non-census data being available anywhere for the vast majority of them. We need to look at academic writing about them to see what it says they are rather than just relying on dictionary definitions which may well often be massive over-simplifications (e.g., the idea that an abadi is just a village). We need to be sure that the names of these lowest-level units aren't regularly changing (something that could lead to duplication).

It also has to be said simply that not every census is necessarily so reliable for the purposes we are trying to use it for. Much less databases that are simply databases of place-names/locations.

We should be modest when dealing with this kind of data, and listen to what native-language speakers tell us about it rather than telling them that they are wrong. FOARP (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

We should say what they are officially, the same as in articles for other parts of the world - Reading, Kansas (population 231) is a city, Reading, Berkshire (population 161,780) is not. An article would be needed for "abadi"; Villages of Turkey#Villages as neighborhoods mentions "mahalle" but it looks like there is no page or section specifically about the concept (necessary as a mahalle is not always a village - although the two in Şenkaya that are not the names of villages have no articles and are not in the list). Mahalle redirects to Mahallah which doesn't have a section about Turkey. Peter James (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a mistake to interpret "legally recognized" as "published in an official government source". My understanding is that GEOLAND #1 is meant to apply to incorporated communities and other places that are part of the official government structure, but the supporting sources often reflect some other government function such as census-taking or mail delivery. Census-takers don't create official legal recognition; they just document areas where people live for the purpose of counting them. –dlthewave ☎ 16:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter James - This source (albeit from 1974) is interesting in that it translates Mahalle as "Quarters". Probably something could be written on it but newer sources are needed.

@dlthewave - Agree that census's do not typically confer legal recognition. A census only records, it does not recognise. Also agree with your statement above that nowhere does it say that Wiki is a gazetteer, only that it has features of one. Wiki is very different to, e.g., the London Gazette. FOARP (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

For a census to record the population of an administrative entity it is necessary for that administrative entity to exist. In some cases such as the places in Iran described as "abadi" or the American census-designated places the names do not refer to administrative entities but in other cases they do. And a gazetteer and gazette are different things. Peter James (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

But a census often records places that aren't administrative entities. In the case of Iran, it appears that things like farms and water pumps are used to reference where people were counted. –dlthewave ☎ 19:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The most basic unit of most censuses is the household, which is very obviously not a legally-recognised populated place per our typical definition (even if in some countries it is an administrative unit of sorts, e.g., in Taiwan). Simply being an "administrative entity" is not enough to make something a "legally-recognised populated place", and simply being a place at which a census counts the population also does not make something an "administrative entity" or even a "legally-recognised populated place". TL;DR - we cannot and should not simply transpose data from a census onto Wiki with no further analysis.

Regarding the point about gazeteers, Wiki only has features of a gazetteer, it is not a gazetteer per se, and does not include e.g., street-names and addresses like the National Land and Property Gazetteer, nor does it list the name of every geographical feature like GNIS. FOARP (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Obviously not all geographic names in a census are populated places or administrative units; I've already addressed that. If there is a particular type, such as "household", that meets WP:GEOLAND as currently written but would generally not be notable, then an exception can be added. Peter James (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could generalise from the current policy on census tracts to something stating that "census-taking units are not presumed notable as such"? Obviously legally-recognised populated places we know are legally-recognised populated places might still be evidenced from a census (e.g., a census lists "cities" and we know in that country that "cities" are substantial legally-recognised populated places). I'm not sure we can write country-specific guides for every country into this guide, though we certainly can make it less US-centric. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Census - is it "units"? - already aren't allowed. The problem we have is determining what "legally recognised" means in certain countries, including the US. Some countries are a lot easier in this regard, thinking Australia/the UK/most of Europe which don't have unincorporated towns, where it's pretty easy to determine what's a village and what's not. The purpose of the guideline is to allow for reliably sourced stubs on populated places, especially small places in parts of the world which don't speak English. It is not an issue if an unincorporated place stub meets WP:GNG, it is not an issue for an incorporated place to fail WP:GNG as long as the source(s) demonstrating incorporation is(are) reliable. The incorporated/unincorporated/legally recognised may not work for all countries, but the point of the guideline is to allow stubs for populated places which the country's government explicitly acknowledges as a stand-alone place. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@FOARP "Mahalle" or "Mahallah" word is common between Persian, Arab, Turkish, Azerbaijan and some others. It means neighbourhood and a small section of any city, village or similar. Mahalle indicates a small part of any village, city or etc. It includes some of allays, streets and buildings. For more information, consider a part of village or city which all are Zoroaster population, this part is called Zoroaster mahalle , a section of city are chinish, it is called chinish mahalle, or a section be military's people . It is called military mahalle. Then it is not a official section. you may see article of Mahalle (محله) in perisan and read by translation and find more sources about mahalleh Shahram 05:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"Community" is similar in having unofficial uses but a community is a type of administrative unit in Wales. Peter James (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

So where is the proof that these are legally-recognised populated places? It is not enough to say these could be such, proof is needed that they are, and that proof needs to apply to all parts of "legally recognised populated place" - it needs to be proof that they are 1) legally recognised, and 2) populated, and 3) places (as in, actual communities and not just e.g., census tracts). This is especially the case where there are concerning indicators that they may not be: e.g., a large portion of them simply being named after common Turkish surnames indicating they may be clan/household-type units, no population being provided for them in a reliable source meaning they may not actually be populated, the very large number of them - possibly as many as 70,000 such units etc. Anyone seeing the effort we have to go through to clean up Carlos's mess in Iran, and Dr Blofeld's global mess, would not feel great about so lightly setting up a similar mess in Turkey. FOARP (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Villages of Turkey#Villages as neighborhoods and the source cited there. There are 32,097 of these in the census; the median population is 529 and the mean is 2,459. The lowest population that appears in the census is 11; not sure if that is a minimum required by law or just the minimum reported in the census. Peter James (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Which source Peter? Because this seems to say the opposite:

"(3) The legal personality of the village and town municipalities within the administrative boundaries of the districts of the provinces listed in the first and second paragraphs have been abolished, the villages have joined the municipality of the district they are affiliated to as neighborhoods, and the municipalities as the only neighborhood with the name of the town."

It appears the latest law stripped existing villages of legal recognition. They may have had it in the past, but then we need proof that they were villages, and not neighbourhoods, in the past. Of course all this needs the caveat that I am relying on a machine-translation of a primary source. FOARP (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

They still have legal recognition, as neighbourhoods of the districts. Peter James (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods, even if legally recognised, typically get excluded from WP:GEOLAND, though. We should probably have this as a separate discussion since we're specifically discussing Turkey here. SportingFlyer T·C 14:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Only unofficial neighbourhoods (whatever country they are in), and it isn't an exact translation, just as "abadi" isn't always "village" or "hamlet". Peter James (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think these are "official" neighbourhoods? SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support intent of proposal. I quote the comment I posted at WP:ANI#Mass-creating articles based on one unreliable source on 30 March 2021 - "As a DABfixer, I find such permastubs almost useless, but would find "List of populated places in X district" articles very helpful. An editor has recently been creating well-sourced stubs about Ancient Greek archeological sites in modern Turkey. They helpfully contain coordinates, but less helpfully say "near the modern village of Y". After looking in vain at the enwiki DAB page and its trwiki equivalent (if any), where few if any of the articles have coordinates, I resort to Google Maps. Very often, none of the nearby villages has an article anywhere, and it can be a 10-20 minute struggle to determine the province let alone the district to create a redlink. Entries can always be split out of lists if there's something worth saying." Narky Blert (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support If non-routine coverage doesn't exist, than I think it should be covered as part of a larger district or list. Just having thousands of permastubs with "X is a village in Y district of Z country. At the 2015 census the population was recorded as 53 people" is not helpful. (t · c) buidhe 07:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  These stubs are as useful as articles such as Ukrainian Legion of Self-Defense (one sentence, one source) or She's Like the Swallow (two sentences, one source). Coverage exists for some - probably all - but not usually in English and not always online - expanding them based on machine translation would probably result in inaccurate articles. They also link to articles in other languages - better to create the structure even if they are not expanded until later - that makes it easier to maintain. There are similar stubs for census-designated places such as West Scio, Oregon; redirecting Turkish places and keeping American places would only increase systemic bias. Peter James (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  Census-designated places are a bit strange, though, since not every village in the United States is properly incorporated, even villages that are clearly villages. The issue here isn't with stubs themselves I don't think, we want to cover all the places as we possibly can. The problem is that we've had users batch-create stubs before using clearly unreliable sources, which creates a massive clean-up effort. If these stubs were clearly sourced to something showing they're definitively "legally recognised," I don't think there'd be a problem. SportingFlyer T·C 19:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support the intent of the proposal. I'm not sure precisely how to put it into place, but I think we should at least require a discussion that a specific source demonstrates a WP:GEOLAND pass before place stubs get created in bulk. SportingFlyer T·C 12:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not going to add a bolded "oppose" here – this is an informal discussion and any major change to GEOLAND, which is an established guideline, will require an RfC. I fully sympathise with the intention of the supporters, but I don't think this will solve the underlying problem. The problematic sets of microstubs arise not because those responsible have followed guidelines like GEOLAND, they arise because those people have not followed guidelines like WP:MASSCREATE and WP:MEATBOT. What we need is better monitoring for mass creations, not new guidelines.
  The particular proposal here is both too much and too little. The microstubs it rules out can be appropriate in many circumstances (for example, there are four redlinked villages in this section of a major article; if they were created, even if they gave nothing but the coordinates and place in the administrative hierarchy, that would be of obvious benefit). On the other hand, the proposed wording seems to encourage efforts at creating redirects, which will largely replicate the current mass-creation problems, only at a slightly different level. – Uanfala (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• Note that I opened a topic at ANI which is now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Policy for creating stubs. Citing my own proposal, at some stage of the development (which needs to be formalized, but something like the article about a locality only contains the name, the native name, administrative division the locality is in, population, and coordinates), it is more advantageous to have it as an element of a list and not as a standalone article. --Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• I also support the intent here, but like others I wonder whether the mass creation of undersourced geoland stubs is a widespread problem that requires changing PAGs, or whether our existing PAGs already cover this, and the problem is a small number of users (like less than 5) not following them. I suspect it's the latter and so perhaps that should (continue to) be addressed one-on-one with those users rather than through a change to PAGs. Nevertheless, I'm not opposed to a clarification/tightening of PAGs relative to sourcing requirements, but as I'm not a geoland editor I also don't have much to offer in the way of specific revisions. My thanks to everyone working on this. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich - I think you are very possibly correct that the number of users doing this may be small. The issue of course is that, if there are fewer than five users who have done this, they are mostly/all in the top ten on this list. As long as the community refused to take any action because "they did nothing wrong", and WP:MASSCREATION/WP:MEATBOT were ignored, policy changes were the only way of addressing this. Perhaps this is no longer the case? FOARP (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  @FOARP: Perhaps that's no longer the case. My perception is that the "nothing wrong" argument is traditionally made by wiki project members in relation to creations within the scope of the project. So cricket defends cricket, football defends football, etc. Geoland doesn't have that sort of editor fan base (it's there but smaller), and once you filter out the "fan" opinions (editors who want to expand their topics, sourcing be damned), I think most editors are on the same page about minimum sourcing requirements for articles. (It's like everyone supports sourcing requirements in topics other than their favorite topics; cricket will complain about poor football notability rules, and vice versa.) That's just me reading tea leaves, though, I could be way off. As to that top ten list, one thing we could do that might be helpful is to MFD it, and also other similar "high score" pages. Listing who has the "high score" will encourage people to try and top that high score (as you pointed out in the discussion on that talk page), and it's so glaringly obvious that pretty much everyone who has a "high score" has been sanctioned and caused much drama (measured in number of noticeboard threads) because of their efforts to achieve that high score. (For example, the top three by article count, and most everyone at the top of the list by edit count.) Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• So many forked discussions. Anyway, as I said at WT:CSD, mass-creation without approval is already not permitted by policy, whether it be by bots or semi-automated. The editing discussed recently is already not allowed by WP:MASSCREATE. The issue is that said policy prescribes no enforcement mechanism, which basically makes it toothless. Editors will probably not agree to just delete them all indiscriminately on the off-hand that some of the mass-creations might be notable. Serious sanctions aren't really implemented for this, at least not in the first instance. I don't think it's necessary to add geoloc specific PAGs. I mean, it could help deter people from doing it (because few content editors read the bot policy I imagine), so it's an improvement in awareness. But what's really necessary is deciding on enforcement mechanisms. IMO, mass-creations created without approval, where there's also consensus a good sample are problematic, should be speedy deleted. Non-problematic articles can be re-created in the usual way. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  The change of putting places with small coverage into the article of the parent locality is separate to mass-creation though, and seems like a good idea (per buidhe's rationale). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, one of the biggest issues is that some of these mass-creators don't use any form of semi-automation. They are literally manually writing these stubs in 90-second intervals, and therefore technically not transgressing MASSCREATE or MEATBOT, so there's no rule to even enforce. JoelleJay (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The point of WP:MEATBOT is that it doesn't matter how exactly the creator is creating the pages, or claims to be creating the pages. All that matters is how it looks to others. If it looks like it's automated or semi-automated (eg a stub every 90 seconds), it should be considered a mass creation. That can be permitted, but it's required to seek consensus first. That's not an onerous requirement, assuming there's actually consensus for so many pages to be created. And if there is no consensus for them to be created, they shouldn't be. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, I agree with you, but the most recent instances of this with Lugnuts clearly indicate that interpretation isn't recognized/understood by most editors. Sanctions were avoided partly because many people jumped in to say his editing was completely consistent with the guidelines and that no policies were breached. So, this should be made much clearer on either MEATBOT/MASSCREATE or in a new section on stubs somewhere else. JoelleJay (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@JoelleJay - Lugnuts was sanctioned, he lost autopatrolled. But yeah, since there's nothing in WP:MEATBOT saying "definitely don't do the cut/paste article-every-90-seconds thing" (which was the entire point of MEATBOT) these cases are way harder and more complex than they need to be. Mass creation of failing articles based on a single source just shouldn't be a thing. Everyone who has done it has ended up either being banned or basically retiring (of the top ten article writers ever two - Ruigeroeland and Starzynka - are indef-blocked, two desysopped, two deactivated bots written by retired editors, two semi-retired) and people then have to engage in a mass delete/clean-up campaign that ends up taking way more effort than the mass-creation ever saved. FOARP (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

FOARP's Proposal 1

Courtesy ping SportingFlyer, Peter James, dlthewave, Reywas92, JoelleJay

"Populated, legally recognized places for which at least one example of substantial, non-routine coverage in an independent, reliable source is provided are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable."

(changes in underline)
This is (perhaps appropriately) mostly a straight copy-paste of FRAM's proposal for NSPORTs. The intent is that the articles which are sourced only to a statistical database/map will no longer be presumed WP:GEOLAND-passes. "Substantial" coverage might be e.g., a news-story involving the town, a description of a famous person coming from the place, a local history, or similar sourcing. This is not a high barrier, simply a requirement that it be possible to write *something* about the place other than statistical data. Notably, to make use of the presumption the reference has to be provided in the article, not just assumed to exist. Similar to when the notability guideline for minor planets was brought in (before which tens of thousands of articles on minor planets were created by bot/MEATBOT-editing), limits could be placed on any AFD creation to stop mass-AFDing overwhelming AFD, though at the same time batch-deletion could be used on Geofail stubs where they clearly all fail for the same reason (as in the Iranian "villages" case). FOARP (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Doesn't solve the problem and perhaps makes it worse by allowing an AfD spree on articles we should have. We want to encourage articles on populated places, we are a gazetteer, this is one of the lowest thresholds for notability which we have. Our issue is we're now getting to a point where all populated places should or are likely to have articles - it's more of a definitional issue than a source issue which "legally recognised" should take care of but doesn't, usually I would consider it as "included in the census" but this may not work for all countries. I'd support clarifying "legally recognised" and enforcing a requirement that article mass creation be discussed. SportingFlyer T·C 11:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• What's important is verifiability - checking that the articles being created were ones we should have. Some of the United States and Iran articles that appeared to meet WP:GEOLAND did not. The source used in Şenkaya#Villages and the linked articles verifies that they are populated places that meet WP:GEOLAND, but not that they are villages - it includes three other places, one of which seems to be a village with more population than any of the others, the other two are probably neighbourhoods of the town. Peter James (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Folks I'm just throwing ideas around to see what sticks - I think something needs to change on this but not sure what. Happy to see any proposals. FOARP (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah there's definitely something that needs to change, I just don't think this proposal fixes the issue. Feel free to make others! SportingFlyer T·C 14:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Perfection is the enemy of progress. We definitely need something. The number of zero-content geostubs that could be generated could exceed the total number (6 million) of articles we have. I support this one. Even better, lower that bar so that any new geo article needs a source or content beyond what comes comes from a database type source. And grandfather in articles created before yesterday. If there is support for this idea I (or somebody else) could try to flesh it out. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• The number of articles of any type could be many times more than it currently is. And to "grandfather in articles created before yesterday" would mean requiring more sources for places for which articles have not yet been created - usually in Asia and Africa - than the places in Western and Central Europe and North America for which the articles already exist. Peter James (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

FOARP's Proposal 2

How about a new section of the guide just on mass-creation? Something like:

Editors should establish a consensus in favour of creation in a suitable forum (e.g., a relevant Wikiproject) before mass-creating articles based on a single source (e.g., census tables).

My concern is this basically leaves ANI as the only forum that can actually enforce this rule. It is also basically just a re-stating of WP:MASSCREATION/WP:MEATBOT which are already rules that should be followed (but often aren't). FOARP (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this addresses the core of the issue. Really, this could be generalized to ANY mass-creation of articles. older ≠ wiser 17:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

GNIS at RSN

I opened an RfC concerning the reliability of GNIS as WP:RSN. Feel free to join the discussion there. –dlthewave ☎ 20:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Addition of "lists, databases, etc." to excluded sources

Lembit Staan has added the "lists, databases, etc." to the sources excluded from being used to establish notability (see diff here). I am therefore starting a conversation here, not because I disagree with this edit but because I agree with it! I do have slight concerns about "databases" being interpreted expansively (ultimately, everything on the internet is in a database!) but this is governed by the following bit about any source that descries the place being something that can be used to show a notability pass. Any database that describes the subject (e.g., a reliable-source database with long descriptive text about the subject) is still useful for showing notability.
One additional this I would say is that not a mere WP:V pass for the existence of the populated place is not enough for a WP:GEOLAND pass as it does not show legal recognition. FOARP (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It may not be easy to do, nor necessary, but this might be a good discussion to coordinate with WP:NSPORTS and specifically the talk page section on WT:NSPORTS#RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues and WT:NSPORTS#Fram's revised proposal (which came up due to the same essential issue as why this is coming up here). --Masem (t) 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Masem - forgive me if I am wrong, but I think maybe your comment was supposed to be higher up somewhere on this page? FOARP (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

It could probably go in both places. Both SNGs are dealing with the same issue/problem of mass article creation due to criteria that generally allow for notability to be presumed due to evidence that can be pulled from a database (here, geographic tables, there, sports statistics), and the idea of how to still allow reasonable use of said databases when reliable but not include them for sole notability purposes is a good question. But again, it may not be easily to compare notes between these two pages. --Masem (t) 13:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah! I get your point, and am in agreement. Apologies for having misunderstood earlier. FOARP (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't this create an apparent conflict with GEOLAND? For a place to meet GEOLAND, you only need to show that it's legally recognised, and to do that it's sufficient to find a reference to it an authoritative government database. – Uanfala (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Depends in large part on what "legally recognized" means. You get into some strange circularity if all that it takes to be legally recognized it to be published in some government directory or another. The second bullet of WP:GEOLAND describes "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods" as examples of populated places without legal recognition -- and yet any of them could appear in government-published GIS data -- and some like business parks or developments, might even have a degree of legal recognition in zoning and planning documents published by local authorities. None of which automatically endows enduring notability. older ≠ wiser 19:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh yeah – there's a lot that can be said about what is actually entailed by "legally recognised" in this context. But my assumption was that the place in question is of a type that's considered notable (e.g. a village listed in the census). An article about a place of a notable type can have a single source which is a database referencing solely the fact that it's a place of such a type. My understanding is that in this case notability would be satisfied per GEOLAND, but given how the guidelines are currently worded, I can see how somebody else can come away with a very different conclusion. – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It is incorrect to assume that if a place is entered into some government database or table then it somehow becomes "officially recognized". Database and tables are to search things for various purposes. Heck, there are database of illegal immigrants, but they do not make them legal residents  :-). Lembit Staan (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, but this seems to be a baby-bathwater problem. Having a place simply listed or marked on a map is not in itself evidence of Notability (which is what the status quo of the guideline says), but if a place is officially listed as an officially-recognized inhabited place (or some other category of place presumed to be Notable) then that is evidence of Notability. Most of the lists that give sufficient metadata to establish that a place fits these criteria are now databases, so it would be incorrect to exclude them. (Like many editors, I am opposed to the mass creation of stubs based on database entries, but the relevant criterion for that isn't Notability; it is more of a behavioural issue IMO.) Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

officially listed as an officially-recognised inhabited place -- right. But now, we have a burden to establish whether the particular database is for "officiall recognized" places. For example, we already discussed that the fact of having a zip code (and hence sitting in the corresponding database) does not amount to official recognition. Second, we already know how to handle nanostubs: upmerge them. An additional argument favoring this approach is having a better geographical context compared to isolated pages. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, but this isn't the place to discuss nanostubs. And of course a database of place names and Zip codes doesn't establish Notability - because Zip codes don't confer Notability. Still baby-bathwater, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is the right place to discuss nanostubs. In fact, this is exactly what we are doing now, because larger articles have no issues. In fact this issue usually arises at AfD, and rather than waste time on notability debates, it is better to !vote "merge", keeping in mind that all these tables do provide verifiability required to include any info anywhere in WP. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I have serious concerns with the words "databases and lists" being added to the guideline. The guideline states, "populated places are presumed to be notable." But databases are where this type of information resides. The guideline thus becomes contradictory. Census records, population tables, etc., have been used to help establish notability of a geographical subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The contradiction is easily fixable. The current test say "excludes maps and tables from consideration when establishing topic notability As you may notice, it contains the same contradiction. How about this: excludes maps, as well as tables, lists, databases, etc. from consideration when establishing topic notability, unless these specifically indicate that these datasets are for officially recognized populated places. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You raise a good point; the word "tables" probably needs to be removed. It is definitely contradictory when we consider the fact that information on recognized populated places is likely to be found in tabular form. But I wouldn't support adding lists and databases to the guideline, as that just adds to the contradiction. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

IMO the Wikipedia notability ecosystem sets a lower bar for geographic places because of the gazetteer function described in the five pillars and also because they are highly encyclopedic. Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works North8000 (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It is so, but the gazetter function is carried out even better when close minor features are in the same page; in fact, that's paper gazetters do (I believe). Alphabetical sorting and spatial sorting serve different purposes, equally important. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

All true, and I agree that what you describe is a better approach. I was just making a general comment. But also a general observation that the proposal is based on the assumption that geo features must meet GNG and for better or for worse the extant reality is that they don't. North8000 (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

A few things to note about WP:5P1: 1) It only says that Wiki "combines features of... gazetteers", not that it is one, which is correct because gazetteers contain much that is purely unencyclopedic and non-notable, even under the WP:GEOLAND standard. Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer. 2) WP:5P is not intended to be a guideline or decisive rule of any kind, as it says on the talk page "It is a non-binding description of some of the fundamental principles". FOARP

Moreover I strongly disagree that simply appearing on a list of places, absent any other information, means we should have an article on that place which will necessarily not contain any real information about the place at all. (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Are Filipino barangays an exception to this guideline?

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

No, because this guideline does not mandate that barangays must have articles and they may not be deleted in the first place. This guideline has a "presumption" of notability, but if there are not substantive sources to uphold that presumption, then per WP:NOPAGE it's perfectly reasonble to provide context of the limited content in a higher-level article rather than a separate page when they function as municipal subdivisions. Reywas92^Talk 15:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Populated, legally recognized places are presumed to be notable. Do barangays count as "populated, legally recognized places"? Do reliable sources indicate that they are such? Newimpartial (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The mentioned AfD discussion points out that the term barangay has two groups of meanings: one of them being a well-defined populated place, another one is a city subdivision(named) neighborhood. Therefore any AfD must be individual, trying to figure out what type of settlement is at hand. I would compare with the usage of the word "village": sometimes it is a village, sometimes it is a just residential area named "Something Village", and sometimes something else. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, but the policy-relevant question is "are (specific) barangays populated, legally recognized places", not "are barangays an exception to GEOLAND". Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Every square inch of the Philippines is incorporated. The lowest political subdivision is the barangay; therefore, each and every barangay is a "populated, legally recognized place". A barangay can either be a gated community, a row of houses facing a street, several city blocks, an entire island, a group of islands, anything as long as there is land. As long as you are walking on solid land, you're in a barangay. Some "villages" are coextensive with barangays; some are parts of barangays, some villages straddle boundaries they're divided in to two municipalities/cities/provinces/regions.

If you'd solely base notability on WP:GEOLAND, then, yes, all barangays are notable, not just those which are "separate settlements" non-Filipinos on several AFDs have been saying.

Filipinos will say "not so fast; not all barangays are notable." And with good reason. In Manila, there are 897 of them, all named "Barangay ###". (There's no "Barangay 897" because some barangays split and were named as "Barangay ###-A".) Are we going to write 897 Wikidata-like articles about these? Filipinos with common sense would say "LOL of course not".

I've evolved on this issue. Previously, I'm on the "all barangays are not notable, and we should AFD on sight". Of course, foreigners will say "not so fast; these are like English hamlets!". FWIW, "hamlet" is never used as a term in the Philippines. Ever. Most barangay articles are like Tuktukan. Seeing this, I've previously suggested to make a list of barangays, either on the article of the town/city or a separate list-article with all of things that you can find on the infobox, like a table. That way, we're not deleting information, but just putting it on another place. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Just so that everyone is clear on the concept, a Notability pass (whether based on GNG or an SNG) is not a guarantee of an article. If there is sourced information on a topic (which may pass GNG and/or SNG requirements), but there will never be more to say than a single sentence, then it is policy-compliant to make a Merge proposal up to a more useful topic, whether that be a list, a higher level of geography, or what have you. Notability criteria like the GNG aren't really useful in making Merge discussions though, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Re: Guarantee of an article -- Those who push on following WP:GEOLAND with the English hamlets analogy have been using WP:GEOLAND as if it makes anything automatically notable as long as it satisfies the requirement.

Re: Merge proposal -- I see AFDs as a more definitive discussion, and more people will follow AFD results than say, merge discussions that anyone can literally ignore, or can go on for weeks, then everyone ignores.

I forgot, but there was a Filipino who was sneakily redirecting barangay articles to their mother towns/cities, and was justly called out for it. I suppose making a table of barangays like the one found in Alcantara, Cebu#Barangays could work, but only if foreigners agree to it. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

But Notability in any form is not an entitlement to have an article; at best it is a presumption in favor. A GEOLAND pass is a Notability pass, but as with any Notability pass there are situations where the most appropriate treatment is to combine specific topics even where they each have at least one or two sources. The most appropriate treatment of English hamlets may or may not be the same as the most appropriate treatment of Filipino barangays, even if GEOLAND, and therefore Notability, apply in the same way in both cases. Other factors come into play, and in my experience, project pages and Merge discussions are better environments to discuss and make decisions based on those factors than the zero-sum environment of AfD. The fact that many people participate ignorantly in AfD discussions (by not understanding what Notability means, for example) is not an argument in favor of that forum, I think. Newimpartial (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I get your notability argument, but as you may well know, some SNGs have entrenched positions around here. WP:GEOLAND as a shortcut is older (2012) than WP:SNG as currently redirected to WP:N#Subject-specific notability guidelines (2020). People have these positions for more than a decade, and would likely never evolve. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, if I want to establish anything here in Wikipedia, I would've preferred a discussion that has a time limit, someone can close and issue out a "ruling", and everyone agrees with the close. We can do these in AFDs, RMs and less so in RFCs, but for mergers/splits, people discuss for weeks then people get tired and nothing is resolved, if there is any discussion at all. That's why I preferred doing this way for naming Manila's train lines last year, instead of a long drawn out discussion at Wikipedia talk that no one will follow. Others may have different experiences, but I would've preferred establishing something from AFD/RM/RFC then applying that as a guideline for everything else. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

To oversimplify, my position is that RfCs are great and AfDs suck. I say that mostly because they are closed differently: RfC closers are accustomed to - and have to - base their closes on a range of policy considerations as well as the balance of !votes, while AfD closes are much more likely to be re-litigated, much more subject to the priors participants bring to them (including polarized deletionist/inclusionist perspectives) and their closers therefore tend to be much narrower in what they consider. Participants get an instinctive sense of this, and make narrow arguments in return.

The idea editors have that AfD is the place to go to expunge articles they want gone, and to defend articles they want kept, is in my view one of the worst aspects of WP as a project. Even worse, though, is the oversimplification of !keep and !delete arguments to narrowly contest whether or not the topic is Notable - that narrow focus is not at all backed by policy nor does it produce good decisions IMO. Because AfD discussions refuse to consider the actual factors that should determine whether or not to have articles on topics that are marginally Notable, I can only place my hope in project-based discussions and Merge discussions (including RfCs) to do better. They are most unlikely to do worse. Newimpartial (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I know where you are coming from. What I like though with AFDs is that more people get involved (as it is more publicized), so there are more views on the matter, whether or not any of the views apply is one thing altogether, but no one can argue that "we were not consulted" on this, just like on merger discussions where it's just a couple or so people. I don't think foreigners will like it if barangay articles were merged without them knowing it. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet another example of why the Geoland "legal recognition" standard is actually bad now. WP:GNG ought to be the standard, GEOLAND was only ever intended as a presumption that legally recognised places would pass WP:GNG were sufficient research done, not as something showing that populated places did not need to pass WP:GNG. Barangays, just like Iranian Abadi, and Turkish Mahalle, are simply not suitable topics for encyclopedia articles simply by dint of their existence and absent coverage in e.g., news stories or history books that actually tell you something meaningful about. FOARP (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer

I've seen it posted above that "we are a gazetteer" and that Wiki has a "gazetteer function". As I've written elsewhere, I want to push back against this:

• A Gazetteer is "a geographical dictionary or directory". These are examples of what Wikipedia is explicitly not - Wikipedia is explicitly not a dictionary or a directory.
• The gazetteer function within the Wikimedia family is already fulfilled by other services, including WikiMiniAtlas and WikiVoyage (EDIT:also GeoHack and Geonames), all of which provide geographical data about locations regardless of their encyclopaedic nature. There is no need for Wikipedia to function as a Gazetteer.
• The assertion that Wikipedia IS a Gazetteer is typically based on WP:5P, but this does not actually state that Wiki should necessarily function as a Gazetteer. WP:5P is not intended to be a binding guide or rule of any kind. The wording about Wikipedia having elements/features of a Gazetteer was added by UnitedStatesian as a bold edit in 2008, there have been various discussions over the years as to why this should be included but my understanding (particularly based on this discussion) is that it was out of a desire to define "encyclopaedia" broadly - not that Wikipedia is a gazetteer or an almanac.
• The existence of the WP:GEOLAND presumption of notability does not mean that we have decided at any point that Wikipedia necessarily is a Gazetteer. Other SNGs exist or have existed, including a presumption of notability for e.g., Schools, but this did not mean that Wikipedia was necessarily a list of schools. Different reasons have been put forward for these presumptions of notability, but typically they are based on the assumption that there is likely enough information out there about anything fulfilling the criteria of the SNG to be able to write a WP:GNG-passing encyclopaedia article about them even if that information cannot currently be easily found online - not that for these things Wikipedia ceased to be an encyclopaedia and became something else.

Particularly after the debacles involving Iranian Abadis, Turkish Mahallahs, and now Filipino Barangays, which were partly justified based on the idea that Wikipedia is or should be a Gazetteer, I think supporters of the idea that Wikipedia is or should be a Gazetteer need to rethink their position. FOARP (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I think a key part related to 5P is that we state "Wikipedia combines many features" of a gazetteer, but we never state we are a gazetteer. In that fashion, we have specifically limited ourselves to one feature of a gazetteer to identifying and having articles on every government-recognized geographic land feature and habitable location, inclusion being beyond notability. (for any other geographic place, like schools, notability applies). --Masem (t) 14:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Masem - I think that's at least a reasonable description of how things are (EDIT: with the caveat the GEOLAND #1 requires BOTH population and legal recognition). However I have a problem with the idea that we should necessarily privilege government-recognised populated places over populated places that aren't government-recognised. Why, unless this is about a presumption that the information exists out there somewhere to write a GNG-passing article (which is more likely to exist for a place with legal recognition), should a ~100-person incorporated town be automatically notable but a ~100-person shanty not? FOARP (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

A government-recognized place at least started with the basic qualification of meeting WP:V (via the government database that validates it), whereas a populated place not necessarily recognized by the government may not necessarily meet WP:V. I will point out that what I said above doesn't state we can't have articles on non-gov't recognized placed, but that there is a higher level of sourcing to show that they are recognized. Something like Cleveland's The Flats (which is not any formally bound geographic area, but a name for a section of the city that is well-documented). --Masem (t) 15:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to push back at part of the framing here, stating that these presumptions of geographic notability ... typically ... are based on the assumption that there is likely enough information out there about anything fulfilling the criteria of the SNG to be able to write a WP:GNG-passing encyclopaedia article about them. This may or may not be so, but there is nothing about the WP:SNG-WP:GNG relationship that would make it so. GEOLAND is currently understood, like NPROF, to be a direct presumption of Notability independent of the GNG criteria. If the community wants to turn it into a weaker presumption, like that of NSPORT, then the community can certainly do that, but there is nothing about the current WP:N policy that would encourage this or make it an improvement over the status quo. Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Newimpartial. Regarding whether GEOLAND is linked to WP:GNG or not, I'd certainly like to read more on the discussion where it was decided that it was not, because honestly I've seen it said both ways. WP:NPROF is its own beast of course. FOARP (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not the one to ask about old GEOLAND discussions, but the stable text of GEOLAND is presumed to be notable; this is a standalone presumption like NPROF, not subordinate to GNG. Meanwhile, NSPORT was amended to its current likely to meet the general notability guideline, reflecting a weaker presumption subordinate to GNG, after a large RfC a few years ago. Newimpartial (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems well-reasoned to me. EDIT: The one additional thing I would say, though, Newimpartial, is that even WP:NPROF and WP:GEOLAND are still notability standards - i.e., they are tied to encyclopaedic subject matter. They are not instances where Wikipedia ceases to be an encyclopaedia and becomes something else. FOARP (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It may be only the way I think of GEOLAND, but the way I see that, it is how we adapt some functionality of being a gazetteer into our practice of being an encyclopedia by using the concept of notability to describe the logic of when we include geographic places. Instead of drawing a line and say "on this side, Wikipedia's rules related to encyclopedia content cease to be", it is a means to make that section of Wikipedia "flow" with the rest. --Masem (t) 15:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial from WP:SNG: topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though 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. There is nothing unique about passing the extremely low threshold of the GEOLAND SNG that means it is necessarily a topic suitable for a stand-alone encyclopedia article. older ≠ wiser 16:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As one of the people who drafted the current version of that text (with Masem, among others) - which then passed RfC - I am indeed familiar with it. A GEOLAND pass creates the same presumption as an NPROF pass or a GNG pass: none of them means that it is necessarily a topic suitable for a stand-alone encyclopedia, according to the guidelines. Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, I haven't been paying close attention. But there is recurring issues with editors essentially reproducing content from some government database or another with no other supporting references or indication of notability. Some argue that these pass the ridiculously low bar for GEOLAND with result that these get taken to AfD individually or sometimes in various groupings, largely resulting in a waste of time. older ≠ wiser 16:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I have articulated my position on that question in prior discussions. To summarize: (1) I oppose mass-creation of stubs based on database contents, but that is a bot policy issue not a Notability issue; (2) if a particular "government database" verifiably states that specific geographical entities are officially recognized, populated places, then GEOLAND does apply - of course, that doesn't guarantee an article any more than does any other presumption of Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

To be honest Newimpartial, this guide should say something about the generation of articles using nothing but a bare database listings, since it is a problem that the guide at present encourages, meaning that the problem is here and not elsewhere. There appears to be a clear consensus for some kind of change about this based on the previous discussion. Throwing it to BOTPOL, when the problem is not bots per se, seems to take the wrong tack. Linking this back to the original topic: even under the GEOLAND standard the goal is still to write encyclopaedia articles, not gazetteer listings, because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a gazetteer. FOARP (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• WP:5P is meant to summarize our policies and guidelines, so citing it in a guideline (and using it as a reason not to change said guideline) is putting the cart before the horse. As "gazetteer" does not reflect our current guidelines and practices, I would support removing it from NGEO and 5P. –dlthewave ☎ 21:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

dlthewave - I think you are correct on this: this is circular reasoning - "gazetteer" is mentioned at WP:5P because it is mentioned in WP:GEOLAND and it is mentioned in WP:GEOLAND because it is mentioned at WP:5P. Furthermore it was included in WP:5P as a bold, undiscussed edit, so its initial inclusion there was not the result of any considered consensus. What do you think of the following alternative wording:

(Note: to save people time, it's Special:Diff/252264861 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC))

"Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia includes features of a gazetteer; therefore, gGeographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question."

Additions in underline, removals in strike-out. FOARP (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing the GEOLAND presumption from a direct presumption of Notability to one subject to GNG would be a major policy shift, which certainly should not be done unless supported in a clearly-formulated RfC on the topic. Newimpartial (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with this change, it makes sense to cite GNG directly. –dlthewave ☎ 13:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Newimpartial - does this change have this effect? It simply strikes out a circular reference (WP:5P refers to this document and this document refers to WP:5P) meaning this guideline stands by itself. This guideline anyway should not refer to its basis in an essay-level document, which is what WP:5P is. Otherwise, it does not change the standing of this guideline vis-a-vis WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps not. The effect of this change may be more subtle, on second look. I would welcome the insights of others. Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the status of 5P, though it's prominence, age, acceptance and review IMO it is a core page. And it's an example of what IMO we need a few more of which is so-vetted general statements which do not have the specificity to be guidelines or policies but which may actually guide the creation/modification of guidelines/policies. And we probably need a name for this one and that small group. So IMO we should not be mentally deprecating it because it is not a policy or guideline.

While I'm flat out against mass creation of articles (which inevitably means stubs sourced to nothing but a list or database) I think that the proposal essentially voids out / cancels the SNG which IMO is too big of a change for something that mostly works. Regarding the gazetteer/notes at 5P they should probably get removed after a widely advertised RFC obtains a consensus. It's really an inappropriate place for something that specific and which may conflict with wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this would actually void/cancel the SNG. Currently, WP:GEOLAND #1 is the only case where notability is presumed, and that wouldn't change. We're just trying to remove something that doesn't really support or contribute to the SNG but has led to misunderstanding and confusion. –dlthewave ☎ 14:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

You are right; I'm striking that part of my comment. North8000 (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

North8000 - I agree that at this point (unlike in 2008) WP:BOLD edits to WP:5P are basically impossible and a full RFC (EDIT:or at least reasonable talk-page discussion) would be the only way to implement change there. On the other hand, striking out a circular reference here as proposed above, to simplify and reduce misunderstandings, seems a straight-forward change. FOARP (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the gazetteer language should be deprecated, both here and in 5P. JoelleJay (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Wikipedia may-or-may-not be a gazetteer, and if it has "features of a gazetteer" then what those features are and what that means for Wikipedia remains to be determined through consensus, but we will no longer have a simple appeal-to-authority stating that it is which is based ultimately on a BOLD edit to an information page that was never fully discussed. FOARP (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Peakbagger.com at RSN

See here for an RSN discussion regarding the reliability of Peakbagger.com for use in GEO articles, particularly those related to mountain peaks. FOARP (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

GEONet Names Server (GNS) at RSN

Please see the RSN discussion on GNS here. Slightly different to the previous GNIS discussion as I'm not sure the names on GNS (which ultimately come from various old US military maps compiled in various ways) really are all that reliable but YMMV. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a note to say that this discussion has been re-listed at RSN for further feedback if anyone else wants to chip in. FOARP (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice

Your input is welcome at an RfC at WP:VPP. The decision made there may affect some language in this guideline. Firefangledfeathers 18:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)