Wikipedia talk:Broad-concept article

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Broad-concept article page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disambiguation This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

The contents of this page were initially copied directly from Wikipedia:Disambiguation, where they have previously been long established as a guideline. Cosmetic changes have been made here (addition of subheaders and the like), but no changes have been made to the substance of the guideline. bd2412 T 04:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some common sense tests that I like to use when examining potential dabconcept situations. One of these is what I call the "I'm an expert" test. It goes like this: could a person reasonably represent themselves as an expert in [term], without having to be an expert in multiple fields of knowledge (i.e. without having degrees from different departments in the typical university)? Although there are many species of tuna that are called "bluefin tuna" person could be an expert in "bluefin tuna" without needing to specify a particular species. Compare that to a person claiming to be an expert on "Mercury", or a "battery" expert. The expert on "Mercury" would need to have both Roman mythology and astronomy in his knowledge base. The expert on "battery" would need both chemical engineering and law, as well as some military history and (depending how significant the subtopic was considered) baseball, too. bd2412 T 17:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as an excellent test, and should be incorporated into the guideline. The Mercury expert would need some physical chemistry as well, IMO. Andrewa (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. bd2412 T 22:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a line indicating that lists of cuisines featuring a common element or combining common elements and cooking styles are not ambiguous under this guideline. I just de-disambiguated Fish stew, and would use that, and Rice cake, as examples. Any objections? bd2412 T 17:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Academy is an instance of broad-concept article? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After resolving {{Dabprimary}}, how can we tag a broad-concept article as so to avoid it being confused for the primary-topic article? For now, I've created a Wikipedia-maintenance Category:Broad-concept articles. I'd like to create a Template:Broad-concept article, similar to {{Set index article}} and {{Disambiguation}}. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, the broad concept article is the primary topic; it's just primary for an unusually abstract topic with a range of discrete subtopics. Examples that I particularly like include Size, Schedule, and Enemy, which address the variety of perspective for each of those topics. bd2412 T 20:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification; I was confused by the wording of {{Dabprimary}}, which I just tried to improve now [1]. Let me try and rephrase my original inquiry: is it desirable to tag a broad-concept primary-topic article as such, so as to avoid it becoming conflated with less general, more specific related concepts? I'm thinking specifically of Undersea mountain ranges. Secondly, while {{Dabprimary}} is to be applied to disambiguation pages, can we come up with a template to apply in WP:Chimera articles? Now I'm thinking specifically of Academy. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Undersea mountain ranges, it is important to note that broad concept articles still need to be reliably sources and cited. That is good example of a broad concept topic, however. The test is very simple. All "undersea mountain ranges" are some kind of range of mountains found under a sea. bd2412 T 04:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for improving undersea mountain ranges. While we don't conclude the discussion about the template {{Broad-concept article}}, I intend to make such articles members of the hidden Category:Broad-concept articles. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to have a hidden category to track them, that is fine. But I fail to see how a separate, visible {{Broad-concept article}} template would be practical or useful. {{Set index article}} and {{Disambiguation}} both were also intended to give editors reminders in the fine print to change internal links to point directly to the intended article instead of the disambiguation/set-index page (if necessary). But in many cases, internal links pointing to broad-concept articles are useful. As BD2412 stated, the broad concept article is treated as the primary topic. And a number of broad-concept articles are usually written per Wikipedia:Summary style, with the discrete subtopics treated as detailed subarticles of the main broad-concept article. Furthermore, putting such a {{Broad-concept article}} template could get buried on long articles like Football, where it could get barely noticed.

Well, I was thinking for of a hatnote like {{Split-apart}} -- do you think it could be applied to, e.g., Academy, which is an undesirable WP:Chimera article that could/should become a nice broad-concept/summary-style article? Or would we need a {{Split-apart2}}, offering more specific wording? Fgnievinski (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And good luck trying to find articles to put into Category:Broad-concept articles. First, I do not think many of them are obvious. It is easy to spot a disambiguation/set-index page because it's basically a short list of related links. But as I mentioned, a broad-concept article can look like any normal article written per WP:SS. Second, I think such a category would eventually be unmanageable. If you take the Nokia Lumia example mentioned on WP:BROADCONCEPT#Product brands and multiple commercial product lines, you could wind up tagging almost every single product brand and multiple product lines article. Under that example, it could be argued that anything from a series of software products like Microsoft Windows with its multiple versions (Windows 7, Windows 8, etc), to a media series like Star Trek with its multiple TV shows and films (Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Trek (film), etc.) could be considered a "broad-concept article" and would be required to be placed in that category. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; although I'm uncertain the poor distinction between summary-style articles and broad-concept articles implies that either or both wouldn't benefit from a category of their own. Nor would the large number of candidate articles be a valid reason not to get started. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Microsoft Windows, for example, be an SIA rather than a BCA? Just asking, I'm new here! Andrewa (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fgnievinski, I'd like to look at reviving this. As a newcomer to the area of BCAs I found it very hard to get a handle on what a BCA is (still working on it), and the lack of entries in Category:Broad-concept articles was part of that. See #Examples... I'm not sure whether any of those are in the category!

How can I help? Andrewa (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a deletion discussion taking place regarding the article Report, a broad concept article which is one step short of (or, depending on how you look at it, one step beyond) being a dictionary definition of the word "report" (and not really comprehensive at that, but that's not the point for now). I am thinking that perhaps this editing guideline should have a subtopic for English words that are BCAs (right now the guideline has subtopics for physics, geography, aspects of sports, etc., but not for broad concept terms like "report" which have lots of meanings in English, none of which are related to any of the existing subtopics specifically mentioned here now). I am not certain to what extent this would simply provide a method to circumvent WP:NOTADICTIONARY (have you ever tried to think up a term that you were pretty sure was just a dictionary definition and then came to Wikipedia to see what was there and sure enough there was a whole article on it? Try it sometime-- think of a word, and see if there is not an article on that word. Cause I betcha there is... and maybe there shouldn't be) but then maybe WP:NOTADICTIONARY is in the end a toothless policy: I have yet to see it applied in an WP:AfD with success (maybe the policy should be changed! No, no, not going there, not today!). Thoughts?? If there aren't any in a day or two I will consider opening up a WP:RfC before implementing the idea of creating a subcategory on English words on my own. KDS4444 (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get a better idea of what a BCA is and how it's useful.

WP:BCA#Common examples currently lists as examples particle, triangle center, Supreme court, Finance Minister, Ministry of Finance, Central Asia, Northern Europe, Southern United States, football, dead ball, out of bounds, and Nokia Lumia.

Frankly I find these a bit confusing. For a start, Nokia Lumia seems to me to be a prototypical topic for a set index article rather than a BCA. Am I missing something? Andrewa (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It is confusing. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help fix it, but I don't want to be like what Sir Lancelot Sprat brilliantly termed an elephant reversing into a greenhouse. wp:creed#13

User:BD2412 suggested I look at Color code, Enemy, Guessing, High priest, Schedule, Size, World domination, and Worst-case scenario as good examples of BCAs. Maybe these might provide some better examples for the guideline.

I think that all examples given in WP:BCA should be members of Category:Broad-concept articles, and I'm reluctant to add some of those already there... notably the Nokia one, I still think that's just plain wrong. So I guess that means removing it.

As part of my education (and because it needs doing anyway) I'd like to write some BCAs. Can you suggest some members of Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles that it would be good to start on? Andrewa (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said elsewhere, I think Category:Broad-concept articles is problematic in that there really are not any defining features for what a BCA is. Without that, the category is likely to be populated by arbitrary subjective criteria (i.e., identifying a BCA is in the eye of the beholder--what one editor might think of as a BCA, to another editor would simply be an overview article). A category that *might* work is something more like Category:Disambiguation pages changed into broad-concept articles which could be used to track such transformed entities. older ≠ wiser 10:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one other of a similar type of article Category:Introductory articles. older ≠ wiser 11:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: Note that I have about three dozen dabconcept resolver drafts in various states of disrepair listed at User:BD2412/sandbox#Disambig resolvers. On the current list, Fish sandwich is ridiculous as a disambiguation page (it's just a list of fish sandwiches; compare Rice cake); Finding water also deserves encyclopedic treatment. Godhead is another one that I have had my eye on for a while. bd2412 T 12:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, thanks! Not sure I'm game to take on fish sandwich, it's a shame IMO it passed RfD in quite the way it did. Rice cake is awesome but flagged as inadequately referenced and it is, and I fear fish sandwich might end up a lot worse. But thanks, this is very educational. Andrewa (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but in that the category does exist, the prototypical examples used at WP:BCA should be in it, surely?

It could serve a useful purpose even if we just have these articles and ones that go through the process of listing at Category:Disambiguation pages to be converted to broad concept articles and subsequent de-listing when they've been converted. Put a notice on it stating how waffly the definition is (perhaps not in quite (;-> those terms)... still thinking about that... Andrewa (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that as of now, WP:DABCONCEPT is the only guideline we have on converting poorly styled disambiguation pages into something other than disambiguation pages. We could have separate WP:DABSIA and WP:DABLIST guidelines for disambiguation pages that should be converted into SIAs or lists (or we could have all three rolled into one page). However, there has to be some means of marking disambiguation pages that do need to be converted into something else, because they are merely listing types of a single thing rather than listing ambiguous things. bd2412 T 13:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. Tempted to jump to a solution on that but I'll resist. Andrewa (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider using Open source as an example. I recently opened a can of disambiguation worms by improved the disamb page and redirections creating thousands of disamb links. But we've since discussed it and think Open source would be better as a Broad-concept article. The article may need summary paragraphs for each section and the 3 or 4 main usages but I think it's pretty good. Also, I'm wondering if there needs to be a new tag to replace the disamb tag. If anyone responds please be sure to ping me. Thanks in advance. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Scare-line#WP:Content fork. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline has been used a lot recently in AFDs (see here, here and here) to justify articles that at present include nothing but original research (usually specifically WP:SYNTH) and seem by their very nature to be necessarily based on such. Should the text Please remember when writing a broad-concept article that the concept must have been discussed specifically as a concept in third-party reliable sources. Do not synthesize sources that seem to you to be talking about something similar into an original broad concept. (or equivalent) be added to the page? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of warning against WP:SYNTH is due, but it should not be too stringent. Otherwise it will kill articles like Secretary (title).

Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Allopathic medicine#Make this page a disambiguation page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize for the ping if it's unwanted, but we could still use opinions at this discussion. Pinging top ten editors at WT:BCA: @Fgnievinski, SilkTork, Philg88, JasonCarswell, Brightgalrs, Zzyzx11, KDS4444, and Hijiri88: (Skipping already notified: Andrewa|BD2412|Bkonrad). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Merge reform. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be that Interim is a BCA? If yes, how to indicate this (or edit the page)? - Altenmann >talk 21:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Interim does appear to contain unrelated senses, such as the names of media works. BD2412 T 19:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If it is not a BCA, it is in severe violation of WP:DAB at least in sections "Temporary organizational arrangements (general concept)" and "Temporary peaces". I am also not sure that "Legal concepts and procedures" is OK (contains phrases). And iun other places. Can you take a better look? E.g., split a BCA Interim (general concept) out of it? --Altenmann >talk 20:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above concern that this guideline opens wide gates to WP:SYNTH. There definitely must be some roadblock againts it. --Altenmann >talk 23:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The examples of broad-concept articles (e.g., Particle, Supreme court, Out of bounds) seem like appropriate subjects to me, with no unusual or unacceptable risk of SYNTH violations.

We do not appear to be drowning in BCAs. We have relatively few disputes over BCAs. For example, the above comment from 2018 appears to be complaining about an AFD, but this idea appears to be mentioned in less than 0.1% of AFDs. This page is linked in only 316 AFDs out of 537K (0.06%).

It seems to me that we probably don't need any extra roadblocks against it, and that adding some would likely be WP:CREEPY.

I wonder whether your concern was prompted by a problematic example, rather than by the typical BCA page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Particle, to my tastes, is a perfict BCA, but the remaining two are glaring examples of bad articles. If out of bounds is simply underreferenced and salvageable (although tagged since 2009; looks like dgaf case), but Supreme court leaves an impression that it was written by a student who got an assignment from a wikiphile professor and who knows how to write a good essay, but blissfully ignorant of our rules WP:CITE and WP:NOR. Legal area is not the topic where verifiability is an trivial matter. Regarding your final question, my concern comes from here: Talk:White Terror#Primary topic? --Altenmann >talk 02:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles can be poorly written without the subject being inappropriate or at risk of SYNTH. Supreme court probably ought to be sourced to books like these:

• Rogowski, Ralf; Gawron, Thomas (2016). Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1-78533-273-9.
• Goldsworthy, Jeffrey Denys (2006-02-09). Interpreting Constitutions: A Comparative Study. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-927413-0.

or some intro-to-international-law textbooks, but even if it's completely WP:Glossary#uncited, that doesn't mean that even a single sentence in the article represents "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists...somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article", to quote the definition of OR from that policy. (The key, and sometimes overlooked, part of OR is that it's only OR if it's impossible to cite the material.)

I don't know enough about the historical events in White Terror to know whether some portion of them are "the" White Terror (but it looks like it would only be some of them). It's possible that there could be a viable article on the subject of related events. I see books talking about "the White Terrors", in the plural, which suggests that we could combine some of them into a broad-concept or overview article without violating any of our usual standards. Some of them are about the French Revolution, and others are about the Russian/communist ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles can be poorly written without the subject being inappropriate or at risk of SYNTH. - I agree, but the point is that for a BCA the risk of WP:SYNTH is especially high due to the very broadness. Therefore I think some words of caution would be handy, to prevent pages like "Supreme court" to be written in SYNTH style in the first place. I would very much like do delete half of its lede. --Altenmann >talk 04:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the risk of SYNTH is especially high. I think the risk of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary problems are high, but I don't see why a "broad" (or "vague") subject would be at high risk for people making stuff up.

Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, so I don't think adding anything to this low-traffic will make any practical difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I've moved most of that "lead" – which was longer than most articles – to other sections.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the examples of supreme court and out of bounds, the problem there is that it's only a brief broad overview and then "here's a laundry list of examples". The "one section for each country" format is especially prominent, and it's very rare that it's the best way to present information. More generally, there is a risk of synth with these articles, but it's the same risk of synth anywhere that someone might try to handpick "here are the most important aspects" instead of following the sources (plugging my essay). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with this concern. Particle is well constructed because it does talk about a single broad concept. But supreme court and out of bounds are in a sorry state because they are effectively a disambiguation for many different things, poorly written and poorly sourced. There are lots of words that are effectively homonyms, referring to multiple different things. This is a call for disambiguation / navigation aid, not a single article about several things. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Supreme court is many things. The article's subject is the highest judicial body in a given system. That's "one thing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it is an identifiable "one thing", then it is no longer a broad concept article. For example, we have "Federation", and it does have the list of federations, but we dont classify the page as BCA.... Or shall we? --Altenmann >talk 19:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A page can be a broad-concept article even if it's not (manually) placed in Category:Broad-concept articles. I think Federation is a BCA.

A broad-concept article is about "one thing". See the first sentence: "A broad-concept article is an article that addresses a concept" – "a concept", as in "exactly one concept", aka "one thing". BCAs are pages that are about "one thing" (the concept of a particle, a federation, or having a judicial entity that outranks the lower courts) with many related specific instances (see the contents of Category:Particles, Category:Federations, Category:Supreme courts).

To use the White Terror example above, someone could probably write a BCA on the White Terrors around the French revolution, and someone could write a different BCA on the White Terrors connected with the Russian revolution. You wouldn't write a single BCA on all of those, because those are "two things". I would suggest to any eager editor that the model of Wikipedia:Set index articles (=one concept + same name) would be a better fit, because White Terrors aren't as abstract as a typical BCA subject, but it wouldn't be impossible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S., and while we are at it we do have IMO a really weird disambig page Federation (disambiguation), which defies all rules of WP:DAB/WP:MOSDAB. --Altenmann >talk 19:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Looks like the main thing that this guideline says not to do. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of federations redirects to Federation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the current state, and I agree with you that the supreme court article should be about "one thing". I can imagine a better version of that article where it focuses on legal principles and separation of powers, instead of the mishmash of badly sourced stubs pasted together. Alternmann brings up an interesting comparison with federation. I think there is a way to steer editors in the right direction to make better articles, where one word can refer to many concepts. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme court is exactly what it needs to be. Almost every country in the world has a judiciary with a unitary court to which final appeals are taken, but legal principles and separation of powers vary widely across the globe, to the point that discussing them in this context except in the most general terms would be WP:SYNTH. What we have, rather, is a basic definition, some discussion of the broad categories of variation, and then a country-by-country list where any reader can find just about any country of interest, and either glean what they need to know or follow the link in that section to a more detailed discussion. What we can not have is either a disambiguation page (because the concept is unambiguous, and the examples are just instances of the concept) or a set index article (because not all highest courts share the name "Supreme Court"). BD2412 T 01:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it extremely weird that an unreferenced lede with oversweeping statements "is exactly what it needs to be." This version was hideous SYNTH. This intervention simply spread the lede thinly over the article, but this did not make the article less SYNTH. If you don't believe me, I can readily add a dirty dozen of {{cn}} tags, starting from the very definition. "would be WP:SYNTH" is an outrageous statement to hear from a seasoned Wikipedian. --Altenmann >talk 03:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is "the very definition" the first sentence's claim that "a supreme court...is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts"?

ISBN 9780195557558 (Oxford Reference) defines "Supreme Court" as "The highest court in a court hierarchy". Therefore, the definition is not a violation of the original research policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what prevented you from adding the footnote to make me look completely stupid? But this is just sweeping the bug further under the carpet. How about "also known as a court of last resort, apex court, and high (or final) court of appeal, and court of final appeal"? Also I heard there is such thing as Constitutional court. Isn't it a court that can defenestrate decisions even of the supreme court? How about a logical sloppiness in the lede? "the highest court" and then a bit below "tend not to have a single highest court". It may be not exactly WP:SYNTH, but sloppily written out of someone's head (which is if not SYNTH, then definitely OR) and hence in a sore need in citations for verification. --Altenmann >talk 03:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So... just to make sure we're both using the same words to mean the same thing, are we actually agreed that uncited text is not automatically a violation of NOR?

For example, I could write "Smoking causes lung cancer", just "out of my head" (i.e., using prior knowledge), with no citations in sight. Are we agreed that even if this would be a violation of all that is right and decent, it would not technically be a violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A really bad example, colleague. If you don't provide an ironclad reputable ref, I can readily expand it "..., but its danger is greatly exaggerated", citing top notch researchers hired by tobacco lobby. --Altenmann >talk 04:03, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, leaving it uncited is a bad idea. But are we agreed that it's not OR? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not split hairs on hypothetical examples. I can readily nitpick that taken out of context the statement is vague up to the degree of incorrectness. --Altenmann >talk 04:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But yes, we read WP:V in the same way. I know, tl;dr and stuff, but at the very beginning I wrote Legal area is not the topic where verifiability is a trivial matter. Otherwise lawyers would not be filthy rich :-). --Altenmann >talk 04:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question is really whether we read WP:NOR the same way.

But proceeding under the assumption that we do, then the fact that it's uncited is irrelevant to the NOR policy, and what matters is that someone, somewhere in the world, published this. It's possible that the synonyms would have to be cited separately, but I don't believe the list of synonyms introduces anything that hasn't already been published elsewhere. Apex court appears to be a generic term,[2] as does court of last resort.[3] (Oxford Dictionaries says the former is "chiefly in South Asia and Africa".) The others look like they may be the 'local' name for the subject, e.g., Court of Final Appeal (Hong Kong). Adding citations looks like it would just be a matter of spending some time finding and spamming in citations. I doubt that a single word in the first paragraph would change as a result of that effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can argue what you want, my only answer will be "Sorry, colleague, you may be mistaken". I am sorry to sound WP:BLUECHEESE, but let me give you my own a piece of WP:SYNTH: "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source" + "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." Meaning that if I question something, I have no idea how the text landed into the article: whether you copied from a book but forgot to footnote, or after reading very many books you formed an educated opinion, which may or may not reflect WP:TRUTH, or simply decided "it must be so, because it is self-evident". Now, the question is indeed "whether we read WP:NOR the same way". My view is paranoid: until proven otherwise using WP:RS, I treat any sufficiently nontrivial statement as Wikipedian's opinion, i.e., OR. Of course, I am not that paranoid. Using the "no smoking" example from the above, I would let it go in an article, say, about gamers who smoke too much and thus create nuisance to their roommates. But in an article about cancer among gamers I would surely demand a ref. --Altenmann >talk 05:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like your opinion, no matter how rational, does not align with the policy. The NOR policy is about whether a source exists "somewhere in the world". Your view is about whether a source is cited in the Wikipedia article, which is an important point, but also a separate point.

I want articles well-sourced, but I don't claim that uncited material is a violation of the NOR policy. If you were to take my advice, I'd suggest that you stop calling that "OR" and start calling it "something WP:Likely to be challenged" – a category that is always required to have an inline citation per WP:V, and that is entirely dependent upon the personal judgment of editors. You could treat a statement like "the human hand has five digits" as something WP:LIKELY to be WP:CHALLENGED, and nobody can gainsay you in that (because it actually happened once). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree with your interpretation of the policy. Unlike you, I directly cited from the policy. I agree that a suspicious phrase or two is hardly NOR, but when a whole huge section goes uncited and is fullfilled mit astaunishing ken then something is wrong with Wikipedian's research. --Altenmann >talk 07:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki editing is a summary of what the source(s) says/say. And the lead is a summary of those summaries. You need to treat sentences individually. The operative definition is: If it's unchallenged, it's normal editing. If it's challenged and then not sourced according to WP:NOR/WP:Ver then it's synth and a violation of both of these policies. North8000 (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann, I quoted the policy: NOR says that a source has to exist "somewhere in the world". I wonder if you have been under the impression that "All material must be attributable" refers only to sources already cited in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cherrypicking. NOR further say "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable...". Meaning that if you cannot cite, then it is probably OR. Even if a source exist there is no guarantee that a Wikipedian (mis)reads something biased, suiting their agenda. Just as you did now :-) (no offense, just teasing) --Altenmann >talk 15:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{od} I feel like you keep confusing "did not" and "cannot". If you "cannot" cite, then it is probably OR. But if you "could" but "did not", then it's definitely not OR.

A few years ago, I set up this table to explain the differences:

How to fix problems with verifiability and original research

When the problem is...	you can...	optionally with this template:
The content is uncited.	Find and cite a reliable source yourself. Tag the content as needing an inline citation. WP:CHALLENGE the content, if you believe that no reliable source exists to support that claim.	{{citation needed}}
The cited source is not reliable for this content.	Replace the unreliable source with a reliable source yourself. Tag the statement to indicate that it needs a different source. WP:CHALLENGE the content, if you believe that no reliable source exists to support that claim.	{{unreliable source?}}
The cited source does not support the content.	Find and cite a different reliable source that supports the content. Re-write it to match the cited source. Tag the statement to indicate that it needs a different source. WP:CHALLENGE the content, if you believe that no reliable source exists to support that claim.	{{failed verification}}
The content combines information from multiple (cited) sources to claim something that no single source says.	Find and cite a different reliable source that supports the content. Re-write it to match the cited source. Tag the statement to indicate that it needs a different source. WP:CHALLENGE the content, if you believe that no reliable source exists to support that claim.	{{synthesis inline}}
No published source anywhere in the world, in any language, supports this content.	Re-write the content to match reliable sources. Tag the statement as being original research. WP:CHALLENGE the content, if you believe that no reliable source exists to support that claim.	{{original research inline}}

Only the last two are technically OR. The first one might not be a problem (we [still] don't have a cite-everything rule), but assuming that it requires a source, then all of the first three are WP:V – but not WP:OR. The last two are WP:OR (and also WP:V, because all OR additionally violates WP:V).

The first sentences of Supreme court are the first one in this table. It wasn't cited, but a couple of minutes with a search engine easily proved that it could be. WP:NOR doesn't require the existence of a single citation. It requires that everything be "attributable", but that means "possible to attribute", not "already attributed in the form of an inline citation". None of that is a NOR violation. (But you can still claim that it's a WP:V violation if you either WP:CHALLENGE it or declare that you think it is WP:LIKELY to be challenged.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) IMO the "probably OR" is not correct. The process is that it needs to be challenged, and then if nobody sourced it the material needs to get removed. "Challenged and not sourced" is not a determination of whether or not it was OR. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

I don't think that these have any particular danger of wp:Synth specifically. I also don't think that these are some type of special case. Many topics are broad. Often they are groupings (of items covered in other articles) created by a term, where they have something in common. And sometimes the term gives a slanted view of the group. I think that sometimes we need to acknowledge that they are more of just a term and that the article should be about the term rather than everything in the group covered by the term. The latter can turn into a random coatrack, even if not technically wp:synth. In other cases the linkage itself (which could be a concept) is a topic worth covering which is a good example where the concept itself is suitable to cover in a separate article. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of activity here in the last day, so I'll just reiterate that the supreme court article is C-class for a reason. It's not our best work. I'll leave it to other editors to argue whether it needs structural changes, or just some better prose and research. I think there is at least a consensus that supreme court and federation are good examples of discrete topics, and not merely a single term referring to multiple things. If someone has a proposal to improve this guideline to encourage better articles, I am open to it. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles could use some work. And the Supreme straddles the fence on whether it about a concept or a term, but in this case I think that that is inevitable. "Federation" probably needs a more specific title because it is about "national-level" type federations. While I question whether "broad concept" is a distinct class of article, I think that this provides much needed analysis and guidance for articles with this aspect and could be further developed to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not at all saying that Supreme court is ideal as an undercited article. I mean that it is structurally exactly as the encyclopedia needs. BD2412 T 17:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the whole discussion above was about semantics whether WP:SYNTH or not. While the major issue is that some BCA, such as "Supreme Court" are thororughly unreferenced texts, which is inadmissible in Wikipedia. Are you going to argue with this? I am tired of this sidetracked bickering. Supreme Court was tagged in August. If it will remain in this sorry state in October, I will start mercilessly chopping off all nontrivial unreferenced statements (of course I will spare sky-is-blue-type texts). --Altenmann >talk 18:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to follow the norms for articles in general. And IMHO the Supreme court article, while it could use some improvement it does not have the major problems that you feel it does. A couple of thoughts which may or may not be relevant here:

• Mere collection of content from different places about one (broad or narrow) topic in one article is not per se wp:syntheses.
• It's common accepted practice that material in the article is a summary of what is in sources, and that the lead is a summary of those summaries. It's accepted that this is not per se wp:synthesis. When it moves into the more creative stuff defined in wp:NOR as synth, or where the summarizaton is disputed, that's generally where it starts being considered to be synthesis. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know what a list and a lede are, but thank you for reminding. To decrease the chance of a revert war I will start with tagging the sentences I feel need reference. --Altenmann >talk 20:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About thororughly unreferenced texts, which is inadmissible in Wikipedia: Yes, Altenmann, I'd argue with that. Unverifiable information is inadmissible. Uncited information (=what you're complaining about) is technically not. From the WP:Glossary:

uncited

Material in an article that is not followed by an inline citation. The uncited material may be § verifiable (editors could locate a reliable source that supports this material, if they tried to) or § unverifiable (nobody can find a reliable source that directly supports this material).

unverifiable

Material in an article for which editors are unable to find any reliable sources that could be cited to support it. Unverifiable information may be § cited (e.g., to an unreliable source or to a source that doesn't support the material) or § uncited. Determining whether material is truly unverifiable may require substantial effort.

WP:V requires inline citations in four circumstances (up from three, so we're slowly making progress). Anything that isn't one of those four circumstances doesn't require an inline citation. It only requires that it be possible to find a source – not that one already be cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. WP:NOR say "for which no reliable, published source exists", sure. But how on Earth can I prove that no source:s exist? (I don't know what the term is for this fallacy). If I see a large unreferenced dubious text I slap NOR tag and it is the job of authors to prove that I am wrong. Of course, if there 1-2 suspicious sentences, I slap "cn" on them individually. --Altenmann >talk 00:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the text of WP:NOR: Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they may. Or may not. How can this be an instruction for a (non-)action? --Altenmann >talk 01:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an instruction. It's a statement of fact: The absence of citations does not tell you anything about whether the article violates NOR.

It looks like you missed Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 211#Deprecating new unsourced articles earlier this year. I remember this particularly because I confidently asserted (on a different page) that I thought the community was ready to insist that all articles should have at least one source, and then discovered that a major discussion was underway to ban the creation of unsourced articles, and the proposal was already failing. The end result is that there is no rule requiring a citation in any article (assuming you can write one with no direct quotations, no contentious matter about BLPs, etc.), and the non-existence of this longed-for (by some) rule has been confirmed by the community refusing to create such a rule earlier this year.

Or, to adapt your wording above, thoroughly unreferenced texts actually are admissible, whether or not you and I happen to like it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tell it to admins who move such artcles into draft space on sight. --Altenmann >talk 02:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, even better, I can run an experiment. In my job stack I have a couple decent subjects for which sources are so obfusively eloquent, that I cannot collect enough stamina to summarize them into an encyclopedic article. Let me write an unreverenced plausible text and see if it survives for a week. Then despite my reluctance I will be reasonably close to permit myself to start considering arguments favoring the acceptance of your point of view (means "you won"). --Altenmann >talk 02:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be disappointed by the double standards. You've been editing for >20 years, with >200K. A new article created by you won't be treated like a new article created by a newbie.

I don't know if you remember it, but about 15 years ago, a small group of editors ran a sting operation against NPP and found that NPP was inconsistent and made up non-existent rules to reject articles. My favorite comment came from a reviewer, after the results were posted, who said that if he'd been warned about the project, he would have been more lenient with the articles he reviewed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My post was clearly not implying that you didn't know what a lead or list was, I was pointing out that things about it that might be relevant. But I wasn't talking about lists when I wrote "Mere collection of content from different places about one (broad or narrow) topic in one article is not per se wp:syntheses." I was talking about articles in general. North8000 (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the above does not appear to fully appreciate that NOR is regularly context dependent, and it is not just another way to say 'verifiability'. As much as 'smoking causes lung cancer' may be verifiable, it is not to be included, in say the "multiple sclerosis" topic, unless qualified secondary reliable sources make that link with the topic, otherwise to do so is original research. If there is a reliably sourced broad concept of tertiary value like say "autoimmune disease", it likewise can't include just any verifiable smoking info, on the same basis. If there is a reliably sourced concept of tertiary value like 'highest court', it can't include that verifiable discussion of the 'court of oyer and terminer' in the Salem Witch trials (or smoking), unless qualified secondary reliable sources make that link with the topic, otherwise to do so is original research. On the other hand, to the extent that qualified reliable secondary and tertiary sources on comparative law or legal systems, link courts-of-a-kind, such that there can be an unoriginal tertiary concept, those things and only those things can be discussed unoriginally and supported within the topic. It remains, if you've got an original way to explain -- through use of just verifiable-this-or-that or otherwise -- about a 'disease' or 'highest court' this is not the place for you to publish it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that one would not want to imply relevance, which could violate both NPOV and NOR. If we'd like to develop this idea further, we should find a different example for smoking, as smoking is a significant problem for MS per PMID 32905534, which means that would not be OR and might not be UNDUE either.

  But overall, it appears above that "NOR" is being used very loosely, to mean only "they didn't cite stuff as much as I would like them to". If we can't get a rule that requires citations (and so far, we haven't been able to), then we need to come up with a way of strongly encouraging the best practice without misleading claims (e.g., that uncited text is a "violation of policy" or "original research"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are so many things in our policies that cannot be judged without citation (whether currently in the article or not), or leaving one to assume the Wikipedia editor just knows what they are talking about, including ultimately verifiability (and even more so NPOV and OR), so it is no wonder 'more citations' is a call that will be heard regularly and made insistently.

And just to use solely the way you summarized your PMID cite, you only covered smoking, but not cancer or the relationship between smoking and lung cancer, and thus if, how, and why "smoking causes lung cancer" matters to RS on the topic - that too may be in your cite, but it is not in your summary, so better and fuller summary text-to-cite conformance is still needed to judge OR or NPOV or V -- ultimately it is what is in the summary Wikipedia article (including examination of the cite) which needs to prove itself for our content policies to be practically effective and continuously evaluated. (I know you were not trying to give a full summary, so this is not trying to be gotcha, it is trying to evaluate article text "smoking causes lung cancer" within specific article topic context.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you've said, except perhaps the "prove itself" wording. I don't think that the Wikipedia article needs to prove itself. I think editors need to decide whether they accept it. The best route to that, of course, is for the editor(s) working on the article to write an accurate representation of the literature as a whole, and to drop in plenty of good sources for the convenience of anyone checking up on them later.

Thinking back over this conversation, I am wondering this morning if NOR would benefit from a sentence like "Adding inline citations after most material is the best practice, but the mere fact that material is uncited does not mean that it is original research".

This would both raise the standard (no policy recommends "most", or any proportion at all) and perhaps discourage people from using "original research" when they mean "fewer citations than I personally believe would be ideal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not writing for each other, we are writing for readers, so the text needs to prove itself. And no, I think that will be interpreted as you don't need a source, when in fact, you do need a source, always (preferably sources), even when we let you off, about being forthcoming and upfront with the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of activity on this discussion so I may have lost the thread. I just want to support the overall call for sources, and respect for WP:V and WP:NOR. I also want to echo editors who say it's good to respect WP:BRD, especially for badly written articles about otherwise appropriate topics. I encourage everyone to get back to working on articles. But I'll reiterate that if this policy needs clarifying, I want to encourage that discussion too. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know you personally believe that "the text needs to prove itself", but that's not actually in any of our policies. There were two attempts earlier this year to say that articles need to have at least one source – at least one, somewhere on the page; these were not one-source-per-sentence or even one-source-per-section proposals – and both failed to get consensus. I'd like us to get to that goal someday, and I think that taking baby steps is the way to get there. But if we can't admit that the existing policies don't actually say this now, then it will be harder to move them in the direction that we'd both like them to go. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of whether the source is in the article, it is a matter of whether the article conforms to the sources. For that to happen, the sources 1) must exist; and 2) the text must conform to them. So, the text must prove itself. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible, in this way of thinking, for uncited text to prove itself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either it conforms to sources, or it does not. That said, it certainly would be better and more responsible to not force others to search for the source, and so people will keep on insisting that the source be produced, nonetheless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So "The capital of France is Paris", without any source, is self-proving text? I think that does conform to (real-world) sources, and I don't think editors should insist that a source be produced, but I don't think I would describe that as "text that proves itself". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposition that most countries with a court system have a highest court in that system is basically just math, and that most countries call their highest court a "supreme court" while some use other names is evidenced by the fact that most of the sections listing highest courts link to articles titled "Supreme Court of ..." or "... Supreme Court", while some point to "High Court of..." or other such titles. BD2412 T 23:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would, so no need to quibble over the phrase. "The capital of France is Paris", should appear in almost no articles, and it won't be supported by sources on the subject of almost all articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right. The language I'd use for that is "All material must be verifiable", with (if contextually appropriate) the addition that "but not all material needs to be cited" or "and that includes material whose verification process involves finding a reliable source yourself". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Address to the Nation: a BCA (at ,east it looks like one) under scrutiny, just as I was arguing here. --Altenmann >talk 17:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't even open for two hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles still need to have a real enclyclopedic topic. I think that this essay gives good and needed guidance on certain types of articles. But it also could cause problems....some will read it as saying that if it's a "broad concept" it can have an article. I'll get started on the Nice day, Medium height people and Easy work articles.  :-) North8000 (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about having nice day or easy work, but "medium height people have plenty of coverage, google say :-) Talking about being discriminated against giants and midgets... --Altenmann >talk 22:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend merging the subject of Medium-height people into Human height, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint. Done. --Altenmann >talk 03:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Particle is in Category:Broad-concept articles
• Supreme Court is not.
• Ministry of home affairs redirected from Ministry of Interior is in Category:Set index articles.

IMO all entries in the following template must be reviewed for their BCAness.

And may be more of such there, so that the adherence to this guideline can be monitored uniformly. --Altenmann >talk 18:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, shall be all/most of them categorized both as BCA and SIA? --Altenmann >talk 18:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually important for articles on broad concepts to be placed in Category:Broad-concept articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikipedia maintenance category, not a general readership category, so if it is recognized as BCA, then in belongs to the category. Is it really important that DAB pages are included into category "All article disambiguation pages"? --Altenmann >talk 19:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying DAB pages changes how search results in the visual editor handle the page (to make it harder for unwary editors to accidentally link to a DAB page).

Placing articles in Category:Broad-concept articles does ...nothing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred to me that there is substantial overlap between BCAs and vital articles, so I have left an invitation at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Broad-concept article. They might find more value in your idea of tagging articles than I do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting observation. I'm not sure how much categorizing them helps. It raises a different question for me, mainly if we even have a common framework for what a vital article should look like. IMO, the true vital articles look like a good article with a clear topic and focus. My observation is that a lot of broad concept articles are just disambiguation pages that have been built into a Frankenstein monster with a copy-paste of the leads of the articles they link to. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the very short list of tagged BCAs, they seem to mostly be at an intermediate level. For example, it's not the very general article on Court or the specific article on Supreme Court of the United States; it's Supreme court, in between those two. It's not Software or Microsoft Word; it's Word processor, in between those two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I think the proposition that many BCAs are just disambiguation pages that have been built into a Frankenstein monster indicates a flawed understanding of disambiguation pages. If someone tried to make Mercury into a BCA by somehow conceptually tying together the name of the element and the planet and the deity and the car company, and so on with pieces of text from the articles, yes, that would be problematic. In virtually all cases, however, a BCA is structured as a BCA precisely because the concepts are not ambiguous. Take a look at Color code. That used to be a disambiguation page that just laid out all the circumstances in which things are coded by color, whether semaphore flags or wiring or traffic lights. While it is not the prettiest thing as a BCA, it was flatly incorrect as a disambiguation page. Now, at least, it provides some basic theory of what a color code is, why they exist, and what sorts of drawbacks they might have. BD2412 T 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with you about the concept in theory, but I also think that @Shooterwalker is not wrong to say that some of them look like they are stitched-together article leads, much like Frankenstein's monster was stitched together from various parts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI WP:FRANKENSTEIN (not what is meant here) and WP:CHIMERA (bad BCA). 05:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. The Mercury example is instructive not just because there are so many Mercury articles, but because you probably could stitch together an article that links all of those topics nominally together (through etymology from the same Roman god). But a BCA shouldn't be a disambiguation that is expanded into a chimera, or an article about multiple examples sharing the same name. The more we talk about this the more I think we should clarify this in the guideline, in one or two lines. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a simple or easy way to distinguish SIA and BCA. A simple listing of things of the same type with similar names is a set index (or if they are all topics with relevant content in existing articles and all the entities have the same name, perhaps a disambiguation page), but not necessarily a broad concept article. A broad concept article, almost by definition will include prose text to assist a reader in distinguishing between conceptually similar topics (that may or may not all be similarly named). Where these point to existing articles, I'd expect the description on the BCA to align pretty closely with what is in the articles -- and as such, I wouldn't necessarily expect a full set of citations for such entries, presuming the article is reasonably up to snuff. If any portions in the BCA describe some topic that is not connected with an existing article, then yes, some sort of citations would be needed for that info. But of course, there is a wide range of articles in between as well as undoubtedly many misattributed to one that belong to the other (or to neither). older ≠ wiser 20:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO these are not a distinct class. It's just a name for for a nature/situation that exists to varying degrees on different articles. I'm not weighing in on categorization (I don't work in that area), just making a general comment. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding controversial, should this guideline be downgraded to an essay? At best, it's already covered at WP:CONCEPTDAB. At worst, it's what North8000 says: articles are just articles, and this guideline is misleading. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a really important area for firm explication though. Perhaps the framing could be adjusted—"Writing about broad concepts" or what have you. Much of the unsatisfying gray areas of what should be on Wikipedia come from articles with novel scope (i.e. scope not definitively treated in other tertiary sources), and I think this guideline is essentially good at, well, guiding editors on how to think about article scope. Remsense ‥ 论 14:00, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of downgrading it appeals to me, but there has been such a trend away from the idea that  Policy is not magic pixie dust that I think we should consider the implications first.

In terms of why this page exists, I wonder if it relates to the merged-article notability problem. That is, we have some editors who say that:

• The general subject of a Flood is notable.
• Some specific instances of that subject are also notable: California flood of 1605, Great Flood of 1862, Los Angeles flood of 1938, January 1982 California floods, etc.
• But you really cannot merge these articles into a broader article, like Floods in California, unless you can find sources that are primarily about the larger subject and not primarily about the individual instances. We must either have lots of separate articles or lose all the information on the specific ones.

It's possible that this exists to give people something a little more specific to point at (compared to WP:FAILN and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Merging) to explain why "Floods in California" (or "Fast food restaurant buildings on the National Register of Historic Places", or a global overview article like Supreme court) is a viable way to organize content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I think deprecating this or merging this back to WP:DABCONCEPT makes sense. Especially because it largely duplicates the information there. When it's merged there, the meaning of the guidance is more clear, that editors shouldn't write a disambiguation page where we can write an article. Having it as a separate guideline makes it seem like a broad concept article is different from a regular article, when they are the same thing. I believe that is what the WP:CONSENSUS of this discussion has shown. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite follow, unless you think the inverse possibility of further filling out this page and making the summary on the other page more concise wouldn't work—it's a bit long for a summary on the other page. Remsense ‥ 论 02:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's merged or split, I would be in favor of DABCONCEPT being rather blunter. Like "Don't create a disambiguation page if someone could write an article instead". Or "For example, Particle should be a whole article about the general concept of a particle, and not a dab page that just lists all the specific different kinds of particles."

If we keep separate pages, I would prefer that DABCONCEPT gets much shorter. I'd start with a goal of cutting it to 25% the current length. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is generous, and redirect would be fine. DABCONCEPT already covers it. I agree the advice can be much more blunt. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose what I'm articulating is it seems there should be some top-level guideline dedicated to article scope as distinct from mere naming convention. It might be one of the most common difficulties among editors of all stripes that names and topics and scopes are conflated. Remsense ‥ 论 11:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are getting close to the territory of "I don't understand what this beam in the middle of the building does, let's pull it out". This page exists, and the specific categories of examples on the page exist, precisely because editors in the past have had a shameful history of routinely misunderstanding and misusing the concept of disambiguation to make pages characterized as disambiguation pages, but in actuality containing nothing but collections of variations on a specific concept. The approaches proposed are common sense. Removing this relatively compact guidance on the subject would be the opposite of common sense. BD2412 T 13:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't consider "concept article" to be a unique category, this is a complex area which needs more analysis and guidance from Wikipedia. Topics that are somewhat created by editors, topics that are created by a term but which otherwise not distinct topics, topics that are really mostly about a term. Such encompasses other article "types" like list articles (which are really a "editor invented topic" concept article), set index articles etc. The little guidance that Wikipedia provides for this type of thing is just scattered fragments. Maybe this could evolve to be good analysis and guidance regarding that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per what I've said above, I agree. Though, I think this is always going to be a subject distinctly reliant on localized context and intuition; I worry there's limited unification we can do without assuming general philosophical positions regarding naming and linguistic reference. Remsense ‥ 论 13:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the guidance could be more clear. But this guideline isn't it. It mostly restates the section from WP:DISAMBIG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I see it as that section needing to be a shorter summary of this guideline. Remsense ‥ 论 14:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann, @BD2412, @Bkonrad, @North8000, @Remsense, @Shooterwalker:

Would you mind answering a quick straw poll? At the moment, it looks like more than half of BCA is repeated word-for-word in DABCONCEPT, including all the examples. So imagine that the choices were artificially limited to:

• Merge Wikipedia:Broad-concept article into the WP:DABCONCEPT section or
• Shorten WP:DABCONCEPT significantly.

Is one of these options obviously superior in your mind? If everyone's agreed, and I just haven't noticed, I don't want to waste your time exploring options.

For myself, I think that either of these would be a substantial improvement on what we've got, and I don't feel strongly about which one is best, but I think that the second option would be easier to implement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to see WP:DABCONCEPT trimmed to summarize only the essential points and leave the details to Wikipedia:Broad-concept article. older ≠ wiser 16:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the advice is about "should I make a disambiguation or a regular article", I feel like WP:DISAMBIG is a more appropriate home. I feel pretty strongly that neither one states the real point: don't make a disambiguation when an article is more appropriate. Whether we host it at one location or two, the point can be made shorter and more clear. I also think that separating it from WP:DISAMBIG makes it less clear -- coincidentally, this guideline fails to take its own advice and compile related information in one place. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Useful information can be repeated in more than one place. However, I agree with Bkonrad here. The entire point of this page is that a broad-concept article is not a disambiguation page. Therefore, describing the parameters of a BCA does not inherently belong at WP:DISAMBIG any more than content describing the parameters of an article on a biography or an historical event. BD2412 T 17:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Not a disambiguation page" has left a lot of editors asking, then, what is it? The clearest answer I've seen is that a BCA is an article. I realize you were the editor who split this guideline out in the first place, but it's left a lot to be desired in terms of clarity. "X is not Y" doesn't say anything. "Don't make a disambiguation page when an article is more appropriate" would be much clearer advice. And shorter too. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course a BCA is an article. It is an article on a kind of abstraction, one that is typically very difficult for lay persons to write about, because we are not taught to think in terms of explaining such abstractions. That makes the work of writing these articles particularly nuanced, but also very rewarding. However, the admonition against having mere disambiguation pages at Particle or Size or Comparison or Schedule or Weightlifting does nothing to educate the reader as to the parameters of these articles. BD2412 T 18:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors already know how to write articles: use sources that cover the topic, or the combination thereof. That includes particle or supreme court or weightlifting. How would we write this guideline without mentioning WP:DISAMBIG? It's so central to the guideline that it's right in the nutshell, and the rest of it mostly duplicates what's at WP:DABCONCEPT. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors already know" is too much of an assumption. Bad articles are written all the time by editors who clearly don't know how to do these things. Frankly, Wikipedia would benefit greatly from an entire series of guidelines on things like "how to write a biographical article", "how to write a geographical article", "how to write an article on a company", "how to write an article on a legal case", and so on. No one is suggesting that this guideline would not mention WP:DISAMBIG, but it's just an aside to the question of what the scope of the article should be. BD2412 T 21:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My own view is a bit more abstract and so I can't provide a straightforward opinion. If the main scope is "make an article on these, not a disambig" then I'd say yes, let's merge it. The material is largely a duplication, and such would really be about disambig anyway. On a more abstract level, this is perhaps the guideline closest to providing guidance in an area where existing guidance is minimal and fragmented and maybe it could be involved into such. Including changing the title to "concept article". Since my idea is perhaps very abstract/ethereal, I consider a merge to be fine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to raise criticisms with the way that these guidelines are phrased and I found that the consensus at WP:disambiguation was reverted not long ago. Should editors be discussing the wording of this guideline here or there? It is disorganized and the duplication of the guideline in two differnet locations is not helping. A merge would at least centralize everything but we really just need to make it more readable and explain what editors are supposed to do if a single terminology has multiple uses and whether those should be multiple articles with the same terminology or just one article. IMO the remedy is always to follow how the sources handle that term. Jorahm (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is that Broad Concept Articles are not disambiguation pages, even though some improperly constructed BCAs might superficially resemble a disambiguation page. A properly formed BCA has only a tangential relationship to disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 17:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't need a guideline to tell us that "articles aren't disambiguation pages". The most useful guidance is about when to make an article versus a disambiguation. It's useful if it tells us when to make one article for wide usage of the same name, compared to making a disambiguation for multiple separate articles with the same name. It was split from WP:DISAMBIG without much change, and makes a lot less sense without that context. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Except the majority of the content is at best only a disambiguation-adjacent topic, which is why it was split out in the first place. The content left in the disambiguation guideline should focus squarely on disambiguation pages (or in this case, what should not go on a disambiguation page). The details for how to construct a BCA do not belong in guidelines for disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 18:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those "how to" details are pretty loose and unclear. Have you considered an essay? Shooterwalker (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally, not at all. I don't think I've ever edited this page. Does being an essay somehow clarify the "loose and unclear" points? The page in general has seen almost no significant edits since 2014. older ≠ wiser 19:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Same. This article is 92% written by one editor, with the next biggest contributor offering 2.5% of the text. Was there ever a discussion, let alone a consensus to split this out? I agree with North8000 that this isn't a distinct class of article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found this image today, and I have tried to find an article to put it in. It's possible that we need a broad-concept article. I don't even know what to call it.

The subject is "children eating things they shouldn't", and related to this, we have:

• Consumption of Tide Pods
• Kinder Surprise#Safety concerns
• Cannabis edible#Children
• Child-resistant packaging
• Toy safety

Then there is what we don't have:

• Chemical drain cleaners has no mention of blue dye being used as a signal that this product is not food. I remember when it was generally believed that food was not bright blue.[4] [5]
• Magnetic balls are toys that have been banned in the US because kids keep swallowing them. [6] Swallowing one is usually fine, but two risks Gastrointestinal perforation.
• Water crystal gel beads cause Bowel obstruction when kids swallow them, but we don't mention that.
• Neither Drug nor Medicine mention child safety. [7][8]

So... is this a broad concept? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: We have an article on Childproofing, where this content might fit. I note that Child safety as a redirect to Child protection (which is about removal of children from violent homes and the like). Perhaps the article that we are missing is indeed a broad concept article on child safety, outlining the array of hazards particular to children, and mitigating measures ranging from child safety seats to the aforementioned childproofing dangers to cautions about swallowing hazards like those listed. BD2412 T 22:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Child safety could include Stranger danger, Drowning risks and Infant swimming, and simple facts (e.g., motor vehicles are more dangerous than strangers). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's the scope of it. I don't doubt that there are sources broadly covering the subject. BD2412 T 23:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]