Let me also add that while this is not a court of law, there still have to be some generalized adherence to specificity.  I would urge a skimming of, for example, Wilson v. Eu, 1 Cal. 4th 707, 823 P.2d 545, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 379 (1992).  See .  It's a lengthy legal opinion defining the borders of all the legislative districts in California (as defined at that time).  Such definitions may be considered, "oh, that's way too specific for what we need to do here at Wikipedia," and obviously I am not advocating for that kind of strict definition because, again, this is not a court of law.  But vagueness and original research should not reign here, because then we descend into confusions that are of no benefit to readers or editors.  It shouldn't be "I feel this isn't Lhasa and therefore I'm going to not call it Lhasa."  Deliberative specificity is beneficial and should not simply discarded because one feels certain areas are "not Lhasa."