Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
ArticleList of metropolitan areas in Europe by population
Statusclosed
Request date12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Requesting partyUnknown
Parties involvedUnknown
Mediator(s)WhatisFeelings? (talk)
CommentCase closed

Where's the dispute?

List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population

What's the dispute?

If Manchester/Liverpool should legitimately be considered as one metropolitan area.

User:Ghaag's position

The initial statement has been questioned by several editors and overwhelming consensus seems to have been reach in the discussion on the article's talk page.

I edited the entry providing official sources to correct the contested data. The corrections were reverted [1] [2] on quite dubious ground and without contribution to any discussion.

In accordance with WP:AD I tried to had a ((disputed)) and a ((dubious)) warnings pointing to the relevant section in the talk page in an attempt to avoid an edit war and draw more attention on the facts. Only to see it reverted [3] [4] [5] [6]without appropriate justifications or any input in the discussions.

I want to make it clear that I am only trying to improve the article by correcting what appears to me to be an aberrant statement. There must be a good reason why other editors with otherwise impressive contributions took this questionable line of action.

Ghaag (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Nev's position

The Manchester/Liverpool entry comes from the same source as all the other information, world-gazetteer.com, so therefore selectively picking one entry as inaccurate seems rather odd; I reverted the "dubious" tag because the information was sourced. However, the source used not only for the Manchester/Liverpool entry but the entire article seems to fail WP:RS; the information for the site comes from "If possible, official data sources are used. In many cases however no official figures are available. In that case, secondary sources such as year books, encyclopediae, atlases etc. are used". The entire article is flawed and requires a rewrite, with a definition of what a metropolitan area is and reliable sources provided, such as information from statistics.gov for places in the UK. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion

Facts

Source of problems: http://www.world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=ifaq&lng=en&des=wg&geo=-4&srt=pnan&col=adhoq&msz=1500#q2

Problem#1 [?]
Gha: "overwhelming consensus seems to have been reach in the discussion on the article's talk page."
Nev: "entry comes from the same source as all the other information"
Problem#2 [Ongoing]
Gha: "to correct the contested data."
Nev: "source used not only for the Manchester/Liverpool entry but the entire article seems to fail WP:RS"
Mediate: Then why didn't you send the source over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard ?
It's done: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Source_check
The link quoted above directs to my WP:RSN entry of last week.
Ghaag (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Problem#3 [Need reply from Nev ]

Nev: "The entire article is flawed [because of secondary sources] and requires a rewrite, with a definition of what a metropolitan area is and reliable sources provided, such as information from statistics.gov for places in the UK."

Ghaag:"I edited the entry providing official sources to correct the contested data. The corrections were reverted [7] [8] on quite dubious ground and without contribution to any discussion."

As initially stated I did provide reference to the British Office for National Statistics official data.
Ghaag (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Waiting on outcome of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe_by_population_AGAIN
We need reliable sources for other countries though, and a metropolitan area hasn't been defined with a reliable source. Another problem that occurs to me is that even if we do find official sources for every area, if they don't all relate to the same date, there's no point in comparing them. Nev1 (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Irrelevant to the case at hand
"I want to make it clear that I am only trying.."
"There must be a good reason.."
"I reverted the "dubious" tag because the information was sourced."

For the edit war side issue, just don't edit "without contribution to any discussion."

How to solve this dispute (feel free to suggest solutions)

"Why not list Manchester/Liverpool as one thing per one source, and two per another, if that's what's going on."

The article is a list of population and redefining the metropolitan area according to official figures would alter the entry's chart position. I speculate that interested parties may resent what could be construed as 'demotion'.
Ghaag (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the sources meet WP:RS, then it doesn't matter if anything is "construed as 'demotion'"
WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"a matter of pointless semantics and essentially nothing more than an argument over labels. Give it up. Make the appropriate redirects and move on."

My apologies but I fail to see how this may be implemented practically.
Ghaag (talk) 06:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ghaag's suggestion [perfect solution]

Ghaag (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So can we close the case now?

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This might not be the right forum to discuss the article, but the problem isn't over. While reliable sources have been found for British figures, the same needs to be done for every other country which is mentioned in the article. And I still hold reservations about the practicality of the article because of different countries probable different definitions of a metropolitan area and the fact the information probably won't all come from the same year. Nev1 (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"probable different definitions of a metropolitan area and the fact the information probably won't all come from the same year" - Yes, I can see how that can be a significant problem information-wise, though continued discussion likely won't progress anything as the sources are where the core problem is. Until that is taken care of, the solution above is our only answer.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would anyone object if I took the article to AfD? Nev1 (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taking the article to WP:AfD might be the most efficient way of engaging the underlying problem of WP:RS. I would oppose deletion but am happy to do so as part of the process.
Ghaag (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mediator notes

Mediation is hard.

Category