Wiktionary:Votes/2021-02/Expanding CFI for place names

Expanding CFI for place names
Background: The Place names section of CFI is poorly organized and leaves many place names not explicitly allowed or disallowed. A great number of our entries for place names could be nominated for deletion and would have to be argued individually with little basis in current policy. Clearer criteria of which place names are allowed will allow us to enforce CFI more consistently and facilitate the RFD process.

Current CFI text:

The following place names should be included as long as they are attested:


 * The names of continents.
 * The names of seas and oceans.
 * The names of countries.
 * The names of areas or regions containing multiple countries (e.g.,, ).
 * The names of primary administrative divisions (states, provinces, counties, etc).
 * The names of conurbations, cities, towns, villages and hamlets.
 * Districts of towns and cities (e.g., ).
 * The names of inhabited islands and archipelagos.
 * The names of other significant natural geographic features (such as large deserts and major rivers).

The editors have not yet reached a consensus as to whether or not the names of places and geographic features other than those listed above should be included in Wiktionary. There is currently no definition of "significant natural geographic features", but by way of an example, the twenty largest lakes in the world by surface area would each qualify. It is hoped that the editors will develop criteria over time to provide greater clarity and address matters not currently covered (for example the names of streets, buildings, tunnels).


 * For a list of arguments for and against place names, see Criteria for inclusion/Place name arguments.
 * For a list of discussions about place names, see Unresolved issues/Place names.
 * For a list of types of place names by country, see Place names.

References: , but I'm guessing fewer than 1% of editors are familiar with the search syntax to that extent.) Colin M (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  as too inclusive, especially without a rule on containing "non-geographical information" as Mihia mentioned above (although personally I would possibly perceive even mere pronunciation, transliteration into a different script (if attestable) etc. as "non-geographical information"). --Droigheann (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  While I like the cleaned up rules, I think it's just too inclusive for an English language dictionary and risks swamping the project trying to verify/clean up entries. E.g. from Wikipedia: "Several thousand place names in the United States have names of French origin, some a legacy of past French exploration ...".  There are also an awful lot of tiny islets, tiny waterfalls, settlements with 4 people, etc.  We might consider:
 * 1. Must be in Wikipedia.
 * 2. Settlements must have at least 500,000 people.
 * 3. Islands must have 10,000 people or at least 1000 km2.
 * 4. Etc.
 * What does everyone think? Facts707 (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1)  (strong) Makes much "waste". I didn't even know there are many non-notable places with very small population. BengkelBerkah05 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  --DannyS712 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Interesting rewrite. I would like to note that "Bodies of water: oceans, seas, lakes, rivers, waterfalls, etc." seems potentially broader than before- I'm thinking of creeks, streams, ponds, gullies, etc. Also, under this rewrite, any island anywhere of any size or significance is included, right? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC) (modified)
 * Yes, as long as it's named. Ultimateria (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would leave out ponds, as I mentioned above. A gully is a ravine or valley, which can have a watercourse in it. I do wonder about islands in rivers though, like, , etc. I guess they are includable. DonnanZ (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Another latent "problem" with the handling of geographical terms is the requirement to have three cites. I agree with the spirit of the policy, but one of the grave downsides is that English Wikipedia can make entire non-stub pages about geographical locations that English Wiktionary cannot even have an entry for. For instance, I could make a Wikipedia page about Sujiadang that would be accepted without any question, but I believe that Wiktionary's Sujiadang page fails the three cites test based on my first glance at archive.org, google books, google scholar and etc. Translated terms should be incorporated somehow, but it's a hard line to draw of course. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe some kind of rule could be developed one day that would say that if a geographical term can be triple cited in the native language, a transliteration into English can also be added based on names found in databases (like GEOnet). I realize it's a dangerous "door-opening" move, but I thought I would suggest it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) . I am concerned that this is too inclusive, including some very minor geographical features: for example, for every famous city district, there are a dozen or a hundred or more insignificant ones attested three times in local papers, statistical or other works reporting data broken down by district, etc. I'm not sure that will actually cause problems, though, so I'm not voting oppose yet. But Colin makes some good arguments for how it might cause issues, and I may think about this more and change my vote to 'oppose' later. I do appreciate the effort to introduce some comprehensive rules here, and most of them seem like reasonable rules. - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Comment

 * This doesn't relate directly to the vote, but I am wondering whether we should make it a requirement, or at least encourage, editors to add coordinates (latitude and longitude) for all places for which we have entries. I think this could have the following benefits:
 * It might discourage editors from adding places that they do not know the coordinates of.
 * It would make geographic entries more useful. At the moment, a lot of such entries just say something along the lines of "a village/town/city in X".
 * It would help to improve the verifiability of entries, especially if a template is created that would enable readers to click on the coordinates and be taken to a map. (I believe the Wikimedia Commons already has something like this.)
 * — SGconlaw (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Although not quite the same, I do add Ordnance Survey grid references for places in Great Britain and the Isle of Man. The Ordnance Survey in Ireland and Northern Ireland have a separate grid system, and publish their own series of 1:50,000 maps. I'm not averse to the idea, although I find coordinates cumbersome. DonnanZ (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The OS also publish coordinates, like here for Cambourne. DonnanZ (talk) 15:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I suggest changing the line “In the case of simile and metaphor, the definition should note the place's relevant characteristics.” to “In the case of simile and metaphor, the place's relevant characteristics could be noted in the etymology section; the definition should be reserved only for listing the figurative meaning.” This way, we can avoid mentioning the non-figurative sense in the definition. -⸘- inqilābī  ‹inqilāb·zinda·bād› 22:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah- what about glaciers, icecaps and snowfields? I plan to work on the little understood desolate wilderness region Changtang in northern Tibet as well as Aksai Chin. Entries I have already made include Guliya, Tianshuihai, Tianwendian, etc. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's too late to change the proposed text now that the vote is underway. Ultimateria (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I ask this: under a strict reading here, will Thwaites Glacier be excluded from Wiktionary? Antarctica gets ignored because no one is there, but it's important. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be outright excluded, just subject to an RFD debate if someone disputes it. You could argue that it's a geological landform, but the term typically refers to formations of rock/soil/sand. It's hard to say whether it would pass. Ultimateria (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would concur that it is technically a landform, but we should've given it explicit mention. After this vote is concluded, this seems like the sort of thing we could add to the text through consensus at the BP, without requiring a vote. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When I last checked there was no category for Places in Antarctica, only Category:Antarctica. DonnanZ (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Decision

 * Passes 19–6–3. Ultimateria (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2021 (UTC)