Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Hex in topic Request for comment for Notability (geographic features) to become a Wikipedia guideline page
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Shouldn't be considered for guideline status

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Put me down as fundamentally opposed to making this a guideline. Nothing is intrinsically or inherently notable enough for a standalone article. If no reliable source cared to make sufficient comment about the place to satisfy WP:V's requirement that an article be based on independent third-party sources or the GNG, there's nothing to make an article out of. Permastubs with atlas coordinates aren't worth having.—Kww(talk) 18:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Until someone who lives in the subject has somewhere to start editing without registering and creating a new article. I say sure make it a guideline. Npmay (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines are not clear enough

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Guidelines should be clearer to avoid wasting everyone's time. Deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishmar HaShlosha are an illustration of how time is being wasted in discussion instead of building up Wikipeida. It creates ill will and discourages wikipedians from adding much needed material.

The idea of reaching consensus may have worked when there were less people involved, but now I find I could easily spend all my time defending articles proposed for deletion, and not have any time left for constuctively building and adding (sorely needed) material.

Just my $.02. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Protected Area Notability

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there consensus on adding Protected Areas to the list of generally notable geography?

WikiProject Protected areas has the following to say on notability:

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) defines a protected area as:

"An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means."

National parks are probably the best-known PAs, but there are many other categories. Protected areas are those which a higher level governmental entity manages, maintains and or oversees directly. For instance in the United States, this would include primarily federal and to a lesser degree, state managed areas, but rarely those managed by a county or city.

--Bamyers99 (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Protected areas have plenty of reliable sources and notable by their very nature: one does not protect some random patch of swamp. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Let us start to work it into a policy proposal

Latest comment: 12 years ago42 comments7 people in discussion

I was part of a couple discussions from which I see that a kind of guideline for geographic notability might be useful.

Please make more suggestions about the content of the GeoNotability guideline.

Please be specific: what exactly you think we must add or delete in the text.

Please list individual suggestions as individual items, so that we can easily discuss them one by one.

To avoid repetition, please review the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability (Geographic locations), as well as two other failed proposals. Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) and Wikipedia:Notability (local interests)/failed. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a compelling reason why WP:GNG is inadequate? --Jayron32 04:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, there is widespread belief that WP:GNG doesn't apply to geographic features,[1] and we seem to be have the same debates repeatedly on this issue.[2] Actual practice at WP:AfD seems to be somewhere between WP:GNG and the current wording for this proposal. The current wording here, however, is extremely unlikely to gain consensus as it is overly inclusionist. Ideally, the notability guidelines for geographic features should be based on the spirit of WP:GNG, but offer specific guidance on what sort of sources are considered reliable for various types of features, and what sort of "coverage" is considered "significant". For example, it is often debated whether appearing on a map or in a gazetteer or geographic database is considered adequate coverage. Given how often this has been discussed in the history of Wikipedia, I don't think it's a bad idea to actually try to reach some sort of consensus on these issues. Kaldari (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
As Kaldari says current practice has been more inclusive than GNG would suggest. AFD discussions have usually considered geographic places/features to be "inherently notable." Personally I think if a place is significant enough to show up on a map it probably would meet GNG, the problem is for much of the world sources for that beyond the map itself are going to be non-English and/or offline so that's hard to prove. I lean toward giving places the benefit of the doubt and assuming that if it can be verified than its probably also notable. I can understand not liking the idea of inherent notability, but I haven't been convinced that it has actually caused any problems. Kmusser (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Due to Wikipedia's role as a gazetteer, as stated in the first of the Five Pillars, it has commonly and almost unanimously been decided by consensus in AfDs and other venues time and again that verifiable places are inherently notable. Furthermore, as the Five Pillars are policy (if not super-policy), they are more important than WP:GNG, a guideline. SilverserenC 04:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The five pillars are just policy, nothing more. And it should be noted that we use "elements" of a gazetteer, not that we are a gazetteer. There's a significant difference. We would still be serving the purpose of a gazetteer as long as every verifiable place redirected to a list of equivalent places with geo-coords. I grant that consensus is to generally have articles for each place, on the theory that at minimum there will be local sources to build out notability, but let's not trick ourselves that it WP's "mission" to include these articles. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Consensus is what determines what content fits into our mission as an encyclopedia and, for now, consensus is that individual articles on places are a part of our mission. SilverserenC 05:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not doubting that. Just be aware:
  • Notability overall is only guideline-strength enforcement, not policy-level. You can't make this a policy-level aspect to override all other notability guidelines.
  • Keep in mind that we are not a gazetteer but have elements of a gazetteer. In general, because we're an encyclopedia, elements in mainspace should be articles and should be approached like that. Consider to what degree of detail where geographic features would ultimately be able to have worthwhile encyclopedic articles that still serve the gazetteer function compared to entries that are just being gazetteer functions but unable to fulfill the encyclopedic factors. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Except community consensus still determines what policy means and how to interpret policy. "Elements of a gazetteer" has been interpreted to mean inherent notability for all verifiable places, so it is a policy-level thing. And community consensus has also stated time and again that another reason for the inherent notability as individual articles is the common belief that all verifiable places will have numerous reliable sources discussing them, but that many, if not all, of those sources will be offline. SilverserenC 16:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Colleagues, I think in this discussion there are two pairs of things confused into one.

One confusion is about notability. Another confusion is about readability/convenience of information access.

As rabbi Izhak of Kupin would say, "there is notability and notability". Of course, it is difficult to question arguments that verifiable geographic locations are sufficiently notable for inclusion in wikipedia. However it is a totally different story of whether every mapped glen and gully must have a separate article.

I see you are invoking the comparison with gazetteers. Mind you, gazetteers do not have a separate page for each hill in Zimbabwe. They do have small sections, but often they are basically a list. It is OK for wikipedia to have articles which are lists of geographic features, if there is nothing to write about a particular hillock besides its name, coordinates and height (and a list of dozen maps and gazetters which do nothing but repeat this bare basic info (possibly including prevailing wind directions) :-). At any moment when there is enough additional information for a decent stub, we can have it. And the purpose of this policy to put common sense into writing, so that wikipedians don't have to argue again and again and revert war over redirects. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers#Handling millions of creeks, rivulets and streams for a similar discussion.

I think your 2nd issue there and the linked discussion is a content dispute rather then a notability one. You basically have an agreement that said items should be in Wikipedia, but a disagreement on what the best way to present them is - that's a content issue, I'm not sure a notability guideline is going to solve that. As a side point we're not really talking millions of articles here, if the whole world as done at the level of detail that Afil did for Romania you're in the general ballpark of 200,000 articles (granted that is just for rivers, you might reach 1 million for all geographic features and places combined - but, considering that is about the same as the Biography project that doesn't seem all that crazy to me). Kmusser (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again: as soon as we see repeated disagreements and repeated arguments about some issue, it is time to put these repeated arguments into a policy or a guideline: this is exactly how and why guidelines are created: to save the repetition of arguments in different places by different people, but for basically the same issue.

Therefore let us start consensus building from the very beginning, to see if the guideline in question is necessary. Please answer a simple question without much philosophy and "yes but"s:

  • mini-poll
    • Did you observe repeated disagreements about the existence of articles about minor geographical features?
    • Yes, says user:Staszek Lem, and many times; afds, prods, revert wars, you name it.

The current essay may be significantly trimmed for the initial draft to only two items:

  1. Any physical feature or populated place for which there exists verifiable and notable information beyond statistical/database data probably deserves a separate article. (And we do have articles about separate rocks and even trees). Otherwise it is recommended to group geographical features into larger articles, such as lists or description of larger features.
  2. Any "man-made" (political, cultural, or otherwise artificial) geography-related subjects are judged according to WP:GNG. In particular, micronations and disputed regions are not considered inherently notable.

So, let's go one step at a time. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

P.S. There is another item for the suggested policy must mention, directly related to "verifiability not truth". I happened to see in google books some 19th century very detailed maritime gazetters which contain information no longer valid: island area, spit length, average temperature, etc. I am sure there will be 4-3 wikipedians eager to dismiss these data as no longer valid. However I would suggest that we must consider it valid as long as it is supplied with time reference. Such information is very important for historical research and I believe it must be put into wikipedia, if references are available. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Staszek for moving this forward. I agree we should start with the most basic things we can all agree on. On that note, I'll agree with your #1 if you change "deserves" to "probably deserves" as there are always exceptions. #2 sounds fine as is. Kaldari (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I am inclined to say "most probably", because if there are probable exceptions, then let us consider them now. Otherwise they are not very "probable". Staszek Lem (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
For example, sinkholes in urban areas are commonly described in local newspapers, but most of them shouldn't have Wikipedia articles. Perhaps it should say "permanent physical feature" or "named physical feature". Kaldari (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
"permanent" in not good: every rock edge is permanent. "Named" is better, but I don't think it will completely exclude "local sinkholes". At the same time you raised a good point to discuss here: level of prominence of the available information and hence the feature in question. Perhaps something along the lines "recognized beyond the immediate locality" must be added, since every permanent puddle around my home village has a name, sometimes after a drunkard who drowned his truck there. I am not very versed in wikipedia policies, but I suspect a similar issue (prominence) was discussed for some other notability subpolicies. By the way, IMO WP:GNG does not discriminate against "local newspapers". Staszek Lem (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I think adding "named" would be sufficient. In the sinkhole case, if it has lasted long enough and gotten enough news coverage to get a name it probably does deserve an article. I not sure the qualifiers are needed, if you add "named" I think it's implied that the name comes from a reliable source - if you think it needs to be said explicitly go ahead and do so - and that should knock out features that are only known locally. I don't think you need the rocks and trees comment (we certainly have them, but they presumably meet GNG). Kmusser (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I agree about ading "named". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Where you might run into trouble - both "notable information" and "statistical/database data" are vague. What makes information notable or not-notable? Do you really even want to get into that debate? And what do you mean by statistical/database data? Some geographical databases are nothing more than a name and coordinates, but some will have all sorts of stuff, and some (GNIS I'm looking at you) have both kinds of entries. If you what you mean is that we want more than just coordinates, I'd explicitly say we want more than just coordinates. Kmusser (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I was writing this phrase in haste, as a sample, not meaning it to be a real proposal. Now that you picked on this, what I really meant under "statistical/database data" something like "basic identification data: coordinates, elevation, etc." I agree that a database may contain much stuff to actually call for a full article. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've just checked Category:Wikipedia notability guidelines and noticed that the only guideline for "non-human" stuff is Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects), and it is close to the subject in question, too. I will look at it tomorrow (you'all may do it now). Staszek Lem (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It does link to another discussion that hashes through these same issues that you didn't link before. Kmusser (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Did you see in the archive something useful for the policy to consider? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (astronomical objects) does have a section "No inherited notability", which may be a prototype for our policy. For example, I would like add a phrase "if a geographical feature has not been a subject of significant study beyond mapping, listing in databases, etc., it probably does not warrant an artice". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It worries me that only two of us are talking. I did post a message in 1-2 wikiprojects, but this didn't generate much interest. DO you know anybody "wikipersonally" to invite to the discussion? Unfortunately I have no inherent interest in geography, so I don't know people who work in this area. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld would probably be interested. I'll invite him. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Drat, he's already been invited. Any other ideas? Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the folks I work with should've seen it in Rivers. I don't usually participate in policy discussions. Kmusser (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be an official RfC or something? SilverserenC 20:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me, I'm not sure on RfC etiquette, but I think we do need some more voices here if this is to become anything official. Kmusser (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure we have enough figured out yet to present a formal RfC. Let's try to develop these ideas a little further through informal discussion before we invite the masses. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
OK, I did add an invite on the general notability talk page. Kmusser (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Here via Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography. First off the proposal name should be changed so that it clearly refers to a guideline on the notability of places / locations / geographic features. Geography is much more than just describing places (even though world-writing is the etymology).

That aside, I agree that the notability for atronomical features may be a useful starting place; it neatly solves the problem of thousands of pages created for minor geographcial features based upon large databses. WP:GNG requires independent (and I'd suggest that government databases of government regions, for example, are not independent of legally defined areas) and secondary (databases of rivers are not secondary) sources. Here the astronomical notability simply strees in a subject-specific manner the requirement for independent, secondary sources. Cannot the same be done here? I'm a fan of brevity, so as per the suggested two-point summary above, here's a suggested edit (I've also rmeoved man made as per my own geneder-neutral preference, but that's just me).

1. Any physical feature or defined geographic area for which there exists verifiable and notable information from independent, secondary sources probably deserves a separate article.

  • Maps and geographic databases cannot be said to be independent of the act of naming features; just because something is on a map, this does not make it notable.
  • Selective databases which are curated in some manner may be said to be secondary sources.
  • It may be more preferable to list and/or describe smaller features or areas (such as tributaries) within the page for the parent feature or region

2. Any artificially made places (buildings, radio masts, reservoirs etc.) or political-geography related subjects are judged according to WP:GNG. In particular, micronations and disputed regions are not considered inherently notable.

-- Cooper 42(Talk)(Contr) 18:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the dismissing of maps as sources. Published maps are secondary sources. They aren't generated out of thin air. They are a synthesis of other sources, usually aerial/satellite imagery. They have an author that decides what is significant enough to include, even if he/she is uncredited. If the publisher is reliable there is an editorial process similar to that for books. Maps can be used for a lot more than just verifying existance of a feature, Ordnance Surveys and USGS topo maps in particular often pack enough info on a map to come up with a decent stub about a feature.Kmusser (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
A map is a primary source regardless what sources it draws from. If we were going by the GNG, it would not qualify as a source to justify inclusion. Remember that for notability, we want more than "this place exists", which is easy; we want a reasonable assurance that the geographical feature - whether natural or manmade, will eventually have secondary sources about it so that we can write encyclopedic articles about it. Maps don't provide that at all. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I was not dismissing maps as sources. Rather it was to suggest that maps alone are not sufficient for Wikipedia notability. Otherwise every single petrol station would have a wikipedia article. Maps can be sources of accurate information for a page, but I think it should be made apparent that another source is necessary to pass GNG. Of course this is a broad generalisation. Locations on certain notable maps might be worthwhile: but every single feature on a Ordnance Survey map most certainly does not deserve its own page, even if Ordnance Survey maps provide the necessary supporting data to flesh out a page on something notable.-- Cooper 42(Talk)(Contr) 19:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • One of the other things that all of you should consider is that the reason why community consensus has so often decided that there is inherent notability for cities, towns, and villages is the common belief that secondary sources must exist locally in the area, but that there is unlikely to be very much, if any, available online. That's why there is believed to be inherent notability until proven otherwise. If someone was able to prove through going to local libraries in the area and other offline sources that there is no significant coverage of the place, then the community consensus would be to delete. But the chance of there being no coverage at all is so remote as to be completely negligible. SilverserenC 19:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That's not in question, since that's the core of the argument every time there's larger discussion on the notability of such places. But this only extends to places where people actually live as - by necessity - there must be a population there to actually write about things locally. When it comes to naturally-occurring geographic features, this needs a bit less automatic inclusion. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
      • There probably needs to be a pretty clear split between the notability guidelines for populated places, administrative areas, artificial structures and so on that is distinct from named geographical features. Radio masts, buildings and so on come under the WP:Run-of-the-mill vs. WP:Every snowflake is unique. Both of which are a result of real issues with Wikipedia:Inherent notability#De facto notability. Villages and small settlements are the core of some of these issues, and I don't think this is the best place to thrash out (again) such debates. I'd suggest we maybe narrow the scope of this guideline to apply only to named geographical features and not regions, villages, or other settlements or political / cultural designations.-- Cooper 42(Talk)(Contr) 21:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I agree with your point, howevere a better way is not to "narrow down", but to group different types of geographic objects into different categories where notability handled differently. In other words, we don't want separate pages Notability (settlements), Notability (political entities); separate sections in one WP:N/G page will be just as great. And if some category of geosites is to be treated by WP:GNG, just say so right here. In other words, we can have three major sections: "WP:GNG", "Unconditional", and "Tailored". Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Also, from your remark it comes to my mind that we have to agree whether to differentiate between natural and artificial objects and for artifical objects, what is the criterion to thik it is "geographical" or not. Example 1: both a mountain peak and a monument are identified by its coordinates (and a telegraph pole too :-) Question: is monument geography? Example 2: a forest (natural) and a garden (artificial) are identified by their occupied territory. Question: are they geography? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
        • YOu wrote: "I don't think this is the best place to thrash out (again) such debates" - "Thrash out" may be not, but to summarize the past arguments might be not that bad idea. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

US-Centric Guideline

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This guideline, as it is currently phrased, is incredibly Amerocentric in particular, and Western-centric in general. Many (if not most) countries in the world do not have census efforts that are as extensive as those in Western countries, let alone published, and so "recognition by a government agency" might be incredibly difficult to come by, even in the case of a legitimately established location/municipality. This guideline should be completely rewritten with an eye on notability of locations in the developing world. Clarkefreak ∞ 18:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Frist of all, there is nothing "incredibly" here. In particular no evil intent or gross oversight. The policy was drafted by a person with a certain amount of knowledge, and (surprize!) this guy was probably American. Big deal. If you have something to add, you are welcome; I don't see any resistance. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Second, your argument is reasonable, however the proposal does not say that only sensus or government data are admissible. These sources are mentioned separately because they are usually considered reliable without doubt. Reliability of other sources must be judged on case-by-case basis. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The U.S. census bureau is merely suggested as an example to establish notability for a geographic location. This does not make the essay inherently Western-centric. Removing the worldview-essay template at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Draft proposal

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

This essay is being cited as support for claims of notability in AfD discussions, in contradiction to Wikipedia:notability. I've made some minor edits to make it suitable for proposal as a guideline, and hope for further improvements. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support the proposal to turn this into a guideline. The lines of notability are properly explained, even if done so in a succinct manner. Any further clarifications that are needed can be added at a later point in time, but wouldn't change the fact that this is the commonly accepted consensus for geographical locations. SilverserenC 04:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I would also support adopting this as a guideline, with the small tweak I made to the wording on Named geographic features. I changed "usually" to "often" as I don't think it's accurate to say that the majority of named geographic features are considered notable - as this category includes almost every street, creek, cave, hill, and hollow on the planet. Kaldari (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are reigniting the discussion of the proposal, it is better keep a (not very) old previos discussion it tis page non-archived, for better reference. The archived discussion contained quite a few reasonable suggestions, some of which are rather unquestionable and worth implementing right away. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You also archived it incorrectly. Fixed.Staszek Lem (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If the full text of the archive has been restored to the main talk page, shouldn't the archive be deleted? It is now duplicated in its entirety. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It may create confusion. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please review the previois discussion, #Let us start to work it into a policy proposal, which I restored. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This draft originated as Wikipedia:Notability (geography). Another user helpfully redirected it to Wikipedia:Notability (geographical features), since the draft guideline would apply only to geographical places. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Run-of-the-mill

Latest comment: 11 years ago42 comments8 people in discussion

The section "Run-of-the-mill" consists of comments unsuitable for a future guideline. They need a re-write if they are to be included. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Listing examples of clearly nonnotable items is just as important as listing clearly notable. Please state your objections and discuss, rather than engage in a revert war. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of notability as described by the draft, the General Notability Guideline should apply. If the nutshell or particular cases would indicate that run-of-the-mill subjects are acceptable, they should be revised to reflect a narrower consensus. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I see no contradiction. In fact, GNG is specifially mentioned in this way. Still, a list akin of WP:NOT makes sense to me in the areas with lots of "twilight zone", to spare unnecessary effort. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that information in the new Run-of-the-mill section is backed by consensus anywhere. For example, there's nothing at WP:MAPOUTCOMES about this viewpoint. Also, topics that pass WP:GNG often merit having their own stand-alone article, not vice-versa, as stated in this section. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not new; it is copied from WP:ROTM. Content of MAPOUTCOMES may be used here as well. GNG phrase fixed. It was not vice-versa, just clumsy writing. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, but since this page is a working draft of a proposed guideline, in order to become an actual guideline, it needs to be based as much as possible upon consensus. WP:ROTM is an essay that's not particularly backed by consensus in AfD discussions, etc. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • No disagreement here. However in addition to previous consensus, there is such a thing as common sense and new discussions. I copied ROTM because it seemed common sense to me (similar to WP:NOT, as I mentioned above). Also, nothing is cast in stone. If in the future community decises that all shopping malls are notable, we can strike them out of WP:GEONOT list. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned about the use of WP:ROTM to define "run-of-the-mill" and "ordinary" in the renamed buildings and objects section. Is there an existing guideline we could link to instead? G. C. Hood (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The Buildings and objects section, as currently written, seems skewed toward developed areas. For example, lots of houses in rural areas or underdeveloped cities would not be listed in directories. G. C. Hood (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If the goal here is to get consensus for implementing this as a guideline, adding an entirely new section is precisely the wrong idea. I would like to suggest deleting the new 'Buildings and objects' section so that we can focus on one thing at a time. What's the point of debating details of a new section when the page itself has no standing? Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "Buildings and Objects" could be deleted. I see the main purpose of a guideline for geographical features is explaining the consensus on inherent notability, which isn't explained in WP:NOT. Buildings and objects don't have inherent notability, so editors who read policy could judge them based on the General Notability Guideline. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid it is incorrect to narrow down the purpose of the page to "inherent notability". Another, equally important purpose is to shed light on some shadow, borderline, in-between cases. If everything were black-and-white, there would be no need in a guideline: clear-cut rules must be made into a policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with forbidding the addition of new items. This is a community draft, and I see no problems on working on several issues at the same time. Each issue may have its own discussion thread. By the way, why you are saying that the page has no standing? It looks pretty much OK to me. Please state your specific objections, rather than spread general-purpose pessimism. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
How should a proposal on the notability of geographic features indicate the consensus on which features are non-notable? G. C. Hood (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Opinion of original participant Staszek Lem

IMO The consensus is like this: if nobody bothers to join this discussion after multiple calls for participation, then why should we care reading their mind? Here we already have three major sources of opinons: this page, statistics, and essays. Therefore I read the question of G.C. Hood as "Are there any other ways to figure out consensus about (non)notability of geofeatures?". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • These are all excellent sources for determining the existing consensus, but I feel a guideline should express that consensus concisely, without relying on links to pages that aren't policies or guidelines, or terms that may be ambiguous in the absence of such links. I am interested in the opinion of editors who have not yet participated in this discussion on how that may be achieved in writing, or whether limiting the scope of the draft would be better than risking ambiguity. Be bold! G. C. Hood (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • A guideline is a guideline is a guideline. I agree it does not have to rely on anything but policies and other guidelines. However I read the word "rely" here in the meaning it should not contradict them and be a logical development,clarification, of them. However new stuff cannot come from old policies and gudelines (otherwise this will be just increased bureaucratization). And this "new stuff" can come from any reasonably reasonable pages. Of course, essays (as their hatnote says) are not necessarily majority opinion and not even truth :-). However if an essay is linked from a major, well visited policy or guideline, then there is a reason to believe that many do not disagree with it (otherwise it whould have been promptly de-linked from these highly visible pages). Therefore I thought that WP:ROTM (actually found by me linked from a guideline) is not to be confused with ROTF and may be a starting point of initial wisdom for this new guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Specific notability criteria for artificial objects

In several notability guidelines there are actually detailed lists of criteria, like, which musician or which academician is notable. It occurs to me that just was well we may list some reasonable criteria which objects are not run-fo-the-mill. Example:

A building or monument or other structure is notable if:

  • It received a major award in architecture
  • It is officially recognized as a cultural heritage
  • It is a major landmark, identified as such (not simply described in passing) by reputable sources
  • etc.

This approach will help exclude various vanity articles about minor city/park statuettes and local pizzerias. Any other ideas along this line? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I attempted something similar in recent edits to "Buildings and objects", but feel standards for notability should be performance-based, e.g. "A building shall be considered notable if its article can establish notability as a result of verifiable historic, architectural, or other significance described by reliable, third party sources. For the purposes of this guideline, maps and directories shall not be adequate to establish notability." as opposed to a prescriptive standard, e.g. one stating that "a building shall be notable if it meets one of the following criteria". G. C. Hood (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, would clearly man-made structures (as opposed to other artificial features) need to be mentioned at all in this guideline? They don't spring to mind when I think about geographic notability, but other geographic impacts of a human project, like a reservoir lake do. G. C. Hood (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, I was thinking about this too: whether separate buildings are "geography" (does not sound right). On the other hand other kinds of separate structures such as bridges IMO will be recognized as "geography" by many. I see two ways to solve this: (1) don't split hairs and say, e.g., "for the purpose of this guideline, a geographic feature is any reasonably permanent feature of the Earth" (2) Take a look into category:Geography and use the classification there to structurize the gudeline discussed. Per (2), I noticed it contains sub-category:Buildings and structures templates, so I guess the question is resolved for them. Staszek Lem (talk)
      • P.S. I keep forgetting to mention that the article "geographic feature" is way below wikipedia quality expectations in many respects, so people interested in this guideline may want to work on the improvement of this page as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Other failed proposals

I've just found other failed proposals on close topics. Please check them (and their talk pages) out, whether they are recyclable for us, or whether there are lessons to be learned in order not to fail ours. Since some people thought their notablility issues are ..er.. notable, maybe it makes sense to add bullets for these objects here. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks) seems unsuitable to me for three reasons: it attempted to list specific, boolean criteria by which a structure could be considered notable, it accords undue weight to government heritage designations, which would include many non-notable buildings if municipal designations were included, and it attempts to assign notability to items that don't meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. That assignment of notability is very similar to the idea of "inherent notability" as distinct from general notability, but similar language has been controversial and reverted in this draft. G. C. Hood (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If these proposals failed, it's because they couldn't achieve consensus on implementation on a guideline. Limiting the scope of this draft is one way of increasing the likelihood of consensus. I don't think it needs to be split or renamed, since it makes clear reference to WP:GNG for cases that haven't been mentioned, but I would use extreme caution in adding any points inspired by failed proposals. G. C. Hood (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, in some cases they failed because the topic was too miniscule and not worth extra bureaucracy. As for limiting, I think what requires limiting, is level of detail, not the scope. When the policy is accepted, extra detail (i.e., particular types of geofeatures) may be added later. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, congregations, fictional geography, and businesses of any type (as opposed to the premises they inhabit) are by definition not geography. G. C. Hood (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • re:Congregations&businesses: Yes, and that's the point of my remark below. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    • re: fictional: Fictional geography is still kind of geography, and we may add a sentence that this policy does not address it. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
      • By the way, seeing Category:Geological features on the Moon, I would also suggest mentioning that the current guideline does not consider other celestial bodies (despite the fact that the prefix "geo-" may be applied to (sciences related to) them. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Until this page is actually a guideline (which at this rate seems unlikely) we should keep it as simple as possible. The more things are added to it, the less likely it is to ever become a guideline. We can always add more criteria later. Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Some generalized comments

Some things to consider to be consist with other subject-specific notability guidelines:

  1. Notability is always presumed, meaning that if you meet the conditions set out, we assume good faith to allow it to have an article even if doesn't have a lot of sourced, but that allowance can be challenged in the future. We know this likely won't happen to recognized villages/towns, but it can be true for other artificial geographic features (buildings, etc.) The "presumption" aspect should be repeated if only to encourage people to work at sourcing out articles after creation.
  2. There should be a facet at the top (its sorta there but should be clear) that any geographic feature that meets the GNG, using sources that go beyond local coverage, are presumed notable. From there, everything else written are extensions of critical that provide alternate means other than the GNG for notability. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Done, albeit without a specific reference to local sources. 142.162.108.223 (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Grutness/One street per 50,000 people

To include or not to include? My attempt to remove Grutness's essay from the "see-alsos" was reverted. Generally, I would object to linking to anything in userspace from a guideline. According to its history, this essay was composed by a single user and userfied as a result of a discussion at the village pump in 2007. I found one mention of it at the Village Pump, and three at WP:AfD: one mocking the essay, one by the contributor who reverted the removal using it to support notability, and one by a different contributor using it to support non-notability. Based on the small number of mentions, the essay appears to have a low degree of acceptance in the community, possibly due to its lack in prominence. As a result, it should be omitted from the text of any eventual proposal. G. C. Hood (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Seconded that. No evidence of reasonably common acceptance. Also, cross-namespace wikilinks are discouraged in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Based on what evidence–the 3 AfDs mentions, perhaps?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Evidence of what? Most pages taht link to the assay seem to be Grutness quoting himself in AfDs. I admit I didn't look into ALL backlinks. But the burden of proof of common acceptance is not on me. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me put it in a different way. The title of the essay appears to be immediately relevant to the subject in question. If it contains good points to include in the guideline, let us list them here and discuss. Otherwise his essay is just as good as this talk page: a bunch of opinions of unknown or contested advice. In fact, this talk page is way better: merits of the opinions are dissussed here, while the essay is but a piece of an uncontested POV. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (highways) is far too prescriptive for my liking, and suffers from being overly inclusive, as with the initial wording of the roadways section discussed below. The current, more limited wording is suitable, with WP:GNG as an alternative criterion. G. C. Hood (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I do agree that the current wording is much more acceptable than either option. I was simply stating, that if I had to choose between these two options, I would choose Wikipedia:Notability (highways). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 15:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Buildings: Notability as geofeature vs. notability as institution

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

One of the lessons from failed is the idea, for buildings, of distinguishing their notability as geographic geature vs. notability as institution. Probaly this issue is worth covering here.

Basically, a building may be a house of college, church, UN headquarters, etc. Notablility of an organization does not automatically imply notability of its buildings and structures. I remember some time ago there were articles written for some university dorms (happily deleted). Unless the building itself satisfies WP:GNG or this guideline, its description must be given in the article about the organization (or its particular campus, etc.) Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Inherited notability is a good way of describing that idea. If we refuse inherited notability, the section on private residences should be amended, as it's not entirely clear from the present wording that being the past home of a notable person is insufficient to establish notability. G. C. Hood (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Roadways

Latest comment: 11 years ago28 comments8 people in discussion

Added a basic roadways section, which would be functional to include on this proposed guideline page. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The presumed notability for roadways of national significance is problematic. In Canada, the National Highway System includes some, but not all, major provincial highways. The Trans-Canada Highway is not a single roadway, but a collection of provincial highways, built in part with federal funding, designated as part of one or more inter-provincial highway routes beginning in 1962 and marked as such. Main provincial highways can be controlled-access highways or rural roads depending on the region, with many parts of the National Highway System consisting of two-lane rural roads with speed limits no higher than 80 km/h. Stating presumed notability for American state highways is similarly problematic, in that the significance of various roads within the top tier of a state's numbering system is likely to vary significantly. I've removed the reference to state highways, but suggest removing the roadway section entirely if a consensus on this point cannot be reached. My own personal feeling is that most "highways of national significance" will be sufficiently well-documented to achieve notability under WP:GNG, without presuming notability on the basis of their designation. G. C. Hood (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "will be sufficiently well-documented" - most definitely; however for the purposes of discussions in wikipedia (e.g. during AfD) it will be much less hassle to have a reasonable category than to scramble for documents. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In my experience, AfD discussions tend to favour consensus even if it ignores all rules, so I wouldn't worry too much about scrambling for sources. Can you provide some examples of AfD discussions for similar "roadways of national significance"? The wording here might be able to reflect the explanations given for keeping articles in those discussions. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • As for Canada (and other countries), "National Highway System" does not imply that all highways are of national significance, as you have already demonstrated on the example of the U.S. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "significance of various roads within the top tier of a state's numbering system is likely to vary significantly." - Well, the top tier is the top tier is the top tier. It is the backbone of a country, be it the U.S. or Liberia, and their notability deserves to be presumed, even if for the sake of completeness.Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the top tier is not always the top tier. In Canada, the Trans-Canada is often numbered the same as other controlled-access highways in the province, despite wild variations between the characteristics of the similarly numbered roadways. Otherwise, highway numbering schemes and designation are usually based on the design of roadways instead of their purposes. In Nova Scotia, roads with the top-tier 100-series designation are so numbered because they are controlled-access highways designed for speed limits of 100 km/hr or more, or are unrelated rural roads forming part of the Trans-Canada Highway. In Newfoundland and Labrador, single-digit designations apply to the Trans-Canada Highway crossing the province and two controlled-access bypass roads in the St. John's area, which are not of comparable notability. I should also clarify that there are no federal highways in Canada, as highways are not an area of responsibility for the federal government under the Canadian Constitution, but that all highways in the National Highway System are eligible for cost-sharing programs in which the federal government funds a portion of provincial road work. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • All what you wrote good and and well, but the answer is simple: if a country has no easy way to formally distinguish major roadways of national significance, then it just means that there is no easy way to apply the suggested guideline in this country, but it does not invalidate the guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • True, but it could lead to confusion, especially where separate highways share the same designation (e.g. Nova Scotia has two Highway 104's, so named because they parallel the route of current and former sections of Trunk 4, but only one of them is designated as a portion of the Trans-Canada. Also, should all roads designated as Autobahns, Interstaes, or parts of the Trans-Canada be presumed notable? That's an awfully long list if we include each separately-numbered section. That's why its probably better to leave presumed notability out of it. G. C. Hood (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Colleague, let us step back and look at the reasons why we create these guidelines in the first place. The way I see it, the main goal is to prevent creation of (a) vanity and (b) one-liner articles. Surely, major highways will not fall under (a). As for (b), there is always useful information about them, such as connected settlements, dates of construction, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – Check out WP:ROADOUTCOMES for some information about prior consensus regarding roadway articles. The exact prose there (as of the time of this post) is:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 10:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The way the current highways section of the guideline is worded does not reflect the current consensus of the community. See WP:ROADOUTCOMES and WP:USRD/P. --Rschen7754 23:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to make any guideline reflect what consensus is, not what people think it should be. Since the ROADOUTCOMES text is a reflection of what the community has decided over the years, any text here needs to reflect that reality. I would do something more like:

  • Primary state, provincial, or territorial highways and their equivalents are generally notable. Examples would include insert short list here.
  • Secondary state, provincial, or territorial highways and their equivalents are usually notable, however short roadways or those without historical significance may be better suited to a list. Examples would include insert short list here.
  • Tertiary highways and county or regional roads are usually better suited for coverage in a list. Examples would include insert short list here. Some exceptions do exist which meet WP:GNG. Note that in some locations, certain county or regional road systems function as secondary highways.
  • Individual highway junctions are rarely notable and should be covered as entries in in the junction list in another highway article.
  • Individual highway service areas are rarely notable, however the motorway service areas in the UK are an exception.
  • City streets need to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG.

That's just a staring point, of course and we'd need to insert some examples, but a lot of Wikipedia:Notability (highways) is really redundant. We could summarize the core points because there are rough analogs between things like the US Highways in the US, primary/trunk A roads in the UK and the Bundesstraßen in Germany. The idea would be to flesh out the equivalencies a little bit more through carefully chosen examples. (For the record, Interstate and US Highways in the US are really just special types of primary state highways.) Imzadi 1979 → 00:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Per the discussion above, confirming notability for provincial or state highways without demonstrating that they meet WP:GNG is problematic. Stating previous consensus in a guideline doesn't necessarily reflect current consensus, but informs it instead, as contributors look for written guidance to support their opinions. With Wikipedia:Notability (highways) already available as an essay, I'd prefer to omit the section on roadways from this draft instead of broadly assigning presumed notability in the eventual proposal. G. C. Hood (talk) 01:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    • "Previous consensus" was consensus from yesterday - that is when the last AFD closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 370. --Rschen7754 05:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Colleague, for "consensus from yesterday" you refer to AfD discussion, which was mostly snowball keep based on appeals to WP:ROADOUTCOMES and WP:USRD/P. Therefore your remark is circular logic and kinda self-fulfilling prophecy (or "self-perpetuating myth"). While this discussion most surely has to take into an account any previous consensa, this still does not mean that the whole WP:ROADOUTCOMES and WP:USRD/P must be copied here, for the sole reason of both refs being essays, which did not receive full scrutiny a policy/guideline requires. The latter is exactly what we are doing now. Colleague GCHood presents solid arguments why certain items are inadmissible in a formalized "wikilaw", and they cannot be lightly dismissed simply "because in the past it was OK". It may well be we just did not think profoundly about this in the past, e.g., taking global scope into an account, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Several of the "votes" made other arguments about the notability of state highways. --Rschen7754 23:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't even know where to start answering to you. I keep repeating and rephrasing againg and again: this is the time and place to reevaluate each separate item by its merits (including both past consensus and new arguments). And you are simply telling me "they made other agruments". Which arguments? Are they valid? Are they applicable globally or only to US state hwys? We are not talking an omnibus bill here. Items. One by one. Pros. Contras. Otherwise it will be just bickering, not a fruitful discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
            • The issue I am having is that what was on the draft (which I have since removed) does not reflect consensus at all. So maybe our version of the notability guideline isn't copied here by default, but that doesn't mean that yours should be there by default either. --Rschen7754 00:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
              • I see. No objection for removal. I didn't like it too. Also please notice there is no "ours" and "yours". You don't know which is mine (if you meant "singular you"). And no reason to be so divisive yet (if you meant "plural you"): we are still talking and didn't fracture "incusionists/deletionists" yet (it seems). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict)One of the 5 pillars mentions that we are a gazetteer. A gazetteer includes information about geographical features including highways. Highways designated by a state, provincial, or higher level of government are inherently notable because they represent a small fraction of the overall road network of those locations that have been specifically chosen for inclusion in a state or national network, in addition to the fact that we provide systemic coverage of the highway system. Certainly, exceptions exist in which merging articles into a list is more acceptable. However, these are exceptions, not norms. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
              • I believe that Wikipedia should include coverage of major roads with individual articles, with some minor roads covered solely in list format. As far as the United States is concerned, Interstate, U.S., state, and select county routes should have their own articles while most county routes and select minor state routes (such as those that are extremely short) should be confined to a mention in a list. In addition, all limited-access roads, regardless of whether or not they have a route number, should be eligible for an article. Major city streets that have a lot to say about them can also have articles. This belief largely parallels what is called for at WP:USRD/NT. Dough4872 00:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
                • Not to mention the outcome of 99.5% of road AfDs - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I will apply Staszek Lem's definitions as I try to set up the debate.

  • All members of the first- or second-level of a national system of highways are inherently notable. These include highways maintained at the national level or part of a numbering system that covers all or almost all of a country. This distinction is important because there are highways that are part of a national system that are maintained at a subnational level, and there are highways that are not part of a national system that are maintained at a national level. In the U.S., these systems are the Interstate Highway System and U.S. Highway System. In Germany, there are the Bundesautobahn and Bundestrassen. Spain has its autopistas and autovias. Some countries may have only one national level system. For instance, Canada's only true national system is the Trans-Canada Highway.
  • There is no one-size-fits-all-countries notability standard for members of subnational highway systems or third-tier and lower national highway systems. Based on the existance of articles and the results of AFDs, members of state and provincial highways in the U.S. and Canada are presumed to be notable. Members of third-tier and lower national highway systems and regional highway systems seem to be unlikely to be notable in other countries. Members of local highway systems, which in the U.S. and Canada are county and municipal highways, are unlikely to be notable.
  • There is a difference between the notability of individual members and the notability of a collection of individual members. I will call the latter concept aggregate notability. Individual county routes are unlikely to be notable, but the complete or near-complete list of members of a system is presumed to be notable. Examples of such aggregations are numbered systems of county highways in the U.S. (e.g., List of county routes in Onondaga County, New York) and Landesstraßen in the states of Germany, which are covered in lists in the German Wikipedia (e.g., de:Liste der Landesstraßen in Hessen).  VC  20:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

  • Some ideas to move forward. A very generic summary from the above regarding roadway notability:
  • International road networks, such as the International E-road network – Typically notable
  • Interstate, state and provincial highways – Typically notable
  • County and regional roads – Notability varies, more dependent upon WP:GNG
  • Local roads – Notability varies, dependent upon WP:GNG
This very basic summary is based upon the comments above while also keeping the following pages in consideration:
— Thanks to all contributors here for the thoughtful and intelligent commentary. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – More related pages:
—Northamerica1000(talk) 16:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Provincial should be on the level of state - for example, Canada has provinces, not states. --Rschen7754 18:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I modified my above summary per this information (it was a typographical oversight). Northamerica1000(talk) 00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Inherently/presumed/unlikely to be" notable

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Let us clarify the language, to avoid miscommunication.

The way I see it:

  • "inherently notable": snowball in hell voted to be deleted
  • "Presumed to be notable": you will need to have serious arguments in order to delete the article
  • "Unlikely to be notable": you will need to have serious arguments in order to keep the article
  • "Likely to be notable": merely >51.3% chance the article will be kept.

Therefore I am against the word "likely" in a policy/guideline, since it does not give a sighificant weight in a debate. A "prefabricated" debate argument must be close to black-and-white, since AfD is b&w. A 60% worth argument basically means that the fate of the article of the given class does not depend on the guideline. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Page move:quick poll

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The page was moved with the idea to simplify the title. However it was discussed in this talk page that this title will be too broad, since category:Geography is way beyond geographic features, so the thort title "N (G)" will be misleading. Since the page mover offered no conterargument to this idea, I suspect he forgot or didn't notice it. Hence Let;s do a quick poll/discussion whether to use short or long title. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Short title
Notability (geography)
Pros/Cons
  • Pro: It is short
  • Con: It may be misleading due to a too broad scope of category:Geography.
Votes
Long title
Notability (geographic features)
Pros/Cons
  • Con: It is longish
  • Pro: It matches the scope of the guideline.
Votes
  1. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  2. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Per the information in the intro above, I've made a Bold edit and renamed this page to Notability (geographic features). Northamerica1000(talk) 14:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment for Notability (geographic features) to become a Wikipedia guideline page

Latest comment: 11 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion
SUCCESSFUL
This discussion resulted in a version of this page that was accepted by consensus, so I have marked it as a Wikipedia guideline. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(RFC relisted 23:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)) Significant discussion regarding the presentation of this page and its conversion to a Wikipedia notability guideline page has transpired on this talk page (see above), and the Notability (geographic features) page has been carefully composed to reflect consensus per these discussions. At this time, I am posting a request for comment to obtain input from the Wikipedia community regarding the conversion of this page to a notability guideline page. I support this conversion because the page is worded fairly and accurately, and it is consistent relative to the procedures and delineations of other guideline pages such as WP:N and WP:V. Conversion to a guideline page will also serve to clarify and reduce ambiguity regarding the assessment of notability for geographic places and features. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  Note: See /Archive 1 for the discussion referred to. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This page is already treated as a guideline anyways, because its subject has received widespread community support time and again in discussion after discussion. So I see no reason why this shouldn't be an official guideline page. And it is indeed well written and properly discusses the consensus for notability on geographic features. SilverserenC 15:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I just did a re-read of the article and noted conflicting information. The Geographic regions section states, as it should per community consensus, that populated, legally-recognized places are presumed notable, so long as a source such as a government census is in the article to show that the place exists (or existed). However, the lede states that geographical features need to meet the GNG, which directly conflicts with the populated places section. Furthermore, if they needed to all pass the GNG upon creation, then that would make this SNG pointless. It would make SNG's in general pointless, actually. They are meant to show that certain things are presumed notable, that there is a presumption that the sources exist somewhere that would have them meet the GNG, even if the articles don't show it right at this moment. SilverserenC 06:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
    • re "lede vs. 'presumed'" - I guess you got very confused. the lede does not say thed GF need to met GNG. It says (rephrasing) (if GNG then presumed notable). populated places are not "presumed notable" - they are considered, i.e., inherently notable (see also "nutshell"). This inherent notability is one major longstanding 'yes' from community, and hence ours is not to challenge it now. This is a policy proposal based on collected consensus, not on author's lefty thumb. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    • re "sources exist somewhere" - this is is irrelevant to the issue. Regardless other presumptions, if no sources, then no article - a fundamental rule of wikipedia. For this reason "inherently notable" include only officially recognized settlements, to make sure sources are at hand. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time Support, if it retains more-or-less the changes recently made to it (removal of weird wording that doesn't agree with cited guidelines; restoration of unofficial places examples; addition of unofficial populated places instructions; merger of redundant micronations bullet point into unofficial populated places). It still needs too much work. The "Populated places without legal recognition" section, for example, is was wildly inconsistent with the one on "named natural features", the criteria in which can largely also be applied to PPwoLR. Worse, the PPwoLR section has had newly invented phrasing in it that doesn't mean anything in the context of WP notability, such as "substantial non-trivial information", which could mean anything. "Information" isn't "publication". "Information" might be "my grandfather lived there for 3 months in 1958". In this section, the notation "we have to weigh the quality of non-official information on a place to determine notability" is borderline nonsensical. Someone is badly misconstruing how notability on WP works. It boils down to whether the PPwoLR in question has been covered nontrivially, as such, in multiple, reliable independent sources. Period. This section reads intitially read like it was written by someone who had their article deleted, about some vague area that locals refer to but which isn't known outside the region as a distinct entity, and is looking to create a loophole. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 16:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    I agree the text may be trimmed. But, first, "we have to weigh the quality of non-official information ", is what we always do. And if the person who says "my grandmother lived there for 3 months in 1958" was talking about Greta Garbo then it is at least three cents towards notability. On the other hand, this phrase says nothing about the place per se, so I would take two cents off. This is how we "weigh the quality" of information. And also this removes your objection, because this information was, first, about the grandmother, not about the place, second it was a piece of trivia. And you have your own misinterpretations of notability. If mult/reli/indep sources talk only bits and pieces of trivia, then we have a case of WP:COATRACK, not WP:NOTABILITY. Aslo, the wording "non-trivial" is essential here for another reason: a geographical object may have its coordinates in thousands of maps and gazetters, which are clearly multiple and reliable. Nevertheless, here we have a strong consensus that this alone does not make a geoobject notable. Therefore sorry, no any "Period" here. Still, I agree the language must be made closer to standard wikipedia's guidelines, policies, and terms, to avoid misunderstanding. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
    I'd forgotten to include non-triviality in the litany, so I added it with <ins>...</ins>, and my argument remains unchanged. Your last sentence says more or less what I'm saying. I still strenuously deprecate your misuse of "information" as a pseudo-synonym of "source". Doing so will simply confuse people. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, I'm late. and I don't think I mususe the "pseudo-synonym". I am aware there is information and there is its source. 'Information' comes from 'sources' in the form of 'statements'. 'Sources' we judge in terms of their credibility. 'Information' we judge in terms of relevance to article subject. 'Statements' added to wikipedia we judge in terms of correctness (e.g, of rendering of statements from sources and other criteria) . If my rant does confuse these, I apologize and ready to discuss specifically what I blurbed wrong. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
    @SMcCandlish: I've trimmed the PPwoLR section per your suggestions. Is there anything else in the proposed guidelines that you don't agree with? Kaldari (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    Nothing springs immediately to mind, but I'd have to re-read it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    Okay, I did find an obvious redundancy and resolved it, and restored the unofficial populated areas examples – trimming those out in the course of getting rid of the weird language was probably too much – and added "what to do if..." instructions. If it stays more or less like this I'll happily support now. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose  Can't take this seriously.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    What a pointless and unconstructive !vote. Request for Comments; NOT request for votes. - Floydian τ ¢ 16:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    I take it this is the new and improved Floydian people skills so as become an admin.  When did you say you were going to do an RFA again?  Unscintillating (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    No; I am calling you out on your rude comment. It is pointless, it is unconstructive, and it should be removed, period. Take your rhetoric elsewhere. - Floydian τ ¢ 21:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
    If my comment is rude, pointless, and unconstructive; wouldn't it be more effective to leave it so that I will be vilified in the eyes of those who read it?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    Why not offer some constructive criticism instead of just trolling? Kaldari (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    Agreed, though more in response to the self-congratulatorily dismissive followup posts than the original "Can't take this seriously" post. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems it reflects a consensus of people who for a long time developed and scrutinized it basing on observed practice and common sense. Upgrading its status will also bring an upgrade of its quality, since it will be exposed to wider community. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, changed opinion after re-reading. After my last careful reading of the page it became bloated with repetitive references to WP:GNG. Because of this it is very difficult to quickly find "prefabricated" recipes for AfD votes, which is IMO the main purpose of specialized guideline: to emphacise peculiarities of a particulad domain of knowledge. This guideline says "if there is nothing to say about a geoobject besides its coordinates then in does not deserve an article". The same applies to the guideline itself: if there is nothing to say about something beyond W:GNG, WP:RS & WP:UNDUE, then say nothing and don't waste reader's time. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Can you think of specific changes that would alleviate this problem? Should PPwoLR just be removed altogether? Kaldari (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I am busy right now. I don't want just cut away pieces. I have to look into edit history first. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I would suggest to add a "common-denominator" section for verifiable from WP:RS, but nonnotable geofeatures. It may include a ref to common/default policies, but a justification of its existence must be a list of guidelines where to upmerge/redirect minor features; e.g., small rivers into "list or tributaries", shopping malls into towns or districts, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
            • OK. I finally got some free time to fix some problems. I think it looks reasonable now. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Usage in AfDs

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The page is linked from many discussions for deletion[3]. It would be helpful to list discussions where the page was a deciding factor for inclusion or deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much any AfD where a town was nominated for deletion, for one. Admittedly, WP:OUTCOMES was linked more often, but it's the same information. SilverserenC 20:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
As I have already noticed elsewhere in this talk page, the vast majority of AfD links are from votes of the author of the essay, i.e., it was a personal shorthand rather then a ref to common opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Are all places really notable? I thought notability was not inherent, per WP:GNG

Latest comment: 11 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Is a "place" notable simply for existing? Just because it has geographic coordinates? Is every city, village, slum, or any other geographical location on the planet automatically notable just because someone named it? What about parks, big or small? The assertion by some in an above discussion that any place that is or ever has been inhabited is notable because coverage must exist is fallacious at best, because coverage in secondary sources is not the ONLY guideline to notability, and even meeting that test is not enough by itself to guarantee a subject is suitable for its own article space.

In short, does the English Wikipedia really need an entire article on every single one of the 638,000 villages in India? besiegedtalk 18:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. It says "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." Kaldari (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I read most of the lengthy "Policy proposal" discussion above and other parts of this document besides, but have not read the entirety of all proposals as yet. This is largely in reaction to the response I keep getting where articles on tiny villages in India--that I perceive as not being notable enough for inclusion--are surviving the AfD process with support by what largely seems to be people involved in the WikiProject:India with reasons like "it *IS* a place where people live, therefore it should have an article", such as the following examples:
"Village that exists and is thus notable per WP:NGEO. --Kinu t/c 00:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)"
and,
"Aren't inhabited locations inherently notable? References can surely be found, but the place definitely exists. Google Maps, in any case, recognizes its existence. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)"
There are 638,000 legally recognized villages, towns and cities in India: do we really need articles for every one of them on the English Wiki, just because they exist, are recognized by the state, and have people living there? Would the vast majority of these not be better covered in articles about their parent region or city that is notable, or at worst, in an appropriate list of villages in a given region?
It is my contention that simply being recognized by the state or nation, and having people resident there does not automatically make a place notable enough to warrant its own article, and that as notability is never inherent or inherited, such as the following cart-before-the-horse claim:
"One of the other things that all of you should consider is that the reason why community consensus has so often decided that there is inherent notability for cities, towns, and villages is the common belief that secondary sources must exist locally in the area, but that there is unlikely to be very much, if any, available online. That's why there is believed to be inherent notability until proven otherwise. If someone was able to prove through going to local libraries in the area and other offline sources that there is no significant coverage of the place, then the community consensus would be to delete. But the chance of there being no coverage at all is so remote as to be completely negligible. SilverserenC 19:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)"
Which is, to me, clearly fallacious and contrary to pretty much every other policy and guideline on the Wiki, in a "guilty until proven innocent" fashion: there might be secondary sources for a lot of things, but we don't create articles on them until or unless they can be or have been sourced and referenced appropriately, and articles on topics which contain no such references are regularly deleted, even though such sources may exist: this seems a rather twisted reading of WP:NRVE. Imagine, if the burden of proof were on the challenger for every article nominated for deletion, as the above quote implies should be done for places: this wiki would resemble the Encyclopedia Dramatica more than it would an actual encyclopedia of any value or content. Above, and perhaps beyond, notability, it seems to me that weight and consideration should be given to appropriateness and relevance as well: listing cities and places of note in the English speaking world on the English Wikipedia might be one thing, but I just don't see where having 638,000 articles on every village in India is useful, relevant, or desirable for this wiki. besiegedtalk 21:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
To put it another way, based on the rationale that any place that is or ever has been inhabited, that is legally recognized by its government, and actually exists is notable, then my home should have its very own article: it has a confirmable geographic co-ordinate with photos available on Google maps, it has been continuously inhabited for over 20 years, it has plenty of documentation concerning its existence such as a bill of sale, legal deed, tax forms, zoning documents, newspaper coverage of the neighborhood being built, etc., many of which are on file with the local government, and since--based, again, on some of the above rationale--it is a physical place that exists, we can assume the existence of coverage in secondary sources until someone proves there is not any such coverage, putting the onus or burden of proving no such documentation exists firmly onto the shoulders of editors other than the one making the assertion for notability. QED, according to the currently accepted policy or community consensus, my house is notable.
I recognize that there is a difference between a home of 3 and a city of 100,000, but either policy, consensus, or a combination of the two apparently either does not make such a recognition, or if it does, draws no clear lines, which I think are desperately needed, with a solid, reasonable threshold of a minimum population in cases where no other notability claim (besides simply existing) is available. besiegedtalk 22:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Good luck. You are absolutely right. In fact, there are independent sources on your home, in the form of tax records, appraisals, and construction permits. It would be possible to write a fairly good article on any older home in the USA, documenting who built it, when it was built, the history of major remodeling efforts, zoning changes, school districts, voting precincts, etc. Obviously, it still shouldn't get an article. Unfortunately, there is a large enough contingent of editors that attend AFDs supporting articles on geographic places that it is difficult to get an article about the smallest flyspeck deleted.—Kww(talk) 23:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, so I had noticed. Apparently policy only applies when its something one is not interested in or partial to, but the moment it comes to an article one has an investment in, the lawyering starts and people refuse to apply policy to themselves. besiegedtalk 23:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That is actually completely incorrect. The whole point is that there is a presumption of notability for the places. And, until that presumption is refuted by someone actually directly looking for sources, the subject is continued to be presumed notable. That is entirely the point of the WP:SNG's, that they give the presumption of notability for a subject that the sources do exist somewhere and that someone just has to look for them. SilverserenC 00:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A problem with place notability is that it operates on the presumption that sources about the place -- typically written in a non-independent manner (eg a person from that place, the government of that place, ec) -- are what will eventually arise to show notability. Except we expect third-party, independent, secondary sources for notability from the GNG and what the SNGs should eventually lead to. I recognize that the "keep all villages" mentality was there before our current notability guidelines are there, but realistically, the only reason we have it is "we've been doing it that way for so long..." There are a lot better ways to handle populated places - namely by going to lists and tables so we still maintain our function as a gazetteer, and spinning out full articles when GNG-type notability can be met. We don't lose any of the information that is presently in these short articles, and it makes us look more like an encyclopedia than an atlas. I've also long been a supporter of a separate sister project that can be an atlas and have a page for every populated place. --MASEM (t) 01:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the reason why your home is not inherently notable until this idea is that the community has long since made rules on what falls under the presumed notability of places. This is to reflect Wikipedia's existence as a gazetteer, along with being an encyclopedia, as laid out in the Five Pillars. Thus, the community has stated that villages and towns are the smallest areas that fall under this presumed notability of places. Neighborhoods and regions within cities, along with smaller things, have long been considered separately and have needed to independently prove that they would have the existing sources. SilverserenC 00:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
@besieged: From your comments it sounds like you agree with our proposed wording. Help us make this into an official guideline and you will have ammunition to use against the people who argue that all populated places are inherently notable. Kaldari (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(Coming a bit late,talk sizzled) I fail to see what's wrong with having verifiable articles about "all 638,000 villages in India". With .8 billion Indians (70%) living in rural area, this averages over 1,200 per village. I remember I heard some time ago some guy used a bot to create articles about every rairoad staion in the UK and he hit a milestone (million'th article or something). This is one of few issues from this policy which has a very long-standing tradition in wikipedia, and 2-3 of us will not break it now. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_1&oldid=1137429503"