Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (Geographic locations)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Annexations

I removed from the main page the following, which I have seen no support for here:"If a Facility is deemed valuable enough by Cities/Towns/Villages to want to add its tax revenue to Gov't coffers, then this would indicate notability to a large number of persons, the economic effect being proof. (eg. This AfD )" In the one AFD cited, there were press reports about how "locals got up enough gumption to buy and save a dying mall" which goes far beyond making every disputed annexation a criterion for inherent notability. Many small towns wish to annex a property and the owner resists. If Farmer Brown does not want his farm annexed to Smallville, and hires a lawyer, that does not confer notability on the Brown Farm.Edison (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I believe that it is though. The basic question of WHY would the town of Townville want to annex Mallsite. To gain an economic improvement, to improve the quality of life for a larger group of Townville Peoples. Although not quantitatively definable, the economy is (without doubt) affected. I only want to keep this document inline and in agreement with WP:Notability (organizations and companies)'s mentions of economies. An annexation is something to be considered. I feel it should be re-added. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no special reason to create an addition to the guideline. Malls have their own articles, and a newspaper reporting on a mall's annexation would be just the sort of thing that would cause it to be kept in an AfD debate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable population

Personally, I think the threshold for notability of Geographic locations should be a verifiable population (or mention in regular secondary sources), i.e. a listing in a census or other such reference. A place simply appearing on a map or atlas doesn't provide enough information to ever make a useful article. The place could have totally disappeared 100 years ago for all we know. At least with a verified population you can state that the location had this many people at this particular point in time, which is a lot more useful than just saying this spot once was called Blah. Kaldari (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Abolish this guideline

Places are inherently notable since they have the potential to be researched by historians, geographers and social scientists, and there's a subpage (I forgot the name, hope someone can give me) in WP:MEA which highly encourages Wikipedians to create place articles, even if a place is a mere village in Bhutan which is obscure to non-Bhutan people. Implementing this guideline would contradict with the goal of the subpage, which would lessen the comprehensiveness of English Wikipedia. As long as all the content in a place article is mere common sense to locals and verifiable knowledge and information, we should allow it whether the place is mentioned in media in other places or not. --RekishiEJ (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that all locations are inherently notable? --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, since geographical areas are notable to historians and geographers, and Wikipedia should be a place which researchers can find all the topics they wany (as long as the content does not violate WP:NOT and three content policies, but WP:NOR needs to be slightly modified to add "generally" between "sources" and "should"). Also WP:MEA has a subpage aiming at listing all the red links about geographical areas (mostly administrative areas), formalising this guideline would cause many villages in Bhutan unable to have their own articles (it's not joking! Many English Wikipedians are from developed countries and administrative areas in Bhutan are quite obscure to them, and the appropriate secondary sources are mostly non-English) and increase systemic bias and wiki-bullying. --RekishiEJ (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
An administrative subdivision, no matter how small, and all legally incorporated municipalities would get articles. Any named entity, no matter how small, for which a national census authority tabulates data for would also get articles. The guideline is already generous in that sense and would only affect places that are even smaller than these. --Polaron | Talk 22:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
This guideline does not, and should not, say that anything gets an article by virtue of being an administrative subdivision or contained in a census. These things do not convey notability, and nothing, nothing at all, is inherently notable.
Kww (talk) 23:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but how do we overcome the fears of editors who want to increase Wikipedia's coverage of what they consider notable geographic places? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Again I need to stress that geographic locations are inherently notable; books, fictional characters, places, web content and news events are not since these kind of topics are the ones which are most easily be abusively created. --RekishiEJ (talk) 00:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You believe in inherent notability, other people don't. What to do? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, I need to stress that nothing and nowhere is inherently notable. If no one has written about it, neither should we. If places in Bhutan are documented only Dzongkha, that's not a problem ... nothing restricts Wikipedia to using English sources. If nobody bothers to write about them in in the local language, there's no reason to have an article at all.
Kww (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • <outdent> I consider Malls as geographic locations, so then are they all Notable by your statement? We have to define what we mean when we say a Geographic location, and that is at least my intent in working on this guideline. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, malls are not geographic locations; they're buildings. And geographic locations are areas in geography, such as Taipei Basin or Washington D. C., and they're inherently notable since they provide information for historians, geographers and social scientists, and Wikipedia should be the place for professional researcher to find all the knowledge and information (not including original research, unverifiable claims or incorrect statements). --RekishiEJ (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
And, if no one has written about a particular location, then the location does not deserve an article, since writing an independent article about it would violate WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:NOR. Also if we formalise this guideline later if a people in Somaliland write a village in it, does not reference it, the village is obscure to Westerners, and in fact there're some reliable sources about it, then later there're may be some Western Wikipedian nominate it for deletion, claiming it is non-notable and unverifiable, and many Wikipedians do support it because only few people in Somaliland participating in English Wikipedia, then the article is deleted due to consensus, and it would cause wiki-bullying to him. He later may not be willing to participate in here, and vioces from there can hardly be presented here. The Economist once documented the "notability" guidelines, claiming they have been stopping more and more Wikipedians from participating it, see Monitor | The battle for Wikipedia's soul | Economist.com. So I say this guideline is not necessary at all. All the notability guidelines we need are merely book and criminal act notability guidelines (The reason that I don't list WP:WEB is it has been abused so much, and in situations which WP:IAR should apply to this guideline voters still say it is not notable. In fact, as long as a website , blog , newsgroup, web comic, web animation or web movie has been mentioned in traditional media to a cetain extent, is quite popular among netizens (can be verified by using search engines), has been awarded or adapted into other forms, is an ICP, listed on Wikipedia:Alternative outlets or has been researched by a scholar or commentator, it does deserves an article). Fiction notability guideline does not need to be formalised since we can solely rely on common sense, wisdom, or whether a fictional character, place, event or other things has been mentioned independently on the covers of magazines or journals, there're a certain proportion of people studying it or it is mentioned in two or more fictional works to determine whether it deserve an article. There's instruction creep in making notability guidelines, so I hope we can reject this proposal. --RekishiEJ (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I wish it were true that we could rely on common sense for fiction -- but that unfortunately would be to ignore about 1/2 of the afd discussions in the last year of so. and similarly for other topics. While I am perfectly willing to rely on my own common sense, and while we have no choice but to rely in the end for the real common sense consensus of the community, relying on it for judgment of individual articles on any topic is essentially relying on a combination of chance and conflict of interest. What we need for contributors is real notability guidelines. I would rather have definable, reproducible criteria for articles that I did not 100% agree with, than try to argue each one from first principles to whomever shows up at an AfD. Volunteer juries tend to resemble lynch mobs. DGG (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you find the existence of secondary sources with detailed examinations of the topic to be a reproducible criteria? That's why I always tend to go there and argue from it ... if you don't cut exceptions, it forms a simple, reliable, and objective system for determining what's in and what's not.
Kww (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
((outdent))It's only a proposed guideline at the moment, not a full guideline reflecting a firm consensus. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Consequence of non-notability

Thanks everyone for putting your views in the above sections. I'll try to distill it into a summary in due course. In the meantime, I've made an edit in the article space which is in line with the current proposed guideline wording (although it could be argued that this doesn't completely hold with consensus). We could also put together new templates {{mergetoGEO}} and {{proposedmergeGEO}} based on {{mergeto}} and {{AFDWarning}} refering to this guideline (if and when adopted) should this be necessary. Please let me know what you think. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

How close to consensus are we on this? As seen from the discussion above (which I widely advertised and had quite a number of contributors) the majority think that an atlas alone does not demonstrate notability on the grounds that it does not constitute "significant coverage" and/or is not a secondary source. However, a significant minority (about a third) think that all human settlements that are mentioned in a major atlas are notable as atlases are reliable sources.

My compromise proposal is that where the only reference found for a human settlement is a mention in an atlas (which is practice means a {{Coord}} template) and/or a census, the article for the settlement should be merged into the largest nearby place which should have a section on "Nearby settlements" listing each place with its coordinates and population. This means that no meaningful information is lost and you can still link to the place - it will just redirect you to another article.

The process for merging these articles would be open to give article creators time to find other sources on the article if they could, but would not involve taking articles to AFD. If sources are later found the article could be de-merged from the other article.

Are there any objections to this? AndrewRT(Talk) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That's actually pretty standard: just because something isn't notable enough to warrant its own article doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned in a list or in an article about its geographic area. That kind of issue is what merging is for. It's also what Geobot says it will do for locations that aren't notable enough to have their own article. I don't think you need to be so specific: for some, it should be merged into the city it is a suburb of, for others, a "List of Cities in East Dakota" might be more appropriate.
Kww (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too sure that the term atlas is defined in the same way by everyone. I for one don't like the use of these compendium-style databases, but atlases are too diverse. Some fit the description of secondary sources. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I worry more about the "direct and detailed examination" aspect than primary/secondary. If someone had a book that had maps, and then had a paragraph for each of the ten most important cities in a region or some other similar focused text about a city, I would think of that as beyond simple inclusion in an atlas.
Kww (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
As written, WP:Notability (Geographic locations) is pretty much indistinguishable from WP:N. Since a lot of people strongly believe that all populated places are notable, this would represent a major change, right? Or am I reading it wrong? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a pretty major change ... that's why AndrewRT started a specific discussion of the lead paragraph, to make sure there was a consensus to proceed with that logic in this guideline. I'm relieved to see a 2:1 margin in favor. I really believe that the "inherently notable" argument is a result of AFD discussions being dominated by a group of people that believes it to be true, which then leads a larger group of people that believe AFD discussions reflect consensus to agree. Not because they believe it themselves, but because they believe it has already been decided.
Kww (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope you are right. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there's an objection. A third of the respondents disagree - if consensus is 2/3 to run over the other 1/3, that's news to me. Under this proposal, let's see what the effects are: We have loads of articles on US census-designated places, that have meaning apparently only to the census bureau - a primary source in this proposal's guidelines and not conferring notability - all get merged or deleted. Which highlights another problem: the mergeto recommendation is a sweep-under-the rug proposal. Why should a stand-alone place be expected to have "nearby places" covered in it. Do real users know whether the dot on the map they are looking for is incorporated (primary source, right), or just nearby somewhere else, and what somerwhere else is the nearest by? And what reliable sources says that? The mindlessness of this is bare when we give secondary schools inherent notability but the places in which they are have none. This incongruity is the result of lots of hair splitting.

My view: primary sources as used in WP are sources whose origin is the subject themselves. Joe's blog talking about Joe doesn't confer notability on Joe. XYZ Inc.'s press releases doesn't confer notability on XYZ Inc. Etc. Secondary sources are independent reliable sources on which notability can be based. This is different than the primary/secondary/teriary sources in writing theses. In this respect, the census bureau of a country is a good secondary source. If the government sees fit to aggregate population for a particular place that's good enough to confer notability on it. Same if the government gives it powers whether by formal incorporation or by having elections for mayors, etc. And, of course, the great non-primary sources that are atlases and almanacs are being discredited by the proposal - all places in these 3rd party usually reliable sources merit note. If anyone thinks that there is consensus, find a few CDP's or small third-world villages and nominate them for deletion and see where consensus is at. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think if anything there is so little consensus it should be marked either disputed or rejected. DGG (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Whose talking about wanting to "run over" anyone? If this version gains wider consensus, the only affect will be that people expect articles about settlements to follow the same rules as articles about anything else. For some reason, people started treating them as inherently notable. People that believed that never seem to have gained traction for that view in any policy or guideline, and it certainly isn't reflected in WP:N. Same thing happened with secondary schools ... people started treating them as if they had inherent notability, but never got that reflected in WP:N. The inconsistencies come in by allowing certain classes of things to violate fundamentals of sound encyclopedia building. Once these inconsistencies are eliminated, no one will be running over anyone. As for people not knowing where to look, that's what redirects are for. The creation of a redirect for something insufficiently notable to carry its own article is a pretty standard practice ... just look at all those Pokemon.
Kww (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Without trying to point to too many examples, I do think this is what's happening in this case. I like being inclusive as much as the rest, but there comes a point when you draw a line, and that line is WP:N. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
In answer to the above point, I agree that 66% vs 33% isn't a consensus - which is why I'm trying to seek a compromise that would get consensus support. There does appear to be, on the other hand, a clear consensus against the concept of "inherent notability". I'm not convinced we're so far away from consensus that we can just mark as disputed and walk away. Neither am I trying to "run over" anyone - we've been talking about it for nearly a month now, and I'm quite happy to take our time, as this would be a significant change if implemented. As to the point about AFDs, the whole point about my compromise is that an article will never be AFD'd because it will always be reliably sourced information - it will just be merged into the nearest appropriate article. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
the real difference between practice at afd (on anything, not just this) and guidelines or policy, is that a small majority is enough for AfD in individual cases, and the practice there is what the de facto guideline is, as far as all practical matters are concerned. We may talk here as we please, but afd will still interpret individual cases. But compromises are possible. For example, with secondary schools, as mentioned above, I do not personally think all of them really are notable. But I think such a high percentage are, that in practice we do better to avoid discussing them one by one, and admit them all--we'll make fewer errors, and all of them are harmless. There's never been enough stable agreement one way or another about that proposition that to get a guideline that lasts for long--but there is enough for consistent practice at AfD, where no secondary school has been deleted for lack of notability for the last 10 or 12 months at least. At the same time, primary schools are merged unless there are very special features. I'd accept a compromise for merging into the larger area places that are not inhabited, or perhaps even where population figures are not available. It's not inherent notability in any real sense, just acceptance of it in practice to let us get on with writing and finding sources. After all, the real problem here is figuring out what places are not real, but just mapping artifacts. DGG (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Good point. The thing that should distinguish Wikipedia from the computerized "populated place" returns one sees in a Google search is quality. If that data is simply migrated over to Wikipedia, GIGO, then it is worse than nothing. I think that most of the objections to the mass creation of geostubs would evaporate if the stubs were better than FallingRain and MapLandia. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I object in principle to "List of ..." articles being considered notable when none of the elements in the list is, but in practice, I recognize them as a necessary construct. My primary objection is to the concept that settlements are inherently notable, when in practice, many small towns influence fewer people than the MySpace bands that we all laugh at. We redirect any number of things too unimportant to carry their own article, and I think that's the right answer for towns that have reliable primary sourcing but no secondary sourcing.
Kww (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirects are inelegant, and redlinks encourage article creation more than redirects. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, redirects are inelegant, but sometimes a protected redirect is the way to go. A consensus that allowed us redirect the stubs and protect the redirects is probably the least imperfect solution. The reason the television episode wars got so ugly was that the redirects weren't protected, so people that didn't think that policy applied to their favorite episode or character would undo the redirect and attempt to create an article, then someone else would restore the redirect, and back and forth. I don't know why you worry about redlinks ... there's no reason for the list to link back to the non-notable town.
Kww (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Here the problem is the opposite; mass-created but neglected stubs. Those editors who create the stubs are doing so out of a belief system that is not based on favoritism but even-handedness. I don't want to misquote them, but they believe that certain areas are under-represented, and that people will work on the stubs eventually. Further, they have said that people in these under-served areas won't create articles on their own, but will work on a stub. If that is true, a redirect will discourage them more than a redlink (and this I know is true from redirects I have created). On another level, a redirect shouldn't be protected, because if we don't have the stub mass-creators on board, all this is irrelevant. Many people creating a few articles each on their own villages is (sadly) not the problem. A few people creating many articles each is the real situation. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You would be amazed how emotionally attached people can get to a stub. I am also willing to bet that there will be at least one stub mass-creator that will be convinced that everyone else simply doesn't understand how much better his stubs are than anyone else's. It's inevitable.
Kww (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
But so far none of the mass stub creators have let go of the idea of all populated places being notable. The experience over at WP:WPSCHOOLS where all the experienced editors came together to assume elementary schools are not notable unless shown to be, but high schools are assumed notable unless they can't be verified, is something that can be achieved here. If you read that discussion, it seems that the argument was that users of Wikipedia expect articles on every college and university that has ever existed, and on high schools in the English speaking world as well. There is a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines to "avoid bulk creations" and bulk AfDs. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is probably what has to happen to avoid a deadlock. One possibility is that legally incorporated municipalities and administrative subdivisions equivalent to the LAU1 level in NUTS get articles. Lower level units require some additional recognition. --Polaron | Talk 03:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, all of them is the worst case solution for at least one. I don't believe that there is any need to compromise with WP:N, however. If there is truly a consensus that secondary sources are required for all articles, then a few bot-runners can be stopped. If there isn't such a consensus, we need to find a reasonable way to express it as a general rule. Carving out one arbitrary exception after another is not the way to go, and allowing small groups of editors that refuse to follow the rules hold policies hostage isn't either.
Kww (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Polaron, could you explain what LAU1 and NUTS are? Is that some sort of international standard? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics and Local administrative unit. Seeing that LAU1 is not always defined, LAU2 might be a better level. Note that while this only applies to the EU, my main point is that administrative subdivisions that are the closest equivalent to a municipality/township should get an article. Smaller units would either have to be legal, municipal corporations or have other recognition. Note that a a significant chunk of the U.S. CDPs would not satisfy this so this proposal would probably not be popular now that I think of it. --Polaron | Talk 04:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that these definitions may actually be counterproductive. If there is a census-recognized chunk of land and people named something like "Frostbite Falls-Lower Wikachobee", that probably isn't a thing recognized by humans. They would probably write news articles about "Frostbite Falls" or "Lower Wikachobee". Depending on how close the census name and the common name are, it could be either trivial or impossible to correlate secondary sources to the thing listed in the census. It also still begs the question: even if there was a perfectly consistent census terminology across the entire world, where we could all agree on exactly what that designation meant, why should people write an article about any particular item before locating a single secondary source? If people want to write useful bots, how about one that looks through these census generated things, searches for on-line sources, and produces two things: a database of census items with online secondaries for people to build articles from, and a list of orphans for people to search for sourcing on? There's nothing wrong with bots, and nothing wrong with censuses.
Kww (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That is why the municipality level is a good demarcation line because it is there where the national census authority typically follows the locality definition. At levels below the municipality, census authorities sometimes define their own boundaries for convenience. In general, it really shouldn't be too hard to figure out which administrative division this corresponds to for all countries. There is probably already a table of that somewhere on Wikipedia. --Polaron | Talk 14:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, right now, the widely-accepted rule as practiced at AFD is "every locale that has a name and a verified location is notable". If you agree with that, then you are correct that this not necessary. If you don't agree with the "every named locale is notable" rule, it might be worthwhile to discuss some more. --Polaron | Talk 15:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, then this is all we need to say: [1]. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem accurate to say that the consensus at AFD is to keep any place with a name and location. A more accurate statement would be that there is never enough consensus to delete places with a name and location. Kaldari (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe so, but, at least for recent AFDs of places, you get a ton of keep votes and only 1-2 merge votes, for verified places (never a delete). I myself have always voted for merging of non-distinct places into their containing division in an effort to sway consensus. It is not technically a consensus, but having 9 keep votes out of 10 in practice is. --Polaron | Talk 15:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Pol, I've proposed at other places the concept of a protected "soft-redirect", where the page has just the bare facts and a link to the parent article (containing division). The page would be permanantly protected to prevent vanity growth until an editor can demonstrate consensus for an independent article. Your thoughts? --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This whole discussion makes it very clear that there is not a consensus that every place is notable, so I reverted Kevin Murray's change. We are in the midst of discussing these issues, there is a disputed tag in place (which is overkill for something that is only a proposal), so there is no call for wholesale gutting of the proposal.
Kww (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Kevin W., I don't really propose gutting your proposal, but I'd sure like to see the bloat cut to a minimum and the purpose clearly identified. I think that this is attempts to reach two goals: (1) offer a limited special exception to WP:N, and (2) re-define what is a verifiable source, the latter being redundant to WP:V. This might be among the few bona fide exceptions to WP:N, but that's not a license to write a book here. Just say what you mean and cut the WP:CREEP. This might boil down to a sentence at WP:N defining allowed exceptions. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It the proposal were left to me, it would read very short and sweet: Geographic locations are not inherently notable. Geographic locations are not offered any special consideration for notability, and, since atlases and censuses are comprehensive listings that do not constitute a direct and detailed examination of a location, they are specifically denigrated as a source of notability for a geographic location. The only "instruction creep" necessary is to make sure people understand that neither an atlas nor a census meets the requirements for sourcing under WP:N, a point which is apparently lost on somewhere between one-third to one-half of editors. I don't think there is a need for a limited special exemption to WP:N, and there isn't an effort to rewrite WP:V ... just a need to point out that a source can meet WP:V without being sufficient under WP:N.
Kww (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Now you've got the bit in your teeth and your stating your case. Let's get the two options on the page and discuss where we are going. This doesn't have to look like a finished product. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Kevin W., when you say "This whole discussion makes it very clear that there is not a consensus that every place is notable" you entirely miss the point. What is said by the few people that found their way here is not relevant to creating a guideline for the whole project. You must demonstrate that there is a widespread consensus and that you are merely documenting an onging practice here. There is no evidence that this is anything more than a few well intentioned people trying to prescribe a solution not currently in practice. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't miss the point, and have acknowledged (you'll have to scan up the page), that we may have only attracted notability freaks to the discussion. It is clear to me, though, that there is not a consensus that geographic locations are inherently notable, something which AndrewRT noted above. Thus, there is no consensus that they are immune to WP:N. This isn't just from this discussion: it's from the discussions to approve Geobot, which forced it to include a notability analysis prior to article creation, and from the recent controversy over Kotbot. The Kotbot discussion deadlocked, but if there was a clear consensus that geographic places were notable, there wouldn't have been a deadlock. We are in the uncomfortable position where AFD practices run counter to what official policies state and to what a large number of editors believe to be true. Always an ugly state to be in.
Kww (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A census as a source of notability

It has been flagged that the current version says "atlas or census" and the discussion above centered on "atlas". So, the question: is inclusion in a census enough to determine notability?
Kww (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Not sufficient. Of course not. A census is intended to be an exhaustive list, with an entry for each thing that meets a specific inclusion category. By its very nature, it lists the notable and the non-notable alike. As such, it cannot be used as an indicator of notability.
    Kww (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sufficient - As there is a limited number of Designated places and/or Census-designated places, they constitute a select group, that fall into a clearly defined rule set. When it is further considered that a census is meant to count people, the noting if places is a by-product and IMO that would make it a secondary source when talking about places. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Censuses are primary sources. Nearly every definition of primary sources on the internet lists censuses as an example. Unless you can point me to a source that agrees with your unique interpretation, I don't think your argument can be considered valid. Kaldari (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar enough with other countries' censuses, but U.S. CDPs are usually well-chosen communities. Sometimes (like West Whittier-Los Nietos, California) they lump multiple places together, and it might make more sense to split them, except that then we have nowhere to put the data. --NE2 01:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sufficient Censuses are primary sources. Census Designated Places are actually one step up from census tracts. If there is some analysis, then it is secondary. The United States Census Bureau does analysis at the CDP level and above, but that is not the case for every nation. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just noting that place, as the U.S. Census Bureau uses it, is indeed one level above census tracts. However, that also means that incorporated villages/towns/cities are in the same category, i.e. the next lower level to a typical city is a census tract. --Polaron | Talk 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think so. Nobody wants to see an article for every census tract, but the next highest level--in the US system--is a whole 'nuther story. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sufficient This is de facto practice as exemplified both by AfD discussions and by precedent of Rambot (at the time, inclusion in the census was the only criteria used to generate the articles. There may be a question as to what it means to be included on a census -- as the U.S. Census also includes a wide variety of smaller and rather arbitrary designations. But in general, if a named place is important enough to be included on a census, it is worth including in an encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 12:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sufficient for the United States federal census. Notability is satisfied by the fact that it is a governmentally recognized community of people and the fact that the census is required by the United States Constitution. Although perhaps not enough to be included in a conventional encyclopedia it should be enough for wikipedia. Probably sufficient in most other countries, but the reliability of the census would be a deciding factor.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sufficient This has already been stated as policy at WP:PSTS: "Primary sources ... include ... historical documents such as diaries, census results..." Note also the principle that a guideline cannot override a policy. Independence of sources is a separate, additional, issue. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment can we also bear in mind that a "Census Designated Place" is a peculiarly US concept and so can't be applied to any of the 195 other coutries of the world! AndrewRT(Talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • sufficient making allowance for the practices in different countries. andrew, could you explain that point a little further? 03:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm only familiar with the census practices in my home country - Britain - where people are just listed under their local authority - city, borough, county or whatever. The concept of a "Census Designated Place" doesn't exist. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec) The whole idea of all settlements being notable has its roots in the Western colonialist worldview. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Statistics UK does tabulate things below the LAU1 level, namely wards and parishes. Then there are named areas within parishes in rural areas, namely hamlets (Statistics UK does not tabulate these generally I believe). --Polaron | Talk 15:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Probably Not sufficient. Per WP:PSTS. Should be mentioned in at least one secondary source. Kaldari (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sufficient see comments below A census in and of itself does not establish notability, because it is "the procedure of acquiring information about every member of a given population." It does not discriminate between the notable and the "boring." The town of Turin, IA is not a notable location (trust me, I've been there), but it is dutifully covered in the US Census because that is the mission of the USCB. Presence in an undiscriminating comprehensive list, even a comprehensive list with details, does not demonstrate notability. SDY (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help but share this headline from the local paper (made me laugh when I read it:) Tornado in Monona County causes no damage. Clearly not much happens there!! AndrewRT(Talk) 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
On further pondering, I think this might be a reasonable case to invoke WP:IAR. Per WP:NOTPAPER, I don't see a problem with including smaller otherwise non-notable entities so long as the information is high quality, especially when their absence creates awkward gaps in the coverage. I do not believe that censi give a location notability, but I do believe that uniform basic coverage makes for a better encyclopedia, especially since so many populated locations are notable. Just my opinion. SDY (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sufficient and very strongly. I am in fact astounded by attempts to argue that towns and villages could be "not notable" under any circumstance. Settlements are the kind of subject which paper encyclopedias traditionally cover, so any notability standard regarding them should be very lenient. You will find articles on any settlement with 500+ population in Norway in Store Norske Leksikon, and to say that a settlement of similar size in Tanzania is not notable (because it doesn't have the sources which this proposal is advocating), is systematic bias towards developed countries of extreme proportions. Coverage in the census means that the settlement is recognized by the national government, and that is clearly enough to settle whatever verifiability concerns which may exist; to demand anything beyond that has potential to do great harm to Wikipedia's comprehensiveness. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant If a topic does not meet WP:N, then it is not notable. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side point, Ugashik, Alaska (pop. 11) and Pope-Vannoy Landing, Alaska (pop. 8) are probably good poster children for "communities that exist that might not be notable." SDY (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side point of a side point, Flat, Alaska (which mentions a few others) is notable for its lack of population, which is rather ironic. SDY (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Sufficient provided the source cited as a census is (1) a published results from a government entity and (2) is a tabulation of the census results, most likely a sum, of primary source documents, namely the forms completed by individuals or census workers.
Census reports are a good example of what I consider a tendency to misclassify a first and authoratative analysis of data as a primary source when in fact the census report is the work of numerous professionals tabulating the primary records created and collected by numerous census takers to create a summary report. Assuming these professionals also have supervisors and others double checking their work, it is also true that the report has been peer reviewed and is authoratative. Just because a source is the first place where the summary analysis and results were published doesn't make it a primary source in the meaning defined by PSTS. Raw data is the primary source. But once that data is analyzed (in this case tabulated and organized) it is a secondary source.

So what does this mean for Wikipedia? (1) It means that it a violation of NOR for an editor to use a FOIA request to get copies of completed census forms and to total the resuls (an analysis) and publish the results. "Quoting" the summary total published in the census report (a reliable authoratative rce) is perfectly appropriate. Giving the population of X in 1990 and in 2000, for example, is perfectly fine. But giving the same figures in a manner that the rise in the 1990 census data to the 2000 census data shows an average 10 percent annual growth rate is OR. Stick to the facts. Census data are as reliable and verifiable facts as we can hope. And if a government decides it is worth identifying a village as a village with X number of people, that is a fact which is sufficiently notable...not just to the residents but to tax collectors!--SaraNoon (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Sufficient - Settlements just be being settlements are the subject of historical and contemporary encyclopedias, books, government publications (very extensively) and newspapers. For American settlements, the United States Census Bureau publishes very extensive in depth statistics on any "census designated place" which can be quite readily available on the internet. If a developing country without the same kind of resources hasn't yet made available internet hyperlinks on their settlements, that doesn't magically mean the settlement is in any manner less significant than their population equivalents in developing countries. To assume less significance on those settlements would be a very strong case of systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

prolly splitting a hair ... but ...

in reguards to

How old would a census have to be to be considered a history ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Never. How old does a phone book have to be to be considered a novel?
Kww (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
(With an appropriate citation on that Article.) Therefore, Never isn't really an answer with consensus according to various academics. Here I ask the question again, how old must a census be to be considered a history? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 22:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It's a valuable primary source. Would it support an article on a centuries old real-estate transaction? No. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let's not try to compare census from the middle ages, which has been notoriously labeled as a "dark" period, to modern census, when we exist in a free information era. Clearly the two examples are being used for different purposes and under extremely different circumstances. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
You aren't reading correctly. The quote doesn't say it is a history. The quote says it is a valuable source for the history. Just like I could say a baseball card is a valuable source for the history of some baseball period, that doesn't mean I'm saying the baseball card is a history. You're confusing the two uses of "history": one referring to aggregate past events and the other referring to a written commentary on the past events. So Kww was perfectly correct in rebutting your question. A census which is not a written commentary will not magically become one all of a sudden. --C S (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is with the loose term "histories" which should maybe be replaced. I think what we're trying to get at is that a broader write up - say a History of Brixton or the Rough Guide to Cuba would qualify as a source denoting notability. I think that's the issue rather than the age of the source. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I would say the problem is with editors believing to strongly in never. All of us are going to have to flex somewhat if we are going to come to an acceptable comprimise, and never is an inflexible position to compromise with. Never will not achieve consensus, nor will Always I realize. I still believe that, as a group, an acceptable comprimise is realizable. I dont want to watch this circular argument continue ad infinitum. May I start some kind of a ball rolling by openly suggesting "A 100 year old census is a reflection of history, not just a census"? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the example you give is only considered a history because of the absence of other sources from the time period. A modern census wouldn't be considered a history both because it is not intended to be and there is no reason for scholars (or anyone really) to use them as such. --NickPenguin(contribs) 11:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Again with the misreading. Sigh. It's not considered a history, i.e. written commentary on past events. It's considered a valuable source for studying history, i.e the actual past events. --C S (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary maps and censuses are not secondary sources

I keep seeing over and over again in the discussions here people claiming that things like maps and censuses are secondary sources (according to some tortured logic or another). I would like to remind everyone that Wikipedia did not invent the phrases "primary source" and "secondary source". These concepts are well established in academia, and are not up for redefining here. Nearly every university website has some sort of Research 101 page that explains the difference between primary and secondary sources. If any of you wrote papers in college or have bothered to read any of these pages, you would know that there is no question that contemporary maps and censuses are considered primary sources. Indeed, censuses are one of the most commonly cited examples of what is a primary source. Yet there are people here claiming that censuses should be considered secondary sources. That is frankly ridiculous. Maps and atlases are a bit more tricky, since there are such things as secondary source maps, but in 95% of cases, maps are primary sources and atlases that consist of nothing but a collection of maps are also primary sources. Things like gazetteers, however, are secondary sources. Please make yourself adequately familiar with the concepts of primary and secondary sources before making statements about them.

  • I challenge anyone to point me to an academic source that states that censuses can be considered secondary sources.
  • I also challenge anyone to point me to an academic source that states that basic contemporary maps (of the sort you would typically find in an atlas) can be considered secondary sources. Kaldari (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
While the definitions of primary and secondary sources vary considerably across disciplines, one characteristic that is common to descriptions of primary sources is that they are "records of events as they are first described, usually by witnesses or by people who were involved in the event."[2], or "[u]nedited, firsthand access to words, images, or objects created by persons directly involved in an activity or event or speaking directly for a group.[3], or "present original thinking, report a discovery, or share new information".[4]. While I agree that in most cases, maps censuses are not secondary sources, they also do not clearly qualify as primary sources either (except perhaps for hand-drawn maps). They are in fact closer to tertiary sources than either primary or secondary sources. "Tertiary sources consist of information which is a distillation and collection of primary and secondary sources."[5] older ≠ wiser 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Tabulation does not equal distillation, synthesis, or analysis. There is a huge difference between a source such as a gazetteer and a simple map or census list. Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're point is. The US Census Bureau most certainly does extensive distillation and refinement of the raw data. The same is likely true of any national census with any pretense of reliability. Also not sure what you mean by a "simple map". Maps that have any pretense of reliability are complex production and are not firsthand accounts or original data. Both maps and census lists are more like tertiary sources than either primary or secondary sources. older ≠ wiser 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I find the question of whether maps and census data are primary or secondary as utterly academic and of no practical or encyclopedic consequence. Clearly, the official figures of population from a census are reliable, if they were not reliable then what on Earth are politicians up to when they use them as the basis for something as important as drawing congressional districts? Where do you think paper encyclopedias get their population figures from? These sources are among the most reliable things you will find anywhere and contribute very much to meeting WP:V requirements. Same with maps in atlases and other map books, these things are produced by professional cartogrophers and give a very reliable pinpoint of a location. If this is a notability (WP:N) concern, then I will simply state that any use of the WP:N guideline which seeks to remove coverage of the kinds of subjects which are traditionally covered in paper encyclopedias is at best pedantry, and should be soundly rejected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide a modification for WP:N that will cover your objection with an objective, generally applicable rule, I'm interested in it. What I think is dangerous is the path of discarding the need for secondary sourcing of articles because people choose not to search for them before creating an article.
Kww (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." WP:N simply fails for most villages in Tanzania, it is far too strict with them because sources are hard to come by (at least on the internet) so we are reduced to census figures and atlases in many cases. Although many such articles are stubs, containing bare bones info on location and population, they are valid and the subject is significant. We simply cannot allow a guideline to dictate us into removing articles on subjects which are within the realms of traditional encyclopedias. (Before you write me off as an arch-inclusionist, I'll mention that WP:N fails in the other end when it comes to news stories). Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Name a single location which is included in a traditional encyclopedia which WP:N would exclude us from having. There are none. Kaldari (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Does Wikipedia only have to contain the articles that traditional encyclopedias contain? --Polaron | Talk 15:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Our definitions of common sense and occasional differ, Sjakkalle. To me, it is common sense that if all that can be said is that "Frazmark, East Dakota is a town at 52N,90W, with a population of 11", then there shouldn't be an article for Frazmark, East Dakota. Having similar articles for a million settlements is far from "occasional".
Kww (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that if the articles actually had accurate coordinates and a cited population figure, much of the contentiousness would be reduced. People are creating stubs for which the location is an estimate to the nearest arc second, with no census figure (or any population number), and sometimes no citations. There are cases where the place cannot be confirmed to still exist at all. We are told that the citations will be added to the articles "someday." This behavior is abusing the "inherent notability" granted populated places earlier in the project, and people who ask that the stubs be improved on the WP:V level are shouted down. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
It seems like the easiest rule to ignore is WP:PSTS- The article must still demonstrate notability by citing sources, but a census may be used as if it were a secondary source solely for establishing notability. All of the other caveats associated with using primary sources apply. SDY (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Even if they were secondary sources, that would be only a single source with a direct and detailed examination, and maybe not even that (some censuses qualify as a detailed examination, by breaking down the population by demographics, income, age, etc., and others do not). To pass WP:N, you need multiple sources with a direct and detailed examination.
Kww (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Phlegm Rooster mentioned the case where the place cannot be confirmed to still exist at all. In that case we no longer have a notability issue, we have a verifiability issue. If we cannot confirm the existence of something, then we cannot have an article because that would damage Wikipedia's credibility. (Although WP:V says (or said, or whatever) "verifiability not truth", I have always viewed that policy as a way of ensuring that the stuff we write about is true.) To sit around demanding multiple sources of a settlement is pedantry in my opinion, WP:N was created as a guideline to help us, not as an authority to dictate us. To answer Kaldari's question, I challenge you to find some good secondary sources for an article like Alsvåg. (The current Wikipedia article is one of those "bare bone" stubs which I still would consider valid.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm seriously trying to understand your perspective, Sjakkalle, not nagging. If you don't believe that secondary sources can ever be found for Alsvåg, why do you feel that the encyclopedia benefits from having an entire article dedicated to it, as opposed to a list entry or a description in an article about the region? Note that your argument is different from most people's: generally, the argument is we know the secondary sources must be out there, because they exist for essentially all settlements, so it is safe to create the article in advance. Yours seems more akin to Even though secondary sources don't exist, this article needs to exist because ....
Kww (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
If this proposal would lead to us concluding that Alsvåg is "not notable" or "unencyclopedic" then this proposal is totally out of whack and should be rejected with extreme prejudice. Alsvåg has an entry in Store norske leksikon and is therefore an "encyclopedic" subject by any reasonable definition of that word (it is covered in a general purpose encyclopedia.) Still, I have not found any "secondary sources" for this settlement, (the paper encyclopedia entry is a tertiary, not secondary, source). Finally, I think the current stub is of benefit to a reader who might see "Alsvåg" on a map and wonder how big the settlement is, or for a reader who might see "Alsvåg" as part of an address and wonder where that is. The article could of course be better, but there are very few things which couldn't. My perspective here is that we are in grave danger of raising the notability bar to levels which are higher than what is common in a traditional paper encyclopedia, and that is something which I am opposing in the strongest possible terms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
What does the Store norske leksikon say about it? I'm not anal about secondary vs. tertiary.
Kww (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It contains information on the roads connected to the settlement, the presence of light industry, and a small museum there in addition to the basic population and location info. But I thoroughly reject the idea that coverage in SNL is what makes Alsvåg notable, my view is rather that Alsvåg's notability is the reason SNL decided to spend some of their limited space to cover it. Alsvåg would not be any less notable if SNL didn't exist. To say that settlements like Alsvåg in Norway are notable since Norway has a national encyclopedia, while a similar settlement in a country without a national encyclopedia are not notable, makes absolutely no sense. I cannot think of a single way in which a settlement becomes more significant, important, or more worthy of attention, the instant someone writes an encyclopedia entry. (On a philosophical level, I feel WP:N has things somewhat backwards here; subjects are not notable because they are covered in secondary sources, they are covered in secondary sources because they are notable. The presence of secondary sources is therefore an indicator of notability, but it is not the final verdict. That is why the words "presumed" and "guideline" are used in WP:N.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:N isn't about what makes something notable. It's about what indicators are available that someone else has made the determination that a thing is notable, because that isn't a decision that Wikipedia editors should be making.
Kww (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the meaning of secondary in that guideline is "secondary or higher". If it is included in an another encyclopedia then that should be sufficient. Also, no one is advocating not treating places like Alsvåg at all. However, if all that can be said about it at the present time is "X is a place in administrative division Y located at coordinates aaa,bbb with a population of xyz", then it is more appropriate to treat the topic as part of the article on the containing district. Is it really necessary to have a stand-alone article when there's a better place to merge it into. One can always split it out when there is sufficient stuff to write about. --Polaron | Talk 15:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Alsvåg is not even a borderline case. It gets 105,000 matches in Google, and 53 matches in Google Books. I can find plenty of secondary sources on it without even trying. The book Norway Pilot has any entire section on Alsvåg. Try finding a secondary source for Bisarikati Charkhanda, however, that isn't based on its GEOnames entry. There are none. 89 matches on Google, 0 matches in Google Books. It shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. Kaldari (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Raw Ghits is a dubious argument here. Blacksville, GA (pop 4) gets 153k Ghits because it picks up every business that has a website that mentions all locations in the state. The exclusionary criterion I would use is "all-inclusive lists do not demonstrate notability." SDY (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course its dubious, but there's a big difference between 105,000 Ghits and 89 Ghits. Notice, however, that I also found an actual honest-to-god paper book with a section about Alsvåg within 30 seconds of looking for a secondary source. I'm just pointing out that Sjakkalle's challenge was trivial while mine are impossible. Kaldari (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think "Norway Pilot" has a section on Alsvåg, at least not on Alsvåg as a community. "Norway Pilot" is a handbook for ship pilots, and contains information on shoals and other navigational information, it is not a secondary source about the community. The 105000 Google hits look very impressive, but you will find that they only give trivial mention to Alsvåg, typically they are online directories where a small business is located in Alsvåg, or a newspaper article on some local interest story at Alsvåg school. None of the Google Book hits you found are really about Alsvåg, rather they are about some other location (typically as part of a geological survey) and use "Alsvåg" as a geographic reference to indicate where they are. Your statement that Bisarikati Charkhanda shouldn't have an article illustrates very clearly a willingness to avoid giving communities in developing countries due coverage. "Alsvåg" does not receive more Google hits than Bisarikati Charkhanda because it's a more important settlement, it's Norway uses the internet with far more frequency, and put more information on the web. I would hardly call that a reason for calling communities in Bangladesh less significant a worthy of attention. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you misunderstand my point. The reason Bisarikati Charkhanda should not have a wikipedia article is because there is no verifiable information about the place available. We can't say how many people are there. We can't say anything about the place's history. We can't even say whether it is a village or a mouza. All we have is a name and coordinates. That is not enough to make a Wikipedia article from. I definitely think it should have a wikipedia article eventually, just not yet. It is premature to create it when all we can do is give one sentence which we don't even know is accurate or not. Kaldari (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for reposting here, but thought I should as it is relevent to this thread. In short, I believe the whole point of the PSTS is to distinguish that a primary source is raw data that has not yet been analyzed, and preferably peer reviewed. But there is a tendency of some editors to confuse a first published source with a primary source, even though the first published source is in fact an authoratative analysis of a large body of primary source material, such as census forms turned in by census workers or survey maps prepared by surveyors.
I think it is clear that a census is a reliable secondary source if it (1) the published results from a government entity and (2) it represents a tabulation of the census results, most likely a sum, of primary source documents, namely the forms completed by individuals or census workers.
Census reports are a good example of what I consider a tendency to misclassify a first and authoratative analysis of data as a primary source when in fact the census report is the work of numerous professionals tabulating the primary records created and collected by numerous census takers to create a summary report. Assuming these professionals also have supervisors and others double checking their work, it is also true that the report has been peer reviewed and is authoratative. Just because a source is the first place where the summary analysis and results were published doesn't make it a primary source in the meaning defined by PSTS. Raw data is the primary source. But once that data is analyzed (in this case tabulated and organized) it is a secondary source.
So what does this mean for Wikipedia? (1) It means that it a violation of NOR for an editor to use a FOIA request to get copies of completed census forms and to total the resuls (an analysis) and publish the results. "Quoting" the summary total published in the census report (a reliable authoratative rce) is perfectly appropriate. Giving the population of X in 1990 and in 2000, for example, is perfectly fine. But giving the same figures in a manner that the rise in the 1990 census data to the 2000 census data shows an average 10 percent annual growth rate is OR. Stick to the facts. Census data are as reliable and verifiable facts as we can hope. And if a government decides it is worth identifying a village as a village with X number of people, that is a fact which is sufficiently notable...not just to the residents but to tax collectors! So I think identification of a village in an official census report does make the place notable.--SaraNoon (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
By usuual standards "the sort of maps we find in a modern atlas" are in fact an excellent example of a tertiary source, not even a secondary one. The primary source is the field notes, or the photographic survey photographs (orf of course their digital equivalents). Maps are drawn from datum points--the recordings of the points are the true primary data. The secondary source is the published maps from the mapping agency, whether revised or annotated aerial photograph-based or conventional maps. The sort of maps that get published in an atlas are the interpretation of geographers based upon the previously mentioned material, and are tertiary sources,far removed from the actual data.
This is even clearer with censuses. to an historian, the primary data from a census are the questionnaires or the primary recordings of the survey data in registers, or the equivalents. The tables and maps prepared from these are the secondary interpretations of the demographers. a list of geographic areas prepared by a census agency is, depending on the degree of interpretation involved,either secondary or tertiary data. Even an official gazetteer is not primary data--it is the compilation of interpreted and adjusted field data. The street photographs in google maps are primary data, though actually primary data selected and interpreted, not shown directly; the street grids and names matched to them are secondary data.DGG (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
DGG, while the level of compilation may be tertiary for some census reports or an atlas (as your example), I would think the authoratative nature of such compilations would generally suffice to allow these sources to be used and even favored in Wikipedia. For example,there are a number of reference books which basically just reprint tables, such as census data, from the issuing source. These may be tertiary publications, but since they reprint data from a reliable secondary source that may not be easily convenient, I believe editors should be free to use it and the burden of proving the inaccuracy should fall on the person challenging the edit. What do you think?SaraNoon (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Not that I was asked, but I think that since populated places are given a pass on WP:N, they should be held to a higher standard of WP:V. We should be so fortunate to have citations to a map or a census for most of these stubs; currently they are being created without anything other than a belief that GEOnet Names Server is infallible. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Option Three

I've placed a third option on the proposal page which will satisfy nobody but will make for a better encyclopedia. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Phleg, I admire your prose, but if each minor rule describes the wonders and purpose of WP, we might bog down a bit in the reading. This is among my major concerns about adding pages of instruction, because each set of authors rewrite or restate the principles of WP:N, WP:V, etc, and add a paragraph or two about why their personal form of WP:CREEP is justified. It is evident in most proposals and guidelines, so you are in good company. Thus we end up with cumbersome pages instead of a precise and concise paragraph. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Compared to WP:PROF, WP:BK or WP:MUSIC, my proposal is mercifully short. My caveats are not minor, since huge numbers of stubs don't currently meet it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
      • No argument that it is shorter than the worst, but may I offer this as a more succinct restatement (with which, for the record, I still do not agree): Because Wikipedia is not limited like paper encyclopedias, it can have an article on any populated place, so long as that information meets our verifiability guidelines and includes, at a minimum, a name that is either confirmed by the government of the place or by a reliable secondary source, a cited population estimate or range than is less than 35 years old, and coordinates that can be confirmed to point unambiguously to the place.
        Kww (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes Phleg, you have picked excellent examples of creep that slid through the approval process when few were paying attention. But errors should not be taken a precedent. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
        • What do you mean by "creep"? Stubs with poor sourcing? Or "Instruction Creep"? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
          • WP:CREEP, aka: a trend toward developing too many rules or unnecessarily wordy rules. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
            • A one sentence compromise that attempts to deal fairly with the concerns of both sides should not be dismissed as CREEP. If accepted, it would represent a major change to current practice. I said it would "satisfy nobody". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
              • Notwithstanding other issues, your preamble is eloquent but not needed to express the direct point. "Because Wikipedia prides itself on its inclusiveness and expansiveness over traditional paper encyclopedias, it can have an article on any populated place, no matter how small. However, since users turn to Wikipedia for its higher quality of information than they can find on other internet sites, all articles on populated places must meet a high standard of WP:Verifiability." is not succinct. --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
                • It has to explain why WP:N is relaxed for populated places. It then says the requirements which are WP:V plus. It is much more succinct than WP:CREEP itself. In any case, the wording can be debated after we see the response to the requirements. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
                  • I actually like the first paragraph but would strongly recommend abbreviation of the rest. Clearly it should be verifiable, but I'm not sure about putting a arbitrary population limit on it. (Why 35?) I think we all agree however that we don't want people creating articles for every subdivision, much less every "circle drive community."--SaraNoon (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
sinc we include historic places just as present, the age of the population data is irrelevant entirely. DGG (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess. In the course of researching the villages of Azerbaijan, I have discovered that once you find reliable sources other than GNIS, GNS and the commercial copycats, the population data will be present. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Part of a problem with requiring population data at all, at least for the USA, is that vast numbers of communities don't have population data: unless they're CDPs or parts thereof, no unincorporated area will have specific population data, and many unincorporated communities don't even have ZCTA population data. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been reading the assorted discussions here, and I'm on leaning more to a general "trust but verify" guideline. Not sure if "inherently notable" is the right approach, but I'm also unsure whether the three criteria in Option 3 are an appropriate response. I do believe that a community that is or once was inhabited is notable, even if it wasn't "written about" in secondary sources. For example, I created an article regarding Petrel in Adams County, North Dakota. It was founded in the early 1900s and still exists as an official place per the Geographic Names Information System and Google Maps. It included in a 1917 atlas of the county as a platted townsite with roads. The population was 65 in 1960. Today, it's a virtual ghost town on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway. I would argue it is notable because it exists/existed; it was written about in an encycolpedia of North Dakota place names; and an amateur photographer dedicated to documenting "every dot" on the map visted and took photos of the tiown. I don't know all of the answers, but I would lean more toward "inclusion" rather than "deletion" when it comes to places like this.DCmacnut<> 19:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
any attempt to deny notability to places that existed in the past as compared to those in the present will run afoul of one of the fundamental principles underlying notability in enWP: notability is permanent . Of all possible areas to depart from it, geographic places are perhaps the worst, since the prior existence and significance is easier to document than almost anything else. Before such a guideline could go into effect, I think it would be necessary to have community-wide consensus that we wanted to take the step of departing from this very basic principle. If there's one thing encyclopedias are, they're permanent. WP is not just for today. DGG (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Option 1 reflects reality. As the propronent of Option 3 found out when he nominated a village article for deletion - the commuity found several sources to confirm its existance and with a little extra effort, he found local, current sources that also confirm its (continued) existence. If we go for anything by option 1 - I fear a great deal of work will be done to find sources in a hurried fashion in response to Afd's or will just be missed as we're focusing elsewhere with the result being that verifiable encyclopedic content will be deleted. Sourcing to gazetteers, atlases, census reports, maps, etc. is perfectly fine. Why does one need a "recent" (35 years seems arbitrary) census report: Troy probably doesn't have one, and there are plenty of third world places where they can only figure out the country's population in a range - and we do take the first world's census reports as reliable (even the US on which millions is no doubt spent undercounts minorities, undocumented people, the homeless, the military, and probably double counts students living away from home and such...)..Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is ridiculously overinclusive option that is clearly contrary to the precedent established by other well drafted guidelines like WP:PROF etc. For a practical perspective, see this this long discussion about the fiasco caused by a similar class-based clause in WP:ATHLETE. VG ☎ 17:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

AFDs in progress

This needs to be settled one way or the other

WP:GEOBOT is getting hung up on this, and I was personally hoping that this guideline would come to some agreement before I looked at proceeding with the project. As I see it, consensus here thus far is that there is no inherent notability for geographic locations. Shall we seek wider community input on these three options. I suggest an RfC tag, community bulletin board notification, and a line at the village pumps. Thoughts? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the problems they've had with the RFC on the WP:N compromise, I don't see an easy answer in sight. If you haven't read Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise, you should. I think the next step is to look at geographic locations in terms of the views that seem to be getting traction (roughly, as I read it, that every article has to demonstrate notability; lists kind of do, but nobody is sure how to specifically distinguish good lists from bad; and subject specific notability guidelines will be retained, but their relationship to the general notability guideline is still controversial). Then, we formulate a trial balloon based on that, and go to RFC. To just open up a mass RFC without a specific thing to review is to invite chaos.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
An excellent point - I'll look over the notability RfC, which I saw the beginnings of, but haven't seen since. The problem for me today has been that I've seen a lot of people saying that there is a community consensus that things can be inherently notable, but I can't actually find one anywhere! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Bring a site-wide RfC on this, announced on the recent changes list, with 2-3 proposals based on the options currently listed in the propsal. It's the only way forward. Due to my nomination of a single location for AfD, I've already been badgered on my talk page by editors claimed non-existing policy that supposedly allows any location on a map to be included in Wikipedia. That strikes me as a clear attempt to establish precedent not by consensus but by intimidation. VG ☎ 17:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Option one

  • Oppose. I don't think Wikipedia should be a text-based Mapquest or Google Earth. Unless a reasonable article can be written about a place, and by that I mean an article that says more than "this places it exists on maps", I don't think a Wikipedia should have an article on it. Mind you, any North-American business that has physical location can be included in Wikipedia based on option one because it can be verified to exist on my GPS! VG ☎ 17:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no way every place with a name on a map should be included in Wikipedia. There should be at least some other notability to the location, either modern or historical, for it to have an article. Theseeker4 (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiatlas

Non-notable subjects do not become notable simply because they have a name and a location. If Wikipedia is to pretend to have any level of quality, then non-notable places do not belong. There is, however, a Wikimedia atlas project in development where it would be appropriate to include all (officially) named places. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiatlas. —Danorton (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

for the record, it does NOT appear that Wikimedia is currently developing ANY of the three geographic services at this time. Most of the discussion at the Wikiatlas page dates from 2004, with a few posts from 2006; Wikimaps was last discussed in 2005, and Wikiteer dates to 2005 as well. A fourth attempt, Wikigps: [6] died in 2005 as well. While Wikipedia may not be the ideal place for this information, until there is an alternative outlet for this information, like Wiktionary for WP:DICDEF and Wikinews for WP:NOT#NEWS, there is likely to be widespread opposition to any proposal that moves for the widespread removal of this information, as there is nowhere to "put it" within the Wikimedia framework. If you really don't want this sort of perpetually stubby geographic article to exist at Wikipedia, the best solution is to restart the efforts to establish Wikiteer or something like it. Once THAT exists, there may very well be widespread support to move this info over to Wikiteer and thus get it "out" of Wikipedia. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
If such non-notable material must remain, it should at least be categorized as non-notable. —Danorton (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Are all French communes notable?

See this diff of Bouillargues. Is there any notability protection for French communes?  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 19:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think all communes are in fact notable. The nearest equvalent might be to a US country to township. I do not see how we can exclude recognized administrative divisions such as these. Communes of France indicates a wide range of sizes, but all the examples they give would be notable. DGG (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. 'twould be symptoms of systemic bias to deprecate roughly corresponding geographic/administrative entities in non-English nations. older ≠ wiser 12:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

How does this square with Wikipedia:Notability? It doesn't seem to me that a map or some official document that merely lists the townships/communes meets the requirements for "significant coverage." Further, a lot of these commune articles are completely unsourced. How can they be notable?  —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 20:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

then source them. There should certainly be official sources available, but some other WPedias have rather cause attitudes to sourcing as compared with us and if the sources seem totally obvious they do not bother listing them. .DGG (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are places inherently notable?

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Needs resolution: Are places inherently notable? - I've initiated a question that I feel needs asking and which you may be interested in Fritzpoll (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations)/Archive_2&oldid=1137429000"