RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Well, that was some significant time spent reading this whole thing. About 2 tomats worth of text. With that said, let's get started.There is consensus to add Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources. to Wikipedia:No original research#What is not original research. Those supporting the addition enjoy a significant majority, and it is clear that the policy rationales provided by those opposing were not particularly strong because they failed to sway ~70% of those responding. There was significant concern that this addition would promote WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, with David Fuchs expressing that they understand why the text is fine in theory, but in practice they believe it will lead to problems. This line or argumentation is fairly rebutted by JPxG's statement that There are already policies that prohibit you from doing this; maps are hardly the only type of source where it's possible to do this. Without rock solid, unrebutted policy based arguments in opposition, there is simply too strong a majority also arguing from a policy-based standpoint to see this as anything but a clear consensus. There is consensus against both proposal 2a and 2b. There were concerns about several parts of 2a, that it was more about RS rather than OR and didn't need to be added to the NOR policy, that the example was an actual example of how difficult it is to demonstrate what is plainly verifiable on a map, and long term WP:V issues being a few of them, as well as concerns about unnecessary WP:CREEP. 2b doesn't really need much of a summary, as it gathered very little support.
There is no consensus on proposal 3. This proposal was very close, and there were solid points made on both sides. There were valid concerns about intentional misinformation, trap streets, included in some sources, as well as continuing concerns about OR and SYNTH. There were also use cases provided by those supporting which would clearly be allowed currently. As such, there doesn't need to be additional wording regarding citing historical maps for the appearance of geographical features added to NOR, and it should remain up to editorial consensus. I see no consensus for proposal 4a, due mostly to the objections that the proposal does not provide necessary granularity and further concerns about policy creep. There is weak consensus that maps alone cannot demonstrate notability. The strong rejection of 4a which 4b hinges on and the steeply declining participation make it difficult to find a solid consensus here but it is clear that, generally speaking, a topic needs coverage in more than just maps to be considered notable. Even those supporting the use of maps admit it is a rare case when something is both notable and only covered by maps. The consensus here is not strong enough to shut down an argument of that type in specific cases. For the final proposal, there is a clear and solid consensus against modifying WP:RS#Some types of sources to state that maps must be prepared by professional cartographers to be considered reliable.To wrap this up, here's a note from someone who closes a lot of discussions. Please don't make enormous mega-RFCs like this all at once if it can be avoided. I had to read over 50,000 words to close this. Since all of the RFC proposals were on the same page with the same participants much of the discussion referred to arguments and statements made in other sections making it difficult for multiple editors to close individual proposals. Additionally, closing an RFC requires reading the full discussion so that the arguments and back and forths and be weighed appropriately. Individual RFCs spaced out over some time, after the prior RFC has been closed, will attract more outside input and be much easier to handle. Please, take pity on us discussion closers. We're people too! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maps are used as references in 32,000+ articles. From time to time questions about their use are raised in venues such as WP:GAC,WP:AFD and WT:OR. Policy and guidelines about sourcing and verifiability do not directly address nontextual sources. This RFC was started to answer some of those questions. I feel the Wikipedia community would benefit if we have some codified guidelines about their use to avoid having to continually revisit these topics.Dave (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources.
Support as nom Dave (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—we allow foreign-language sources, and this would make explicit that non-textual sources can be translated into prose for articles. Maps are regularly cited as source material in other works, so they should be good for Wikipedia purposes too. Imzadi 1979→ 06:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The purpose of the original research policy is to prevent original ideas that have not been peer-reviewed or subjected to an editorial process from being added to Wikipedia, a reliable collection of facts. It is surprising to see the policy applied this way to the basic activity of reading a map, an activity billions of humans do every day and that is taught in schools worldwide. Quite frankly, it is shocking to apply the OR policy this way. Maps have been acceptable sources on Wikipedia for years and are used on several FAs (including recently on Coventry ring road). They are used on over 32,000 articles [1] across many different geographic subject areas, and Google Maps is cited thousands of times [2]. In fact, a similar statement in the WP:NOTOR essay was added in 2011[3] and nobody bothered to remove it from the essay.
The types of maps that are used as sources on Wikipedia are not drawn up from the recollection of one's mind - if it were so, like the maps that I drew as a kid, then that would be OR. They are not even the cartoonish ones drawn up by the local tourism bureau that would fail SPS guidelines. The ones we are talking about are from reliable publishers like Rand McNally, Michelin, Collins, and others that have been around for generations. Google Maps has been called out for supposedly being less reliable than traditional maps and for being unarchivable, and while a separate discussion can be had on that matter, I see no reason why they are not less reliable than other sources that we use on Wikipedia on a daily basis. Modern maps are made through taking GIS data (the primary source) and choosing what elements of that data to incorporate into the final product, upon which editorial processes are followed. In the days before GIS data, satellite photos were used. Map publishers follow an editorial process, just like all other sources we use on a regular basis (and resulting in a secondary source).
It seems that subconsciously we know that published maps are reliable sources. For millennia our ancestors have relied on paper maps for their daily livelihood. Even the online directional services that we use today are based on maps. Why do public libraries spend so much money archiving old maps if they are not reliable? We trust our lives to them, and yet somehow they are not reliable enough for Wikipedia. Such an attitude is intellectually elitist. Nevertheless, there is this idea that one needs special training to understand a map properly. I suspect there is a huge generational gap here. I can say that I have been reading maps since I was five years old, if not before. This is a skill that was in my elementary, middle, and high school curriculum in the years afterward.
Yes, there have been problems where people have read things into the map that are not there, and that is original research. And separate questions are below to examine the parameters of that.
Disallowing the use of maps as sources (which a no consensus result here would effectively do) will result in implications across several subject areas - really any article that has to do with geography. In the subject area where I edit, highways, it means that we basically have to remove 90% of the text that talks about the road as it is today - even for articles where there are literally hundreds of newspaper sources that bring the subject well past any reasonable standard of WP:GNG. Recently, there have been efforts to remove text cited to maps in highway articles, considering it to be "original research". I have to wonder why suddenly this has become such a big issue worth starting revert wars over: [4][5][6][7] This would be equivalent to having to remove entire plot summaries of movies and TV shows because there are no reliable sources describing them, as might be the case before sites like AV Club came about. (Which, by the way, are less objective than reading a map, since the symbolism in fiction is often quite subjective - frequently, I have to read Wikipedia just to understand what happened in a movie). It brings into question why we still allow routine calculations since the exact same language is in the above proposal. It means that by the same logic charts, graphs, and tables should also be banned, though apparently some believe that should be done too. How do these moves benefit the reader?
In short, declining this opportunity to affirm the use of maps and all non-textual sources would be a serious mistake for Wikipedia and I fear what such a move would say about the health and future of the site. Rschen7754 07:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, that addition in 2011 was by a perennial Wikilawyer - indeffed a couple of years later - who was trying to improve his position in a content dispute. A similar attempt to change WP:NOR failed. Notably, for example, here. Kahastoktalk 22:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am (way too) familiar with Martinvl, but that does not mean that he was wrong on that occasion. And nobody bothered to remove it. Rschen7754 22:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as currently worded. Sometimes, use of a map as a source will not violate WP:OR, but that is not always the case. I am concerned that if passed the current wording would be used to support the use of maps even when their use would be a violation. BilledMammal (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am interested to know what kind of maps you think do and do not violate WP:OR. –Fredddie™ 15:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's how the map is used that causes the WP:OR violation, not the map itself. BilledMammal (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you agree that a map can be cited as a source of information in an article? If so, then you should support the inclusion of text that states Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources. If something is misused in an OR-type situation, that interpretation is no longer routine nor supported by consensus. Imzadi 1979→ 15:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below; I would support this proposal if it made it clear that this did not permit the interpretation of primary sources; is that a modification you would support? BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose your next comment will be to say that all maps are primary sources. --Rschen7754 16:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A (non-adapted) map in a paper showing the observed extent of a species by that paper
Legitimate use:
A summary map from an atlas showing the extent of a species, citing other publications
I hope that helps clarify what should be allowed and what should not? --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if people have a shared understanding of what it means to "interpret" a map. I think that, generally speaking, we actually do want editors to confine themselves to "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" (e.g., "California is on the western side of North America", with the citation being to a political map of North America). I would not consider that to be "interpretation", but others might use that word for the act of reading a map. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I think it’s a good move to copy the wording from routine calculations, since it’s a similar form of information translation, and relying on consensus to decide what’s "routine" and what’s not is the best we can do. Some editors may try to use this wording to support their WP:OR edits, but that’s true of all policies; as long as other editors are around to weigh in reasonably and in good faith it should be fine. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The MLA Handbook for writers of Research Papers (7th ed., 2009) is specifically addressed to high school and undergraduate university students, who face more or less the same requirement to avoid original research that Wikipedia editors do. This handbook specifically recognizes the use of atlases, including Google Earth (p. 14). Jc3s5h (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is news to me, and interesting. Can you comment further on what the MLA now says? I have a few MLA handbooks from my college years, but I went to college before Google Earth existed. Dave (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the MLA website it appears the publication I referred to has been replaced by MLA Guide to Undergraduate Research in Literature (2023) which I do not posses. The passage on page 14 I referred to states
Atlases are collections of maps. Along with the many useful atlases published as print volumes, prominent atlases available on the Web include The National Atlas of the United States of America, the official atlas of the United States; Google Earth, which covers the entire globe; and Perry-Castañeada Library Map Collection, at the University of Texas, Austin, a historical collection.
Support - Reading a map is not OR, it is interpreting a source that uses different symbols to convey information. Dough4872 14:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Reading a map is the same as reading a foreign language source. You have to "interpret" symbols (glyphs) and reach a conclusion. Anybody can do the same and come to the same conclusion, otherwise the same principals apply that would to an English language text. - Floydianτ¢ 14:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The edits will still be subject to our usual policies. If anyone sees a map and they want to contest its inclusion for some good reason, they will still be able to do that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
support Of course it depends on the kind of map, but essentially maps are just another way of presenting data. EDIT: Per Billedmammal below I want to clarify that my support is conditional on it being made clear in the text that WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, and WP:V all still apply to maps. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
consistent with my arguments here, I now Oppose this version, and support the better version proposed below--Licks-rocks (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could support this if Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that the source is not primary and there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources if the bolded text was added; I think we need to make it clear that this does not create an exception to our current policy on forbidding interpretation of primary sources. BilledMammal (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "interpretation" in the proposed addition has a different meaning than in WP:PRIMARY. WP:PRIMARY, in point 3, amplifies the meaning of "interpretation" as "a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I believe the kind of interpretation intended by the proposed addition is routine map reading, and fits into the kind of statement that can be verified by any education with access to the map. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support modern maps are largely secondary sources based on primary data --GuerilleroParlez Moi 16:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as written, specifically provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources. This will end up with projects or even article talk pages making up their own agreements. Maps can be used for referencing, but editors interpretations of details that do not exist on the map itself is still WP:OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, that phrase was taken verbatim from WP:OR, it already is codified in the OR policy. Dave (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the section about routine calculations... Which source interpretation is not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the issue for me, it's the difference between something that is obvious from the map and something that requires interpretation. The moment that line is crossed it's not about whether it's a reliable source it has become OR. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, by policy we have to interpret prose sources too. If we just copy them verbatim that's plagiarism. By policy, we have to summarize. Summarize requires interpretation. So the issue then becomes is can maps be interpreted correctly (assuming nobody here disputes that all sources can be interpreted incorrectly). I can think of several ways to argue that yes, visual source such as maps can be reliably interpreted correctly. Arguably the construction industry is tasked with interpreting maps (if we consider blueprints and engineering drawings a form of map) and they've been doing it for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The fact that this world is full of structurally sound structures that look just like the blueprints, says that yes, it is possible to reliably interpret visual sources. Dave (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't about summarising maps, a it's about taking more from the map than exists on the map. You can summarise prose, you can't write original interpretations about what that prose means. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that's exactly what this is about, summarizing sources. If sources aren't summarized correctly, do we blame the source or the summarizer? Dave (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that you can state what Shakespeare says in a sonnet and reference the sonnet, you can't state what he means by the sonnet and reference the sonnet. That would be your interpretation and would require a proper source. It is the latter that has been happening with maps, that has nothing to do with summarisation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if I look at a map of North America, and conclude the California is on the western edge, is that "just my interpretation"? I hope that you will agree that I have used the "correct techniques" (looking at the compass marking on the map) and that it is a "meaningful reflection of the source". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, as those are details that appear on the map. If you used that map to describe the natural habitats of the California coast, then you may be straying into OR territory. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose there might be a specialized map that shows the locations of different natural habitats, but it would need to be a map that says what the habitat is, rather than a Wikipedia editor thinking "Well, as a rule of thumb, this habitat occurs within 500 meters of salt water, and the map shows this is within that distance, so..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is the part that gets me "provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources." because this will only exacerbate the problem we have of wikiprojects (like roads and highways, note the overwhelming brigading of this discussion by members of that project) making their own rules and pretending like it has community endorsement. I would also note as others have that doing our own interpretation of a primary source is strictly forbidden and this language as it stands would appear to provide room for those rogue wikiprojects to challenge the existing community consensus over primary source use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"rogue wikiprojects"? Would you care to explain please? Dave (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had assumed if you were opening this discussion you'd been following the roads and highways shenanigans. Isn't this an attempt to address those rogue standards around maps usage? A less charitable interpretation would be that this is an attempt to codify those rogue standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Please stick to arguments about the subject matter, not arguments about your unchecked assumptions about peoples' motives. VC 17:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked a direct question, I responded. I have stuck to the subject matter. You on the other hand have not made a single comment addressing the subject matter, just this off topic one about me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would like to see arguments about the subject matter, not arguments about how someone else's statements are not relevant because they do not have a history of advancing arguments in an RfC less than 12 hours old. VC 17:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to make arguments about the subject matter. I already have, you can find them in pretty much every section here! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have contributed to the project pages of maybe 3 or 4 wikiprojects that use maps. I have yet to see any such wikiproject be sanctioned by arbcom (or whatever) for rogue behavior. If you are aware of wikproject that has been sanctioned for rogue activity please advise ASAP as this is something I would want to know about. Dave (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned sanctions. I don't think anyone disputes that the way highway and road route descriptions are sources is rogue, no other part of the encyclopedia sources like that. If they did there would be not reason to have this conversation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you retracted the words "rogue wikiprojects". However, IMHO deleting words from your post and pretending you never said them is poor form after people have already called those words out. It's OK for correcting typos or grammar errors, but IMHO not an appropriate way to retract. The more accepted way is to leave them in tact, but use strikethrough so people can see that yes, you did state those words, but now retract them or regret saying them. Cheers. My apologies. That was an irrelevent comment caused by confusing two threads open at the same time. Again apologies. Dave (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to get into an extended tangential mudslinging discussion, however I have prepared a response to many of these allegations at User:Rschen7754/FAQ. --Rschen7754 18:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reading a map isn't OR for what is on it. If you can't understand the symbols there is even a legend. A map has the same pro/cons as any other RS and should be judged the same. Sammy D III (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Reading a map is not original research, just like looking at entries in a database is not original research. Maps collect data from a variety of sources and present that data in a visual manner. As others have said above, there are legends and scales which can help people . However, policies such as WP:PRIMARY and WP:V should still apply to maps. Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree that reading a map is not OR. Applying the CALC language is logical and consistent. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: maps, tables, graphs, photographs, audio, video, and other non-prose elements are always in use as reliable sources. They are often primary sources, but is using that information more of OR than using information taken from written text? I don't see that at all. ɱ(talk) 19:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Floydian and others. I don't see the need for a carve-out of primary source maps; WP:PRIMARY legitimates "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" and a great deal of map "interpretation" is unambiguous in this sense. Choess (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose as the proposal is extremely misleading. The proposer claims that the text is adapted from WP:CALC, but that policy page does not mention charts, graphs or maps at all. This proposal is to "move" text, but in fact would add completely new text. While I don't necessarily disagree with the idea, I strongly object to the way it's been presented and feel that this completely disqualifies the proposal. pburka (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said you don't necessarily disagree with the idea, so there is value in continuing the discussion and not just invalidating the opinions of everyone who has already posted for something that is eminently fixable. Can you explain how you would correct the proposal to fix the problem with how you feel it is presented? VC 01:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think any changes to policy are premature at this time. There's clearly debate over the proper use of maps, but I'm unconvinced that WP:NOR is the right place to resolve it. Instead, I recommend someone start by drafting an essay explaining when maps can be considered reliable sources, how to determine if a map is a primary, secondary or tertiary source, and what information can be reasonably derived from a map without original research. The essay should quote existing policies, as I think they're already sufficient, even if they don't explicitly discuss maps. It should avoid carving out special exceptions for maps, even if there might already be local consensus for these carve-outs in some projects. pburka (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the map is a reliable source, then it can be cited in Wikipedia. The question of whether a specific map is a reliable source for specific information in Wikipedia is no different to the use of a book or website as a source and relates to issues like "who created/published it" and why we believe they are to be trusted to provide accurate information about that topic. Kerry (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it is genuinely routine, subject to a much stricter interpretation of "routine" than some seem to be applying here. If you're using the map to give spot heights or names for mountains, that might be genuinely routine. Interpretation of a map, such as giving a textual description of an area based on a general impression gained from contour lines and the like, is OR. I'd add that measuring land areas or distances between two points, even given a scale, is not a routine calculation and is thus OR (because the user may not adequately account for the projection). Kahastoktalk 22:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I consider routine map reading to be using the map the way the publisher or author intended it to be read. Some interactive maps have functions provided to measure lengths and areas. Some paper maps such as a sectional chart have a printed graphical scale on them. If it's well known that chart users, such as pilots for sectional carts, are expected to take distances off the chart, then taking distances off the chart is routine. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CALC forbids calculations that are predicated on "specialized knowledge", which would include the distance information used by pilots. So that is most certainly not routine. JoelleJay (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:CALC specifically says, "Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation". Is mathematical literacy specialized knowledge? Dave (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CALC does not contain the phrase "specialized knowledge"; that phrase occurs in WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. That would seem to say, if read literally, that specialized knowledge could be used to read a map that's considered a secondary source but not a map that's considered a primary source. But I would not consider using a map the way the publisher intended it to be used as involving specialized knowledge. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot possibly be suggesting VFR sectional map analyses used by pilots are "routine calculations"?!?! WTF? JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a detailed flight plan from a sectional would not be routine map reading. Finding the distance between two airports that are on the same chart would be routine map reading. I watch 12-year-olds do it several times per year. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said "using a map the way the publisher intended it" doesn't involve specialized knowledge, which is totally untrue. And if the chart requires one to understand how to find distance data among numerous other symbols it is not routine. The average American adult cannot decipher a section map, and that is the threshold SKYISBLUE operates under. JoelleJay (talk) 05:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not WP:SKYISBLUE, which is about things you don't need to cite, but rather about using something as a source that requires citation. Jahaza (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I meant A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.JoelleJay (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "without further, specialized knowledge" requirement holds up in all situations. For technical topics, It's reasonable to reference technical sources which are specific to the topic. For example, I was recently reading Aperiodic tiling. It cites https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00222-004-0384-1. Surely that's not something which can be understood by "any educated person"; you need to understand a fair bit of math to make any sense of it.
As for the example at hand, if you were writing about an aviation topic, a sectional might well be a reasonable source for a statement like "Rigdon field is a private airport about 10 miles northeast of Dubuque Regional". But it would be a totally inappropriate source for the first sentence of Dubuque, Iowa: "Dubuque ... is ... located along the Mississippi River". -- RoySmith(talk) 17:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One difference is that editors are not stating things as facts based on their own interpretation of a figure in that paper, even if an unmentioned but straightforward (to experts) trivial fact follows from it. But content from a paper isn't really comparable to a sectional map since all the data that are provided in the paper are explained/contextualized within the text, and the figures are only intended to be used to support/illustrate the text. A better example would be citing an AddGene plasmid map for the statement "in [plasmid], the yeast selection marker is located around 5500 bases upstream of the woodchuck hepatitis posttranscriptional regulatory element, which can be excised by isolating the heavier band following digestion with EcoRI and FseI". JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Oppose. Maps are often primary sources. Unlike published paper atlases or road maps where the scale of a map and which details to include have been chosen deliberately and edited for accuracy by human authors, online database-generated maps with continuous spatial resolution have not received such oversight or secondary analysis at every zoom level. The latter group includes the GIS data-rendered dynamic maps from Google et al that are favored by highway projects and used to justify inclusion of arbitrary minutiae such as exact mile markers for individual localities and intersections along a route. Google Maps does not distinguish between cities and tiny non-notable communities (and so the choice for which ones to include on wiki will necessarily involve OR and likely circular referencing, with editors clicking on a Maps locale to bring up the linked wiki article and judging from its contents whether it should be mentioned), and these locations are not visible at every zoom depth; nor does it contain exact distance measurements between points (editors use various extensions for these calculations). For these reasons (not to mention known accuracy issues) the data extracted from such maps are not easily verifiable in the ways excepted by CALC nor are they DUE as they have not received secondary analysis. JoelleJay (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I take it that you support the use of paper maps on Wikipedia then. --Rschen7754 01:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Given that {{cite map}} has a transclusion count of 33,300, this is merely codifying a widespread existing community consensus. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a significant chunk of those are citations to OpenStreetMap (such as at North–South MRT line) which is WP:USERGENERATED and in the process of being removed. In fact its the sheer number of citations which has made the process take so long. Existing citations do not support a consensus of reliability, period. For example Findagrave.com has thousands of current uses and we have a clear consensus that it isn't reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of editors who have used this template indicates that a large number of editors are of the opinion that maps are reliable sources. Semicolon. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you know what consensus on Wikipedia means... in particular, the qualities of "not a vote" and "it can change". JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scott's correct, though: Most of our policies and and guidelines come out of actual practice. If a written page says "Don't do this" and experienced editors have done this in tens of thousands of articles, it's usually the written rule that needs updating (e.g., to "Don't do this unless..."). Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines begins with the words Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practices.... It is not an accident that it says they describe, rather than imposing rules from top-down. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you read what I or HEB or even Scott said. Just because some source has been used thousands of times in the past without the wider community noticing doesn't mean it's within policy, and it certainly doesn't mean a global consensus to eliminate it can't be developed. If "actual practice" was the end-all determinant our policies would've been changed to permit Carlos Suarez's water pump village stubs and the Daily Mail would be an accepted source. JoelleJay (talk) 05:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possible != probable. These articles have been through WP:FAC and have been on the Main Page. Surely somebody would have said something before now. --Rschen7754 06:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People have said something before now, people have said so much which you didn't like on the issue that you wrote a FAQ about it User:Rschen7754/FAQ. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, less than 6 months ago. Road FAs have been running on the Main Page for over 15 years. For a few years, they were doing them once a month until we told them to stop doing that. --Rschen7754 06:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6 months ago is well before now and I highly doubt thats the first time someone brought it up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Coldwell and Neelix generated lots of featured content - but we still kicked them off the site. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that WhatamIdoing did indeed read what I said, because she made precisely the same point I was making (with more links and quotes, which are appreciated). Policy comes second after what the community is actually doing in practice, and it has been that way for at least the last eighteen years I've been here. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some source has been used thousands of times in the past without the wider community noticing doesn't mean it's within policy – actually, it does. If hundreds of experienced editors do something tens of thousands of times, without the other thousands of experienced editors objecting, then that pretty much means that this is the community's policy in actual practice. Policy isn't written words; it's what people frequently do or recommend in a given situation. (Consider: "Honesty is the best policy", which does not mean that the word honesty was written down in a particularly high-quality fashion.) When we have hundreds of editors citing maps, in tens of thousands of articles, then we actually do have a policy of permitting citations to maps.
You are absolutely correct that Wikipedia:Consensus can change. I don't think this one has, or that it will, but if you want to achieve that, then now's probably the best opportunity to form a consensus against the established practice that we're likely to see during the next few years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single person has opposed permitting citations to maps. You are currently commenting in a section about the wording of WP:OR, not about whether or not we are permitted to use maps as sources (we obviously are). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go back to your belief that Existing citations do not support a consensus of reliability. Do you think that the individual editors who added those existing citations, and the individual editors who declined to revert those citations, actually believed that these existing citations were unreliable for the specific claim being supported? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general on wikipedia we WP:AGF. Existing citations do not support a consensus of reliability, there is no policy or guideline which supports that and if someone tried to make that argument at RSN the community would laugh in their face. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a completely different argument, before we were just talking about what editors did now we're only talking about what experienced editors do? Where is the justification for that and where is the line between experienced and unexperienced? Am I a experienced editor? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've been editing for almost five years, with about 40K edits between your current and former accounts. I doubt that anyone would consider you to be an inexperienced editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If something is used extensively by a few editors (or even by many editors), but later on it is determined by consensus that such use is not within policy, then that use is not within policy. Scott is arguing that being used in 30k articles means something is automatically acceptable; HEB and I are pointing out that that argument is incorrect using the example of findagrave, which thousands of inexperienced editors and/or vandals have inserted and continue to insert into articles without having any effect on its designation as non-RS. JoelleJay (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As another example, we used to have lots of BLPs citing The Sun and the Daily Mail. Thankfully, because of a concerted effort, these are all gone, but for years we had thousands of them because people thought them acceptable. Similarly, we used to have tens of thousands of unsourced BLPs; that number is coming down and I'd like to get it to zero. Consensus can change. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 23:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scott is arguing that being used in 30k articles means something is automatically acceptable: I don't think so? Scott can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Scott is arguing that it is evidence of an existing, albeit unwritten, consensus that maps can be reliable sources (in suitable situations). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not automatically acceptable, but the probability of a technique being completely unaccceptable after hundreds of thousands of page views and hundreds of reviewers at the GA, A-Class, and FA levels is not very high. Of course there are exceptions that get a lot of press, they do because they are not what one would expect. See Occam's razor. As I said in my initial statement: Why has this suddenly become an issue worth revert warring over? --Rschen7754 04:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The general point that sources might be in some format other than text seems sensible. For example, in the case of the recent train crash in Greece, a news report was cited and this was a video, not a text article. A reporter explained some details of the signalling system and it did not require OR to understand what was said. Another example would be articles about elections and places which will tend to use tables as sources to report numbers of votes, population sizes and the like.
As for maps, these are bound to be used for geographical topics and common sense applies. For example, see the current FA – Branford Steam Railroad. This includes a map in its infobox which seems to be drawn from Open Street Map. I'm not sure of the technical details but it seems sensible to provide this information in good faith to the reader, just as we might provide photographs of its scenery and features.
Support – I think it's time for WP:OR to explicitly address the use of maps. Maps are sometimes necessary sources for articles about things other than roads, like place names, but these citations can catch an editor by surprise if they're unused to reading or editing road-related articles. I think that's where the addition would have the most positive impact compared to the status quo. "Routine interpretation" in my view is a very literal interpretation. The most I've ever stretched WP:CALC was where I had to group rows in a poorly laid out spreadsheet. In that case, I felt it was necessary for the citation to include step-by-step instructions on reproducing these calculations (using a pivot table), because not everyone is comfortable using their preferred spreadsheet software in that manner. Similarly, a map citation would need to include more detailed instructions as the method of interpretation becomes more ambiguous or error-prone. So if a citation ends up looking like a term paper, that's when you know it's OR and no carefully worded exception in WP:OR would change that fact. – Minh Nguyễn💬 01:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per many others above. It is definitely possible to misuse maps as sources, but it's just as possible to misuse books. That's why we've have policies like OR. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 01:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—We should not make black-and-white determinations of whether a source is original research by its form. There is enough editorial review capacity available to point out and resolve inappropriate interpretation of sources in specific articles and among individual editors or groups of editors. VC 02:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I'd be happy to see "databases" added to the list. Of course, just because non-textual sources are not banned doesn't mean that any given non-textual source is reliable for a particular claim. Textual and non-textual sources should be evaluated on their individual merits, for the specific context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per colleagues above. I think out current guidelines on Original Research and Reliable Sources already handle this. This is a broad carve out (any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables) when editors in these discussions mainly speak about maps for roads. I have no idea what Routine interpretation means, and why it should only apply to non-text media. If routine interpretation is to mean the same way we read and interpolate text sources, then we already have adequate guidelines to cover that. If routine interpretation is to mean something like the example in the proposal below (verifying statements about ground cover), then it is original interpretation and should not be allowed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I think our current guidelines on Original Research and Reliable Sources already handle this." - That's the problem, they don't. If they do, how would one handle a disagreement regarding the reliability of a map? - Floydianτ¢ 03:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the idea, the precise wording can bear some more discussion. In particular, the word "interpretation" unfairly makes it sound like a violation of NOR, but it is only intended in the same sense that reading of a text involves the "interpretation" of inferring meaning from sequences of words. Using the plain meaning of a map is the same as using the plain meaning of a text. On a side issue, some responses tried to identify "primary" maps, but not even the official maps of government survey departments are primary sources. They are expert secondary compilations of information from masses of primary data such as aerial photographs, satellite radar data, physical inspection, etc.. It is not essentially different from the way a historian writes a book based on the primary documents found in archives. Zerotalk 09:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is true except when a dynamic map is generated automatically from a database of GIS objects. No human secondary analysis occurs for any single map location, depth, or layer, and so sites like Google Maps are primary in that sense. Someone being responsible for the code that renders billions of data points into a readable format is not the same as someone deliberately choosing which of those points to represent and personally validating them. JoelleJay (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GIS databases have quality assurance or quality control processes; it's just that these processes don't happen as part of the rendering pipeline. For a strained analogy, it's akin to how the major book publishing houses still employ editors who edit the manuscript ahead of time rather than waiting until the pages are ready to be bound. Minh Nguyễn💬 07:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, as long as the map is reliable like other sources. TaylorKobeRift (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though the wording needs to be tweaked slightly in order to be grammatically correct. As written, the second part of the proviso means that the techniques must be a meaningful reflection of the sources. Indeed, I'm not convinced that any mention of the techniques is necessary; I would suggest provided that there is consensus among editors that it [the interpretation] is a meaningful reflection of the sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per WhatamIdoing. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for observable features. The best example I've seen is at User:Beyond My Ken/Thoughts#Original_research, to paraphrase that, "Describing what occurs in a media artifact, such as a DVD, VHS, CD, LP or book is not original research, as it involves no more original work that the use of information from a reliable source. It is observation not "original research"". So it is not original research to say that "the street appears on John Rocque's Map of London, Westminster, and Southwark, 1746" and citing the map itself. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while reading a map is not original research, there are genuine issues with maps being used for original research which this proposal will make worse. I remember an article about a road which cited the date of the road's construction to two maps. The road was in one of them but not the other, and the article was using that to conclude it must have been built in between the dates on the maps. Right now that's a clear WP:SYNTH violation, but if this were to go in to the policy you could argue that it's a meaningful reflection of the sources and must be fine. Hut 8.5 18:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be using maps to conclude that something was built in the period between two consecutive maps. However, how would you feel if it were "The [something] first appeared on the [x] edition of the annual map"? Do you have any suggestion as to how the proposal should be worded in order to allow but not advocate the use of maps, in line with WP:RS? - Floydianτ¢ 20:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The road first appeared on the X map in year Y" is still synthesis if it's only referenced to editions of X map, because none of the individual maps support the statement that it first appeared on the map in that year. This means the statement is combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not found in any of them. I would be happy if the policy just said something like "Routine interpretation of maps is not original research", but this seems to be going further and promoting a lower standard for maps than we would allow for other sources. Hut 8.5 18:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a too-literal reading of SYNTH. "The 1910 edition of Britannica said X,[ref] but the 1920 edition said Y.[ref]" "Historian A wrote that X happened,[ref] but historian B wrote that Y happened.[ref]" "Physics theory X implies that black holes are blue,[ref] while theory Y implies that they are green.[ref]" None of those statements would be struck down on the NOR noticeboard, becuase all of them are verifiable from the given sources. SYNTH does not say that every sentence must appear in its entirety in a single source. See WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION. Zerotalk 08:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for obvious observable features only. An example, we can say that Mustang, Oklahoma is entirely within the boundaries of Oklahoma City, with a citation to a map, or to perhaps to use cardinal directions to say where something is located in relationship to another location. That said, there are concerns we should clarify before any final wording. We should not use a map to count the number of parks or religious structures in Mustang, or even use a map to determine distance, because that involves either the features of the map or subjective judgment. (forgot to sign) --Enos733 (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this and any proposal that gives editors more freedom to use their own judgement. We need less restrictions, not more. If an editor shows any lack of judgement they will be corrected, and learn or be booted, but more restrictions harm everyone. Huggums537 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support While there is potential for WikiProjects to abuse this, common sense suggests that there are valuable uses of maps in an encyclopedia as as Ritchie discusses, for instance. Rewording to remove the potential for mis-interpretation of the meaning of "interpret" as Floydian notes in their response to Hut 8.5 above, would be valuable. Eddie891TalkWork 22:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Support This is more complicated than it looks, including acknowledging/encompassing the points made by the oppose folks. I'll skip the very long rationale/analysis (plus a few suggested tweaks that can be done later) unless someone asks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Interpreting a map, chart, or graph is no different from consulting a complicated text source. It's a basic skill acquired at an age younger than our presumed audience and widely used to disseminate information to the masses. A real no-brainer. SounderBruce 04:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Proposed wording is not necessary or an improvement. Avilich (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Zero0000 and with the same caveats.—S MarshallT/C 16:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The vagueness of "routine interpretation" (anything we do habitually can be described as routine even when it is a bad habit) and the ability to carve out local exceptions via "consensus among editors" make this far too broad. And describing this as "moved from CALC" is ridiculous. This should not be removed from CALC (so not moved) and CALC is not about map interpretation. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: It doesn't say "moved from CALC". It says "should the following text adapted from calc be moved" Dave (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was my take on it also. I thought it was pretty clear from the context that the original text would remain at CALC while the proposed adaptation would be moved over to NOR. I think "moved" was a poor choice of wording since it kind of implies a different meaning on here. Could be easily confusing. Perhaps "added" would have been more suitable. Huggums537 (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JoelleJay. --JBL (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support And this may be the best of the many. But there are so many proposals that you'll probably need to use the feedback on them (only) to formulated the single final proposal. North8000 (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Open to rewording, but the spirit of this is correct. There are many things for which maps are the only likely sources. Yes, such sources can be mishandled. Almost any source can be mishandled. - Jmabel | Talk 01:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: I don't think it's great. "Any form" seems to be just plain asking for trolls (yes, I'm aware that's in this version, too, it's the thing I like least about this version. And I think the remark about "routine interpretation" is a plus rather than a minus. - Jmabel | Talk 04:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel#Proposal 1: original research also uses "Any form", in the same context; I believe any issues that apply to its use in the alternative proposal would also apply to its use in the main proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have cross-posted, I hope my edit makes me clearer. - Jmabel | Talk 04:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose largely per JoelleJay. I'll also add that even cohesive edited maps put out in editions by reputable publishers (like an official tourism bureau or highways and public works office) there is the potential for there to be a lot of information, with none of it easily weighted in a way which suggests how DUE it is or not. Sure, I could use an official, highly detailed map like this to state that the town of Stantonsburg, North Carolina is connected by a highway to the nearby city of Wilson. But the map offers no suggestion of the significance of this connection between the smaller town and the larger city. Using the same basic "interpretive" criteria (a highway connection from point A to point B), Stantonsburg is also connected by a highway to the nearby small town of Kenly. So using our agreed upon basic interpretive criteria, do we mention all such direct highway connections and thus look like a compilation of transport trivia? Or do we use our subjective judgement to decide that only "major" connections are worth mentioning, and thus drift into OR? I've seen lots of unsourced economic boosterism in local town articles that attempt to brag that a charming little village is "not that far" from insert major tourist destination/economic hub. This has been easily resolved by removal of the unsourced claims, or by finding something like a newspaper article which actually explains the social/cultural/economic relationship between two different places which can be found on the same map. But with this new criteria, I foresee a whole bunch of such nonsense being declared fine in the future because someone dropped a state highway map in between some ref tags. In summary, I think this will just create a litany of WP:DUEness problems and a bunch of subtle OR. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal has nothing to do with DUE. DUE is an aspect of NPOV, not an aspect of NOR. Zerotalk 05:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because DUE is not the exact guideline/policy being altered does not mean that altering the OR rules would not have a negative effect on DUEness in articles. I see DUE and OR as relatively interconnected. Per my argument above, determining what is DUE when citing maps leads to greater risk for subjectivity than citing text or more traditionally sources, and thus potential OR issues. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: translation is not OR, and that is essentially what reading a map entails: translating a map into plaintext. HouseBlastertalk 02:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maps are a perfectly valid way of transcribing a lot of information - so long as the source is reliable, I don't see how it's any different to using any other source. Turnagra (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unfortunately the number of opposes shows that this isn't common sense to everyone. --GRuban (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: maps can be very good sources. Translation and routine calculation are appropriate analogies. It is uncontroversial conversion of information from one format to another. — Bilorv (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The proposed text I can understand being fine with in theory, but in practice I agree with the opposers above on the host of issues produced, whether SYNTH issues or undue weight or treating them as authoritative when they are very much not (the list of issues with OpenStreetMaps, or Google Maps creating nonsense neighborhoods, etc.) They contain all the potential pitfalls of written reliable sources and compound them. Some of these shortcomings are very much manifest now in articles, and I absolutely don't want to give carte blanche to increase those problems. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 21:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could this not be mitigated by application of existing policy? OpenStreetMap is excluded as a reliable source regardless of the results of this RfC due to its nature as user-generated content, and arguably Google Maps falls into the same classification. XAM2175(T) 10:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reflects existing practice. --Jayron32 12:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Aside from the WP:V and WP:SYNTH issues noted above, I would like to add that sources like Google Maps have historically had terrible coverage of certain regions. In particular, IP edit justified the claim that the concrete border slab in Conference Row in the Joint Security Area - the de facto border between North and South Korea - was actually in South Korea with the source "see Google Maps". Even today Google shows the border incorrectly likely due to a lower-resolution line. Compare to [8] which shows the border correctly but is a user-generated source.Google Maps data was also essentially frozen in Korea from 2015 to around 2022 with several major infrastructure projects constructed in the interim never added during that timeframe. That's on top of mapping issues in mainland China. Mfko (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is duly noted. I'd argue this is a much bigger issue than maps. Due to the strict control over information in this region, reliable sources, of any type, are scarce. This exact mistake could have just as easily have happened from citing a propaganda article about newly reclaimed territory. Were that to happen, the edit would similarly likely be reverted on similar grounds of "due to strict government control on information, this information should be treated with skepticism." Dave (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "interpretation" of sources is exactly what this guideline was established to prevent. A source can only be used if the content is directly supported by the source without requiring interpretation. (t · c) buidhe 05:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are supposed to summarize sources, not directly copy what they say. I would argue that one cannot summarize a source without also interpreting it. Dave (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this statement 100%. We have to interpret all sources to be able to understand them, and then reinterpret them yet again to be able to distribute the information to our readers. Our rules about interpretation, OR, and others are taken way too anally by way too many editors. Huggums537 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have two problems here WP:OR and WP:NPOV. If no text source made the conclusion that we want to include in the article then one of the two its untrue(original research) or that its clearly WP:UNDUE if this conclusion was notable or true it would be noted by sources --Shrike (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose There are two serious problems here, intertwined. Both of them arise from the same issue: what information, exactly, is to be gotten through the reading of maps? In fact, the reliability of maps as sources for various kinds of information is a known issue. Our experience with GNIS, which you can read about here, shows that even the map makers themselves are not that great at some kinds of interpretation, and we have spent years now getting rid of spurious towns shown on the maps. On the larger scale, the US international gazetteer is plagued with spurious villages and towns entered from sources that fail validation against aerial photography and the like. I think that maps and the like are excellent ways to depict information, but as sources the necessity of interpretation and the iffy reliability of the documents argues strongly against using them as sources. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been my experience that many such named settlements on topo maps or the GNIS database were rail sidings or temporary mining or construction camps. As such, I don't think it's wrong for a detailed map to list them. There are legit reasons for wanting to know where abandoned mining camps were. As an example, it's a safety issue to drive around areas where abandoned mines dot the landscape, without knowing where they are. What is wrong is to assume something is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia article based on that data point alone. I'm well aware that hundreds of such articles were created. While unfortunate, I see the solution as education and guidelines about how to use a source, not barring the source.Dave (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: reading a map is hardly original research; it's just interpreting information that is presented in a non-textual, but very common, format. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - whether or not there is consensus that specific data that is cited from a map is reliable for each individual case is key here. There is plenty of data that is easily interpretable from maps that nobody is going to dispute. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes sense to me, this reflects the basic practice from what I've seen. Dr vulpes(💬 • 📝) 18:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I have written a few dozen GAs and one FA about geographical features, nearly all of which had maps among their citations, and I have never had somebody raise this issue. I have also failed GA reviews for relying on maps in a way that I thought constituted synthesis or original research. I do not think that using maps as sources is an issue: doing synthesis or original research is an issue. There are already policies that prohibit you from doing this; maps are hardly the only type of source where it's possible to do this. jp×g 07:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, partly with the same reasoning as JoelleJay. I also am concerned about what seems to be a misleading way of introducing new policy text saying it is being moved from CALC if the text is not as written in CALC. However, to me it really boils down to me not seeing a reason for this being necessary and opening up the possibility of it being used to wikilawyer. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 13:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though ideally restrict to more trustworthy and mainstream maps, which while not completely immune to fraud, are usually trustworthy. A liberalization on this front can also help expand various articles on smaller towns. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, either version. I have no objection with expanding the spirit of WP:CALC (i.e. if something says "100 miles", we can say "161 kilometres" without a brand new source, because it's obvious to verify) to include other sorts of non-text information. Sceptre (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The analogy to routine calculations is apt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - At best this is WP:CREEP, at worst this opens the door to a lot of "interpreting" of maps to see things that aren't there. The part about other authors is fine but let's keep in mind that most of the time this gets disputed there are 2-3 editors involved, one of whom is convinced that their interpretation is the correct one. FOARP (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, but prefer the alternative proposal. Nosferattus (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as something that I have been doing for years. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the many reasonas given above. Like most primary sources, we should be using secondary sources to both interpret the information correctly and establish due weight. –dlthewave☎ 01:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, while noting that "routine" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here and that WP:WEIGHT is still relevant. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 11:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information.BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not proposing this yet, but I think cutting down the proposed text to this would both address the concerns of the oppose !voters and align with the rationales of most of the support !voters; it would explicitly and appropriately permit the use of such sources, but it could not be misinterpreted to support original research.BilledMammal (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As editors have started voting on this, I will propose it; Support, as it addresses the concerns of the opposition editors, without detracting from what I understand to be the purpose of this change, which is to make it clear that maps can be used as sources when such use is compliant with policy. Pinging editors who have !voted on proposal one above; if I have missed anyone, please ping them. BilledMammal (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would Support this version over the original wording, given that unlike the original, this version does not give the (unintentional) impression that maps are to be treated as following different rules than other reliable sources. Which is one way to satisfy the requirement I laid out above. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This looks much more unobjectionable than the main proposal 1. No carve-outs for "routine" interpretation and "consensus among editors", just the obvious statement that maps can be sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but add audio and video as well. Medium does not matter, what matters is authorship, editors, publishers, etc. ɱ(talk) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove entire section to the talk page, properly workshop it there before bringing it back—there are issues with this proposal still, like how you can vote on something that wasn't proposed, and now a request for an addition to this. In short, it' premature and shouldn't be here until it's ready. Barring that, strong oppose in this format. Imzadi 1979→ 23:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. However I still feel that this makes more sense in WP:SOURCETYPES than in WP:NOR. The first policy describes what constitutes a reliable source, which is really what this proposal is about. No original research is about how we use sources. Agree with Imzadi1979 that this process has been irregular. pburka (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is subject to wikilawyering and does not address the original question about whether interpreting, translating, choose your favorite word a map is OR. It needs to be in the OR policy. --Rschen7754 00:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question: what becomes of the existing votes cast while this was a draft proposal but not an actual proposal? Do they convert to votes for the proposal, or should those people re-cast their votes? Also, the original proposal was for a clarification to added to WP:NOR. Presumably this is as well, but shouldn't that be explicitly stated? As currently stated people are voting on text with no explicit indication of what will be done with this text. Dave (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note we now have votes for the draft proposal being mixed together with votes for the proposal.Dave (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would just interpret them as !votes; that interpretation is in fact why I converted this to a full proposal, as I was under the impression people had already started !voting on it. However, I have pinged the editors who made those !votes, so if I am incorrect they can alter their !votes. I've also explicitly stated what this is proposing, as you suggest. BilledMammal (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So just to confirm, we now have votes mixed together from 3 different wordings of proposal 1a. The solution is to assume their votes for the 1st or 2nd wording still apply to the third unless we hear differently. I agree with Imzadi's oppose rational, this should have been proposed on a draft page and then added here once the wording was finalized.Dave (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first and second versions were identical; the only difference between them was that I struck my initial comment. The third version is almost identical, with the only addition being a repeat of most of the preamble of proposal one, which was already implied by the description of this as an alternative to that proposal. Regardless, Imzadi oppose is a procedural one and likely carries little weight; do you also oppose this? BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Among the text deleted between revs 1 and 2 was the phrase "This is not....." which surely caused many people to say "ok well if it's not, nothing to see here, move along" Rev3 now has something to see. So I disagree the changes were that innocent. Regarding the proposal itself: I don't understand why we'd have a proposal to amend the OR policy with something that says nothing about what OR is or isn't. With the new wording I'd argue it would be more appropriate for WP:RS or WP:V.Dave (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the diff? I don't remember deleting any text? BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough the actual text removed was "I'm not proposing this yet, but..." Still surely people thought "OK, so it's not, move along", whereas now, "it is". The point is still valid. Dave (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember removing any text. Are you referring to my struck comment? That wasn't part of the proposal, and regardless I've pinged all the editors who contributed to the first proposal so I don't see how that can be an issue. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, I am 100% okay with my hypothetical !vote being converted to an actual one. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is ridiculous to think that that the "No original research" policy would encourage OR. I would like to hear how exactly @BilledMammal: thinks Proposal 1 would do this before I !vote. --Rschen7754 00:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources. is vague and can be wikilawyered. We've already seen this below, where some editors have argued that using satellite imagery as described in #Proposal 2b: image layers would be permitted by the original proposal one, despite an emerging consensus that doing so would be OR. BilledMammal (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support equally with the original version. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose given that there appears to be an intent to move such a statement out of the NOR policy entirely, which leads to why the RFC was started in the first place. --Rschen7754 00:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As proposed, the text is in the NOR policy. Would you support it conditional on it being implemented as proposed? BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Such a bland statement (so bland that it could go in a different policy) is going to lead to more wikilawyering that anything beyond "the purple line meets the pink line at A7" is OR. --Rschen7754 01:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this version is to modify the OR policy with something that no longer says anything about what is or is not OR. This may be a valid addition to a policy, but I'd argue better suited for WP:V or WP:RS, meaning it's now a separate RFC. Dave (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove entire section to talk page to be workshopped. This proposal was floated as "not a proposal" until the editor decided it was a proposal (without due diligence per WP:BEFORERFC) after others started voting on it. This same editor is inappropriately workshopping a new version of closed Proposal 4 immediately above the closed Proposal 4. VC 01:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Start withWT:OR. Two open discussions where people opined an RFC was needed was clarified, currently numbered 4 and 11 in the TOC. It's also come up at GAC's and AFD's for a few articles (though I'd have to dig to find them). Dave (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11 is just the announcement of this discussion, and 4 only appears tangentially related to this proposal; it is a discussion about the creation of maps for use on Wikipedia and how they should be sourced, not the use of maps as sources in general.
I am not able to see any discussion on this topic in line with WP:BEFORERFC. I also note that you and two other editors collaborated to draft the RfC; can you link the page where you coordinated this effort? BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the one I was looking for. [10] Note: I updated this link. It was on the talk page, not the user page. My apologies.Dave (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion relates to this proposal; that does include some of the content related to this, although the forum was very isolated. Thank you for providing it. As I requested above, can you link the page where you coordinated to draft this? BilledMammal (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no one page. All of the relevant discussion occurred in the latter half of 2022, in discussions as watched as WT:OR and as unnoticed as an RFD for some random, long forgotten stub. I've linked to some, to find them all I'd literally have to pull up talk pages of now deleted articles. I hope what I provided is enough to provide the background. If not, I can honestly say it felt like warring factions in the worst moments. A common theme in those discussions was Wikipedia policy is virtually silent on non-text sources and their acceptable use. The two most common arguments were: "are maps a primary source?", which was usually resolved in the discussion itself, and "is map reading OR?". The implications of non-text sources to OR policy seemed to be the more complicated question. A number of RFC's were proposed, some as specific as the one I linked above, others as vague as a one sentence "we need an RFC that asks about x" as part of a sourcing discussion. All that arguing seemed to stop sometime early January 2023. I guess everybody just got tired of arguing. However, what continued to happen is people would ask something like, "what happened with that maps debate we had last December?" The answer would be something like, "I don't know, but someone needs to do it [start the RFC] because it surely will come up again". Finally I just thought, "fine I'll be that guy who rips off the band-aid." This specific wording came from Rschen7754, who has a number of essays, rants, and questions on this subject in his userspace. I reworded proposal1, and asked for opinions on the re-word privately. But the changes were not discussed publicly. In hindsight, I probably should have used Onel's draft, as it was the most discussed. You can flog me for that if you'd like. Honestly, I was sick of hearing "the discussion died, but somebody needs to do something, because it's going to come up again". Dave (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moabdave: When you say “asked for opinions on the re-word privately” can you explain what forum you asked in, and which editors you asked/are members of that forum?
Would you also be willing to post any discussions you had there, so that the rest of us can understand the full background to this proposal? BilledMammal (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SupportBut there are so many proposals that you'll probably need to use the feedback on them (only) to formulated the single final proposal.North8000 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The issues in the original proposal arise from that second sentence as even some of the supporters of the original proposal acknowledge. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support BilledMammal's quote "make it clear that maps can be used as sources when such use is compliant with policy" however it is done. I just did basic homework and found that there is already a Template:Cite map so people have already decided that a map can be a RS (I've been using Cite book for years). Have to go below and see what it can source. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support This a fine summary of existing policy and I don't see why anything more is needed. Zerotalk 08:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to this but the original research policy probably isn't the best place for it. Hut 8.5 08:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this, but do share concerns raised by some of the opposers about anything getting removed from NOR. I also like Ɱ's idea to add audio and video to the list. Huggums537 (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This alternate form of words doesn't belong in the WP:NOR policy as it doesn't address the issue of OR at all. And introducing such an alternative seems quite disruptive to the RfC, turning it into a trainwreck or camel. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to see this proposal as anything but an attempt to muddy the water. --In actu (Guerillero)Parlez Moi 11:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do a straw poll excluding non-participants when this is over, problem solved. Avilich (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the phrase "source information" in the alternative to proposal 1, because it can be taken to mean information about the source, that is, information that is put in a citation. I suggest the following rewording:
Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information.
Information in sources does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to support claims in articles.
Oppose "Any form of information" is way too broad, and I see such a provision being easily gameable by claiming some random thing is a "form of information". See above for my specific objections on prolific use of maps. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, mostly as an alternative to the 1st proposal, it's not unacceptable but it would belong better on WP:RS. Avilich (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless proposal 1 fails, in which case support. What I think is most important to clarify is that reading a map, if done properly, is not automatically original research just by the mere fact that it is reading a map. This version doesn't do a whole lot to make that explicit. It's better than nothing, but not by much. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'oppose for the same reasons as I gave for the first proposal. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The main alternative is better, and clearer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Better than proposal 1 - Good in as much as it is a restatement of what is already policy. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This version is better than the original proposal, IMO. Nosferattus (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - Not opposed to what it says, but we're talking about text for the NOR policy (not V or RS), and this doesn't address the typical NOR conversations on the subject. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 11:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maps cited in articles should follow the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. When dynamic map applications (such as Google Maps or an ArcGIS website) are referenced, and when supported by the application, the URL used in the citation should link directly to an overview of the relevant object(s) rather than to the main page of the application.
Maps should only be used to cite statements that can be verified using the map. For example, contour lines on a topographic map can be used to reference statements about topography, but a statement such as "Washington D.C. is the most populous city on the Potomac" cannot be fully verified using a map that does not contain any information about population.
Support—again, we allow foreign language sources to be translated by editors and used as source material. This would allow a visual source to be similarly translated, for what it visualizes, and cited as a source in an article. Basic map-reading skills are part of elementary school-level curricula in the United States, and those skills are probably taught at a similar age level in other countries. Thus, the skills needed to translate these sources may be more universal than that needed to translate foreign language texts. Imzadi 1979→ 06:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I stated above - not every map is reliable, just like not every newspaper is reliable or every book is reliable. But some certainly are. Maps should not be treated differently in this regard, either way. --Rschen7754 07:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see this proposal as just a reaffirmation that maps are not different from any other source and are subject to the same guidelines. If it is thought that this is unnecessary, that is fine by me. I hope that people can understand why it was proposed, given the vitriol of some of the other opposes. --Rschen7754 00:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose the use of dynamic map applications as a WP:V violation; static links must be provided to allow verification of the information, and if static links cannot be provided then the source is inappropriate to use. BilledMammal (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The access-date is the static information. If the dynamic map can't verify the data sourced to it, then the article is out of date. - Floydianτ¢ 14:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About if static links cannot be provided then the source is inappropriate to use: This is not an existing rule for any other type of source. What's special about a map website that makes you want to impose this rule on them alone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose generally, per Horse Eye's Back. BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I don’t think the use of dynamic mapping services as sources should be encouraged (or even allowed). Their content changes unpredictably, and if I’m not mistaken, there’s no way to link to a specific place at a specific time on Google Maps – only a specific place at the most recent available time. That makes them inherently unreliable. I’m happy to support if the sentence about dynamic maps is removed though, since maps published in atlases etc. don’t have that issue. Justin Kunimune (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's an mis-definition here. "Dynamic" in the context of maps means the scale is adjustable, not that the content changes, per se. When linking to Google Maps, you can link to a specific location at a specific scale. The Michigan Department of Transportation has a dynamic mapping application called the Next Generation Physical Reference Finder, and it has fixed data sets within it. It's dynamic because you can also zoom in and out to adjust the scale being viewed. In other words, these are the opposite of fixed-scale paper maps or the digital copies of such fixed-scale maps. Imzadi 1979→ 15:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers (7th ed., 2009) specifically endorses Google Earth. Also as a person who trains for search and rescue with the Civil Air Patrol, both on the ground and in the air, I believe the use of paper maps is diminishing so rapidly that there is no alternative to dynamic online maps. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maps are generally reliable in showing information, whether is is a paper map/atlas or an online map such as Google Maps. Dough4872 14:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A dynamic map is cited with an access-date. If someone looks at the source and finds it contentious, they can tag it as such. The article is cited to the map as it appeared on the access-date, much as a website is cited as it appeared on the access-date. Every website is dynamic. - Floydianτ¢ 14:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Floydian. I just wanted to point out that ArcGIS data sets are not necessarily dynamic but how they are displayed is. Often times, the data will have a version date. –Fredddie™ 15:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I have some concerns about and when supported by the application, as it will likely be used as an excuse not to provide a proper link. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is doesn't belong in WP:OR. Rather, it belong in WP:RS as it describes when maps should be considered reliable sources. pburka (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this actually appears to be an end run around OR by using a broad statement that actually includes most OR. For example "For example, contour lines on a topographic map can be used to reference statements about topography" appears to oversell how it could be used, 90% of statements about topography are too complicated to source to a topographic map... Those actually are OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Topographic map reading is course taught in schools for a few different programs ranging from civil engineering, surveying, to wilderness survival. I understand the concern, yes this technique can be misused. Any source can be misused. However, if someone is using techniques taught in school courses on the subject, I don't see how that is OR. Dave (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with how to read a topographic map, I am also familiar with soil maps, GIS, nautical charts, etc. Doesn't all original research use techniques taught in school courses on the subject? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading a book is also a technique taught in school. Rschen7754 18:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is the solution to ban books? Or publish guidelines on the proper use of books? The problem isn't the source, it's the misuse of the source. That is the same for books or maps. Dave (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The solution you are proposing is to change the definition of OR entirely... "if someone is using techniques taught in school courses on the subject, I don't see how that is OR" would be a completely different conception of OR than we've used for the past 20 years or so. It would legitimize almost everything which is currently categorized as original research. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back, I'm not sure that I understand your statement that 90% of statements about topography are too complicated to source to a topographic map. Do you mean 90% of the statements that some editor might (incorrectly) claim is on the map, or 90% of the things that you could (correctly) identify from such a map yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess that puts us in a funny position... I'm not sure I understand your question, what do you mean by statements on the map? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that an editor could cite a map to support statements like these:
San Francisco is in California. (political map of the state)
Do you think that 90% of the statements an editor would like to put in an article, and would claim are supported by a topographical map, would be wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That first one is more blue sky and most likely doesn't need a source at all. That second one seem to be a personal judgement on what is steep or not, a statement like "the northern section of Lombard Street has a 35% grade" would be ok but the personal analysis isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A 35% grade would normally be described, in simple English, as "steep".
You have said above that 90% of statements about topography are too complicated to source to a topographic map. Can you give me some examples of some statements about topography that you believe are too complicated to source to a topographic map? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Steep is a relative term not an absolute one, it always involves a value judgement. Thats not a summary of the source, its an extrapolation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that depends on the context of the article. For example, if the context is highways in the Interstate Highway System, the permissible design standard is 6%. And one can use the contour lines of a topographical map to compute if a grade is in excess of 6%. Dave (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except they can't because that would be OR. You could calculate the grade and say what the grade is but you can't go that additional step further by inserting an opinion which doesn't appear in the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really an opinion? I'd call it "a description".
I am still hoping that you can give me some examples of some statements about topography that you believe are too complicated to source to a topographic map. I believe you said 90% of them would be, so this should be an easy request for you to fulfill? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Japanese artillery positions were generally positioned in defilade along the ridge line" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of a map do you imagine for this source? A modern-day topographical map that say nothing about artillery positions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Military topographical maps will contain relevant features such as artillery batteries, pillboxes, bridges, etc. Presumably this is a map of a significant historical battlefield published by a reputable academic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking at a military topographical map, and it contains relevant features such as artillery batteries, with a label up at the ridge line that says something like "Japanese artillery positions behind these rocks", then I don't think that saying that there were Japanese artillery positions there would be considered "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no label on the ridge line which says that, this map is not annotated in that way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a straightforward case of failing verification: a source that says nothing about Japanese artillery placement can't be cited to support a statement about Japanese artillery placement. There is nothing about this that is specific to maps. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The positions are on the map, but nothing says that they're in defilade (thats the topographic bit). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I know about Enfilade and defilade is less than what that article says, but I still don't see why this is specific to maps. The editor says something that isn't in the source. Why should "saying something not in the cited map" different from "saying something not in the cited newspaper article"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The information is in the source if one knows how to interpret it, in the same way that "The author possesses a deep sexual fascination with torture" or "the author is racist" could be an expert interpretation of a text source. Neither can be added to the article because they contravene our original research policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't derail the discussion with kink shaming. –Fredddie™ 01:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cringe takes on Cold War era torture in South America are not kink related although I guess there hasn't been any work on it from that angle so I can't guarantee that its not but I don't think it is. I also think thats highly disrespectful to those who practice torture as a kink, it the exact opposite of torture in the real world and there is *plenty* of research on that. Don't equate consensual torture with nonconsensual torture, I damn sure know I wasn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least you're consistent about not appreciating something with nuance. Wikipedia policies, jokes, it's all in black and white. As I suggested here, the people who don't write articles sure do want to impose their strict interpretation of said policies on those who do write articles. Those people lack nuance, too, so it all makes sense. –Fredddie™ 02:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, that was a joke? You made a rape joke on a noticeboard? Dude, no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike that gross insinuation. You know full well I did not say that. –Fredddie™ 03:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Washington is the most populous city on the potomac" is, ironically, the only part of these two paragraphs that I could cite to a map while complying with WP:V. Citing your personal interpretation of contour lines is a good way to commit WP:OR, and citing to a website where the available data changes without notice and is then lost forever, like google maps, is a terrible idea. Meanwhile population size can be cited to most large atlases without issue. I'm quite confident something like the TIMES atlas of the world lists population sizes for major cities plus original source and date of census, and would be admissible as an RS. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the inclusion of Google Maps. As mentioned by other users, Google Maps is too ephemeral to use as a lasting citation. It is also unreliable – I frequently see errors on Google Maps, including the locations of towns and the paths of roads, and it has a lot of user-generated content. I've found it especially unreliable outside the US. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 18:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to provide an example of such an application, not necessarily endorsing a specific product. --Rschen7754 18:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then can we either provide an example that's more reliable, or omit the example? If we put the proposed text in a policy page, editors will inevitably interpret it as an endorsement of Google Maps's reliability. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest? I think that if we just said "dynamic map applications" that would result in confusion given some of the comments at the bottom. Rschen7754 23:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an example in mind. It should be something that's reliable, not based on inadequately vetted user-generated content, and has enough stability (or can be archived) so that one editor can add it as a source and another editor can check that source months or years later. If we can't think of a dynamic map application for which that's true, then the policy page probably shouldn't encourage editors to cite dynamic map applications as sources. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 03:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Interactive" would be a less confusing description than "dynamic" in this case. Minh Nguyễn💬 08:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh Google Maps is neither as good or as bad as people are claiming, above. However, it has a strong western bias. I would rather people use a country's equivalent of a quarter quadrangle or a yearly tourist map first --GuerilleroParlez Moi 19:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There are pros and cons - I have found that Google Maps is not as reliable outside the West, however it is more likely to be updated quickly after something changes, and there is the accessibility factor to editors. I am in the process of buying foreign road atlases, but some are just not available in the US (i.e. Brazil) - not to mention the financial commitment, including international shipping. What I don't want to do is put in a preference, because a preference turns into a black-and-white matter. --Rschen7754 19:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (nom) Dave (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dynamic map services can be reliable but not always easily citable. Some dynamic map services (like Google Maps) do provide a way to get a URL to return you to a specific view. Others don't and you can only cite the entrypoint URL, but so long as the coords are present, it is usually easy to go to the correct area and load the layer that supplies the relevant information (e.g. contours, watercourses, etc), but that does assume you have some familiarity with the layers that the map service uses (there are over 1000 layers in the dynamic map service my government provides for my state ranging from school catchments to surface mining leases). Certainly the template Cite map seems to be intended for maps published in books and not dynamic map services. I think having a template for dynamic maps (generally and/or specifically) with parameters for coords, layers, etc would help both the contributor and the reader when citing dynamic maps. Kerry (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. I don't necessarily object to something much stricter than this. But interpreting topography from contour lines, for example, is a clear example of OR as we have always understood it. What this is describing is vague and open to huge abuse. And besides that you can't use several of these kinds of online mapping services as citations because they do not have a permanently-citable form. Kahastoktalk 22:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Sources should be reliable sources" and "Sources should only be used to cite what the source says" is not exactly groundbreaking stuff. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Regarding the first paragraph, I support the use of deeplinks/permalinks. The issue with Google Maps is not so much that it's dynamic but rather that its editorial practices perhaps aren't as transparent as folks would like. For example, I can only prove circumstantially that Google Maps in Vietnamese uses Wikidata labels verbatim on its labels for non-major cities, without any quality control. (Compare e.g. [11] with this edit.) Yet it can be shown (again circumstantially) that this is not the case with its English labels. Similarly, Google Maps has incorporated a significant amount of user-generated POI data through its Map Maker and Local Guides programs, but it isn't isolated to a particular geography. If we can't reasonably distinguish the raw user-generated content from the vetted content, then citing Google Maps indiscriminately is rather like citing a news aggregator or a news organization that doesn't clearly label its opinion editorials. This limitation is not shared by every dynamic map service.
The second paragraph espouses a sound principle, but it could include a better example. A more direct example would be to say that "Washington, D.C. has a population of ####" based on the label "Washington (pop. ####)" on the map. At least in North America, many conventional paper maps include elevation, population, or other captions in place labels, or symbolize places differently based on size categories.
Regardless, I agree with pburka that this proposal on the whole constitutes advice on reliable sourcing, not drawing a line about original research.
Oppose, while the concept that sources should be used to cite what they say is correct, the examples show how tricky this is. Editors should not be making broad statements about topography based on contour lines. Perhaps identifying high and low points, but going further necessitates more personal interpretation. On the other hand, describing population from a map could be trivial, or it could be interpretation, depending heavily on what exactly is being said and what is on the map. CMD (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: would this proposal advise editors to link out to maps without the equivalent of a permanent link? That's asking for trouble as we're building Wikipedia for the long term. Buildings, roads, and even some geographical features will change. We need to be able to verify those changes and other information now and in the future, whether it's to check citation integrity or write about a historical event. Unfortunately, we do not currently have a way to systematically archive map links/figure out which ones are functionally dead for our purposes like InternetArchiveBot. Using access dates, as one editor suggested above, instead of solving the fundamental verification issue here merely sets us up for a major future link rot problem. If I'm missing something here, e.g. if we are able to archive stable URLs that show what a map looked like at a specific time, please let me know. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy that says that sources used must be able to be archived? I feel that this is a requirement much stricter than policy requires. --Rschen7754 02:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See e.g. RoySmith's and Licks-rocks's words in #General comments as well. Not being able to verify this information, theoretically* as soon as the edit is saved, is a fundamental problem that goes against the spirit of WP:V. I'm not aware of any policies require archivability, Rschen7754, but I wonder if that's because we haven't really contemplated this. (Wikipedia:Link rot doesn't have anything to say about such a scenario!) *Theoretically though not practically.Ed[talk][majestic titan] 02:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I hope you realize what a significant shift in sourcing policy that would be. Forget about maps - many webpages coded as a single-page application (including many government-run applications) simply are not compatible with Archive.org, including just about any tool driven by a database where data is dynamically generated. I also suspect that Archive.org has a file size limit, at least I hope they would if they have competent programmers. --Rschen7754 00:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rschen7754: It would be great to know how often those sorts of pages are cited; I don't believe I've encountered this in practice. To your second point, Archive.org is not the only web archiving tool in existence. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 00:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: I think it's becoming rarer for websites to contain large amounts of data that can't be pointed to with a direct link, but I've seen this a great deal. It used to be the case (maybe still is?) for any UK TV viewership data, sourced to BARB, and many references contain direct instructions like "Select date range 1970-01-01 to 1970-01-08; select Channel 4" and so on. Indeed I imagine there has been a lot of link rot from this since the website's 2020 redesign (although the information should still be somewhere on the website). — Bilorv (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Appreciate the thoughts. I might point out that as described BARB is at least searchable in the end, even if the exact steps have changed, while something like Google Maps will change without anyone being the wiser. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 03:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that, too, but a Google variant does. First: free for MacBook.
Google has "Google Earth Pro" which saves historic satellite views, with dates and whih satellite took it. It is marked "Earth" in the little menu.
You need a computer with a desktop, I guess the program itself is big.
Anyway, I hope anybody finds it. (And this is near impossible to edit, at least for me).Sammy D III (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out here that google licenses those satellite images, and there is zero guarantee that those images are to always stay the same as the images that were available in the most recent map window for the year from which they are sourced. I'm also curious how accurate to the time of imaging the roads are on the older map windows. --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, many ArcGIS maps are powered by underlying databases that do include timestamps and can be downloaded as shapefiles from stable URLs. I'm not sure if the Wayback Machine is systematically slurping down the various datasets available on ArcGIS Hub yet, but that would be quite beneficial. Hopefully there's no requirement that a citable source be in a file format that browsers can view natively; that would more or less rule out PDFs too... Minh Nguyễn💬 07:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mxn: I haven't said anything about that! Notably, PDFs are stable revisions of a work that can be downloaded, hosted, and/or archived. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 16:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: Sure, my point is that some GIS-based maps have all these qualities, if not moreso. The archiving difficulty with certain commercial services like Google Maps is an artificial product limitation, not a technical one. Minh Nguyễn💬 17:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PDFs are supported by Archive.org (though I don't know if there is a size limit). But anything where JavaScript or some other framework like Angular is dynamically pulling in data (say, in JSON or XML) is just not technically possible without a lot of work. I don't think anything that comes as the result of a HTML form is supported either. --Rschen7754 00:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's Google's choice not to provide its maps in a more durable format. This choice shouldn't reflect upon other services, some of which do "show their work" durably. Minh Nguyễn💬 03:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Maps should follow WP:RS just like other sources and should only be used to cite statements that can be verified using the map. I have no reservations about non-dynamic maps that are used correctly. However, the dynamic maps part is the weakest part of the proposal, and we should explore further how they should be used and cited after this RfC is over. VC 02:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The issues of sticking to what the source says and allowing for changes to the source apply to any kind of source, not just maps. The proposed addition seems excessive detail contrary to WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as unnecessary; the wording in Proposal 1 plus the existing policies and guidelines are sufficient. Giving examples focuses too much attention on the examples themselves rather than on the principles they are trying to embody. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Oppose as unnecessary; the wording in Proposal 1 ... [is] sufficient" - this is contradictory - Floydianτ¢ 03:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not contradictory at all. I support proposal 1 and, while I agree with the overall spirit of proposals 2 and 3, I don't believe there is a need to codify them; i.e. I oppose because they are IMO unnecessary WP:CREEP. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are multiple aspects to this, Maps cited in articles should follow the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. is completely unnecessary as everything used as a source should follow the reliable source guidelines. When dynamic map applications [..] are referenced [...] the URL used in the citation should link directly to an overview of the relevant object(s) rather than to the main page of the application. this is just a best practice guideline and is already covered by general guidelines to link to the specific part of a source where relevant and possible. Maps should only be used to cite statements that can be verified using the map. is redundant to general sourcing practices - if a map is used as a source for something it doesn't show then relevant statement has failed verification in exactly the same way as if it had been a textual source. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The general purpose of the proposal is to codify that maps are equally valid sources as text, so long as they follow the information the map intends to impart. - Floydianτ¢ 03:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose including this text. I agree with Thryduulf on this. It would help if Proposal 1 was more clear that all of the rules about citing text sources apply equally to citing maps. We shouldn't be giving the impression that texts and maps have different rules. Zerotalk 12:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. How would you like to see the wording? - Floydianτ¢ 03:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as scope creep. As covered in WP:SPS - "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources." and referenced in User:Uncle G/On notability. So you can use Google Maps to say "Charlie's Hard Brexit And Chips Shop is located at 123 Farage Street, Boston, Lincs" but it no book or newspaper sources mention the location anywhere, we should wonder why it's important to mention it in a general purpose encyclopedia. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The use of dynamic maps is no different from many dynamic websites and sources already used widely across Wikipedia, including in scrutinized areas such as BLPs and higher assessment levels. It is comparable to citing a table of sports statistics, demographic information, or timetables that are expected to change on a more frequent basis. Yes, there are concerns about long-term archiving, but finding solution for each case (as not all dynamic maps have the same issues) would be preferable to banning an entire type of source. SounderBruce 04:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much detail (WP:CREEP) and belongs on RS, not OR. Avilich (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Dynamic map sources that have no way to access the same version as the one referenced fail WP:V. Their use as sources should not be encouraged. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Licks-rocks. --JBL (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per my discussion above and below (and my !vote for 2b was intended to apply to 2 in general). JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only because it is too detailed / prescriptive, and doubly so for this policy. But I don't oppose the general concept. But there are so many proposals that you'll probably need to use the feedback on them (only) to formulated the single final proposal.North8000 (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support the spirit but oppose the particular wording. We don't need to say that a source can be cited only for what is shown by the source. As for dynamic online maps: I think they can by citable sources, but effort should be made to make access to that source as reproducible as possible. If the specific map can be captured with a URL, that should be done. For cases where that is not readily done, we probably should come up with some guidelines on you best to cite. - Jmabel | Talk 01:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dynamic content should not be encouraged, especially when these maps are being used as claims to basic notability and the only source for information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose on two grounds. First, there is considerable dispute over what can be verified using a map. Second, as a rule there is almost always a textual source which already states what can be verified. Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - generic information, such as elevations, geographic and topographic features, etc., can easily be verified with a proper map, and there's no reason why we should require sources that describe these features in words. But linking the proper url is very important, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the valid concerns above about dynamic content and OR as well as CREEP. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, use of dynamic maps as sources should not be encouraged. Nosferattus (talk) 06:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with the concerns about dynamic content. In general, we should be using secondary sources for map interpretation rather than doing it ourselves; there are simply too many pitfalls and due weight issues. –dlthewave☎ 18:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support— see my comments on 2a above. This is the sort of thing that satellite imagery visualizes. Imzadi 1979→ 06:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While I can certainly understand the rationale behind my fellow road editors using this and why they think this is uncontroversial, I personally find that interpreting the satellite layer is a bit more interpretation than I am comfortable with and I do not use this in my articles. --Rschen7754 07:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To explain why I came to this conclusion, unlike the other layers of a tool such as Google Maps, a satellite layer is primary. --Rschen7754 04:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:OR is required to interpret satellite imagery. BilledMammal (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you can't tell the difference between grass, trees, and concrete? - Floydianτ¢ 14:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if I can or cannot; satellite imagery is a primary source, and per WP:PRIMARY any interpretation of a primary source requires a reliable secondary source. I also think you underestimate the complexities of interpreting satellite imagery; while you might successfully interpret simple features most of the time, I doubt you will do so 100% of the time. BilledMammal (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a GIS specialist, I can tell you that's harder than it seems in most cases. Grass, trees concrete? maybe. Grass, threes, concrete, granite, shrubs? starting to get difficult. Grass, savanna, peat, forest, plantation, burn scar? Impossible without advanced tools. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're trying to squeeze the juice out of rocks here. I would use general terms like grassland, prairie, or pasture. I would certainly only mention specific species of grasses if they were talked about in a news story about prairie restoration. Note: I'm not relying on a map for that. If it's a case where someone is relying on a map for specific types of grasses, then we need to educate the editor, not throw out the map. –Fredddie™ 17:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that works any better, how do you tell the difference been a grassland, a prairie, and a pasture from a satellite image? Those are all different things, not general terms for the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think there are statements about things like ground cover that can be objectively deduced from satellite layers, but I expect the two main use cases of this proposed policy would be biome classification and deforestation characterization, and I feel like satellite images can be misleading for both of those. We don’t typically cite bare photographs, and for the same reasons we shouldn’t rely on satellite images. In addition, Google Maps has the issues Billed Mammal and I mentioned above. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the use of satellite (and/or aerial) images as RS. They are simply too subjective, OR. Google street view does have dates taken, but still has the same problem. Use images to illustrate other RS but not RS by itself. Sammy D III (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Satellite imagery in a map visualizes what an area looks like, whether it is farmland, woodland, or development. It is basic interpretation to describe what an area is like by looking at satellite imagery. Dough4872 14:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support if using general terminology like Dough4872 suggested. I certainly wouldn't use it to tell what kind of crops are being grown in the farmland, though, being from Iowa, I could probably tell. –Fredddie™ 15:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Straying into interpretative territory with this one. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Oppose this would violate WP:OR, interpreting satellite data is the domain of cartographers and data scientists, not Wikipedians. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if a Wikipedian is a career cartographer or data scientist? –Fredddie™ 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly did not see the comment below from Guerillero. –Fredddie™ 19:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose LU/LC classification is more of an art than a science in my decade of experience as a GIS Analyst. I feel like it is solely original research based on a primary source --GuerilleroParlez Moi 16:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Interpreting satellite or aerial imagery is original research from primary sources. pburka (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, I work with literally the best machines learning tools for discerning ground cover available to civilians... Even that is just a guess, someone eyeballing a google earth image and then telling you what species of ground cover are in the image is insane to me. Even distinguishing between between broad categories say like a woodland and a tree plantation is nearly impossible. There is no easy verification here, the only way to do that would be to get boots on the ground (which again would be OR). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes it's hard to even distinguish asphalt from water. Black Lake near Milford MI is not a lake. It's 67 acres of asphalt at the GM Proving Grounds. And, in the right light, it looks like water in aerial or satellite photos. Even ducks occasionally get confused and try to land on it. So, I Oppose this one. Banks Irk (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think your general point is valid, but not this specific example. A "real" lake would be explicitly labeled as a lake and colored blue on any political/topographical/recreational maps or map layers by the cartographer who is more qualified than the average Wikipedian. I absolutely agree that anybody who relies on a satellite image alone or ads a description based on a satellite image that is not supported or contradicted by say a political maps, should receive such an explanation of the pitfalls. Dave (talk) 17:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see how this could be done without OR. It's also worth noting that the satellite layer on Google Maps isn't always correctly aligned with the map layer, especially in remote areas, areas with unusual topography, and areas that use nonstandard coordinate systems. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 18:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this throwing the baby out with the bathwater? The layers might not be aligned in spots therefore the whole thing is garbage? –Fredddie™ 19:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we identify which areas are aligned correctly without original research? Probably in some cases. I mentioned that only as a side note, and as a concern to keep in mind if the proposal does pass. The broader problem is that, like others in this discussion, I don't see how to determine something like the type of ground cover from a satellite image without original research. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 02:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Way too subjective to avoid being considered OR. Choess (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support however there should be some guidelines. I am totally fine with saying an area is "farmland" based on a satellite image review. That to me is approaching WP:SKYISBLUE levels of obvious. However, only "high level" summaries of the area are ok. As others have pointed out, the average Wikipedian would not be qualified to call something a sandy desert, or a pine forest based solely on a satellite image. If it is indeed a pine forest or sandy desert, those details would be more likely to be explicitly stated on a recreational map, which would be a better choice to use. Dave (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does one tell the difference between farmland, hunting land, natural meadow, dry seasonal wetland, marginal land, conservation land, private estates, research centers, etc from a satellite image? Thats actually way harder than seeing whether a desert is sand or gravel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This can easily go down rabbit holes and we can be playing what ifs all night. However just to answer the questions, In addition to what looks like manicured land in perfect circles or squares that could in no way be natural, farmland would have supporting evidence visible such as presence of tractors, combines, barns, silos, irrigation systems, etc. that would be missing if it were say conversation land. If supporting evidence were lacking, then I wouldn't feel comfortable with calling it farmland. Dave (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So just pure OR then? All of that could be found on conservation land that was formerly farmland or at a museum or managed hunting land. Also note that much farmland is not in circles, rectangles, or squares... It might not even be visibly cleared land as in the case of tree farms... It might not look like manicured land at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. As far as I'm concerned what is described is a textbook example of OR. Kahastoktalk 22:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is blatant SYNTH/OR. Unlike the info extracted from maps being championed by supporters, this proposal is actually SKYISBLUE-level obvious in its non-compliance with policy. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If an editor cannot be relied on to look at a picture of a forest and call it a forest, they have no business editing any sort of nonfiction work, much less an encyclopedia. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I feel like I'm missing some backstory behind this proposal. What is the purpose of characterizing landuse or landcover from satellite imagery in an article? It seems oddly specific for a project-wide guideline. I do think it would be helpful to clarify that "maps" doesn't necessarily mean four-color road atlases and can include imagery, but we probably already have a guideline somewhere about citing an image for its self-evident contents, no? If we're going to carve out a safe harbor here, a better one would be street-level imagery, which anyways can be a much more reliable tool for determining LU/LC when it's available. – Minh Nguyễn💬 01:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, had enough trouble doing this in other work to know it's definitely research. CMD (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Satellite layers do not have an editorial process related to the features that are depicted. The task of creating a legend to clearly define what a particular shade of green means or what that thing that looks like crosshatching means is nearly impossible. Therefore, satellite layers require too much expert interpretation or speculation about what is shown to make me comfortable about them being used as sources. VC 02:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excessive detail contrary to WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as unnecessary and too specific (as well as risking being too permissive about what interpretation is allowed). Rosbif73 (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as both unnecessary and not always correct. Proposal 1 allows for satellite imagery to be used when appropriate (e.g. "2018 satellite imagery showed the area to be forested, but by 2021 suburban development was apparently complete.") but interpretation will sometimes be original research. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that proposal 1 will allow for satellite imagery to be used; as explained above, a statement like 2018 satellite imagery showed the area to be forested, but by 2021 suburban development was apparently complete requires interpretation and would remain forbidden. BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If saying one image shows a forest and another shows fully constructed suburbia to be interpretation then we need to prohibit all instances of editors describing anything that is plainly in front of their eyes, including image descriptions and alt text. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in countless bytes below, such evaluations of satellite imagery are in fact terms of art that require specialized knowledge to verify. JoelleJay (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some evaluations of satellite imagery require specialised knowledge to verify, some evaluations are WP:SKYISBLUE. This is exactly the same as how some descriptions of sources are trivial and others require specialist knowledge yet we do not prohibit the first kind because the second kind exist. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – There are SKYISBLUE-type statements that can be easily interpreted from a satellite view on a map that would not be mentioned outright in prose or other maps because they are expected to be obvious. It would be prudent to limit such interpretation to what is obvious at a glance, such as the difference between a built-up suburban area and farmland. More specific details would need to be cited to an appropriate source (and they are available for those regions fortunate enough to invest in releasing that information publicly). SounderBruce 04:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no clear boundary between what is and isn't SKYISBLUE in a case like this (see the exchange above between Dave and Horse Eye's Back), and since it is a prose-less primary source this is a stepping stone to violations of WP:DUE and WP:OR on a larger scale. Avilich (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Dynamic map sources that have no way to access the same version as the one referenced fail WP:V. Their use as sources should not be encouraged. Additionally, this is essentially encouraging original research (by somehow declaring that it is not original research, even though it is), so it would still be problematic even for non-dynamic sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BilledMammal and David Eppstein. --JBL (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only because it is too detailed for this policy. Support the stated principle. But there are so many proposals that you'll probably need to use the feedback on them (only) to formulated the single final proposal.North8000 (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support because there isn't anything wrong with the statement. If it can be easily verified, then it should be used. Pretty simple. Some opposers are really trying too hard to overcomplicate things. Thryduulf did well to perfectly sum up how I think about it the best. I will add that to avoid instruction creep, I think this should also just be put in with the others for the first proposal rather than having two different things... Huggums537 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Using satellite imagery is a bad idea and is inherently interpretive. Some years ago I once had a disagreement with a user who was claiming that a Google satellite image was sufficient to support the claim that an Egyptian airport was being used for military purposes. I see that this provision here limits itself to discussion of natural or basic physical features "that can easily be verified." Can be easily verified by what? Going into Google streetview? Finding another source? Applying personal knowledge? I've seen roads articles using GMaps to make claims about the types of intersections and interchanges of highway crossings (e.g. "US 1A meets NC 98 at an at-grade intersection" from U.S. Route 1A (Wake Forest–Youngsville, North Carolina)), yet I had never heard of the phrase "at-grade intersection" until reading roads articles on Wikipedia and of course GMaps does not label intersection types. Also raises more questions of DUE; if newspaper articles or any other written RSes didn't bother to mention that a road passes through a forested area around X place or crosses a small creek at Y place, then why should we? -Indy beetle (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Reliable", or "secondary" sources might leave out something about a plot that we can put in, and we are allowed to do that with primary sources like novels or maps. I'm very grateful we are allowed to do that, and grateful for this platform. I think a lot of editors on here are so Wikipedified they have contracted a bad case of Secondaryitosis. I would argue that primary sources are often more "reliable" than secondary sources in many cases. What could be more reliable than the book, film, plaque, monument, or other primary work itself? Huggums537 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What could be more reliable than the book, film, plaque, monument, or other primary work itself? What could be less reliable than an editors interpretation of a book, film, plaque, monument, or other primary work? BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^Seconded. This is the inherent problem with using primary sources to build articles, there's always an inherent amount of interpretation involved (hence WP:SYNTH), and it tends to be much more dangerous than the interpretiveness which might occur with summarizing secondary and/or tertiary sources. Hence my presentation of DUE problems. Be thankful that our article on the 1994 Rwandan genocide isn't built off of editor analysis of photos of dead bodies and those "often more 'reliable'" press releases from the government which killed hundreds of thousands of people, but instead aspires to be a summary of scholarship on the affair. Same goes for BLPs... Returning to my original example, if I have a detailed official map of North Carolina as a source, who's to tell me I'm wrong if I want to state "Stantonsburg is east of Marshall, North Carolina"? It is technically true after all... -Indy beetle (talk) 08:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What could be less reliable than an editors interpretation of a book, film, plaque, monument, or other primary work? You didn't answer my question, but only asked a different one in return. However, the answer to your question is a so-called "reliable" secondary source. I was not suggesting editors should interpret primary work, but even if they did, it wouldn't be any different than secondary sources doing so unless expert knowledge is required to do it. We have to remember primary sources also include WP:PRIMARYNEWS articles, and not just the works themselves. So, in my example with the plot summary there isn't any interpretation as you have suggested, just reporting basic descriptions of a work's contents in your own words which could be done by anyone without any special knowledge. I see news outlets make frequent use of google maps to report all kinds of things from crime stories to weather, traffic, and everything in between on television these days as a very common practice. As for building articles on primary sources goes, I don't think anybody is suggesting that with this proposal. Huggums537 (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this provision here limits itself to discussion of natural or basic physical features "that can easily be verified." Can be easily verified by what? Going into Google streetview? Finding another source? Applying personal knowledge? Take your pick. It's very simple. Easily verified means easily verified. Pretty much; "obvious to most people by ordinary means". So, find a source, Google Streetview, or even go there and look yourself in person for your own personal knowledge as long as other folks can go look too it is valid, but the proposal is talking about Satellite layers on Google Maps so I would assume it is talking about the obvious stuff that anyone can see there, and could also go look at in person or find a source for. Huggums537 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for generic statements, such as urban vs. rural, grassland vs. forest cover, etc., this can easily be verified. Where it gets complicated is when we start talking about more specific features, such as the examples given above; that is where additional corroborating sources are needed. But in most cases, satellite imagery should be acceptable for verifying generic features. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But urban, rural, grassland, and forest cover are specialized designations that require expertise to assign from satellite images... JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully disagree. Unless everyone is living underground or there are mega-ghost cities, it's not hard to distinguish between urban and rural from satellite imagery. In most situations, it's not difficult to distinguish between forest cover, grassland, farmland, etc. (yes, I know, there are exceptions, as others have noted above). As others have noted, where complications occur is when you start trying to interpret specific features that would best be confirmed by a ground observer, but there's no need for me to rehash that here. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Rural", for example, has multiple official definitions depending on context; the Census Bureau's classification is "countryside with population densities less than 500 people per square mile and places with less than 2,500 people", while the Office of Management and Budget doesn't even use "rural" and instead categorizes places with <50,000 as "nonmetro" (and that's just in the US). This is important particularly because the designation has very real economic consequences. It is definitely not something a random person can assign by looking at an image. The same is true for "forest cover", which is dependent on tree height and therefore is NOT something that can be determined from a crude top-down image (not that it would be acceptable for editors to estimate height from any image). JoelleJay (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But, this proposal is not addressing edge cases where multiple definitions are an issue. We are talking about easily verified things meaning rural areas which would clearly be defined as rural by any definition. It's very simple. I don't know why we're over-complicating it. Also, "forest cover" as defined by the World Bank, who has a vested interest in defining it their own way, and also specifically excludes "urban parks" which you indicated can't always clearly be defined, isn't really a definition worth relying on. Huggums537 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some other problems I notice with the World Bank definition is that it includes areas that are completely unstocked; "Areas under reforestation that have not yet reached but are expected to reach a canopy cover of 10 percent and a tree height of 5 meters are included, as are temporarily unstocked areas, resulting from human intervention or natural causes, which are expected to regenerate.", and there is some discrepancy between their definition and the source they used at the Food and Agriculture Organization, "Although FAO provides a breakdown of forest cover between natural forest and plantation for developing countries, forest data used to derive this indictor data does not reflect that breakdown." Huggums537 (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an example of what I am referring to when I say its easy to distinguish between urban and rural via satellite imagery. For large metropolitan areas, the Census Bureau usually includes both counties that are considered urban and counties that are rural, largely for economic reasons. For example, the Atlanta metropolitan area has more than 6 million people spread out across 30 counties. More than half of this population lives within just four counties. Meanwhile, the ten smallest counties range in population from 11k to 33k residents. Next to no one in their right mind would consider these counties "urban", even though the Census Bureau technically considers them part of the eighth largest metropolitan area in the country. By that definition, almost no rural counties even exist. We could use satellite imagery to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that these counties are rural, but not that they are part of the Atlanta metropolitan area. Bneu2013 (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So in your view, your personal appraisal of how rural a satellite image appears should override official governmental designations of its urban/rural status? Holy shit. JoelleJay (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, we need to be civil here. No, I am not saying my interpretation is superior to any governmental agency's. I am pointing out that the definitions the government uses are different than the commonly used definitions. At first glance, does this look the same as this? Of course not. Unless most residents of Heard County, GA, are living underground (and were missed by the 2020 census), I think we can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt from this imagery that this is not an urban county. Even though the Census Bureau considers these 11k people to be approximately 0.2% of the eighth-largest urban area in the country. In many situations, such as in an article about a highway that passes through Heard County, it would not be necessary to mention that this is part of the Atlanta metropolitan area; most people passing through would probably find this hard to believe. I am completely aware that we can't come to this conclusion in all scenarios; however, that shouldn't automatically demote satellite imagery as a reliable source for any terrain descriptions. I could go down a rabbit hole and regurgitate some examples of this, but other users have already provided examples here. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After contemplating, I've decided I should probably elaborate my position. No, I never said I think satellite can always be used to verify surface features, I said that I think it can often be used to correctly interpret generic surface features beyond a reasonable doubt. What constitutes "beyond a reasonable doubt" is dependent on each situation, as other users have implicitly revealed above. In the second example I used above, you see mostly green. What exactly is this? Is it a giant desert or a bunch of parking lots painted green to look like trees? Probably not. Is it forest cover, farmland, or some type of vegetation? Probably. If we can't find any source indicating it is the former, then I don't see why we can't conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the latter. I guess my most important point is that this shouldn't be a one size fits all decision; all situations are different. Maybe I should change my position to "weaker than average support" or "support only in certain situations", but I thought most people could figure this out. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The multitude of different definitions is precisely why it is critical we reflect the context of the image source rather than introducing our own completely uninformed and context-free interpretation of primary data. There is NOT some universally recognizable feature defining "urban" or "rural" or "forested" that can be identified from a satellite image. Something that requires someone to scroll through multiple zoom levels to validate that the population of an area is "probably" somewhere within whatever range a random editor decided was urban or rural is NOT acceptable under CALC or SKYISBLUE. JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For you to say there just absolutely isn't at all whatsoever some universally recognizable feature defining "urban" or "rural"... just sounds utterly ridiculous to me when I know darn good and well I can point to just about any polar ice cap or oceanic region, and declare it to be a "rural area" with a fairly large degree of confidence that I won't have mislabeled it as "urban" or "forested" (even without zooming). Huggums537 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, I disagree because I think there are tons of universally recognizable features on typical maps/satellite images starting with the basic blue oceans, white icecaps, tan deserts, and so forth on to more complex universally recognizable features that assist in identification of defining things on a map/satellite image. It is actually an inherent function of maps to do this to make them easier to use in the first place. I still say you are just making things wayyy more complicated than they need to be. It ain't that hard... Huggums537 (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I mean this just reads like allowing textbook OR. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - This type of interpretation should be done by secondary sources, not Wikipedians. –dlthewave☎ 18:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as this is far too difficult to confirm for our readers. Someone with the correct metadata and understanding of how this information works should interpret it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - If this truly is a "sky is blue" thing we don't need to state it. This is more likely to be used as a way to claim that the ultra-long lists of turn-offs, signs, stops, bridges, train stations, neighbouring peaks etc. appended to some geographical feature articles and sourced only to Google Maps/Street View are in fact sourced accurately when instead they rely on editor interpretation of inaccurate, obfuscated, and potentially user-sourced data. This is a long, long way from "sky is blue". This is more akin to looking at a photo of a rock band with their names and no other information and editors "interpreting" the instruments played them - "the guy who is hold the bass guitar is the bassist, sky is blue". Yeah maybe, or maybe you're just looking at a very brief snap-shot right before he hands it off to another band-member, and maybe there's other band members not in the photo etc. etc. etc.
Please, if you're thinking of writing an article based only on map data, find better sourcing, and accept that perhaps not every geographical feature requires an article. FOARP (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I think that this runs contrary to WP:OR as it does not just come from the older source but explicitly requires the comparison between the older source and a newer source. Gusfriend (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend, does it? If I cite an 1850 map for a statement "There was a town called Lake Wobegon here in 1850", where does the "comparison between the older source and a newer source" come into it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—we cite historical documents and works all the time for the representations of information known at that time. Allowing a map to be cited but not allowing a historical map to be cited for the information presented on it would question the ability to cite any historical work of any kind. Imzadi 1979→ 06:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Amending to add: failure to allow historical maps would mean, at a minimum, that a 2023 map could be used today to cite the description of the location and routing of a current highway/rail line/etc., but a 1939 map could not be used to cite the description of the location and routing of a highway/rail line/etc. that was taken out of service later that year. Imzadi 1979→ 06:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is not original research to state what is on a map published at a certain point in time. It is original research to read details into a map that are not there, just as with graphs and charts, and textual sources. Sure, it is preferable to use newspapers because maps cannot convey the reason why events happened as they did, and because dates given can be more precise. But in many cases, there are years of archives missing from newspapers, if there are online archives at all. --Rschen7754 07:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As Gusfriend points out, this requires comparing two sources and drawing original conclusions, a clear WP:OR violation. There are also multiple explanations for why two maps may provide different information; changing features is one possible explanation, but others are that the features are trap streets, or that one or both of the maps were incorrect at the time of production. Determining which explanation is the correct one requires considerable WP:OR or WP:SYNTH; instead, we need to rely on explanations from reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don’t think this is any worse than using other kinds of historical sources. If someone says something like "feature X was present on this official 1813 town map but is absent on this local roadmap in 2016", that’s valid and useful information. There might be any number of confounding factors, but if the maps come from reliable sources, I would think a change in the feature itself is the most likely explanation. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even reliable sources included trap streets, so being reliable doesn't guarantee that the feature existed. It also doesn't guarantee that the source didn't make a mistake, and we risk propagating that mistake if we rely on the difference between a historic source and a current source to say that a change occurred, rather than that an error was corrected.
I also note that per WP:SYNTH we can't do this with other kinds of historical sources either; if a book from 1813 says that "disease spreads by miasma" and a book from 2016 says that "disease spreads through germs" we cannot draw the conclusion that sometime between 1813 and 2016 disease stopped spreading by miasma and starting spreading through germs unless a source says "in 1880 disease switched from spreading by miasma to spreading through germs", because to do otherwise would combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. BilledMammal (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even reliable sources included trap streets, so being reliable doesn't guarantee that the feature existed. Sounds like a contradiction to me. --Rschen7754 14:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but as trap streets were very common in maps if we were to consider maps that include them unreliable we would need to consider most maps unreliable. In addition, there is the practical issue of identifying which maps include trap streets - they rarely disclosed the fact. BilledMammal (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Throwing out maps because there might be a trap street is like throwing out books because a word might be misspelled. Seems like a WP:BABY situation. –Fredddie™ 15:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more equivalent to a book which randomly had false information inserted in an attempt to prevent copyright violation? In that case we certainly would treat the source as unreliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, if an author said he or she inserted a copyright trap into a book and didn't say where it was, the whole thing would be unreliable? What if the author said where the copyright trap was? Would that validate the whole minus the copyright trap? –Fredddie™ 18:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then it wouldn't be copyright trap would it? It would be an acknowledged error and we would handle it as such. I would note that if you try to submit academic papers to reputable journals with copyright traps you're either going to be denied publication or the paper will have to be retracted when the trap is discovered. Its not considered acceptable behavior in academia, its generally considered the same as knowingly publishing false information (which for us would mean deprecation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
University textbooks, published encyclopedias, even telephone directories have contained copyright traps. We don't discard the Encyclopedia Britannica because it contained copyright traps. I don't see how that's a relevent argument. Dave (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia Britannica contains copyright traps? I can't find anything about that on google and it hasn't been discussed at RSN, what is your source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware copyright traps on maps are always trivial features that we would never consider citing. The reason is twofold and obvious: (1) the publisher can still claim the map is reliable, (2) copyright violators won't notice the trap. So I don't think this is an issue. Zerotalk 13:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see long-gone settlement names which were/are? technically accurate, just a hundred years obsolete. Sammy D III (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zero here. This is a non-issue that is just over-complicating things. Traps of any kind are not likely to be ones that affect reliability since publishers have a reputation to protect. It's basic common sense 101. Huggums537 (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the larger issue is that such observations will always be SYNTH/OR because they do not have secondary sources pointing them out. That is never, ever acceptable on wikipedia. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RS is RS whatever the date, correct? For changes over time you already show the date of the source in the ref. Sammy D III (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Maps are fine to describe how a road or place was at a certain point in time. It is probably a good idea to use two maps as a source to prove a change happened by a certain time. Dough4872 14:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is very much in OR territory, because it assumes all maps for a region from RSes have been found to make this evaluation. All you need is one missing map to make the assumption flawed. --Masem (t) 14:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a problem with any RS? Has somebody read all the RS about anything? (If I'm not supposed to answer, sorry) Sammy D III (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its the comparison between two or more sources to come to an editor-made conclusion that something was first, last, or introduced or removed at a certain time which is not explicit in the sources. We're not supposed to be doing that anywhere. On the other hand, if we have a single source that spells that out, that's fine. Masem (t) 14:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about when it's spelled out in the article as "The [feature] appeared for the first time in the state's official map for 1947" or "By 1947, the [feature] appeared in official state maps."? - Floydianτ¢ 15:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That to me is still pushing the OR. Arguably you should be staying something like "That [feature] first appeared as early as 1947" to leave open the possibility that a yet-unfound 1946 map may have it, and that can be rather weak writing. Masem (t) 15:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, if you have a known and library-cataloged corpus of annual maps that includes editions for 1919, 1920, 1921 ... 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948... 2022 with every expectation that 2023 is being published, then you don't have that yet-unfound 1946 map. If 1946 is missing from the catalogs, then that sentence may need to be worded differently to reflect the sources as you suggest. Imzadi 1979→ 16:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its still OR even if you do additional OR for a different wording. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that your definition of OR includes going to the library to research a topic. - Floydianτ¢ 23:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on what you do at the library, if you count the number of columns the library has and then add that information to the library's wikipedia page that is OR. Same goes for counting the columns in a picture of the library, even if that picture is taken from space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about if you go to the map room of the library to look at a floor plan or an engineering plan of the library, published by the builders of the library, in which the legend indicates + as a column? Would that be OR, or is counting no longer a basic calculation? - Floydianτ¢ 23:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Counting (turning data which isn't a number into a number through analysis) was never included in WP:CALC. If the source says that one hall has 12 columns and the other has 8 an acceptable use of WP:CALC would be to say that there are 20 columns in the two halls. If the source doesn't give us the numbers to do the calculations we can't do them, we don't get to do analysis and then calculations from that analysis... That is the very definition of OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So counting is original research? Noted. - Floydianτ¢ 03:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that info isn't noted in secondary sources it has no business being on wikipedia anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in secondary sources is important for notability, but that guideline is for deciding whether a Wikipedia article should exist for a topic. Notability does not apply to a sentence or a paragraph. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, for better or worse, no policy requires all articles to cite secondary sources, much less to use them exclusively. We use primary sources precisely to include information that isn't "noted" in secondary sources but which encyclopedia articles are expected to contain (e.g., birth years for living people). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course all articles have to use secondary sources, OR explicitly states this. Primary sources are only allowable for very straightforward statements of basic facts. Making novel observations comparing sources is definitely not among these exceptions. JoelleJay (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can only be used for straightforward, basic facts. It has nothing to do with notability and everything to do with OR: you cannot draw conclusions from primary sources that have not been drawn in secondary sources. JoelleJay (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you said that "If that info isn't noted in secondary sources it has no business being on wikipedia anyway", which sounds like you're saying primary sources can't be used at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to How about when it's spelled out in the article as "The [feature] appeared for the first time in the state's official map for 1947" or "By 1947, the [feature] appeared in official state maps."?. Even if that info is verifiable, if secondary sources are not commenting on that feature's appearance it is original research and improper WP:PROPORTION to include that observation in an article. JoelleJay (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if we have a primary source that is reliable for a claim, you think it should always be excluded? Any reliable primary source, or are you recommending special rules for maps? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously? With the exception of extremely basic material like DOB primary sources should not be used. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is contrary to policy. You even have your example wrong as DOB records are regularly considered OR due to the identification problem. Zerotalk 10:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joelle, I see two areas where we might not fully agree:
I think an article can be WP:Based upon secondary sources, and verifiable in secondary sources, even if the article is 100% WP:Glossary#uncited. You have been writing in this discussion that policies currently require secondary sources to be cited.
You believe that policies require nearly everything in an article to be cited to secondary sources, "With the exception of extremely basic material". This is a more stringent standard than I see used by other editors, and it is more stringent than what I read in the WP:PSTS policy. But perhaps your "extremely basic material" is broader than what I'm guessing?
The only place where I've used "cit-", in this discussion about citing maps, is in one subthread specifically on a use-case for citing maps.
a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. This would not include an editor's analysis of when a particular feature appeared on a map, as that cannot be verified using the primary source (it would require comparison of at least two) and draws a conclusion that is not drawn in any source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Even if that info is verifiable, if secondary sources are not commenting on that feature's appearance it is original research".
NOR says: The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.
Do you honestly believe that "Even if that info is verifiable, if secondary sources are not commenting on that feature's appearance it is material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist"?
I don't believe that it is possible for something to be both verifiable and original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two pieces of info, from two different sources, can be synthesized into a novel statement that contains both verifiable information and non-verifiable OR. That would be the case if we stated, using the state maps from 1946 and 1947, that a feature first appeared on the state map in 1947: the reader can verify that the 1947 map does contain that feature, and perhaps could even verify that maps from 1946 and earlier did not, but cannot verify that 1947 is when it first appeared and cannot verify whatever meaning that synthesis is attempting to convey. JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the 1947 map example is not a good use of maps. But I'm asking you about your sentence. How is it possible for any material to be "verifiable" – meaning that the material can be found in a reliable source, right? – but still be "original research" – meaning that no reliable source exists for this material?
Or perhaps you'd prefer a different one: Do you really believe that if material is verifiable only in primary sources, even if it is basic, undisputed information, that this material constitutes original research? I ask because you wrote that "Even if that info is verifiable, if secondary sources are not commenting on that feature's appearance it is original research", which implies that all reliance on primary sources is a violation of WP:NOR. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by "commenting on that feature's appearance". I am using "appearance" to represent the statement "the feature first appeared on the map between 1946 and 1947", which is obviously not verifiable using either of these hypothetical primary sources because we decided so for the purposes of this exercise. For that statement to be verifiable, we would need a source that actually makes that observation: either 1) the 1947 state map explicitly makes clear this is the first time [feature] appeared on the state map, which would be primary, verifiable, and not OR; but this scenario is forbidden by the constraints of the hypothetical; or 2) another source, either another year's map or something completely independent, makes this observation, which by definition would be secondarywith respect to the 1946 and 1947 maps. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BLPSELFPUB allows primary sources from the subject to be used for such details, although you are right that in general primary documents can't be used in BLPs. JoelleJay (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are well-known collections of annual official maps. For instance, the Michigan Department of Transportation, and its predecessor the Michigan State Highway Department, has published an updated official state highway map every year since 1958 except 1959 and 1994. They had semi-annual dated map editions from 1919 through 1957. Paper copies of all of them are available through the Library of Michigan, and the Archives of Michigan is placing digital copies of them online. This is just one state DOT. I know off the top of my head that full archives of annual editions have been scanned and made available online for Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Ohio. Many other states have done the same, and others are continuing to come online all the time. If there is a question about a possible missing edition, the Road Map Collectors Association has cataloged known editions. Additionally, Rand McNally has published annual editions of its Road Atlas for decades, although there are considerations there as the 2024 edition has already been released. Imzadi 1979→ 15:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of covering highways in Michigan the publications of the Michigan Department of Transportation would be primary sources and as such any analysis is strictly forbidden and will remain forbidden no matter what the consensus in this discussion is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Strictly forbidden"? That's a bizarre interpretation of policy. Near as I can tell the relevant passage of current policy for that issue is "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." So yes, there are restrictions on use, but that isn't the same as strictly forbidden. Dave (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it can only be used for that than other uses (such as analysis) are strictly forbidden. Thats what only means. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A statement like "Highway H appeared in the 1973 edition but not in the 1972 edition" is not analysis but just reporting what is in the sources. An example of improper analysis would be "Highway H didn't exist before 1973" since even official maps can show features in advance or delayed from their physical existence. The OR rules were invented to exclude material that can't be verified in published reliable sources, not to make editors' work more onerous. Zerotalk 09:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if secondary sources are not commenting on that observation, it is against WP:PROPORTION to include it in an article. Doing so is reporting the editor's comparison and evaluation of the sources, which is OR. While it might seem like a harmless fact, allowing that leeway would have significant consequences in how contentious topics and their sources are presented, e.g. geopolitical territorial disputes: Evidence that politically-charged edits have the potential to make it past Google’s moderators is offered by Geens (2012), who documented edits to Syrian highway names honoring opposition heroes and events in country’s current civil war..[12]JoelleJay (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PROPORTION is about an aspect of article writing which is not the aspect this proposal addresses. Whether a source CAN be cited and whether it SHOULD be cited are different things. So I believe your reply misses the point. Zerotalk 02:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PROPORTION is part of OR, so is very relevant to this discussion. Why would we permit citing something for a use-case that isn't allowed by policy? JoelleJay (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I got my tabs mixed up, whatever, the point is it's POLICY that content be both presented in proportion to its coverage in SIRS and that each statement can be verified using a singular source, which is not possible when one is drawing a comparison between sources that hasn't been noted elsewhere. JoelleJay (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIRS isn't a policy either, and it's basically restricted (for better or worse) to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). PROPORTION doesn't restrict itself to either secondary or independent sources (it says "the body of reliable, published material", which includes both primary and secondary sources, as well as independent and non-independent sources).
If you're looking for a ray of hope, we expanded NPOV's WP:BESTSOURCES a year ago to state that "in principle" all articles ought to be based on independent reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This objection makes no sense because the proposed text doesn't say anything about a comparison. The proposal is just to say that a particular feature does or does not appear on a particular map. This indicates how things were at that point in time. Expecting editors to find and cite every map which includes the feature is absurd because some places appear on thousands of maps. Making an exhaustive analysis of them would be more like OR than what the proposal suggests. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I would not use a map as definitive evidence of when something began to exist or ceased to exist, as maps can't be relied upon to accurately reflect the precise situation at their moment of publication; but that doesn't seem to me to be what the proposed wording above talks about. When adding geographical coordinates to articles, I have often used old Ordnance Survey maps to determine exactly where no-longer-existing buildings, railway stations, etc., in Great Britain were located, and that seems an admissable use to me. Deor (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would be WP:SYNTH. We should cite a map or other publication that summarises the development of information on older historical maps for this, not the maps themselves.--Licks-rocks (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Synth and OR issues. Such interpretation of historical maps should be left to reliable sources we can then reference. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This example may or may not be permissible depending on the context. Giving blanket permission to publish original research based on historical maps would be a mistake, and the guidelines already describe permissible uses of historical and primary sources. pburka (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, that is plainly OR. If the proposal is basically to completely overturn the OR policy then it should be presented as such. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's fine to use a map as a primary source for a claim like "The city of X is shown on a 1634 map." Is this the kind of claim that's intended in this proposal? Or is it supposed to allow claims that require more interpretation than that? —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 18:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy if that was what is being referenced, the current wording leaves it open to a lot more. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is the baseline that would be established by this proposal. There is more ambiguity that would need to be resolved in the future, perhaps through another RFC. Rschen7754 18:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find this rather ambiguously stated; it's hard to me to tell what's being authorized here. In general I agree with Deor's comments. Historical maps can be useful, but one needs to be careful not to claim more than can be strictly justified. Choess (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support (nom) However there needs to guidelines. I have myself found Wikipedia articles that inappropriately use maps in this fashion and have advised editors why I think they made a mistake. However, it's also a valuable resource that if used correctly can improve an article. If used incorrectly the likely result is an incorrect date or anachronism in the article. That also is likely the result if a historical newspaper were cited, but interpreted in a modern context. I wouldn't ban using historical newspapers, but I would support guidelines that remind people of the pluses and perils of using them. Same for maps. Dave (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again, as far as I'm concerned what is described is textbook OR. But, to be clear, this is not because the map is historical but because of how it is proposed to be used. Kahastoktalk 22:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything we cite in Wikipedia is historic due to the fact that it had be created before we could read it and cite it. Whether it is historic from yesterday or historic from 100 years ago, there is always the need to be clear about the time period you are referring to when writing on Wikipedia. In my state, we have had small towns be relocated to higher ground following a major flood. So their location has changed over time and only the historic map (prior to the flood) can give you the original location. Yes, there are skills in reading a historic map, just as there is a skill in reading and interpreting information in a historic book where terminology may have changed over time etc), or in interpreting a graph, a table of statistics, or content in a foreign language. I can "read" historic maps from my state quite well (I do it all the time); I can't read books written in Italian or interpret chemical formulae. Sometimes I encounter a historic map on which I cannot get any reliable reference points (e.g. no mountains or other features that are going to be persistent to the present day, no coords along the axes), but that is very rare (and usually would not be the case on government maps) and I would not use information from that map (as I could not understand it), any more than I would cite a written source where the print was unreadable, nor would I attempt to explain chemical formulae etc. Not all contributors have the same skills, but, so long as we have the skills to interpret sources relevant to the topic area, I don't see why that is a problem. I write about history and geography of my state so its historic maps are essential to much of what I write about. And I don't write about chemistry as I know too little about it to meaningfully interpret its source material. I don't believe that I should criticise the content written by those who write about chemistry just because I cannot interpret the sources that they can, nor vice versa. If we prevent people contributing to Wikipedia in areas where they have the expertise to interpret sources, what kind of encyclopedia are we creating? We want to attract people with the skills to write accurate content on complex topics, not drive them away. If you look at the 2011 profile of Wikipedia contributors wrt to age and education, you will see that 73% of contributors in the survey were aged over 22 (an age by which a person might have acquired a tertiary qualification) and indeed 61% of contributors had such a qualification, so, looking at that survey, Wikipedians are quite highly educated, so we should not be surprised that there are some high levels of skills in interpreting a range of source material amongst our contributors. We should be celebrating and making the best use of such skills. Kerry (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is blatant SYNTH/OR. Unlike the info extracted from maps being championed by supporters, this proposal is actually SKYISBLUE-level obvious in its non-compliance with policy. JoelleJay (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How would you suggest rewording the proposal to accommodate "the info extracted from maps being championed by supporters", which it seems you have an inkling of support towards? I for one don't support the extremes that have been raised, but there is certainly something between "Maps no bueno" and "I've calculated the population density of this area using the 1984 Shell Oil Map" - Floydianτ¢ 20:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In many cases, a map can more accurately reflect a change to a geographic area than can a text source describing it in prose. From my experience working with such sources, textual descriptions of changes over time are actually more likely to get an editor's wires crossed than a map. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, like some previous commentators I am not exactly sure what this is trying to say, and how it would be interpreted. I suppose this is thus an oppose on this wording, but I don't know if there is another wording I could support. CMD (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Stating what a map shows for a particular cited date is not original research. Interpretations involving multiple maps require greater scrutiny, but they should not be outright banned. VC 02:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historical maps may be valid and useful. For example, see Greene Man which has a storied history over several centuries. This cites John Rocque's Map of London, Westminster, and Southwark, 1746 which is naturally referenced in numerous articles about London's long history. This is not a problem. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as unnecessary; proper use of historical sources (including maps) is already covered by other policies. Rosbif73 (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back and @JoelleJay: Care to fill in @Rosbif73 on how you feel current policy dictates the "proper use" of maps? I'm only singling you out because you have been the most vocal in opposition to the use of maps. Floydianτ¢ 20:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never opposed the use of maps. I don't believe JoelleJay has either. As far as I am aware nobody is opposed to the use of maps. All of these conversations are about which maps to use and how to use them not whether or not to use maps lol. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complete about-face from your previous position. Please elaborate on cases where you believe a map is a proper reference, with examples. - Floydianτ¢ 03:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't, my position is completely consistent. Please do not cast aspersions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As long as claims are worded to say that this is how a given feature was depicted, which may or may not be how it actually was on the ground then this is fine. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this literal statement, but it isn't really necessary as current policy already allows us to say what is depicted on a map. There is a big difference between "map M shows X" and "X existed then". The first is just a report of a source, while the second requires some assumptions. It is also perfect fine to say "map M1 shows X1, while map M2 shows X2". This is just a report of two sources and we are allowed to report on as many sources as we like. However, writing "map M1 shows X1, while map M2 shows X2, and therefore Y" is likely to be a SYNTH violation depending on what Y is. All of this follows from existing policy and doesn't need special consideration for maps. Zerotalk 12:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But "and therefore Y" doesn't have to be explicitly stated in an article for it to carry meaning... JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but WP:SYNTH already discusses that in detail and I don't see any reason for treating maps differently. Zerotalk 02:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If SYNTH already covers this then why do we need to make exceptions at all for this extremely specific scenario that is unlikely to be compliant with policy? JoelleJay (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need it at all, because existing policy is already sufficient to deal with it. Zerotalk 10:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my John Roque's example above, but again with caveats. For example, you could say "The area east of Essex Road is marked as poor by Charles Booth's London Poverty Map of 1898" but simply saying "The area east of Essex Road was poor" would stray into original research, in my view. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a map saying explicitly that the area is poor different from a book saying the area is poor? Zerotalk 13:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the book. and what credentials we evaluate for it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that same logic be applied to maps? –Fredddie™ 17:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333:Both books and maps have reliability requirements. You haven't given a reason for treating them differently. Zerotalk 02:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought maps would be generally reliable. Where are you getting the idea there are "reliability requirements" for maps? Huggums537 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. I was just giving an example of where a source would be okay for one fact, but not for another, in that particular case, and in my view. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Comparing differences between two comparable maps of the same area from different time periods is a basic skill. SounderBruce 04:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:CREEP in its narrowest application, stepping stone to OR otherwise. Avilich (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To me it depends on the claim that is being cited. We should certainly able to say that a certain map depicted a town with a certain name at a certain time. That is a factual claim drawn from a single source. But drawing the conclusion that the town was actually founded in a certain date range, by comparing which maps did or did not include it, or listing multiple maps in an attempt to lead the reader to the same conclusion, would be WP:SYN. Possibly this is too broadly worded to distinguish these use cases. And in any case I oppose #1 so for consistency I should oppose this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only because it is too detailed for this policy. Support the stated principle. But there are so many proposals that you'll probably need to use the feedback on them (only) to formulated the single final proposal. North8000 (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again I find myself agreeing with the spirit & disagreeing with the wording. The particular example isn't a very good one. - Jmabel | Talk 02:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is fine. We can use an historical map to say what was on it at a given time. Although, I don't see any significant difference between saying we can use an historical map vs. we can use a recent one. These excessive proposals are wearin' me down man. Huggums537 (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per pburka. I can certainly foresee some instances where this would be fine, but this proposal would grant license to dumping PRIMARY source info into articles without context and risk potential OR issues. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I understand the wording. The proposal says absolutely nothing about comparing maps from different time periods: that, I agree, would be a problem. But if proposal 1 passes, you should absolutely be allowed to use a historical map as a historical source. HouseBlastertalk 02:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the result of this passing would be a massive expansion of sanctioning improper use of primary sources. We don't need more of that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Comparison of maps of different generations, even from the same source, is fraught with difficulty. About the only thing you can use a map of a certain era as a historical source for is itself. Mangoe (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again, in general this should be uncontroversial. For example, for the first map that shows a road to be paved, it should be acceptable to use this (although it doesn't hurt to find a newspaper article to corroborate). Bneu2013 (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as CREEP that may allow for OR in its current wording. — Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 14:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - WP:CREEP, opens the door to WP:OR. Two maps ten years apart, one shows a neighbourhood and the other doesn't, so it's OK to say "the neighbourhood was build between 1920 and 1930"? No, because the earlier map may not have included the neighbourhood for a whole range of reasons. Even saying "the neighbourhood appears on map X but not map y" is dubious because it requires proving a negative and again points to a conclusion not explicitly stated. Think about the same logic applied to photos: "X person appears in photos of the band from 1984-1987"[Photo 1] [Photo 2] [Photo 3] - how is this not WP:SYNTH? FOARP (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We should be using secondary sources for this type of analysis. –dlthewave☎ 18:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen a "Good Article" that was exclusively referenced by about 30 maps with no non-map references it would be good to have a discussion about what maps mean for notability with a dip into the extent to which maps make quality references. Gusfriend (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the concern that sources such as Google Maps do not have a version and may be updated at any time which may limit what it is appropriate to reference. Gusfriend (talk) 06:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Google Maps is that, while the basic map is reliable, some of the labels of various, usually man-made, features is done by a process of User Generated Content which is open to abuse. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this same consideration apply to any website? If this is an issue, any web cite should include an archived link, no? - Floydianτ¢ 15:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that same consideration applies to any website, and always has. Archives may be nice, but it's more pointful to remember that if Google Maps says something one year but not the next, the information in the article is not out of date and needs to be fixed. Wikipedia isn't some WP:MMORPG where you win points for fancy citations. The important part is the facts reported in the sentence before the citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is not optional. Information that was present on a map one day and gone the next is not verifiable. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Information that was present on the cited source one day, and gone the next, might still be verifiable. Failing verification in the cited source sometimes just means that you need to find a different/better source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend: that is a good question, but that's not what is being asked. If you'd like, I'd suggest that you can start a discussion on that question later once this one is settled. Imzadi 1979→ 15:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like what you're presenting there is a competence issue with evaluators. Link the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Having seen a "Good Article" that was exclusively referenced by about 30 maps with no non-map references" - in my view such an article should be delisted and the article sent to AfD (or possibly redirected). Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an over-reaction. It's not good to judge an article's notability on the basis of the sources someone has already cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Questions - are maps considered primary sources (with the restrictions and cautions of such), secondary sources or tertiary sources? Or some mix of all three? Does it depend on the specific map? Does it depend on the specific information WE are attempting to cite to the map?
I’m not sure we can make blanket statements here. There is a LOT of nuance and grey zone when it comes to maps. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the same questions could be asked for books and for newspaper articles. I cannot find where in our official guidelines we make these determinations. --Rschen7754 14:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider maps primary sources they certainly shouldn't be used for notability purposes, if we did any geographical feature would be immediately notable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a lot like a predetermined conclusion just because you don't like the other possible one. --Rschen7754 16:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We know that not all geographical features are notable, see WP:NOT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the principle; not all maps are primary sources, but a WP:SIGCOV issue remains. BilledMammal (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assume maps are secondary, just as many assume news articles are secondary. Inclusion of a city on a state map would be just as much incidental coverage of that city as inclusion of the street address of a building is incidental coverage of that city street. Now a city map would be more significant coverage of that city just as a news article about a building is significant coverage of the building. In both cases, you have to evaluate the source to determine how it factors into notability concerns, but the questions above aren't about notability, but the ability to use a source. In other words, can you use that news article about the building in the first place? Can you use that map of the city or the state's highway system in the first place?
In other words, you have thoughts worthy of discussion, but they're not germane to the specific questions above and should be in a different discussion after the questions above are settled. Imzadi 1979→ 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its context that matters. For example a map of Pennsylvania highways published by Rand McNally is not primary for coverage of Pennsylvania highways (although it still isn't significant enough to count towards notability) but a map of Pennsylvania highways published published by PennDOT is primary in the context of coverage of Pennsylvania highways. Also note that a city map doesn't meet the significant coverage standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing first-person vs. third-person authorship with primary vs. secondary sources. A map by the Maryland DOT shows most/all of the state of Delaware. MDOT's map is first-person for Maryland's highways but third-person for Delaware's. DelDOT's map would be third-person for the highways shown in Maryland. Both maps would have the same primary/secondary classification though. Rand McNally's respective maps in its atlas would both be third-person for both states, and yet share the same primary/secondary classification as the DOT maps. Since these otherwise equivalent maps are based on underlying source material (aerial surveys, ground surveys, photography/videography, etc.) and distilled together as a reporter distills interviews or reviews documents to craft news coverage subject to editorial oversight, if that news article is secondary, then perhaps that map is too. Imzadi 1979→ 16:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the primary/secondary classification is in f contextual. CNN is not a primary source for a story about a Chimpanzee sanctuary, they are a primary source for a story about CNN. I would also be wary of using margins, its a reliable source for what its about (a map of France is a reliable source for France) but information beyond the extent of the map would be a questionable use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most maps are secondary or tertiary sources based on a mixture of primary sources — such as gps tracks, surveys, and imagery — as well as other maps. -- GuerilleroParlez Moi 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pasting my argument from above: Unlike published paper atlases or road maps where the scale of a map and which details to include have been chosen deliberately and edited for accuracy by human authors, online database-generated maps with continuous spatial resolution have not received such oversight or secondary analysis at every zoom level. The latter group includes the GIS data-rendered dynamic maps from Google et al that are favored by highway projects and used to justify inclusion of arbitrary minutiae such as exact mile markers for individual localities and intersections along a route. Google Maps does not distinguish between cities and tiny non-notable communities (and so the choice for which ones to include on wiki will necessarily involve OR and likely circular referencing, with editors clicking on a Maps locale to bring up the linked wiki article and judging from its contents whether it should be mentioned), and these locations are not visible at every zoom depth; nor does it contain exact distance measurements between points (editors use various extensions for these calculations). For these reasons (not to mention known accuracy issues) the data extracted from such maps are not easily verifiable in the ways excepted by CALC nor are they DUE as they have not received secondary analysis. JoelleJay (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: And again I have to ask, do you support the use of paper maps as references? --Rschen7754 00:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question for WP:RS/WP:V; the context here is WP:OR. I don't support making changes to policy that potentially narrow the scope of what is OR. JoelleJay (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is it a right conclusion that your opposition to this RFC is based on something else and not on all this stuff about databases and Google Maps? --Rschen7754 01:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to using maps as sources, with some caveats. First, as others have pointed out, some (Google Maps, for example), are dynamic to the point where it's impossible (short of taking a screenshot) to cite a specific edition; that's a non-starter for me because with without a reproducible way to reference the material, WP:V can't happen. And, as others have also pointed out, it may not be obvious what information on the map is WP:UGC. And of course, there may simply be errors, but that's no different from any WP:RS. Stories like https://www.fastcompany.com/1700270/how-google-maps-led-accidental-invasion are not unheard of. Some maps intentionally show disputed borders, placenames, etc, differently depending on where the map is displayed. So, don't disallow all maps, but also don't blindly take them as gospel. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Dynamic here is a term of art that means something closer to interactive than always changing. But, to your point Google Maps is always updating and it does do some wonky localization things -- GuerilleroParlez Moi 19:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that as a term of art Dynamic actually has at least three meanings in the context of maps, one is what RoySmith brings up, one is what you bring up, and there is a third which nobody appears to have mentioned at all which is actually how the term is most commonly used in the academic literature "Dynamic mapping is a cartographic concept used to depict dynamic spatial phenomena or to present spatial information in a dynamic way." [13]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the video/gif maps. I try to avoid them -- GuerilleroParlez Moi 19:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of my comment was that there's no way (that I know of) to create a URL which always gets you the same map data. I guess you would call that a permalink, but I'm not even sure that's the correct word (a wikipedia permalink, for example, still depends on the current value of transcluded templates). I should note that this is not unique to maps. For example, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/19/business/economy/fed-silicon-valley-bank.html will probably always get you to some version of the same article, but the version I'm looking at right now says, "March 19, 2023 Updated 3:42 p.m. ET". I don't know what changed 4 minutes ago, but something did. It might have been correcting a typo, or it might have been something significant. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with several others that there seems to be a large WP:OR issue here. Maps are inherently hard to cite, and there need to be fail-safes included for that, with a detailed explanation for how to avoid verifiability and original research issues. In the current form of the RFC, every sentence proposed after the first seems to go further and further beyond the boundaries of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and there's very little proposed to rein these issues in. Citing a bird atlas for the known extent of the red bellied wood-piper or whatever is probably fine, but citing google earth for land use information is a terrible idea for so, so many reasons. If we're going include this, I think it should be made very clear that verifiability should be paramount. No citing dynamically updated material, no personal interpretation of lines on a map, and certainly no personal interpretation of satellite images. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of "personal interpretation of lines on a map", it's more than just lines. For example, while it might seem reasonable to look at a map and say, "Texas is larger than New Jersey", unless you have a certain level of understanding of map projections, you might be tempted to say, "Greenland is larger than South America". It can be tricky to tell what's obviously true and what's WP:OR. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the roads space we've historically had a lot more OR than that, we're talking about OR like "Route 9 then heads east between a residential area and a car dealership" See for example Pennsylvania Route 309 or the route description of just about any American highway article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But "Route 9 turns north until it meets High Street" would be entirely cite able. -- GuerilleroParlez Moi 19:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, at that level of detail its a question of due weight not original research. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try to heap trash in here to sway the jury, that's an ass move. - Floydianτ¢ 23:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm broadly in favour of editors being allowed to cite selected maps as sources, but I'd want to nail down some specifics. For example, here in the UK, I'd say that the gold standard of reliability would be an Ordnance Survey map of 1:25,000 scale or greater. (The 1:1,250 scale maps are largely accurate too but they're so comprehensive as to be indiscriminate in what they include.) I would not necessarily say that a map in a printed book was reliable even if that book was otherwise a reliable source, because of the way publishing works. The book's text might have been written by Professor Verity Recondite of Sagacity College, Cambridge, but she might very well have had little to do with the maps. I would also want to say explicitly how appearing on a map interacts with notability. Here in the UK, something's likely notable if it's marked on an Ordnance Survey map of 1:100,000 scale or greater, but appearing on a 1:25,000 scale map is not evidence of notability. We'd need equivalent rules for you foreigners.—S MarshallT/C 20:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
something's likely notable if it's marked on an Ordnance Survey map of 1:100,000 scale or greater Careful with that, lest we end up with Latitude 52N, etc. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Revise that to "a physical feature of the landscape is likely notable..."—S MarshallT/C 00:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, the size of this discussion points out one reason I seldom look into VP, but a Discord post alerted me. I'm not a roadie; rather I do a lot of buildings which have similar problems. Google's databases are less reliable for buildings than for roads, and I long ago gave up trusting them for this. Wikidata locations are perhaps even worse. So, what I do is use Google Earth aerial to look at the indicated location and then Street View for my target and, if that produces a doubt, do a websearch for a photo or physical description to compare to the aerial and street views. Aerial is highly reliable; the pictures are well aligned and the coords come out correct to ground truth by going there with my GPS phone. Google Street View is sometimes referenced to the wrong street or otherwise in error, but is highly precise when it doesn't have obvious errors. Streets, when they have errors in Google, are errors in the database and the pictures are again far more reliable. And no, I don't try to establish an article topic's notability by presence in Google's databases or Wikidata or GNS or other database. Notability requires serious discussion (words) published in a reliable source. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between maps and images. Images (both satellite and photos) can be very subjective. Sammy D III (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I routinely use Google Earth for my job as a utility engineer. The UTM coordinates it spits out are often more reliable than the databases of infrastructure owners (i.e. a power pole from the power utility company's GIS database gets less consideration than a crisp up-to-date satellite image from Google Earth)! - Floydianτ¢ 23:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat off-topic, but in case anyone reading this is wondering how it's possible to evaluate the accuracy of Google Maps or any other imagery provider: In my own contributions to OpenStreetMap (not nearly RS, hah!), I don't have access to Google Earth for IP reasons, but among the imagery I do have access to, I generally prefer government-provided orthoimagery layers. Often I'm able to track down the RfP for the imagery collection, which states a maximum horizontal tolerance that's plenty good enough by OSM standards. It's also possible to check the alignment of any orthoimagery by comparing markers to authoritative sensors, e.g. using [14]. Obviously this is multiple levels of OR. ;^)Minh Nguyễn💬 02:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any coordinate provided in KML, or Lat-long, or UTM by zone, can be easily verified by either someone who knows Google Earth, or qGIS, or AutoCAD, or MicroStation, or ArcGIS. The idea that Google Earth can be anything other than slightly outdated is laughable to me: My entire career is built off the assumption that Google, Bing, ESRI, etc. are reliable indicators of the position of something on the globe to an accuracy of 1m. It's not 2004, the GPS system of Earth is far more capable than any secondary source that exists. - Floydianτ¢ 20:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to reckon with the fact that the vast, vast majority of Wikipedians and Wikipedia users will not have ever heard of several of the programs you are citing. Let alone being able to verify anything using them. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that's fine. The vast majority of Wikipedians can't verify a textbook from Estonia, but it's an acceptable source. The vast majority of Wikipedians can't perform calculus or calculate the Einstein field equations, but that's ok. They're verifiable claims, whether or not you are capable of that verification. - Floydianτ¢ 20:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KML files are shapefiles, they do not contain any information about what was or was not visible on those coördinates at any point in time. If Einstein posted his field equations to Wikipedia himself, that'd be OR. And let me put this simply: I am not going to waste valuable hours of my free time trying to reconstruct whatever hair brained map another Wikipedian cooked up on google earth to prove that X or Y object did or did not have Y property at Z date. PS: Don't bludgeon this discussion please, you've had a new comment up every consecutive time I refreshed the page for quite a while now. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"they do not contain any information about what was or was not visible on those coördinates at any point in time" - nor should they. Coordinates should only be used to indicate the present condition. Anybody can verify that. - Floydianτ¢ 03:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Needing to use any of those is not SKYISBLUE verifiability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing with you about the capability of GIS maps to be accurate to within a meter. I was just pointing out that it is possible for these maps to be objectively accurate, not just relatively accurate. In any event, this is the proper role of someone verifying an article's statements against its sources, not of someone evaluating the sources for inclusion in the article. Minh Nguyễn💬 07:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, maps and photos can be subjective. The difference is, where disagreements on location arise, the aerial/satellite photos published in Google Earth are usually right, and the numbers from which Google's maps are made are mistaken. The placement of manhole covers and other long-lived infrastructure items allows great precision in urban locations, the main exception being in slant views. So, I use slant views to understand the environment generally and to identify objects, and straight-down views (where available) for precise locations of specific objects. - Jim.hendersonτ¢ 23:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in the real world, but Wikipedia is a bunch of amateurs. Is that tree-line a dike next to that swamp or is it a railroad ROW next to the old stockyards? And you can't fact-check.
I was always an "urban explorer" so I usually use the slant view and sometimes field-check. I've had pretty good luck with Google, it's an actual picture, of course it's accurate, but I have it a year or more behind in Forest View right now. I don't know how to date it. The map itself is only barely good enough to aim the satellite at a landmark and check street names. Sammy D III (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a utility engineer, and knowing where sewers, pipes and telecom conduits are in the real world is my job description. I've worked for several major companies that are the top of their field for this type of work. Google Earth is second only to the local municipalities GIS, and a physical survey of points. Both satellite and streetview indicate the date of the imagery, and I take that into account in my assessments (for example, if the streetview is from 2013, I send a team of surveyors out). You can argue that the placemarks/labels are wrong, that areas outside of cities in North America/Europe are displaced, etc. But you will never be able to convince any competent engineer that Google Earth is off the mark by anything more significant than what is required for construction. Wikipedia does not need that level of accuracy for anything in the built environment. - Floydianτ¢ 20:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for talking. We have "JULIE" here. I think satellite is still subjective here (Wikipedia), you have to recognize a storm sewer from a utility vault access. My comment on the map was personal preference, not accuracy, I don't know that.
I've just discovered the difference between Google "Maps" and "Earth Pro". Especially the history. Wow. I wonder how many people know about "Earth Pro". Sammy D III (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"something's likely notable if it's marked on an Ordnance Survey map of 1:100,000 scale or greater" If that were the case, we could have an article on Harrietsham Post Office. But we don't. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why I wrote "likely notable" instead of "definitely always notable".—S MarshallT/C 14:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comments so far seem to have a US-centric view. I'd particularly like to see examples from elsewhere, such as historical maps of the Caste system in India. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 13:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of off-topic, but I'm interested separately about "US-centric", if you have time. No big deal, thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe more a western world view. From my experience, sources, and reliability thereof is quite different in India, despite us having a significant amount of Indian articles, and my desire to have more admins from that part of the world. So I'd be interested to get feedback from there. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 23:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering. "western world view" makes more sense and I agree. Sammy D III (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps has lagged behind in updating the state highways of Madhya Pradesh and I had to use MapmyIndia instead. --Rschen7754 00:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good example, for a long time I've noticed the quality and standard of sourcing in India compared to the western English speaking world is sufficiently lower, and far more articles seem to turn up at AfD and CSD. Combine that with arb cases I'd run a mile from, I want to make absolutely sure that whatever policy change we come up with isn't used as a weapon by POV pushers in these contentious topic areas. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the concerns I have with the singling out of Google Maps. Agreed it has its problems, but it has benefits too. Among them, if I want to verify something about a geographical feature/city/highway in the USA, but Google Maps is off limits, no problem. I have several maps of various types at my disposal that I prefer anyways. But if I need to verify a similar claim about something in India I have few other options aside from Google Maps. Dave (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A concern I have specifically in the case of maps distributed as SVGs is that it is hard to determine what scale they are intended to be read at, so it would be possible to cite details, e.g. what side of a river a village is on, that could just be the result of a bezier curve or whatever. small jarstc 23:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It does describe some of the cautions one has to be aware of when using maps. However, imagine what this RFC would be like if that was the proposal. --Rschen7754 01:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello to everyone involved on all sides of the debate. I have not read any of the discussion, but I noticed it in my watchlist after an editing dispute on a related page, and I think it is both needed and fair to give notice to all here that there is another related discussion now taking place at Wikipedia_talk:These_are_not_original_research#Old_section which is need of editor input for the purpose of deciding consensus. Your comments are requested. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came across an example of citing a few maps just now while improving College Green, Dublin. The first map is a Google Maps extract and is used purely to show that it is on Dublin's Southside (ie: south of the River Liffey) and that it is about 170m long. The other map is printed in Dublin: The City Within the Grand and Royal Canals and the Circular Road with the Phoenix Park and is an outline of the important streets surrounding Trinity College, Dublin, which is used to cite what streets College Green connects to. All other information in the article, including the history and architecture, comes from text sources, from either reputable book publishers or news outlets. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 23:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add another anecdotal example, which I alluded to in one of my responses above. I am a utility engineer, I design fibre optic networks for ISPs. We rely on Google Earth and ESRI (which uses Bing Maps) for almost everything, to the point that data from the utility company is far less accurate than satellite imagery. While we may disagree as to what can be sourced to Google Maps, you have to agree that the data itself is accurate. - Floydianτ¢ 03:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a great many errors in Google Maps/Earth, Esri, Bing Maps/TomTom, and all the rest, just not enough of the ones that would impact your use case. Blind faith in every aspect of a given map is problematic. On the other hand, it isn't necessary for a source to be infallible in order to cite it. The most trustworthy news institutions have ombudspeople who issue correction notices, not for no reason, but they are still reliable sources, and more to the point, citing them does not necessarily constitute original research. Minh Nguyễn💬 07:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having worked for one of the map providers listed above, I will readily not agree that the data itself is accurate. In fact, it's a well-known problem in the industry that map data providers have to chase map updates themselves. If roads for a new subdivision are privately laid, or a city modifies an existing intersection, it's nobody's job to notify Bing or Google or TomTom. The providers typically discover these things themselves, via methods like scraping new satellite imagery or receiving user complaints. This issue is also biased towards more wealthy countries; the big mapping providers are notoriously terrible at mapping regions where they don't make money, and volunteer efforts like Missing Maps have to do this work for them. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is the biggest question regarding out use of maps as sources and the only opinions I've seen noted are that maps do not count towards notability. I was wondering whether thats a broadly held belief or if its more nuanced than that? My own take is that while in most situations maps don't count towards notability there are cases in which they do, lets construct the hypothetical of Horse Eye Island which is an uninhabited island in the South Pacific. IMO a regional map which included Horse Eye Island would not indicate notability, but a map specifically of Horse Eye Island published by a reliable source would indicate notability. So just appearing on a map does not indicate notability, but being the explicit subject of a map likely does (barring the normal disqualifications for notability like primary etc). Interested in hearing other perspectives on this and crafting an additional RfC question from those perspectives. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I think this extends to topics outside geographic features, for example a map of the Cuban sugar industry would indicate the notability of the Cuban sugar industry (the pitfall here is going to be avoiding primary sources as the most likely group to publish a map of the Cuban sugar industry would be the Cuban sugar industry in which case it wouldn't count). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in principle, but I am concerned about how much we could write about a place using solely a map without violating WP:OR and whether that means it would be better for maps not to contribute to notability. BilledMammal (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's just a single map that doesn't seem to push over the GNG bar in the first place. We would still be subject to the normal requirements to have multiple reliable sources, the edge cases such as when there is basically just one source but its a full length book by an academic author and publisher don't really seem to apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was if we only have maps about a place - for example, two sources have maps focused on Horse Eye Island, but no one else has produced content on it. BilledMammal (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like the sort of edge case where "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." applies. They're just indicators of notability after all not guarantors of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A map alone is not enough to prove notability the same way a single article isn't enough to be notable. But a map can certainly be included in the consideration, especially if it's a map *of that thing* rather than just a map generally. Same way an article could. --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so I think we're got our three options for an RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've given a very different take on this, above. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, but per old and longstanding consensus it is also a gazetteer. In order to fulfil that function our rules must permit us to host entries on geographical features and the best place to find those is on a reliable map.—S MarshallT/C 17:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, that says "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." not "Wikipedia is a gazetteer." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it is all three of those things and has been from the beginning. Your narrow view of what belongs here won't change that. –Fredddie™ 17:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your source for that? That would appear to directly contradict WP:5P1. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Random is my source. Click around the articlespace once in a while instead of lawyering the fun out of being an editor. –Fredddie™ 17:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you could refrain from the personal attacks and comment on the content that would be greatly appreciated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to call a spade a spade. –Fredddie™ 17:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer, which is a variety of database/dictionary, both of which are things that Wikipedia is explicitly NOT. There never has been a consensus that Wikipedia is a Gazetteer. The mass-produced articles that clog up clicks on RANDOM, but which are regularly deleted when they come to AFD, only reinforce that. See also Wikipedia is not a gazetteer. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems we have more fundamental issues regarding notability, considering the comments below by an admin who is apparently not aware a GNG notability-contributing source must be independent and reliable (not to mention secondary and SIGCOV). significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject leaves no room for interpretation... JoelleJay (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't make too much of that, the standard for new admins used to be much lower than it is today. You will find quite a number of early admins with an embarrassing lack of competence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, I don't see anything at all in the interpretation you just quoted requiring a specific source to be secondary. (Whether it contributes to notability or not.) So, while you and HEB are admin bashing, just remember every one of us is susceptible to making a mistake. Huggums537 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say the quoted text stated sources must be secondary, the quote is for "independent and reliable". The secondary requirement follows from the rest of GNG and from OR (Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability). JoelleJay (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RFC before for maps as indicators of notability[edit]
I don't believe it is inappropriate to include this question in the RfC, but I agree with CaptainEek and S Marshall that this needs more work-shopping. My suggestion for the question is
When does a map contribute towards significant coverage of a geographical feature?
A: When the geographical feature is included in a map with a scale of at least 1:100000
B: When the geographical feature is the subject of a map
C: Never
Examples of maps prepared by professional cartographers include maps prepared by a nations national mapping agency, such as Ordnance Survey
This doesn't address whether a source is primary, independent, etc, but I don't believe it needs to be addressed by the question - I think those questions can easily be resolved by applying our current guidelines. BilledMammal (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: If you want to workshop something, please do so on the talk page, not here. It's confusing if this is proposed or not, and it doesn't belong until it is proposed. Imzadi 1979→ 23:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the header; I don't believe there is an issue work shopping here, but I can see how the header would be confusing. BilledMammal (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so I can see two things that I think are important to consider. The first is, who prepared the map? An Ordnance Survey map is reliable, but a map from a museum pamphlet is not. The second is maps at what scale? Virtually every man-made structure in the UK is on one of the 1:1,250 scale Ordnance Survey maps, individual streets all named and labelled, etc. I've proposed that a geographical feature is likely notable if it's marked on a 1:100,000 scale map, so that gives you towns, cities, rivers, forests and woodlands, prominent hills etc.—S MarshallT/C 08:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think map reliability is a separate question, one that can be determined through our existing policies. For your point about scale, that is relevant to option A, but I'm not certain how to word it - do you have a suggestion? BilledMammal (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to workshopping with well-informed editors, my opening suggestion would be that a map entry is SIGCOV for notability purposes if and only if the map is published by the relevant national mapping agency and its scale is at least 1:100,000 or greater.—S MarshallT/C 18:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The scale of a map is often thought of as a fraction. For example a scale of 1:100,000 is 1/100,000 and means that to find the size a representation should be, multiply the real-world length of the feature by 1/100,000. Therefore, a large scale map is more detailed than a small scale map. Perhaps phrases such as "more detailed" or "less detailed" would be more appropriate in Wikipedia guidelines. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable; I’ve updated the proposal to support more workshopping. I think the “less detailed”/“more detailed” wording would be confusing, so I’ve left it out. BilledMammal (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we say "a geographical feature" rather than "a topic"? I'm looking to permit entries about hills, rivers and forests, not contour lines or longitudes.—S MarshallT/C 23:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“Feature” or just “geographic feature”? BilledMammal (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A "feature", in the eyes of certain of our more inclusionist editors, could be anything marked on a map. I'd very much prefer to be clear and specific about this: it needs to be a landscape feature. A lake, but not a bus stop. A castle, but not the castle's car park. I don't know how else to say this except as "geographical feature", although I'd welcome better suggestions.
I'd also very much prefer it if we specified a map by a national mapping agency, which we can assume to have been prepared by professional cartographers on the basis of data prepared by professional surveyors. Maps in scholarly texts are, unfortunately, sometimes complete rubbish because of the way publishing works: even where the author of a text is a university professor, and the work says it's "by" that professor, the included maps are probably not "by" her in any meaningful sense, unless she happens to be a cartographer.—S MarshallT/C 23:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of the changes? I expanded the scope slightly beyond national mapping agencies, but I’m happy to limit it to that if you prefer. BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that rather than express my view of the changes, I need to leave off and let other editors chime in here! I feel as if this is in danger of becoming the S Marshall and BilledMammal show, and we need more voices to counteract that.—S MarshallT/C 14:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or would it be better to ask a seperate question of “are maps prepared by non-professional cartographers reliable?”; I feel this is a question that is relevant beyond notability, and not relevant to whether a source is SIGCOV - it can be SIGCOV without being reliable and without contributing to notability. BilledMammal (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the aspect of "prepared by a non-professional cartographer" and would instead suggest the following second question:
Should WP:RS#Some types of sources be clarified to state that maps must be prepared by professional cartographers to be considered reliable sources?
Given the lack of further discussion I've opened 4a, 4b, and 5. 4b was boldly added when I realized that might be an issue with 4a by itself, but I don't believe the question needs work-shopping beyond what was already done for 4a. BilledMammal (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very Western-centric idea, without much evaluation about whether such maps are available outside Western countries. --Rschen7754 01:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of reliable sources for non-Western topics is a problem, but it’s one that is relevant to the everything we do here, not just maps, and it is one that we cannot fix - we must wait for the world to fix this problem. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal:, I think we would need more transparency as to how you believe this would interact with numerous SNGs, or whether you support having them at all. --Rschen7754 01:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it would interact at all with SNGs; why would it? BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proving something meets the SNG. --Rschen7754 01:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is very vague; can you give more details on why you think it will interact with that and what you think the effects will be? BilledMammal (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proving that something is a national park, for example. --Rschen7754 01:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand how this would interact with that. Why and how do you think it will limit your ability to prove something is a national park? BilledMammal (talk) 01:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the other editor, but WP:GEOFEAT reads, Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Presumably an appropriate map could be used to establish the protected status of an artificial geographical feature, although verifiable information beyond its existence, location, and "simple statistics" would also be required to satisfy this SNG provision. Newimpartial (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, if there is a national park or some designated cultural heritage site, surely proof of such would exist beyond a map, such as a mention in a book, news article, or an entry on an official web registry. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why cut your penis off just because the testicles are the only thing that are technically required to reproduce? Huggums537 (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's an asinine thought-terminating cliché I never thought I'd encounter. Introducing WP:HUGGUMSLAW: "As an online discussion continues, the probability of a reference or comparison to mutilating penises increases." From another perspective and more to the point at hand, I think it's way easier to "[prove] that something is a national park, for example" by using something that is not a map. If you're trying to establish that Yellowstone National Park and Virunga National Park and all you can find are Google maps or maybe an official tourism map but can't be bothered to read the basicweb sources found on the first page of Google search results and which describe the respective places and offer a modicum of context, you're probably vacuous enough to think penis-mutilation metaphors constitute a solid argument. Oh, oops. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt anyone is as "vacuous" as you would like to pretend they are, and I think most everyone got your point the first time, so repeating it again along with the extended ad hominem about my metaphor is really just an avoidance of the underlying reasoning the metaphor represents in the first place. "Oh, oops." Besides, I think your idea that one way of referencing is any easier to prove than another is a bunch of cow manure anyway. It's just as easy to refer to an online map as it is a website. Also, Wikipedia references aren't supposed to be judged by "ease of access" in the first place, so why does it matter if it's any "easier" to prove? If all I had was this map in an archive to prove some geographical or historical fact, then it doesn't matter how easy it is to access it as long as people can go look. Huggums537 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at least JoelleJay had the decency to come right out and just bluntly say they didn't understand the reasoning behind the metaphor. I can respect that. "Wtf" is a simple statement that says someone really just has no idea what the hell you are talking about. Making implications others are "asinine", and "vacuous" just because you don't understand the reasoning of a metaphor, or worse yet, do understand the reasoning, but deflect with personal attacks has to be one of the least respectable things I've encountered on Wikipedia while we are on the subject of Wikipedia encounters. Huggums537 (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The vacuous insinuation was too personalized on my part, so I apologize for going too far. But "asinine" was with regards to your metaphor, not you. Here's where I think your metaphor is flawed: cutting off one's penis is extremely debilitating and would probably make it harder and painful to reproduce, even if one still very well can with only the testes. I think it's asinine to think the negative effect on human reproduction process which would come with penis removal is somehow comparable to not using maps as a source to prove something is a national park (and if we're looking at most such enwiki articles, I doubt most cite their "X is a Fooian national park" statements to maps, so you must be seeing missing penises everywhere). Here's I think a better metaphor: Why would we bother citing this photo to support the statement that "Mussolini is dead" when we could cite news articles, books, etc...? And I am making no "ease of access" argument. I am making a "when presented with a myriad of sources, choosing the worst one with the least contextual info is not the way to go" argument. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can do without unnecessarily crude metaphors. Sure, such government websites are accessible/available in the US, but maybe not in a third world country. Not to mention that I'm sure you would discard such a government website as a primary source. --Rschen7754 02:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Virunga National Park is in a third world country (website I gave was UNESCO BTW, not a Congolese government website). And more non-independent than primary here (I wasn't citing legislation which established the parks), which is besides the point because we're talking about establishing the fact that something is a national park, not notability. Can someone offer an example where a map is the only plausibly locatable source which can establish something is a national park or cultural site, since this seems to be of some concern? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology. Most other people would try to argue away their behavior. It takes a very insightful person to admit when they've been wrong, so I commend you for that. Indeed, I also agree it's asinine to think the negative effect on human reproduction process which would come with penis removal is somehow comparable to not using maps as a source to prove something is a national park... It occurs to me that anyone who thinks something that asinine about the metaphor either never really understood it in the first place, or simply disagreed with it, and decided to mutilate it by describing it in the most asinine way possible. Since it isn't obvious (or even provable) that mutilation of the English language is the possible culprit, I will forgive Rschen7754 for reprimanding my "crudeness", while letting the possible crudeness of mutilating the English language get a pass. I guess just forget about my concerns. They can just go to hell because they are too crude I suppose... Huggums537 (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel I have failed to understand your metaphor, could you explain what your intended meaning was? -Indy beetle (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking, but at this point I'm exasperated by the fact that all three respondents to my metaphor thought it was more important to talk about how far from perfect it is than to discuss any meaning it may have. It is sadly a true testament to the way most of Wikipedia "works", and the only saving grace that even gives me a glimmer of hope that Wikipedia will change is the fact that one editor actually did thank me for the edit. Huggums537 (talk) 18:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indy beetle, I"d also like to give credit where credit is due and say that you also gave me a glimmer of hope that Wikipedia can change by virtue of the fact you did extend the offer to discuss the meaning of the metaphor so thanks again for that. :) Huggums537 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish that BilledMammal hadn't started what I see as premature RfCs on this, and I really hope the RfCs are closed without result per David Eppstein. I remain of the view that maps that are prepared by national mapping agencies such as the Ordnance Survey or the USGS are reliable sources, and features that national mapping agencies have selected to appear on larger-scale maps are likely to be notable; but unfortunately this has been divided into two separate questions and put to the community, and it's unlikely that either of them will pass on their own.—S MarshallT/C 15:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these RfCs improperly piggybacked onto the main RfC were premature and that they should close as no consensus. I am going to save my specific opinions for a proper RfC. VC 16:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: this discussion is absolutely 100% necessary given the statements that have been made about it being appropriate to write articles based solely on map content on this page. This discussion is every bit as valid and deserves to go ahead. FOARP (talk) 09:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparent that this RfC has not had sufficient WP:RFCBEFORE, and is thus premature. This is not a decision on the merits, and it can certainly be re-run after appropriate preparatory work is done. CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which of the following best describes the conditions under which a map can contribute to establishing notability?
A. Inclusion on a map published by an independent reliable source can contribute to establishing notability.
B. Being the subject of a map published by an independent reliable source can contribute to establishing notability.
C. Maps published by independent reliable sources can not contribute to establishing notability.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Horse Eye's Back (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment I think a better phrasing for this proposal would be either "can be used to establish notability" or "can contribute to establishing notability" Using that Phrasing, I'd go with A. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously ridiculous options.—S MarshallT/C 17:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, feel free to propose your own option. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did, and have, above. This needs workshopping, and is totally unready to vote on at this stage.—S MarshallT/C 18:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"independent reliable sources": I see a policy about independent sources. I see policy about reliable sources. I have yet to see the combined phrase "independent reliable" used to restrict any other source medium anywhere in policy. If that phrase is used to restrict other sources please provide a link so I can review it. I am curious why we need to introduce unique phrasing to restrict map sources above and beyond what is used to restrict other sources. Dave (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I borrowed that language from WP:V "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all options and request closure or removal—as not germane to the subject of the RfC here as stated in the title of this page, which is the ability to use non-prose sources such as maps in articles. Imzadi 1979→ 18:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all and request procedural closure this is not relevant to this RFC. –Fredddie™ 18:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notability and Reliable Sources are separate topics. I agree this also needs discussion. But start a separate RFC please. Dave (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose conducting an RfC within an RfC. I understand "we're got our three options for an RfC," but the results of the current RfC will be needed to clarify the proposals for the next RfC. The notability RfC should be a dedicated one that occurs after the Using Maps as Sources RfC concludes, not piggybacking on the Using Maps as Sources RfC. VC 18:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This question probably needs to be re-thought/workshopped. I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. Appearing on a routine map (e.g., Google Maps) means nothing. Appearing on some "special" maps sometimes means something, and sometimes means nothing. I think it's better to evaluate such sources in terms of WP:WHYN. Does it let you write a significant portion of an encyclopedia article? If "Celebrities' Homes in Malibu" only lets you say that "Streisand owns the house at this address", then you can't write an article in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are these options so limited, incomplete, and outlandish? For example, option "B" reads like the exact equivalent of saying that only when an article topic is the subject of a book will it be allowed to be used as significant coverage, but that isn't even a standard we use so why is something like that even an option here? Another perfectly malformed proposal where none of the options are any good. If you said to me sure, I'll let you get significant coverage from audio or video sources, but only if the whole audio or video is the subject of the source, then you pretty much limited me to using only primary audio/video sources for significant coverage because those are the only ones guaranteed to be strictly about the subject! In other words, it isn't really much of a choice. This proposal is astonishing to anyone who has half a brain, and I commend those who voted for none of the above as they are the ones who recognize a deficit when they see one. Huggums537 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B. This is a map prepared by a reliable source at a ratio of 1:250000, and contains considerably less geographical features than a map with a lower scale, such as 1:100000. However, it still contains countless non-notable geographical features, both named and unnamed; as such, allowing us to consider this significant coverage of those features would be a huge mistake. However, that doesn't mean that maps can never be SIGCOV; a map prepared by a reliable and independent source of of New York is significant coverage of New York, even if it isn't significant coverage of the individual features of New York.BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C. The map extract linked to by BilledMammal shows a phone box on the B1359 near Gedney Marsh, an electricity pylon just east of Sutton Bridge off the A17, a filling station at the A17 / A47 roundabout. and a tourist information point in Spalding. I can't ever see Wikipedia articles being written about them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*B Per Billedmammal above and my own arguments elsewhere. A map can contribute to notability in a lot of ways but I think "map is about that thing" is likely the best cutoff point we can find. I feel comfortable that if someone showed me a map about a feature I'd almost always consider it a contributor to notability. I'd be less convinced by someone showing it to me on a map.C having been convinced by indybeetle ----Licks-rocks (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B I've been going back and forth on this one. I think my final conclusion is B. GNG requires that sources confer notability when that source covers the subject directly, and extensively enough that no original research is needed to extract the information you are looking for. This is hard to define for a map, as we can see everywhere in the discussions surrounding this comment. For that reason, I don't believe just appearing on a map is sufficient to confer notability. Indiebeetle below names a local lake as an example, and I was briefly convinced by this to switch my answer to C. But after thinking upon it a little further, a map can contribute to notability without immediately granting something notable status on its own. If I can find exactly one news article on a subject, I would likely still AfD that article mentioning for example WP:1E or any other shorthand for lack of significant coverage. I recently did that to an article about a meteor in Russia did gain some coverage, just not enough for it to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. Similarly, I think a map can still contribute notability, even if it's not enough on its own. But for that, it isn't enough to be a symbol or label on a map, it needs to be a map of a place for it to contribute to notability. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. A phone box on the B1359 isn't a bloody geographical feature.—S MarshallT/C 12:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We probably need to spell out that in this context a "geographical feature" means a lake, river, mountain or prominent hill, forest or ancient woodland.—S MarshallT/C 12:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gedney Marsh is a geographical feature shown on the map, and I think it is debatable if certain man-made structures such as the Sutton Bridge could be considered as geographical features as well. Huggums537 (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural matters aside, this is not very well written and tries to treat geographical objects that are a point, a line, and a polygon with the same brush. --Rschen7754 16:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B, because based on the proposal, a map about provincial highways in Ontario establishes the notability of provincial highways in Ontario... Which is what has been the status quo for the past 20 years, and should remain as. Unless... I'm mischaracterizing the proposal and it should go back to a workshop and not be seriously considered at this point. - Floydianτ¢ 17:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Table until consensus is reached on questions 1–3 to avoid a potential nonsense result like "maps cannot be used as sources but can be used to establish notability". —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scott5114: I don't believe any of the current proposals 1-3 can result in a consensus that "maps cannot be used as sources"? BilledMammal (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the fire? I don't see any concern so pressing that it justifies not waiting for an admin to duly close the discussion and record that as the decision having been reached. WP:NODEADLINE —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on the use of maps as sources and a number of editors, including myself, thought there were other aspects that should be included as part of that discussion; I don't see WP:NODEADLINE as an argument for not doing so, particularly given an admin closed the one above with the note that there was no issue with rerunning the general question after appropriate preparatory work was done. BilledMammal (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C Maps prove mere existence, but not notability. Notability is primarily about the amount, reliability, and independence of source text, and existence on a map would never pass the "significant coverage" criteria. What we need it text about the feature not merely text that names the feature. By definition, naming on a map is a mere mention, and not significant coverage. --Jayron32 12:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above. Each case needs to be judged on its merits - e.g. if a map names only one instance of a feature despite there being tens or more features of that type on the coverage area then the named thing is clearly significant in the context of that map and possibly for Wikipedia purposes. If a feature is named on (nearly) every map of a given area, even when most maps including that area name few or none of the others then it's clearly significant for some reason. Being the subject of a map is clearly going to be significant in some cases, but not all - e.g. when I worked for Defra my job was to make maps of individual farms (or in some cases individual fields), for the purposes of agri-environment scheme agreements. That doesn't mean that every farm with such an agreement has significant coverage. In contrast, a specific farm being the subject of multiple maps made for different purposes probably does indicate that it is significant. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"if a map names only one instance of a feature despite there being tens or more features of that type on the coverage area then the named thing is clearly significant in the context of that map" - WHAT?! Like, if a map shows the location of my local Burger King but not the location of other burger Restaurants, this means my local Burger King must be notable, even in the context of that map?! This is clearly not the case, because there are a multitude of other explanations for such omissions. For restaurants or literally anything else (rivers, lakes, mountains, houses etc.) you simply cannot take that kind of message simply from an omission. Maps are incapable of making the statement that you want them to make, because ultimately they are just the geographic equivalent of a photo/painting/drawing of something and not an actual description of it which requires written/spoken coverage. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're describing a map as if it were some kind of artwork, and I don't really think of that as a description at all, but more like a [creative] piece of art itself. The kind of art I hang on my refrigerator when my nephew comes in from daycare. My logic follows thusly: if your description is art, then that means descriptions and art can be the same thing. If you say maps are art (not descriptions) then you are wrong because I have just proved to you that descriptions and art can be the same thing. It's indisputable logic. Just roll with it. Huggums537 (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C There is a map of a local lake park in my city here, produced by my city's parks and rec department. This should not mean the small lake is now magically notable. We need textual sources which actually describe said lake (physical characteristics, wildlife, history, etc) to create a proper article. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C. Per discussion above and below. If we can't write an article that is NPOV and has no OR using only maps as sources, then maps cannot contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above per Thryduulf's good points and WP:CREEP. Talk of particular scales is ridiculous micro-management. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C I don't think maps can ever provide significant coverage as I understand it. (t · c) buidhe 05:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above. Per Thyrduulf, more or less; this is very much dependent on context and how much information each map conveys. I don't think any of the options, including C, can suffice as a blanket substitute for our usual analysis of sources. Choess (talk) 05:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above-Close out discussion Per my comments below. This is a reasonable discussion to have, but is a separate topic from this RFC, furthermore none of these specific proposals are workable. Dave (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C (for artificial geographic features). This is a well-established consensus at WP:GEOFEAT and it seems to be generally obeyed. — hike395 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above and close. None of these options are good as to whether maps can be used to determine notability, as there are many factors to consider. In addition, this is a tangent to what this RFC was originally about, and should be closed and maybe discussed at another time. Dough4872 11:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C There is no way merely being labeled on maps can be considered sufficient for notability. This is not significant or substantive coverage. No article should ever be sourced only to maps. Reywas92Talk 13:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lean B, a map of a topic can contribute to significant coverage. This remains subject to the usual considerations of reliability, independence, quality, etc. That said, I'd be really surprised if something was having reliable and independent maps made of it yet there being nothing written about it. CMD (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C SIGCOV requires prose coverage, which maps do not have. Avilich (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C per WP:WHYN"We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" and WP:NPLACE"Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.", however a new policy may be unnuecessary since WP:GEOLAND already excludes maps from contributing to notability. –dlthewave☎ 18:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C - We should absolutely NOT EVER cover a geographic location (populated or unpopulated) based simply on map sources. They just do not include anything that is meaningfully significant coverage, since they do not provide details of the actual place itself. They at most show that the place exists, provide purely statistical date on that location (co-ordinates, altitude), not actual details from which and article can be written without original research. It is good to have a decision saying as much so I look forward to this being closed with a substantial closure summary to that effect. FOARP (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of above and close per my comment near the "options". Huggums537 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None - Given how poorly-worded the proposal is, I am not comfortable with adopting it without a much deeper discussion. Maps are as diverse a source type as any, so being the subject of a tourist map does not mean a feature is more notable than something marked on a national atlas. SounderBruce 06:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above this requires more thought than the presented options allow --In actu (Guerillero)Parlez Moi 09:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above per Huggums357, SounderBruce, and Guerillero. I think it's probably much more difficult to demonstrate SIGCOV when only maps are used, but the choices given don't really probe the axes I'd want to explore. I would oppose C in particular. I think Horse Eye's Back's example is reasonable in principle; such a map wouldn't demonstrate SIGCOV of individual features on the map, but if it was rich in information, it could demonstrate SIGCOV of the map's overall subject. Choess (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notability RFC and was never advertised as that on any of the pages that this was crossposted to. I recommend questions 4 and 5 be shut down and revisited at a later date. --Rschen7754 03:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's enough RFC before to make this a proper RFC now. Maybe it's time to make it its separate thing? I guess we could take this back to village pump? --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to that, not only were the proposals tacked on at a later date, but there's a huge block of other discussions in between. Generally when I look at a RFC, I stop when the "other random crap" begins. I have left comments on the proposals in the event they are considered valid, but I am not happy about it. --Rschen7754 05:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second the call to close proposals 4a, 4b, and 5 immediately as non-germane. This RfC was started to answer the question if the act of reading a map was original research or not. That is the core question that needs to be answered before any others related to how maps connect to notability or if a map is reliable. If we can't read and map and translate its contents into articles, then the other questions may not matter at all! Imzadi 1979→ 04:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let discussion play out; if everyone agrees with you, it's not a problem. If nobody agrees with you, that's the way consensus goes. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this works. A distinct proposal was posed, concerning the use of maps as sources. These additional proposals are, at best, confusing, ill-prepared and hasty. At worst, they are intentional obfuscation. - Floydianτ¢ 13:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is exactly the discussion Wikipedia needs to have. However, I second Imzadi1979s concerns. This should be a separate RFC. With that said, Wikipedia already has a problem of being Eurocentric and US-centric. Supposedly the project is making efforts to increase coverage of topics outside these areas. All of these options would codify policy that makes that more difficult. For a geographic feature in, say North Korea, this selection of sources is going to be far more limited than a similar feature in a developed nation that is actively trying to promote it's geography for tourism. I'm also curious how editors in countries that were former British colonies would feel about having a hard coded map resolution codified in policy that would explicitly permit UK government produced maps but bar those produced by their country. However, the idea of having listed qualities of a map that can be used as a factor to establish notability is a good idea. I just don't see any of these suggestions as workable. Dave (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This and all subsequent proposals should be closed as out-of-procedure add-ons made to the RFC long after many participants contributed their opinion and left. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will also chime in on the call out for the closing of all out-of-procedure proposals and add my vote for that. Huggums537 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is a healthy counter-balance to Prop 1 and necessary in case it passes. Let the discussion go on. FOARP (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These questions were not part of the original proposal because the original proposal was planned in private, ignoring previous discussions that had included questions about notability. Therefore it's addition here is completely justified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A question for anyone saying anything other than C: what are some concrete examples of maps that provide WP:SIGCOV for a particular subject? I'm trying to wrap my head around why, say, a map of a city park would lend to notability of that park any more than a photo of a person would lend to notability of that person. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 12:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this example comes all the way there, but the map here at least points at a cartographic style that I think might do it. Choess (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal 4b: Notability - Sourced only to maps[edit]
If the answer to Proposal 4a is not "Never", can a topic be notable when the only significant sources are maps? BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Survey (Proposal 4b: Notability - Sourced only to maps)[edit]
No. While maps, in the right circumstances, can be considered WP:SIGCOV, the sort of article we can create with such sources is very limited due to the need to avoid WP:OR, and so we should limit standalone articles to those where significant coverage beyond maps exist. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NoYesI guess in some cases I could imagine someone writing something that is stub-bottom rung of start class about for example a nature park where the only sources are maps describing it. For that reason I could see someone saying yes here, but if the topic was E, there'd definitely also be at least some written sources describing it, and a map can only get you so far in terms of writing an encyclopedic article. -- Actually ignore that last part. If you can source it only with maps you can source it with maps. Full stop. But! keep in mind that while I voted B above. I don't believe a single map is enough to confer notability. You'd need to show that there are multiple maps by various organisations covering different aspects of the same thing for it to be indisputably notable (e.g. a map of caribou sightings in [nature reserve], a map of [nature reserve] itself, a map of rivers in [nature reserves]. not just a map of the nature reserve by the organisation managing it. (The latter would also violate WP:PRIMARY, just so we're clear))--Licks-rocks (talk) 12:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two different local whitewater rafting companies have published maps with takeout spots and named rapids for a stretch of river near me. Does that make that stretch of river notable by itself, separately from the whole river? Or does that just mean the companies have a commercial interest in mapping the rivers they operate on? What independent secondary info could we extract from such maps that is encyclopedic? JoelleJay (talk) 17:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's where WP:ABOUTSELF comes in, right? I don't think any part of this discussion should supersede the normal standards of evaluation we already have for sources anyway. If you can't find enough sources to meet the fifth prong of ABOUTSELF, you have no article, with or without maps. If there's a map specifically of that stretch of the river by, say, National Geographic, and another one by a national geologic service or ordnance bureau, and together they include enough information to write a well-rounded article, I think that's fair game. It's a high bar to clear for me to not AFD the resulting article anyway, but the point is that it I do believe it can, once in a blue moon, be cleared. That being said, the behaviour of some of the editors participating in this discussion is making me seriously question whether such an exception is really worth the inevitable AfD flame war that will result when someone tries and fails to clear said bar--Licks-rocks (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Licks-rocks - the issue is that if Nat Geo, or indeed some other reputable agency, decided to produce a map of e.g., a section of river or road, but not write anything about it, then there's a serious question mark over whether this indicates notability because we are cannot make an inference of notability without any actual confirmation that the article-topic really was what they were trying to represent and what their motive for doing so was. Maps per se are only graphical representations the same way photos and drawings/paintings/films are, they do not contain any actual description in words - can we (absent any actual spoken/written description anywhere) draw any notability for an article-topic simply from something being photographed by even a very prominent photographer? Or painted by a well-known painter? Or filmed by a famous camera-man? In every instance the person doing the filming/painting/photographing could have multiple motives for doing what they are doing and we have no way of knowing which it was. In every case any article based on such graphical data would just be an editor-created interpretation of it.
And let's not kid ourselves what this is about. This is about whether it is acceptable to write an article like U.S. Route 19 in West Virginia based solely on Google Maps and a Rand-McNally road-atlas, and that this article can never be challenged or required to be improved on. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zero contest on that last point. And I should make it very clear here that such an article does not clear the bar I was talking about. I'm purely voting yes on a hypothetical technicality here. The reason for my going against the grain here is mostly just that I dislike broadly construed bans on certain practices. I don't think the best way to get rid of the type of articles you describe is to ban using maps for them. I think addressing the problem head-on is much less likely to have unintentional adverse effects on other parts of the wiki. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You folks would have had the article deleted or redirected, but I've already found a newspaper source for that article and I am sure there are others. Rschen7754 06:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the risk of the article not being found to meet the standards for inclusion as a stand-alone article went and made you find additional references to improve it (though I think more is needed to actually meet WP:NGEO) shows why the standards are necessary and good things that help people edit better, and should be defended. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because taking numerous articles to AfD from a specific topic or by a specific editor, for which you haven't even bothered to look for sources, isn't pointy or creating a battleground, right? - Floydianτ¢ 13:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Floydian ....and the person who has done that is? FYI I cannot ever recall having interacted with either yourself or Rs outside of this discussion, much less having brought an article by either of you to AFD. I have not taken part in any of the discussion preceding this one at RSN or whatever. I only became aware of this discussion because it was notified to CENT. There is no Evil Cabal of Deletionists(TM) looking to delete the entire encyclopaedia, just editors trying to work out what belongs and doesn't belong here. Cool your jets and take a Chill Pill. FOARP (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd preferred to not call out specific editors, but since you seem to be taking it personally, it was Horse Eye's Back. I'll take a chill pill when I can actually sit back and not watch a whole category of articles be deleted because the elementary skill of reading a map is OR/SYNTH, thanks. - Floydianτ¢ 16:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't tell lies about me... In my whole career I've hardly taken numerous pages to AfD (under a dozen). To claim that I've attempted to delete a whole category of articles or used deletion to target specific editors offensive and unbelievable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Floydian - can you see how this discussion style doesn't work? Just turns people who might sympathise against you?
As for a whole class of articles being deleted - you do get that that's unlikely as a class of articles so long as they do not have a single point of failure built into them, right? And if they do, and that single point of failure, fails, then that's just the way an encyclopaedia that does actually have standards about what is/isn't included works? There of course have been cases where articles have been deleted/redirected by the thousands because the articles clearly failed Wikipedia PAGs. The obvious example was minor planets - and the result was something that improved the encyclopaedia? There's also been cases where article-creators just clearly over-estimated their ability to interpret the source - one that has taken a great deal of time for myself and other editors to fix was Carlossuarez46's "village" articles created based on the Iranian census where he created tens of thousands of articles about petrol stations/bridges/pumps/farms/factories because, despite claiming to understand Farsi, he didn't seem to realise these weren't actual villages?
The answer to protecting "your" articles is not to build a single point of failure into them, but instead rely on multiple different sources and content-types, including newspaper and book content. That way no single problem can affect them. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I folks" would have followed WP:DEL and therefore would have gone to look for other sources first. That's not the point. The point is that sourcing an entire article to two road maps results in a ton of cleanup work for the unhappy editor who comes across it next. The fact that we have to go look for sources to find out if the topic is notable enough for inclusion a decade after creation is just atrocious. That work should've been done before the article was even allowed into mainspace to begin with. Had this gone through AfC it would've been rejected in its current state. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but you only have to look at the recent RFAs and a smattering of recent AFDs to find that some people believe WP:BEFORE is optional. Rschen7754 00:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually see nothing much wrong with that article, but I have an extremely dissenting view about sourcing. I think the vast majority of Wikipedians are nuts about secondary sources, and I believe primary sourcing is good enough to verify a great deal of things such as this road. Also, the article claims in the banner that the article relies on only a single source, but they forget that the road itself is a primary source, meaning anybody can go there and see it for themselves, plus the photograph is a primary source that contains geographic metadata in addition to the map, so I have named 3 primary sources that verify this subject all from within the article. There really isn't anything that I need a secondary source to have "analyzed" or "interpreted" for me in this article, and there certainly isn't anything in it that I needed any secondary source to commentary on for me. This craze for secondary sources on Wikipedia is extremely out of control in my opinion. I mean sure, they are needed for lots of things, but not just for ordinary verification of everything. Please stop being stupid about sourcing people. Huggums537 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huggums537 - You’re setting a bar so low for notability that literally anything shown in a road atlas and on Google maps would be notable. That includes my house by the way. Does that pass the sniff test for you? FOARP (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bar is common sense. I seriously doubt your house would be in a road atlas. Huggums537 (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"My bar is common sense" - I used to think this but then I had to spend years cleaning up after people who wrote articles about what were literally petrol-stations, pumps, bridges, etc. just because they were listed a places in the Iranian census and/or on GNIS.
"I seriously doubt your house would be in a road atlas" - I'm not going to tell you my address because that would be weird, but you can see the level of detail in the A-Z series of maps (a classic UK road/street atlas) here. Are you telling me that Poyle Manor House or Colnbrook Bypass are notable simply because this map - an atlas from a reputable and reliable source made for general use - shows them? FOARP (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will tell you this much; if we can't trust our editors to sus out that a U.S. highway is notable, but every little house (except historical ones etc.) along the way isn't without treating us like trained monkeys by restricting us to using essentially just one kind of source (secondary), then we don't have any business having an encyclopedia anyone can edit. We are also wayyy too hung up on so called "notability" and so called "indiscriminate information". Notability is a joke. It isn't anything but a popularity contest pure and simple, and this thing about indiscriminate information is purely subjective. Plus, the favoritism to WP:other stuff considered to be "scholarly" like a whole bunch of math stuff? Some people don't give a hoot, and think it should belong somewhere else like in an actual math guidebook, journal or whatever. All the pharmaceuticals known to man? Some say it's a big list of crap, and we should give it to the doctors to figure out or put it in the doctor textbooks. You see? Some people care about some things, while other people care about others. We have rules that say Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. It says A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible. But not one of the so called deletionists are true to their name by getting rid of any of that stuff. I say be fair and reasonable. If the scientific stuff that almost nobody cares about gets a pass to bend the rules, then make the rules mores flexible to allow for the possibility of so called "indiscriminate" things to have an article. Deletionists have no vision for the future, and have not learned from the past. All they see is what they perceive as the crap before them right now in the present, and seek to destroy it, but who is to say that your house will not be the very spot where we make first contact with an alien species 100 years from now? And, you might say, well if we do make alien contact in 100 years, who will care that my house used to be here? And, to that I would say you now have one possible answer as to why archaeology doesn't have much more information about the past than it does, and maybe because most people except for those with enough means to leave an indelible mark would say, "who will care that I was here"? The sad thing is that we now have the means to easily leave that indelible mark and it is being pissed away by people who have the exact same stupid attitude about "indiscriminate" stuff as those who are saying the scientific stuff is junk. I say both points of view (claiming each other are junk) look pretty stupid to me because I see value in both the scientific stuff and more of the so called indiscriminate stuff. Huggums537 (talk) 07:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I need to take back some of what I said because history is really chocked full of examples where those who didn't have much resources, but did have ingenuity and enough foresight to leave an indelible mark that says, "I was here". It just isn't chocked nearly full enough in most cases. Huggums537 (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you an example of a map, showing a highway, and rather than say anything about what is shown, you segue into railing against "deletionists". I actually !vote keep way more often than the average RFA-passer (about twice as much as the most recent one) so I don't see how I qualify as a "deletionist" unless the majority of people on here are "deletionists". Are we even having a conversation? It feels like you are having a discussion with someone else. Also, WP:UNCIVIL, tone it down. FOARP (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying you're a deletionist. It just accidentally got weaved into the conversation due to my intense disapproval of them. My opinions tend to find their way into conversations. If you took it as uncivil, then it was a misunderstanding because it wasn't intended that way. Huggums537 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Table until consensus is reached on questions 1–3 to avoid a potential nonsense result like "maps cannot be used as sources but can be used to establish notability". —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the funnier result would be "maps can't be used as sources but CAN be used to establish notability. Just put them on the talk page or something". --Licks-rocks (talk) 10:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No Maps can, by their nature, never contain the amount of text necessary to show significant coverage. --Jayron32 12:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per Rschen7754. Features that have significant coverage only from maps will be very rare, but very rare is not never. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heck no - A SYNTH trap to be sure. Also, how significant is something really if no one's ever devoted at least two or three paragraphs about it in writing? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. After thinking about it, I'm not convinced there would ever be a circumstance where something is notable without being written about. JoelleJay (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No in order to be notable we need to have more information on the topic than can be displayed on a map. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - We have WP:NGEO which deals with the notability of geographic features, both natural and man-made. Dough4872 11:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly seeing how NGEO applies here? Even NGEO says "The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability," which seems to contradict what you're implying. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key word there is man-made. That means natural geographical features on maps or in directories would be sufficient to establish topic notability. Huggums537 (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
huh? no. No it does not. It just means natural geographic features are not considered by that specific sentence. Which makes sense, because a minimal amount of additional reading would've told you that the entire heading this appears under is about artificial features. Natural features are handled under the appropriately named bullet point "Named natural features" elsewhere on the page, where it simply reads that they are often notable, but care must be taken that enough sources exist to write an article about them. Quote: "For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river." which seems like the crux of my argument for option B above. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In other words, it was taken out of context from a section intended to be specifically for use about artificial features. Got it. Well, no small wonder that it made no sense to me when it mentioned only man-made features. Thanks for clearing that up. A minimal amount of additional reading in other sections leads me to things like this; Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc., but there are many more similar to this in other areas outside that one specifically intended for artificial features. In other words, if you look at the whole of the context rather than just taking that one small part out of context of that one section you see the big picture of natural features being notable. Huggums537 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you just had to pick one, then "B" was the best you were gonna get, but even that was crap... Huggums537 (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the exact sentence you quote here in my previous comment, Huggums. Because I actually read the damn article. If you'd also done that, you may have found the section helpfully labelled sources, which I will quote here in full:
Even the smallest geographical features usually may be found in numerous reliable sources: you can easily see creeks in maps, sand banks in navigation guides, hamlets in census tables, etc. There may be hundreds of them. They do provide reliable information about the subject. However this guideline specifically excludes them from consideration when establishing notability, because these aggregate sources tell us nothing about why a particular object is distinguished. Still, they do contribute to the satisfaction of the requirement of verifiability."
Maps are explicitly excluded from consideration when it comes to notability per WP:NGEO. Note that this applies to all geographic features. You're welcome. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we interpret things differently. I believe it is saying that the hundreds of smallest geographical features such as creeks/sand banks/hamlets are excluded from consideration when establishing notability, and not the maps themselves. It makes more common sense to me. If it were as clear cut as you're suggesting we wouldn't be having this discussion unless a significant amount of people wanted it to be different than what you are saying. Huggums537 (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are two points of fact to consider here:
1) The guidance isn't truly clear whether it is talking about the maps/census tables/navigation guides etc. vs. the "smallest geographic features and,
2) Even if you were absolutely certain that it were talking about maps/census tables/navigation guides etc.; do you really think it is reasonable that the application of a rule that was intended specifically just for geographical features is applicable across the whole of all Wikipedia? You do realize that is what you are suggesting, right? If we say maps are excluded from notability according to your interpretation of that guidance, we must also then accept that not only maps are excluded from notability, but then also navigation guides, census tables, and then even supposedly hundreds of other as of yet named things that would be excluded as well. There's no way in hell I'm giving a blank check to whoever screwed up NGEO when it might affect my article bank account if I have anything to say about it. Huggums537 (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's put it this way. I don't think hamlets are classified as an aggregate source, so I'm afraid I must disappoint you, black check or no. --Licks-rocks (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well then let me put it this way. I wouldn't have no support for that kind of interpretation even if I thought it was the correct one because I know there's a difference between what is correct, and what is right. My belief is anyone supporting that kind of interpretation knowing what kind of blank check result it would have is probably a danger to themselves and others. Huggums537 (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"then also navigation guides, census tables" - If all they consist of is statistical data, then yes, they should be excluded. Wikipedia is not a database/directory. FOARP (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. Maybe if they consist of nothing but statistical data, then that would be a case for exclusion, but I would be against a blank check for throwing them all in that category when it would be more appropriate for case by case basis especially when the actual text is literally a blank check with the etc., etc., thrown in there you can essentially just write in whatever you want. It's trainwreck guidance that I sure would avoid like hell for something as prominent as our notability guideline which has enough problems itself. Huggums537 (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I'm not the one who brought it up ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Census tables never count towards notability because they are primary. This is policy... JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be, but it's still a very poor reason for writing guidance that gives a blank check for people to essentially put a restriction on whatever they want to fill in the blank. It is irresponsible and thoughtless guidance. Huggums537 (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No If you can't find significant sources beyond maps – or databases of items that appear on maps – you should not be making an article on it. Reywas92Talk 14:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - No article (about a populated place, unpopulated place, or anything else) should be sourced only to statistical data, which is what maps ultimately are. The reason is that these do not provide details from which a meaningful article can be written. Similarly they should not be sourced only to tables, lists etc. Wikipedia is not a map, database, dictionary, or similar. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. FOARP (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural yes to remain consistent with NGEO. SounderBruce 06:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No We have significant precedent from AFDs that simply appearing on a map isn't enough. And so many of the kinds of maps we look at intend to be exhaustive that I cannot consider them to be part of "significant coverage". Besides, as many others have remarked, There's too much OR involved in making such an article for many feature types solely from maps. Mangoe (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mangoe - This is an important point. What is/isn't included in a map is typically based entirely on what can/can't be included at the resolution/scale of that map. Large features are shown because they are physically large, not because they are significant in any other way. Similarly notable features may not be shown because they are too small to show at the resolution/scale of the map. Selection/judgement is not being exercised. It is the equivalent of using a reference source that lists every single X in the entire world: the inclusion criteria of the source is far too broad for inclusion to indicate notability. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Proposal 4b: Notability - Sourced only to maps)[edit]
(This comment applies to the rest of discussion on #4 as well). Wikipedia has a notability requirement for several reasons, including to ensure a topic is encyclopedic and doesn't violate NOT, and to ensure there is enough secondary independent reliable coverage from which to write a well-rounded, neutral article that accurately reflects what sources say and maintains the proportional representation of individual facts/views across these sources. This is why we require that multiple SIRS exist on a topic (with the hypothetical exception of a single undeniably comprehensive (but not indiscriminate), balanced, and neutral SIRS). Some of the key statements in policy here are Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources and A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.My concerns with maps are that (a) editors do not agree over which maps are primary versus secondary or how to gauge independence, and (b) having any specific, automatic contributes-to-notability inclusion criteria for maps will just lead to editors arguing a feature is or isn't "the subject" of a map (etc.) rather than evaluating how it is significant coverage in the context of writing an article and complying with NOT, OR, and NPOV. Regarding (a), I think we have a major issue with maps from reliable sources that are generated from GIS data without a human's analysis of that particular material. A map of some district that was rendered by selecting particular parameters/layers from a database dialog box will say a few things: that the district was considered important enough to publish a map of it, and that the details included are considered relevant; however, what does it mean when identical maps are mass-produced by the same publisher for every district, without anyone personally evaluating how each feature is relevant to a particular district? Is that secondary analysis directly on the topic (no)? JoelleJay (talk) 18:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This and all subsequent proposals should be closed as out-of-procedure add-ons made to the RFC long after many participants contributed their opinion and left. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per my previous comment these questions are completely justified and should always have been part of the original proposal. There deliberate exclusion even though questions on notability has been part of previous discussions is a result of the WP:BEFORERFC being done in private. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except it wasn't, it was formulated on-wiki from a discussion that originated at WP:RSN (Archive), and was built off a draft started by Onel.(Original draft). The wording was gradually adjusted at another user talk page after Onel indicated that they weren't interested in stewarding the RfC. The issue of notability and the issue of reliability/OR are completely different concepts. That's why we have guidelines and policies on both original research, and notability! Now we just have a confusing as shit closure for someone to sift through, because a couple of editors decided to railroad the discussion into 4 separate tangents. - Floydianτ¢ 16:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC was drafted onwiki, but the discussions about how it should be worded and what questions to include were done off-wiki. BilledMammal (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the parts that were planned on wiki were planned by only one side of the discussions and then taken off wiki, I don't think that makes it any better. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also wait were was the gradual adjustment? The draft seems been to have been effectively written by one editor, before having some minor changes by a second user. That's one editors driving questions because they didn't like the discussions at RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take both of your misconstrued opinions and burn them in my dung heep. The general consensus at RSN was to pursue an RfC to determine whether maps could be held to the same standards as textual sources. An RfC was put together by the handful of editors that wished to construct the questions to be presented to the community. That resulted in this RfC. The only discussion, amongst what seems to be labelled as "the roads editors," in the past several months, has been (broadly interpreted) "What questions can best be presented to the community to clarify the line between examination (of a (map) source) and interpretation (as defined under WP:OR)?" This is evidenced in numerous talk pages, AfD pages, and other non-project discussions from late October through ~New Years, which you can look up on your own if you wish to engage further in this accusation. - Floydianτ¢ 03:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only discussion, amongst what seems to be labelled as "the roads editors," in the past several months, has been (broadly interpreted) "What questions can best be presented to the community to clarify the line between examination (of a (map) source) and interpretation (as defined under WP:OR)?" Are you saying you participated in the off-wiki discussion? BilledMammal (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please lay off of good faith editors trying to collaborate on doing what they feel is the best path forward for the success of their future on this project. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question should be answered. BilledMammal (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't. Get the bleep outta there with that gestapo bullshit and quit halting the discussion to stop people and ask them for their papers. Huggums537 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If any consenus was formed at RSN is was long after other editors had been driven off with snide comments and bludgeoning. And if any of this results from AfD discussions, doesn't that point to questions on notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the plethora of deletion discussions initiated in late October/early November were pointy and all were kept. And yes, there were plenty of snide comments directed at us, to the point that many of us are considering whether or not its worth continuing to work on this project given the constant hostilities towards road articles. @BilledMammal - what offwiki discussion? Your strawman is also burning. - Floydianτ¢ 13:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So yes the discussions did happen, you didn't like them but they did in fact happen. Also "at us" shows the problem here. I don't know BilledMammal, I don't work on things with BilledMammal, and I certainly don't always agree with BilledMammal. But I'm certainly group into a them by a set of editors who can't see the discussion any other way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I keep saying it but: That RSN discussion very much also brought up notability as an issue. --Licks-rocks (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who is or who isn't working with each other, and at this point it doesn't matter because the effects are the same. All I know is that some editors are leaving us with no viable path to write high-quality road articles, and the group, groups, or individuals are making all sorts of unsubstantiated accusations. Whether they mean to leave us with no viable path or just don't realize the effects of their proposals, I don't know, but the effects are the same. People leave their paid jobs over this sort of toxicity. So don't be surprised when you have to delete U.S. Route 66 because nobody can or will work on it. Rschen7754 06:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will give a different example - there are major roads in several U.S. states where if everything that some editors have advocated for passes, it will be original research to say in the article how long the road is. Can we refer to government websites? No, see the objections to 2a (many states use dynamic tools that are not archivable). Can we use Google Maps and measure distances? No, apparently Google Maps is not to be trusted and neither is the distances tool. Can we pull out a ruler and give a rough estimate using a paper map and the scale? No, maps are not reliable and it is original research to read them. Can't we just delete the article for lack of notability? No, not with hundreds of newspaper articles telling how the road was built (though I know that you personally advocate for deprecating most newspapers as sources [15]). Not to mention that I can't tell you anything about the road as it is today as that would require using a map. That is just not a viable way of going about things - it would be intellectually dishonest for me to write such an article and I have much better uses of my time. Rschen7754 00:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the road's length isn't actually stated anywhere in RS, why would we include it at all? How many roads don't have a government website that explicitly gives its length? If it's such a crucial aspect of road articles then surely all notable roads would have that info. JoelleJay (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many US states (California comes to mind) have that information online, but not in a format that will work with InternetArchive, because a search has to be done on a tool. --Rschen7754 01:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there are literally no sources stating the road's length then why would we put that info in the article (or have the article at all...) JoelleJay (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said. Rschen7754 01:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's continue with the U.S. Route 66 analogy. It's one of the best documented US highways that has ever existed, largely due to its pop culture appeal. Yet, if we stick to secondary sources only, that's all the article will cover, pop culture. Pick your poison. If we stick to only secondary sources, the article for Route 66 will read that like one you'd find in the middle pages of USA Today, as a blurb explaining the context for the movie The Grapes of Wrath or Cars. If you want Wikipedia to have the best, most comprehensive article on US 66; that means we also cover lengths, dates, costs, usage and other details. Those technical details are mostly available in government logs and maps. Government logs are often primary sources, but they are also the most reliable source. If you want the best article on US 66, well guess what, it's going to include data from the various state and federal DOTs involved. What really concerns me about some of the comments is it's devolving into two camps that each think the other is secretly out to impose their vision of Wikipedia on the other. I don't think that's a fair statement. We all agree Wikipedia should use the best sources we can find in our articles. I think the difference is a lack of understanding in the challenges of writing an article about a government project constructed in phases over the span of 100 years by 20 different agencies, verses a subject where a simple Google search can produce 20 viable sources with everything you'd need, verses a subject that doesn't have a lot of sources online, but a single trip to any university library will yield a dozen sources. Can we at least agree that different types of articles have different challenges. We're all trying to do our best here? Dave (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What really concerns me about some of the comments is it's devolving into two camps that each think the other is secretly out to impose their vision of Wikipedia on the other. Reschen7754 and other unstated road editors literally have a secret strategy to increase the number of road articles on Wikipedia. Its indisputable that there is a group of editors attempting to covertly impose their vision on Wikipedia. There isn't two groups, but there is one group when there should be no groups - it is policy for editors to articulate honest motives. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say "increasing the number of road articles" like it's a bad thing. Show me a policy that says X topic can only have Y number of articles. Also, how can something written in a personal essay in one's own userspace that you've read be a "secret strategy"? –Fredddie™ 18:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say "increasing the number of road articles" like it's a bad thing. I say have a secret strategy like it's a bad thing. There is nothing wrong with wanting to increase the number of road articles on Wikipedia, so long as one is open about their goal and the strategy for it.
Also, how can something written in a personal essay in one's own userspace that you've read be a "secret strategy"? The goal isn't secret. The strategy for achieving it is, by their own admission, secret. BilledMammal (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that he hasn't mass-created a bunch of road articles since that essay was written three months ago and three months is not long term somewhere where there is WP:NODEADLINE, the proper way to assume good faith would be to guess that he has not figured out the how yet. Practice what you preach. –Fredddie™ 05:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should assume good faith by assuming that they weren't being truthful when they said they had a strategy? BilledMammal (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is only your opinion that the "best" Wikipedia article on Route 66 would have to include all the details you mention. You are applying your own preconceived notion of what a road article should look like, based on filling in a template the roads editors developed over the years, rather than approaching the article from the sources-first perspective encouraged by policy. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That "template" was "developed over the years" at FAC, which is where people who write articles go when they think they've done a really good job of writing an article. We (the evil roads people) shared our experiences at FAC with our peers to improve our writing and to tell each other what the community is looking for. Sometimes we would even share that information off-wiki! So Dave's "opinion" is informed by nearly 20 years of what the community expects out of a well-written road article. To paraphrase WhatamIdoing, if a rule doesn't align with what the community has allowed over time, the rule needs to change, not the community. –Fredddie™ 02:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are y'all focused on the "template" part of my comment? That wasn't supposed to be a dis, I was just stating that article creation ought to start through discovery of good sources rather than by deciding on a topic based solely on its meeting a project-level criterion and basic check-the-box metrics (like length, etc.) being available for it. JoelleJay (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You brought it up and whether or not you meant it to, it did come across as a dis. Whenever I've done FAC-track research for roads, I always look at and compare maps first to come up with an outline of when and how things happened. Then I can attack the archives with a bit of granularity instead of searching blindly. –Fredddie™ 21:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you're not applying your own? --Rschen7754 02:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Content sections also recommends a "template" for articles. I've never yet seen anyone complain that the guideline encourages the inclusion of information like symptoms, causes, and treatments, or who thought this was incompatible with a sources-first perspective to writing the article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that an article should not be created solely because primary sources exist to fill in the info in such a template, nor should it not be created if some or most of those fields can't be filled in. An analogy in medicine would be creating separate articles for every subtype of Ehlers-Danlos just because symptoms, causes, etc. can be entered into the template. JoelleJay (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who is or who isn't working with each other, and at this point it doesn't matter because the effects are the same. Thanks for admitting you don't know what a battleground mentality is. For you it's "us" against the "others" and you can't see why that's such a bad way to look at things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hard not to look at things from a battleground perspective when you have a target on your back, metaphorically speaking. If defending your work is battleground mentality, then I personally will proudly wear that badge of honour. - Floydianτ¢ 15:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"If defending your work is battleground mentality..." - This encyclopaedia does not belong to you or me. FOARP (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's contributions do. This is called attribution. - Floydianτ¢ 16:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your attributions are attributable to you, but this does not mean they belong to you. See WP:OWN. FOARP (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a bunch of pointless semantics. Whatever the ownership, I'm going to defend my contributions and the articles that come of them. Call it a battleground, call it pride, I really don't care. - Floydianτ¢ 17:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes defending your work is battleground mentality, in the exact same way that attacking the work of others is battleground mentality... Wikipedia is not a battle, we don't attack and we don't defend we collaborate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never put a target on your back, but you have put one on mine or daring to disagree with you. I'm not part of some evil cabal, my 28k+ edits have only been to improve the encyclopedia and I have never once sent an article to AfD. I've voted at AfDs and I've improved articles at AfD, but I've never touched your precious work. So wear that battleground mentality with pride, it shows you for what you are. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You implied that some of us were SPAs: [16] If that's not putting a target on someone's back, I don't know what is. Rschen7754 00:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I in no way said you were an SPA, that's the most bad faith interpretation you could have made. You could have taken it as not just those being accused of being an SPA, but also the accuser had obvious passion about the subject. And that being passionate about a subject does tend to mean being unable to be completely neutral. If you weren't sure you could have asked me, you could have followed up your conserns on my talk page. But again you decided to throw WP:AGF out the window, because there's an evil cabal out to get you. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing that irks me the most. Among the most vociferous anti-map editors on this page (yes, I know that's a gross oversimplification, but you get what and who I mean), there simply isn't a body of work that could be sent to send to AfD. And they definitely have never sniffed FAC. Yet, they're perfectly comfortable dictating their narrow vision of policy to those of us who do produce content. –Fredddie™ 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to reply to me? As I said I've never sent an article to AfD let alone suggested a whole body of work be deleted. As to FAC all editors are equal whatever they do, and I'm willing to work with anyone who will show basic decency. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did mean to reply to you. Rschen's reply sneaked in before I was done writing it. Your reply directly above is encouraging to read. –Fredddie™ 17:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Floydian. If you wanna show BM you have your papers in order, then I gots nuttin' ta say... Huggums537 (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Floydian: The off-wiki discussion involving at least Rschen7754 and Moabdave, that resulting in this RfC. Were you part of it? BilledMammal (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what off-wiki discussion are you alluding to? I'm neither sure where this accusation is coming from, nor where its going. - Floydianτ¢ 15:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm friends with many of the more active USRD/CARD members on Facebook. I've met several in real life, sometimes at WikiConference North America, and sometimes at other events. I converse with many often about many things through social media or even *gasp* texts. Why? Because after 17 years here, they're my friends as well as colleagues in this project. Thanks to WCNA and Wikimania, I've made several other editing friends to whom I look forward to seeing in person once again someday. One editor is helping me with a novel I'm writing involving sports as a plot line. Another encouraged me to research and write a non-fiction book that's also in progress and will be looking for a publisher after it's done.
I say this all because it's incredibly naïve to think no one forms any sorts of friendships with their fellow editors nor that anyone ever discusses anything about Wikipedia with real world friends. These connections matter, and they're the heart of a collaborative project like the "Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit". Imzadi 1979→ 15:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should WP:RS#Some types of sources be clarified to state that maps must be prepared by professional cartographers to be considered reliable sources?
Examples of maps prepared by professional cartographers include maps prepared by a nations national mapping agency, such as Ordnance Survey. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Should be obvious; if you're not an expert in drawing maps, then we shouldn't be considering your maps a reliable source. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded—this question is covered by our basic guidelines and policies on determining the reliability of sources. Imzadi 1979→ 05:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No as in unnecessary. This is already covered by the policy on reliable sources, so I don't see how including this would benefit the project. More bureaucracy, more things to argue about. Let's keep it simple. --Licks-rocks (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question is the word "professional" currently defined in policy? If so, what is the definition? Assuming it doesn't, No. This is already covered by existing policy, such as WP:SPS and would result in yet more policy infighting over the definition of "professional". Wikipedia already has FAR too much infighting over policy interpretations, the last thing we need is to add a new word to policy to fight about. Dave (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be clarified? No, unless we want to add the same language for books, newspapers, and every other source. --Rschen7754 16:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No as it's just bureaucracy. Sources from unreliable publishers are unreliable, it doesn't matter if it's a book, map, or website. The same is true with WP:SPS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I agree with the spirit of this proposal, but I think that it's so vaguely worded that it is likely to cause problems in interpretation on down the line (see also my comment in the Discussion section below). —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. A poorly considered proposal. This would exclude maps included as figures in peer reviewed academic journals unless the paper authors are cartographers. pburka (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is red tape. We already have processes for reliable sourcing. –Fredddie™ 00:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This and all subsequent proposals should be closed as out-of-procedure add-ons made to the RFC long after many participants contributed their opinion and left. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No "Professional" is not at all the same as "expert". Say we have person A, who is a widely acknowledges expert in the geography of region X, but not a professional cartographer: for example, he's a professor lecturing in geography, or independently wealthy, or gives his maps away, or a thousand other possibilities. Surely we don't want to restrict his maps? On the other hand we have person B, who is a professional cartographer, in that he makes fanciful beautiful maps and sells them, but makes them up on the fly. Surely he doesn't qualify. Poorly phrased proposal. --GRuban (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. As others have pointed out, there's a fair number of situations where an otherwise reliable and high-quality source could be rejected due to the lack of a known preparer. Most governments would be using cartographers with the right qualifications anyway, so this is a pointless proposal. SounderBruce 03:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary and open to possible problems, as noted above. --Jayron32 12:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, and close out these needless proposals per David Eppstein. Huggums537 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No per most people above. In some cases, maps prepared by amateurs are of at least equal if not greater reliability than those prepared by professionals. For example maps made by antiquarians can clearly be reliable sources for subjects related to antiquarianism, historiography, archaeology, and the history of the places they depict yet there were essential no professional antiquarians. These days, there are many archaeological societies where amateurs produce maps/plans of equivalent reliability to professionals. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Being paid doesn't necessarily mean that your work is better. Per WP:PAID, Wikipedia itself takes a different view. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, maps can be made be reliable authors that are not cartographers. I agree with others above that this is covered by current guidelines. CMD (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
no A bad question, because no type of map or map source can be presumed reliable. Even ignoring trap streets and other deliberate misinformation, the fact is that in looking at various US maps, we have found substantial problems with every sort. Forest Service and state highway maps imagine many nonexistent settlements; labels on topo maps wander about the landscape and misrepresent the type of feature being labelled. Information on inland areas on navigational charts is pretty dreadful. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have problems with every kind of source. We use newspapers a lot and they are generally quite unreliable. Some seem to think that peer-reviewed scholarship is reliable but it really isn't – see Why published research is untrustworthy and the replication crisis. So, expecting perfection from any type of source is ridiculous. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to this. I wish more people understood these things. Most Wikipedians are brainwashed into thinking secondary sourcing is the "end all, be all" and everything else is crap through this weird ass word-of-mouth type of education system that exists in this environment. All of the sourcing is flawed. We do the best with what we've got. If we spend our time arguing about all the flaws, we won't have any sources left... Huggums537 (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. One would be hard-pressed to find a source that is 100% reliable with absolutely no mistakes. Many sources do conflict with one another, and other sources make extrapolations based on missing data. But it is unreasonable to conclude that a map is unreliable just because it has some mistakes; otherwise, no one would ever trust a map (in the real world, not just on Wikipedia). Rather, a map that is reliable enough is sufficient to do the job. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put an expectation of perfection in my mouth, thank you. The point is, people are making the implicit claim in saying "yes" that professional cartography is good enough. My experience is, no, for a lot of the purposes people are trying to use maps, they aren't good enough. We've spend a lot of effort on reviewing articles created from GNIS because the pros couldn't read their own maps, or even because the maps themselves contain errors. My experience is that maps in general are a good and usually accurate expression of spatial relationships, but my sense is also that this discussion is trying to go for other information, and here, the pros are error-prone enough to not be counted reliable. Mangoe (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to your comment specifically. I'm saying that, in my experience, maps are good enough. Maps may not be secondary sources in some cases, so they can't be used to justify creating articles about localities. But they will be sufficient for citing information like "Road A travels between City X and City Y", or "Building A is next to Building B". This is the same as any other primary source; we can use maps to cite basic facts, not to conduct a deep analysis of the facts. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. No special treatment for maps. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, this seems completely unnecessary and would create more problems than it solves. Maps do not necessarily need to be made by professional cartographers to be reliable, and, on the flip side, becoming a professional cartographer doesn't mean that you'll never make a mistake with a map. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No - Our current RS policy works well for making these decisions, and I'm afraid this proposal would shift discussion to the poorly-defined "professional" status of the mapmaker and away from the actual reliability of the source. –dlthewave☎ 00:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-serious question: I work for a firm that does contract work for the my state's DOT and part of my duties are making road plans. These road plans use GIS and survey data that come from the DOT that are gathered in the same way data is gathered for the biannual state transportation map the DOT produces (and you can pick up at rest areas) AND is prepared using the DOT's style guide. What I'm saying is my work would be the same as work coming from the DOT itself. Does that make me a professional cartographer in the eyes of this proposal? –Fredddie™ 03:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the DOT is the publisher, not me; it would be like a newspaper article that doesn't have a byline. The person reading the map or article has no idea who created the work but they know someone did simply because it exists. This is not me trying to cite road plans that I make at work, that's just silly. But I could see what you said being construed to meaning any published work with no byline wouldn't be reliable because we don't know who created it. Maybe I read what you wrote wrong or I'm reading too much into it. –Fredddie™ 20:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No sorry I didn't mean to imply that, many different reputable sources don't use bylines or have newsdesk etc. I misread you comment as you personally publishing something. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Were I reading the proposed policy according to its plain language and not having any context of being involved in RFCs or whatever, I would assume "professional" denoted its usual meaning—that is, that someone received payment for creating the work. I'm not sure if that's what B.M. is intending, because it would seem like it would exclude some works that would otherwise be acceptable (like maps published by a university where the cartography was done by grad students) while allowing some that probably wouldn't be (like a content creator who makes maps requested by users on Patreon and self-publishes them). —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. There are also those cartoony isographic "Looking Over X" maps that show hotels and attractions and what not. The people that make those are still professional map-makers, just not using a topographic base (sort of like this). Or what about fire insurance maps from the late 1800s and early 1900s, made by the fire department. I think the same standards as books should apply: the map should be published by a reliable source. - Floydianτ¢ 23:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The effect that worries me is the potential for someone to claim that an entire scholarly article/chapter/book is usable, except for the map, because "maps must be prepared by professional cartographers to be considered reliable sources", and there's no proof that a map contained in an otherwise high-quality source was "prepared by professional cartographers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Birds Eye View of New York and Brooklyn
These late 19th century forms are quite a bit different. Birds eye views were seldom meant for precision; most of them were essentially adverts or else mere decoration.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of part of Brooklyn
Fire insurance maps, such as those made by the Sanborn company, were carefully surveyed to describe accurately any lumber yards, paint factories, or other fire hazards that would be relevant in setting insurance rates. The underlying street grid maps were a bit less reliable, coming from official records that did well at describing what had been designated by city engineers. Describing the actual working infrastructure was less important to the map's purpose than the actual usage data. I would be reluctant to use either kind to argue that a subject ought to have an article, though they can serve other purposes. This afternoon I was tracing the migrations of a tavern through Manhattan from the 1830s to the 1960s; alas I haven't found a contemporary map showing it at any of those locations. Presumably part of the problem is that a tavern wasn't as relevant to fire insurance pricing as a flour mill. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I would be reluctant to use either kind to argue that a subject ought to have an article..." herein lies the problem with these extra proposals: the waters have become as dark as the Amazon. Notability should be a completely different RfC, one that is honestly entirely dependent on the original questions posed: Should we allow maps and charts to be used with the same caveats as text and web sources explicitly in WP:OR; what types of things can be sourced to maps if so (and are dynamic maps or satellite imagery usable for mundane statements of physical features); and, can maps be used to state that something existed at the date of their publication or compilation? - Floydianτ¢ 16:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing an influx of new editors and the new comments seem to mostly be people who have already had their say arguing with each other over tangential things. I'm not putting in a closure request yet, but I think it's time to suggest to the other regular contributors of this discussion that we've had our say. Lets wait for a close and take the discussions about who does and does not have a battleground mentality et cetera to the user talk pages, where they belong. ----Licks-rocks (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously enough it is a closure request that appears to have set this off. I put in a closure request a couple of days ago, when it appeared there was no new activity. Literally within hours the discussion fired up again. Dave (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dave has a good point, I stepped away from the article for many days expecting the conversation to coast to a conclusion but there do appear to be waves of activity which defy what I normally expect from this sort of conversation. Apparently interest in very broad and people hold some strong opinions on the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some of the oppositions above, it appears some users think that if something doesn't say it explicitly word for word, then it is original research and unreliable. Think about this for a second: if this is true, then why do we even have maps in the first place? For example, it seems some editors are opposed to using Google Maps to cite features along roads, such as the numbering of interchanges or distances between intersections or interchanges. Yet millions of people everyday use Google Maps to determine these exact same things. So it is somehow reliable when you are trying to get from point A to point B, but unreliable when you are writing an encyclopedia article about how motorists get from point A to point B? I don't see the logic. This is not a one size fits all issue. Bneu2013 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was (Summoned by bot) which could also account for increased traffic. I am too confused at this point to cast a !vote. I somehow thought there was a more stringent set of "rules" for attempting to change policy rather than adding to a content guideline. At any rate, it does seem that this would be better at WP:SOURCETYPES than NOR. It also seems very logical that this should have started as possibly an essay. Add to this, discussions flowing that certain changes are alright because involved editors were notified. This does not sit well. If editors that have weighed in do not respond it will be counted as consensus by silence on changes that were made? I do have a serious issue with editors mentioning "interpreting".
If an editor is writing prose on a major secondary highway (x) and that highway follows a major interstate (y) for some miles, it does not appear that any interpretation is needed to write in prose that highway x splits from y at mile maker 129. Yes, the zooming comes into play but this information is clearly on the map and verifiable (the mile markers) so not OR it would seem. Also, it would be simple calculations if the roads merged at mm 100 (that is also verifiable on the map) to "calculate" a distance of 29 miles (47 km). Oh wait! The information is from Google maps? The information can be verified by Rand McNally (William Rand and Andrew McNally) Road Atlas, a printed and very colorful collection of maps since 1904, or the "Next Exit" that has been printed for over 30 years. There are also other milepost maps It would seem the information is verifiable and the milage simple calculations. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that you can verify by the very markers yourself if you just go there in your car or whatever. People don't seem to remember that the subject itself counts as one of the most reliable primary sources. Huggums537 (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.png)
