Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard

Welcome to the no original research noticeboard
This page is for requesting input on possible original research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or original synthesis. Include links to the relevant article(s). Make an attempt to familiarize yourself with the no original research policy before reporting issues here. You can also post here if you are unsure whether the content is considered original research. Sections older than 28 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Shortcuts WP:NORNWP:NORN WP:NOR/NWP:NOR/N WP:ORNWP:ORN WP:OR/NWP:OR/N If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use {{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: "Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia. For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use {{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 28 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is in regards to Winter Olympics 2022. I have persistent disagreement with another user over 3 cases of WP: SYNTH;

• 1. They have added to the lede that China detained foreign journalists (plural) at the games. The issue is none of their provided sources say that.[1][2][3] What their sources describe is a single incident in which one reporter was escorted back to a permitted zone and allowed to resume reporting minutes later. There was no formal detention, and they are amplifying single events through loaded wording and giving the impression of numerous foreign journalists getting locked up in detention centres.
• 2. Additionally they keep saying that dozens of suspicious Twitter accounts were released by the government.[4] The issue again is no sources say this. Throughout the entire article, not once does anyone say it's been confirmed. More importantly, Twitter never confirmed it and say they are still investigating and will disclose if they ever found clear evidence. They banned those accounts for a different reason.[5][6][7]
• 3. They also want to add in that China censored discussion over the potential environmental impact of the games.[8] But not only do none of their sources support that. One of them is a dead link dated 2013.[9] Another only mentions some western countries taking burner phones to the 2022 winter Olympics.[10] None of the sources even mention that Chinese citizens were prevented from discussing Olympics-related environmental issues. I removed them per WP:SYNTH but they kept restoring. So it be nice to have a qualified third opinion to avoid an edit war.

Smalledi (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China says reporters tailed and manhandled by security despite assurances from Games officials. The FCCC also highlighted significant online trolling and abuse of journalists who had covered Olympic events and related stories. “In some cases these attacks were fuelled by Chinese state media accounts and Chinese diplomats,” it said, describing an observed aspect of state-backed online harassment and propaganda campaigns.' [11]

As this and other attacks on journalists fit a pattern of a state-backed campaign then this is significant enough to mention in the lede. Thus, "foreign journalists were harassed and detained" is fair. LionTank (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@LionTank The issue is that's not what the Guardian says. It says that the FCCC claims these things, but the Guardian has not confirmed it. This would be a perfectly fine source for an attributed statement (e.g., "The FCCC claims that reporters were tailed and manhandled...") but is not sufficient for a statement in Wikivoice (e.g., "Reporters were tailed and manhandled.") As for a pattern, we as editors cannot make that conclusion; that's very much WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia summarizes what WP:RS say, and unless an WP:RS says there's a pattern (e.g., of harassment and detention), we can't conclude that. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed recently that User:LivinAWestLife (who is otherwise doing a great job improving several lists of tall buildings) has in several instances added citations based apparently on personal calculations using Google Earth. (Sample text: Sources do not state the exact height of this building. This figure was determined using Google Earth by subtracting the altitude of the building entrance from the highest architectural point.) I added a template to the Orlando list, which LivinAWestLife removed. As a result, I inquired about whether there is some kind of local consensus to use personal calculations as a reliable source for building height, but have not gotten an answer on the talk page even though LivinAWestLife has been active elsewhere on the project. If this sort of thing is acceptable and does not violate WP:NOR, I have no concern, but my sense is that it probably does count as OR, in which case it needs to be dealt with promptly since LivinAWestLife has added these personal calculations to many lists of tall buildings (including several featured lists for which it might result in delisting if it is considered OR): Jacksonville, San Antonio, Baltimore, Winnipeg, Saint Louis, Salt Lake City, Portland, Columbus, Cleveland Cincinnati, Surrey BC, Tampa, Kelowna, British Columbia, Oakland, Indianapolis, San Diego, Kansas City, Ottawa, Phoenix, Milwaukee, Washington, Nashville, and Boston. Thanks for input; happy to be corrected if these calculations are an acceptable source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone show me where Google maps give data on the 'highest architectural point' of a building? It isn't at all obvious, and frankly I fail to see why a map would be giving that at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dclemens1971 We have to draw the line somewhere, as many of these buildings are undoubtedly among the tallest in their city. I don't believe this is OR. Information on skyscraper height data is incredibly spotty and unavailable for most but the tallest high-rises in a given city. There are only two main sources for it available: The Skyscraper Center and SkyscraperPage. The height criteria stated is exactly the same as that used by The Skyscraper Center to determine building height. Most people who are not involved in skyscraper data collection are unaware of this. Heights on Google Earth are verifiable and trivial to check, and very much accurate as I tested measuring heights of buildings whose heights are actually known. If this is OR it is a very rare exception that it is an acceptable use of it, per ignore all rules, if it actually improves the quality and reliability of an article. It is better for a list to be more reflective of reality and have these calculations than to be missing some buildings that are tall enough because there is no source for its exact height. Before this there hasn't been any pushback against using this tool; in fact I saw there was some precedent for it on other lists so I thought it was fine to do. Both SkyscraperPage and The Skyscraper Center also use estimated heights and these change as they use an accumulated average floor height based on the building type, and I have seen these figures cited on these lists without indication that they are estimates.

I have not been active much since you left your comment on my talk page, and I was hoping to get back to you soon.

There is literally no alternative other than a conversion formula from floor count to height, which would incite more debate over an appropriate number. LivinAWestLife (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on your points. I believe this is a very rare case where OR should be given a exemption. it would be quite an injustice to leave out buildings in cities that are clearly tall enough to be highrises / skyscrapers but not counted due the lack of a RS ( Many RS dont even account for these towers ) Ahahahaa (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• This is absolutely original research. If a skyscraper's height isn't listed in a reliable, secondary source, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, this is obviously original research. Including a guesstimated (via OR) building height in the infobox or article will just lead some lazy researcher or writer to cite that guesstimated height because "that's what the Wikipedia article says and why should I not trust Wikipedia?!", and cause a case of "citogenesis". Some1 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's perfectly acceptable to cite a primary source for something so uncontroversial as the height of a building (not to say that's what's happening here). ―Maltazarian ^{(talk${\displaystyle \lor }$investigate)} 21:42, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Open and shut, blatant OR. EEng 20:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I beg to differ. These buildings are clearly some of the tallest in their respective cities. Information for skyscrapers is very murky to get an RS on. Sometimes they dont even exist in existing databases like CTBUH. This could be a rare exception as @Dclemens1971 mentioned as there is simply no alternative. Google earth is quite reliable for measuring reliable heights. I would side with @LivinAWestLife and I agree on a lot of points mentioned by @Dclemens1971. There really is no alternative other than OR here. Ahahahaa (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is to comply with Wikipedia policy, which forbids WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Per this massive RfC, the routine interpretation of maps is not a form of original research (emphasis mine). A source like Google Earth can be permissible so long as the method is reproduceable and able to clearly sourced to accurate datasets. I don't think the elevation data is all that precise, given some tests that I have run on buildings with known height in Seattle; from those results, the Google Earth figures are off by 10 feet for quite a few buildings, which makes a difference in how they would be ranked based on that source. I don't think this would be viable under the current interpretation of WP:ORMEDIA. SounderBruce 21:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be happy with adding a caveat to the notes or footnotes that the building heights can be off by up to 10 feet. My interpretation was that since this method is easily reproduceable and checkable by anyone, it's not problematic to include it, especially if it is definitely taller than the height cutoff for that page. LivinAWestLife (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Seattle measurements, due to its terrain, would be variable based on if you chose a particular side of the building (west elevation versus east elevation can sometimes vary). However if you have the known height of a building in any given city and reference it against Google Earth there should be a "constant level of variability" that should apply to other buildings in the area. AtlChampion (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'standard deviation' would be yet more WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that he doesn't seem to know what "standard deviation" means. EEng 02:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By “standard deviation” I understand @LivinAWestLife to be stating that figures in the dataset can be usefully compared as they will all be affected by the same kind of distortion. I’d

paraphrase it as “constant level of variability”. I’m sure there is a formal name for this that is known to formally trained statisticians. The words “standard deviation” clearly were not meant to imply that the user had analyzed the data or that they were trying to borrow credit by throwing around some statistical jargon. So WP:AGF applies, as always. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 16:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wikipedia Routine Calculations rule, this is not original research and is considered permissible.

As per wikipedia, “routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources.” User: LivinAWestLife simply used Google Earth to calculate the measurements of buildings that exist. He referenced acceptable sources to show that these buildings actually exist, and in some cases provided imagery.He did not change anything as it relates to buildings that are already noted on reliable sources. Calculating the height of a building using the Google tools is no different than calculating the distance from one city to the next using the same Google tools. The average lay person can get the same result. I have checked quite a few of his calculations and they are accurate. As you also stated “ user:LivinAWestLife(who is otherwise doing a great job improving several lists of tall buildings)”. The “reliable” sources that provide such data are sometimes not updated for years following the existence of buildings and sometimes do not even include buildings that are 1 or 2 decades old. I side with @LivinAWestLife also. I believe he has done an exceptional job in bringing a level of accuracy and reliability to the Wikipedia platform in regards to high-rise and skyscraper developments. AtlChampion (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant WP:OR. Not remotely acceptable under any circumstances. We don't use lack of reliable sources as an excuse to engage in guesswork. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur this is Original Research for the following reasons:

• WP:SYNTH makes allowances for routine calculations, but as it's not clear to me where building height of buildings is on Google Maps, I don't think that can be something that can be considered "routine".
• WP:GOOGLEMAPS notes, Inferring information solely from Street View pictures may be considered original research.
• The methodology used is unclear. Does height measure from the building entrance to the top floor? What if the building is on a slope? Do we count structures such as antennae? The answers to these are irrelevant, because the questions mean someone else may come up with a different answer. This is why we only summarize sources.
• The point of WP:V is that readers can verify statements for themselves. A Google Maps citation is unlikely to accomplish this.
• I disagree with arguments that WP:IAR should apply here. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to do justice to buildings or whatever, it's to summarize what reliable sources say. If there isn't an WP:RS which clearly identifies these building heights, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, for the same reason my favorite secondary character of an obscure TV show doesn't warrant mention in the TV article, or why not every sports team is listed.
• The inclusion of data such as this, with no other sources, seems to violate WP:NOTDATABASE.

For these reasons, I feel a very compelling reason for inclusion would be needed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 'WP:IAR', the suggestions that we apply it here have to be some of the weakest I've seen anywhere: they seem to amount to 'reliable sources don't report this, so we have to'. Which is getting things utterly backwards. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, built around summarising secondary-sourced material. It isn't a database for fans of tall buildings to add numbers they can't find somewhere else because nobody else cares. If they want to engage in such pursuits, they should try Wikia or something. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is OR, and would be a profoundly bad application of IAR. Google Earth isn;t that accurate. And as far as the mention farther up of doing some kind of formula conversion for floors, absolutely not. Most buildings can vary in floor-to-floor height from less than 3m to more than 4.5m. There is no way to base a calculation on a reliable assumption. If we don't know how tall something is from reliable sources, we must be silent. Acroterion (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely original research. Photogrammetry is literally a research discipline that produces original research from images. Even if it wasn't, Google Earth is probably not the best source to use for height calculations, it uses the Web Mercator projection, so it literally distorts distance, and I'm not really sure what you're measuring. Are you using 3D buildings, or the image? Buildings are going to be distorted based on their angle to the satellite. Calculating the height of an object from an image is a very involved process in photogrammetry.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 01:01, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The distance tool accounts for the trivial to 2 significant figures distortion of local distance and may or may not account for the slight difference from Earth's ellipsoidness I don't know isn't that like day length vs delta-T where the scale factor (as inaccurate as 86400002 milliseconds by now) is trivially different from 1 for distances under a km but they stack so it's built up to 70 seconds in the scores of thousands of days stacking since the mean day length crossed exactly 24hrs going up/tens of km inaccurate (in a thousands of miles long equator to place measurement) since the 0 latitude by the time it reaches the latitude of Scotland? Imagine trying to measure small local distances on pretty much any other map projection ever made besides True Mercator Web Mercator is measuring a giant globe in comparison. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody provided a reliable source that certifies Google Earth precision for tops of buildings, or did I miss it? Without that, this fails RS even if arguments about OR can be had. Zero^talk 02:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I'm not sure what they are using within Google Earth, but the 3D buildings are created with a mix of photogrammetry and manual editing, I don't believe they give any guarantee about accuracy. The base photos are a mix of satellite images and aerial photos, and dynamically change depending on scale. You can determine building height from these if you have the exact time and date the photo was taken using the sun angle and object shadows, but I don't think that is what they are doing, and I don't think Google Earth gives time stamps that precise. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:34, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if such data were available, I'm pretty sure that level of complexity (picking a timestamp, looking up solar angle) is far beyond "routine calculations". EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that if one is doing math, that's routine calculation, no matter how complex the math. Because anyone can validate it, even if they need to hire a math tutor to walk them through it, and any competent attempt to validate it will give the same result.

  That being said, I wholly agree that trying to do this to get building heights from GE aerial imagery is OR, because there are a lot of important data points (exact position of the satellite and the specs on the lens used) that can't be known, and must be guessed at. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:38, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that if one is doing math, that's routine calculation, no matter how complex the math. Because anyone can validate it, even if they need to hire a math tutor to walk them through it, and any competent attempt to validate it will give the same result. Certainly not. Professional mathematicians are continuously publishing research papers that are only understandable to a few hundreds of people worldwide; they are "doing math" that cannot be validated without access to a specialist with a PhD who works in the relevant sub-sub-sub-field (and sometimes not even then, see Inter-universal Teichmüller theory). "Routine calculations" should be understood to mean exactly what it says at WP:CALC: "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. ... In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote." ~2026-13567-93 (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  During the writing of this comment, did you ever once stop to ask yourself what are the odds of an editor ever doing any novel maths that would be entirely off-limits except to those with PhDs for the purpose of [checks notes] writing an encyclopedia?

  And, during the writing of that comment, did it ever occur to you that an editor doing novel math is, perhaps, not doing the same sort of thing as was discussed here? Something that was, perhaps, fundamentally different? Something... Novel?

  No? You didn't? That's what I thought. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow what a dick. People try to put their original research into math articles on Wikipedia all the time, and defend it with arguments directly isomorphic to what you've written above ("why do I need a source when you can check the proof that I've written?" etc.). The fact that you are unaware of this is ... an interesting fact about you, I guess, but maybe if you don't understand anything about mathematics or its use in an encyclopedia then you shouldn't be offering opinions about it and its use here? (I am the same person as the previous TA.) ~2026-13816-31 (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Temp Account, I suggest you strike parts of your post, such as Wow what a dick. That kind of sentiment doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We can disagree without insulting one another. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow what a dick. Thank you for noticing, but my eyes are up here.

  Nothing else you've said merits any response other than ^{[citation needed]}. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  According to their product support forum [12], they use SRTM data which only has 16m accuracy. Nowhere near good enough for this usage. Jumpytoo Talk 03:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Zero that my concerns would lean more towards reliability. If a source clearly identifies the altitude of the highest and lowest points of a building, and it is reliable (as determined by its fact checking and reputation), then I would accept the content as a straightforward calculation, but in general I don't think Google Earth should be used except as a last resort, and for building heights specifically I think I might find it even more dubious than the general case. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a reliable source for the ground level and highest point of a building, then the calculation of the difference wouldn't be OR. But Google Earth is not reliable for these points, and the method being used seems deeply flawed. Images on Google Earth are blended into each other, so extracting exact details from them is never going to end in valid results. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:32, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Google Earth's data for the heights of these buildings isn't reliable, so measurements taken off them can't be, either. If there's no other source for the info, then the info doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• This is obvious and unambiguous OR. ~2026-13567-93 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Drive by comment, OR - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 15:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I realize everyone else is calling this OR, but I have to conditionally disagree, just based on WP:ORMEDIA and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources. Depending on the method, I don't really think this is original research / unverifiable. Let me give an example: let's say we'd like to write in an article something like from the observation deck to the Statue of Liberty is about 2.3 miles. (Imagine for sake of argument it were relevant to the article to have an "as the crow flies" distance like this, and the question is just how to properly cite this claim). I think it would be perfectly valid to do measure distance tool in Google Maps as the citation. WP:ORMEDIA lists "maps" first. My point is that approximately measuring distances on a map seems verifiable. For example, I wouldn't trust that apparent distance on Google Maps / Earth to be reliable down to the inch... but why would that be a dealbreaker? I would trust it to within, say, 100ft for sure, and as long as I don't give a misleading number of digits of precision, I don't see the problem. As another example, if I had a topographic map, and I wanted to cite it for the elevation of a particular point of interest, I think it would be valid to read the contour lines and write an approximate elevation accordingly. All that being said, I only agree conditionally, depending on the method. In those two examples I just gave, I think another editor could easily fulfill WP:V and arrive at the same result as me. But, for the height of a building in Google Earth, I am not really sure what method we are talking about - what exact software feature / tool are we referring to? I did a little experiment: I went to Google Earth for Salesforce Tower here, and I moused around the roof while watching the bottom right corner of the screen. The highest number was 330 for the structure, maybe 331 for some protrusions. When I mouse around the sidewalk (salesforce plaza) I get 4 or 5 meters. So I would guess 325 meters. I did not look up the height of the building until just now, and it's 326 meters. That's a 1 meter error, and I had some uncertainty on top of that. But I would claim that focusing on this error is a red herring: we can write "circa" or "approx" or "~" or some such to indicate our uncertainty. I think the real question is whether another editor can verify that number from the cited source. I do believe, a bit tentatively, that this result is verifiable as WP:ORMEDIA as a basic feature of the map. Similar to how a topographic map has contours, Google Earth shows the elevation of what you mouse over. You do have to mouseover the highest point on the building, then compare to the sidewalk elevation, then subtract. This is WP:CALC. I appreciate this is a gray area but I just wanted to throw in my two cents, which is that it's not really about the accuracy of the data, it's more about whether another editor can verify the citation, and I honestly think Google Earth elevations for the roofs of buildings are indeed reproducible by another editor. Leijurv (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Leijurv has summarized my POV on reading this (mostly) thoughtful discussion. I am also impressed by evidence that available lists of building heights are far less rigorous than I had assumed and are far from comprehensive. This may change, and when it does we can update.

  This is crucial to me: Figures derived from Google Maps calculations must be shown as approximate, with a note about method as @LivinAWestLife has offered in response to concerns. This has two key advantages over the alternative of leaving the info out until we discover and cite a RS.

  1. It indicates to readers that calculating heights of buildings is not simple and can encourage critical thinking about how numerical data is sourced.
  2. It answers a very common question that readers ask of any article about tall buildings: How tall is it? An approximate answer is better than no answer.

  What would change my mind:

  • Evidence that refutes the claim that no RS is available for the height of these buildings.
  • Evidence that there is a best-practice method, widely supported by experts, which this map-based estimation method would perniciously contradict (in which case I agree that applying IAR could be reckless).
  • Specific articles where the building heights data is not important or would probably not be expected. In that case it should be omitted, reducing the number of places where updates will be needed as better sources are found.

  As it stands, I believe this is an edge case where OR with maps is permissible, provided that we are transparent about how the figure was obtained.

  I anticipate and am not convinced by slippery slope objections that this could establish a precedent that will invite a flood of garbage data into Wikipedia. I prefer to be WP:BOLD. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 17:22, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alarob, @Leijurv Thank you two so much for putting into words my viewpoint on precisely why I think such a edge case of OR is permissible. Since this discussion has been brought up, it's affected my mental healthy slightly and I've been more focused on other pursuits in my life. I'll likely be taking a break from editing Wikipedia at the time being, since I think unfortuately most editors won't be persuaded.

  The notes have always been to promote transparency, though I do wish I had indicated that the figures could be off by a given number of feet. LivinAWestLife (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone put this thread out of its misery. EEng 04:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  Too soon and too many clueless editors who think that we should do it anyway because if we can't guesstimate them this way then how can we get our precious building measurements? So Instead I'll just pile on. The answer is: we can't. It's OR. Don't do it. And if you can't find a more reliable source for the measurements, don't state them. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm frankly gobsmacked by the number of experienced editors who don't know what OR is. Pull your sock up people, (and close this thread.) - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 13:04, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't need to look up Standard deviation either !!! - Walter not in the Epstein files Ego 13:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you know you're not in the Epstein files? Isn't that OR? EEng 02:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point, who isn't in the files? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, it's OR. The point of WP:CALC is to allow for information that is unambiguously given in a reliable source to be presented in a slightly different, more convenient way. If a book gives a building's height in feet, we can convert it to meters. What we do not do is take data of uncertain trustworthiness and mix it up according to a formula that an editor contrives. If no reliable sources talk about a building's height, WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE both say that we don't talk about its height either. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep, it's OR. And besides that, all those pages "List of tallest buildings in X" (e.g. Mumbai) are full of OR: "Included in the list since it is certainly 150m+", "Height estimated by number of sanctioned floors and comparing it with other similar projects.", "Floor count is estimated since different sites give a different number.", etc. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm involved I can't/won't close this discussion, but I count at least 16 participants who either view this technique as OR or consider the results generated insufficiently precise to be a reliable source, and four who believe that this technique can generate replicable, usable approximations of height. I think that counts as a robust consensus and I'm going to tag the affected articles for cleanup. If I have time in the near future I'll clean some up myself, but I hope LivinAWestLife would be willing to participate in the cleanup process; simply rolling back the articles to their earlier state would be unsatisfactory since many other improvements have been made to the lists, but removing some of these buildings from rankings requires fiddly table building and affects the maps as well. I also searched for other articles (in addition to the ones I listed above) that employ this method and came up with the following list (not all of which were added by LAWL):

• List of tallest buildings in Argentina
• Lattice tower
• List of tallest buildings and structures in Belfast
• List of tallest structures in New Zealand
• List of tallest buildings in Sunny Isles Beach
• List of tallest buildings in Wilmington
• List of tallest buildings in Atlanta (a featured list)
• List of tallest buildings in Richmond
• List of tallest buildings in Davao City
• List of tallest buildings in Sacramento
• List of tallest buildings in Wellington
• List of tallest buildings and structures in Liverpool
• List of tallest buildings in Mumbai
• List of tallest freestanding structures

Please feel free to post the list of articles for cleanup to a relevant wikiproject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredlyfish4, before removing a maintenance template from one of these pages, please review the discussion above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you may, I would appreciate input on whether or not it is OR to include games that don't have any sources stating that they were cancelled/unreleased in various Lists of cancelled video games. The discussion can be found here. 🦀Cronacrab🦀 | talk 14:59, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:TRANSCRIPTION combined with WP:ABOUTSELF permit citing a video or audio clip of a person pronouncing their own name for the IPA transcription of that name, eg. as in Dean Fuleihan? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd treat it in the same way the NTSB does in their transcripts; if it's patently obvious (E.g., "Dean") then sure, but if there's any room for ambiguity, then no. I've seen some bitter arguments about IPA transcriptions that ended in indefs. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A question that came to mind while looking something up earlier, and I'm wondering how to square this circle. Now, let's say that you find something in an article that is uncited. Let's also say you also find a potential citation for that information, but you have a strong suspicion that the original adder of the uncited content and the author of what you could use to cite that content are the same person, and there is no other reliable source for the content that was added, thus indicating the content is, functionally, original research despite being published in an otherwise reliable source. My question is, does this count as original research, or does it being published in an otherwise reliable source make it simply a case of WP:COI? And either way, how do you point that out without violating WP:OUTING? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is: If Wikipedia says X unsourced, and editor Y put it in, and only source Z says X, then no, citing Z is not OR (as it's citing a verifiable source, assuming the source is reliable), though it may be undue. WP:OR just means original research conducted on wikipedia. Put another way, just because I say something I thought of myself doesn't mean that same statement can't be included if it's reliably sourced elsewhere.

Regarding outing, I'm less confident on this, but I expect you could just lay it out, "Editor Y said X. The only other place I could find anyone saying X is in source Z. I suspect editor Y has a relationship with source Z." It makes no speculation about identity, and does not synthesize anything not already apparent. That's my two cents. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, not OR. Original research policy is basically intended to say, “even if it’s true, if you can’t cite it, you can’t include it.” If you can cite it to a reliable source (these are editorially reviewed in some way, eg a journal) even to something you wrote yourself, it’s cool. The advice to OR people is often “if it’s true, go get it published, then you can add it to Wikipedia”. And as for how to notify without outing, send an email. Wikipedia has a feature for that. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for some input into how to handle the "extinct" categorisation in the table at Ainu people#Subgroups. I have recently replaced the phrasing "pure-blooded" used throughout the table with "sole Ainu ancestry" to try to move it away from what is outdated terminology within anthropology. But I then realised there was somewhat of an issue with the column on "population" where it listed groups as "extinct", this seems to be based on the idea that through the 20th century we saw an increasingly small amount of individuals in the subgroups where they were recorded as having sole ancestry within the subgroup, as reported in recent sources that discuss primary historical documents and reports of the Ainu over the past couple of centuries (see Shibatani (1990). The Languages of Japan. as an example in the aforementioned table).

As an example, the Kamchatka Ainu are listed as extinct in the table, the reason for this is the claim that they were last recorded as a distinct group by Russian explorers in the 1700s, and after that the Kamchatka Ainu were intermixed with the Kamchadal population. But this is complicated further by the fact that members of the North Kuril Ainu and South Kuril Ainu subgroups were in contact with the Kamchatka peninsula all through this time, and per sources in the "Ainu" article and the "Ainu in Russia" article, later during the 19th and 20th centuries you saw much of these two groups move to the Kamchatka peninsula and once again intermix with the local populations of Kamchatka Ainu and Kamchadal ancestry. Now to run this to present day, Keizo Nakamura was born in the early 20th century with ancestry from all three prior mentioned Ainu groups, he was moved to Sakhalin by the Soviets, and there married a Sakhalin Ainu woman, with whom he had a son Alexei Nakamura in the mid-20th century. Alexei Nakamura has since moved back to Kamchatka, where he has organised with other individuals of Ainu ancestry who were still living in Kamchatka, forming what they are calling the Kamchatka Ainu, and engaging in community revitalisation (all covered in news sources detailed in the article "Ainu in Russia").

So, is it right to be listing these subgroups as "extinct" based on sources reporting on even older surveys about the decline of "pure-blooded" individuals, when at the time per the sources, they were in community with individuals of mixed ancestry, and we have present communities of such mixed ancestry identifying themselves as and communally engaging as members of these groups? And does any part of the present text, or my view to change it based on the sources about present communities run into OR? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you are absolutely right that we should not be using grossly outdated terminology like 'pure-blooded'. And I have my doubts that recent anthropology would use 'extinct' in relation to an ethnic group either (it might well be used in relation to a language). 'Extinction' is something that happens to species, which ethnic groups most definitely aren't, ethnicity being the fluid, contextual and constantly-changing social construct that it is. I'd like to see some very strong evidence from sources that such terminology was being used at all, and would certainly describe it as WP:OR to apply it without sources that explicitly do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the sources, Wurm, Mühlhäusler & Tryon (1996) only discuss the extinction of languages, the same for Shibatani (1990), Howell (2005) talks of how the Japanese and European commentators a century ago viewed the Ainu in total as a people doomed to extinction, so not the "extinction" of specific subgroups, he does also say The Ainu of Sakhalin and the Kurils suffered dislocation repeatedly as a result of the drawing and redrawing of international boundaries in their homeland. The dispersal and even extinction of their communities testifies to the disruptive effects of international competition in the region which would be the closest, though I'm not sure if it really hits the mark. None of the other sources employed discuss "extinction". They may mention the groups "dying out", but that will have to be a search for later. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that 'extinction of their communities' isn't really the same thing as extinction of an ethnic group in such circumstances. Not while individuals have 'dispersed' (or been forced to) elsewhere, to within other Ainu communities. It's problematic, because it depends on whether one is discussing the Aniu as an ethnicity, or a subgroup as one: and depending on context, both can clearly apply. I'd have to look into the sources to confirm it, but one concern I have is that the table of 'subgroups' seems to be conflating where Ainu individuals live with their ethnicity, which doesn't necessarily follow at all. A tricky subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One example of a group supposedly going extinct is the Taino people Katzrockso (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for uninvolved input on whether specific Ferrari 360 design-attribution wording is adequately supported by the cited sources, or whether part of it crosses into synthesis.

I am not asking for conduct review here. I only want help identifying what wording is safely supportable from the sources.

Relevant diffs:

• diff – designer field changed from Lorenzo Ramaciotti to Goran Popović
• diff – design wording narrowed with the edit summary: "original research. 456 was Camardella, 550 was d'Aprile. Ramaciotti was the design director, not the stylist."
• diff – two sentences removed with edit summary "WP:SYNTH"

The narrower wording I believe is supportable is along these lines:

The exterior theme / principal exterior design of the Ferrari 360 Modena was developed by Pininfarina under the direction of Lorenzo Ramaciotti. Ramaciotti later filed U.S. design patent D411,138 for the 360’s external form.

The wording I recognize may be more vulnerable to SYNTH is:

Although many designers contributed during development, Ferrari and Pininfarina only officially credit the completed design to Pininfarina under Lorenzo Ramaciotti’s direction. No other individual stylist is listed in Ferrari’s press material or in the patent.

The source base includes:

• Bruno Alfieri, Ferrari 360 Modena (Automobilia, 1999), especially pp. 33-45
• Ferrari’s official 360 Modena page
• CADinfo / Pininfarina material on the 360 design process
• Auto & Design (21 April 1999) quoting Lorenzo Ramaciotti directly on the 360 project
• U.S. design patent D411,138 (Ferrari 360)
• Earlier Ferrari design patents D356,982 and D389,436, which I cited as contextual support for Ramaciotti’s established Ferrari design-director role, not as stand-alone proof of 360 authorship

My questions are:

1. Is the narrower Ramaciotti / Pininfarina / D411,138 wording adequately supported by the sources, or is that still synthesis?
2. Are the broader exclusivity / “no other individual stylist is listed” sentences too inferential and better omitted unless backed by a direct secondary source explicitly making that point?
3. If the article should avoid naming a single individual in the designer field, what wording would best reflect the available sources without overstating them?

Thanks. Ferrari360OG (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors keep adding trivia about the aircraft that later crashed while performing Air India Flight 171 being near Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 when it was shot down. It gets added to both articles with the same source:

• In July 2014, during a flight from Delhi to Birmingham operating as Air India Flight 113, it was in the local vicinity of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 the moment it was shot down over Ukraine.^[1]
• Air India Flight 113 (AI113), a flight from Delhi to Birmingham operated by a Boeing 787 Dreamliner with the aircraft registration VT-ANB; the plane would later crash in 2025 in Ahmedabad, India as Air India Flight 171.^[2]

That source is from 2014, so it can't be used to justify the assertion that that airframe crashed as Air India Flight 171 in 2025. It's just Wikipedia editors noticing that the aircraft mentioned in connection with MH17 has the same airframe number as the one that crashed as AI171. I realize that it is almost certainly the same aircraft, but using this source is WP:SYNTH, is it not? Geogene (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's entirely WP:SYNTH. Things like aircraft being exported, decommissioned or the like can change registration numbers. I agree that it's unlikely, but it's not impossible, which is why WP:SYNTH exists. I'd also note that Firstpost likely doesn't count as a WP:RS; it's known to have posted misinformation in the past as well as have paid pieces. Finally, if this is the only source that mentions that, it's WP:UNDUE. Plenty of notable incidents had aircraft nearby, or aircraft were nearby notable incidents, but without RS to comment on it, such proximity is WP:TRIVIA. EducatedRedneck (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless whether it is WP:SYNTH it is WP:TRIVIA annyway and shouldn’t be included in the articles. IlkkaP (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's WP:SYNTH bc the cited source only supports the 2014 fact (as the article itself predates the 2025 event and makes no mention of it). Linking the 2014 incident with the 2025 one involves combining info not presented in the cited source and is therefore WP:SYNTH. It also fails verification because the citation doesn't support the full claim being made. EM (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]