Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 14

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC: Deprecating WP:NOTDIR. Census designated places are mentioned there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Geoland discussion at VPP

Basically the proposal that was thrashed out above. See here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Changes_to_GEOLAND FOARP (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Requesting feedback re. GEOROAD

Following confusion at this AfD, I originally planned to clarify whether or not GEOROAD applies to roads that were planned, but never built, and would normally be within its scope. In looking for an answer, I investigated the origins of GEOROAD. The discussion that led to the addition of GEOROAD was, at best, unclear. That raises the question of whether or not GEOROAD accurately reflects community consensus at all.

For additional context: this became a guideline here following this small RfC, and the version at the time included a version of GEOROAD that is substantially identical to today's.

Accordingly, I'm looking for some feedback on GEOROAD in its current form, and if yes, to define its scope more clearly. My thoughts on that below.

  • Option 1 – GEOROAD reflects current community consensus and does not need to be fundamentally rewritten.
    • Option 1a – GEOROAD includes roads that were planned, but never built.
    • Option 1b – GEOROAD is limited to roads that were actually built, or for which construction is ongoing.
  • Option 2 – GEOROAD does not reflect current community consensus; a rewrite is needed.

My thoughts: It is a bit unclear to me why roads of any kind are "typically notable", but the inclusion of "provincial highways" stands out in particular. A lot of interstate highways in the US are notable by the standards of GNG, and it's reasonable to presume that the same applies for highways of similar importance in most other countries. But beyond that, I'm not sure that all highways are notable in the way the guideline currently assumes. What is the basis for this presumption of notability? While roads, especially highways, will be included in dozens (if not hundreds) of maps from plenty of different sources, that is simply trivial coverage.

Thanks for your time, everyone! Happy editing :) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 18:12, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally, we're a gazetteer, roads serve a built geographical function, and may not have been significantly discussed by secondary sources. But it also doesn't look like any notability should necessarily be assumed except in obvious cases - for instance, we'd want a complete set of motorways. Other roads would need to meet WP:GNG. But WP:GEOROAD appears irrelevant - it tells me all roads need to meet GNG in my reading... SportingFlyer T·C 18:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Not exactly, combined with WP:NEXIST one should presume that for the classes of roads given, there are sources. And there generally are, just in newspaper archives and not easily searchable on the Internet. Unless we have arbitrarily determined that "local news", whatever that is, no longer contributes to GNG. Rschen7754 00:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The state of affairs, based on many VfDs and AfDs over the preceding years to that RfC is that articles on state-maintained highways in the United States had been routinely kept. (Note: Interstate and US Highways are maintained by the state departments of transportation; they only differ from other state highways on the basis of signage/numbering and construction standards and are actually all state highways. Many states have freeways built to Interstate standards that do not have Interstate numbers.) Now the equivalent to a US state in Canada is a province, and non-federal countries have national highway networks, which is why national and provincial highways are listed there as well so that the guideline has international applicability in a concise statement.
The guideline has a prioritization function, recognizing that primary classifications of highway have been judged as more important by their appropriate agencies than secondary or even tertiary highways. This also recognizes that a roadway maintained and numbered by a county, as a lower level of government, has a lower importance to the overall transportation network. If that road was more important, it would be transferred to state/provincial maintenance and integrated into the higher priority network. In my home state of Michigan alone, there are 122,040 miles (196,400 km) of public roads, but only 9,649 miles (15,529 km) are state highways, according to MDOT. Thus 8% of our roads are state highways and carried 52% of our traffic volume in 2022 to the tune of 44.5 billion vehicle-miles. Based on this real-world prioritization, we prioritized the roads we covered for inclusion and wrote a full set of articles on the state's highways. This is the obvious case based on the statistics: these roads are designed and designated to carry proportionally some 6.5 times more traffic than the rest of the state's roads. Imzadi 1979 → 20:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
These statistics are genuinely quite interesting, but I'm not sure how to read this comment in terms of what to do with GEOROAD. It's plausible that state highways are generally notable, but how about the other categories of road listed by GEOROAD? Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 20:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Actualcpscm: I discussed that briefly in my first paragraph. We can do a lot of analogizing just by comparing roads from country to country. E-roads in Europe have a similar function to the United States Numbered Highway System in the US in that they carry a common designation across member jurisdictional borders. That's why GEOROAD references international road networks. For other countries, a national highway network is the equivalent of a state highway network in the US, so GEOROAD already handles this by equating international, national, interstate and state or provincial highways together. This simplifies the equation and helps to minimize systemic bias concerns exacerbated by availability issues for equivalent sources. Imzadi 1979 → 20:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The opposite happens in sparsely populated states and provinces though, for example in Wyoming many state highways would be country or local level roads in other states but due to a lack of local tax base have to be state. Not all states and provinces are created equal, some are smaller than cities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, in particular, how many proposed and unbuilt state highways have articles? I'm sure there are some, but by no means all. For example, there was a planned interstate through the city I grew up in and for many years, this interstate appeared on maps for the city (probably due to developers promoting the hope for easy access). But there is no article for it. older ≠ wiser 20:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
More to the point, what are the chances that an unbuilt highway would be covered in reliable sources the way any comparable finished highway is? In my opinion probably quite low. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 20:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Actualcpscm: my comments here primarily address "option 1" vs. "option 2" from your query. In terms of the remainder, "option 1a" vs. "option 1b", any article requires sources to avoid WP:OR concerns. It is possible to find sourcing on planned and unbuilt highways, see Interstate 335 (Minnesota) or County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan). (Yes, that second one is a cancelled county road.) At least for the US, once we get to actual concrete planning by FHWA/state DOT/etc. (not "it would be nice if..." statements from a local chamber of commerce), we will have enough documentation to start an article.
@Bkonrad: which city/Interstate is this? Now I'm curious. Imzadi 1979 → 21:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Parma, Ohio. I forget the numerical designation, but there were plans to build a short, mostly north-south connector freeway between I-71 to the N and I-80 to the south. older ≠ wiser 10:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Option 1b. Proposals come and go and we should limit ourselves to only covering proposals that received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the way GEOROAD is written. For as long as I have been on Wikipedia (over 16 years) and going back even before that to the early days of the site, the consensus has been that international, national, and subnational (state/provincial) roads are generally notable enough for individual articles while lower classes of roads (such as county or local roads) are only notable if they meet the GNG. The notability standard for state highways and above is based on the premise that the system meets the GNG, being covered in multiple secondary sources, and we have individual articles to cover the component highways that make up the system, ranging from long roads with a lot to say about them to short roads that may have little information. In addition, the roads in these systems typically meet the GNG as they are often covered in multiple secondary sources, including newspapers/media sources and books, some of which are not easily accessible to editors. Lower classes of roads typically have little to no coverage in multiple secondary sources, hence why they should only have articles if they meet the GNG. The higher classes of roads (state highways and above) make up less mileage but carry way more traffic than the lower classes of roads, so in reality Wikipedia is only covering the most important roads to society. In regards to highways that were planned but not built, they can typically have articles provided there are sources to verify that there were official plans for such a road to be built and not just a pipe dream by someone. Dough4872 00:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Unbuilt highways run the gamut from Unconstructed state routes in Arizona (numerous proposals that were cancelled without fanfair or SIGCOV) to Bay Freeway (Seattle) which has 60+ sources along with detailed coverage of proposals, controversies and related legal action. GNG serves us well for these cases; otherwise we're looking at a great many roads that were never anything more than a line on a map with no potential for a well-developed article. –dlthewave ☎ 01:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like it explained to me why having fewer articles covering fewer subjects is seen as better than having articles covering a wider range of subjects, when the sources exist, the articles are already written, and BLP does not apply. There is apparently something fundamental about Wikipedia I have utterly failed to grasp after eighteen years of editing here. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOT goes a long way towards trying to explain this Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not finding anything in there that seems relevant. Could you elucidate for the morons like me that don't get it? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
If none of that seems relevant to your concern I'm not sure I can help besides suggesting a closer reading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
What you are describing/ advocating already exists, it's called the internet. :-) . A part of Wikipedia's value comes from being more selective than that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Can you explain how "a part of Wikipedia's value comes from being selective"? Because to me "increasing the value of Wikipedia by deleting shit" feels a lot like an attempt to increase the value of one's home with arson. Incredulously, —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Notability is a guideline that supports some of the most important policies, particularly WP:V and WP:OR. If there are no good sources about something, what is an article supposed to say to comply with those? Again, nobody is saying „we should delete all articles about roads.“ For example, I think it would be good to require roads to have significant coverage in at least one reliable source (not necessarily independent), because Wikipedia articles that say „Highway XY123 is a highway that connects CityA and CityB“ are not particularly helpful, and if that‘s sourced to a map, the second part is probably WP:SYNTH. This is the kind of threshold we‘re looking at, not „roads are never notable and we should delete all those Featured Articles about important infrastructure.“
To address your point more directly; yes, it does make Wikipedia better to delete articles that cannot comply with its core content policies. The community almost universally agrees on those (principles, not necessarily wording of the policies), and if an article can never contain content in compliance with those principles, deletion is the only logical course of action. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 08:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
That all may be so, but given that we have an editor that has brought every road that meets GEOROAD in the state of Michigan to either FA or GA, that reads like a bunch of theoreticals and what-ifs that don't have any bearing on reality. If it can be done in Michigan, it can be done anywhere. GEOROAD is fine, it's GNG that sucks.
And I disagree that simply because an article doesn't comply with a rule some dork wrote up in 2004 it needs to be deleted NOW NOW RIGHT NOW RIGHT FUCKING NOW NOW NOW NOW OH MY GOD DELETE IT RIGHT NOW CAST IT INTO THE FUCKING FIRE AT ONCE. It will get fixed when someone gets around to it (I have had the sources to fix on some of these articles in my userspace since 2008! But real life doesn't stop happening), and in the meantime it will be a good starting point for a reader to conduct further research. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 00:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Is anyone actually arguing that "simply because an article doesn't comply with a rule some dork wrote up in 2004 it needs to be deleted NOW NOW RIGHT NOW RIGHT FUCKING NOW NOW NOW NOW OH MY GOD DELETE IT RIGHT NOW CAST IT INTO THE FUCKING FIRE AT ONCE"? Is it a straw man or do these editors actually exist? And if they do exist can you name them? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. One of them is playing flat out naive and ignorant to these said actions. But we both know that they know exactly what they're doing. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Would that be me? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure you can guess the answer, whatever it may be. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 06:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The suspense is killing me, just provide the diffs already. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can help besides suggesting a closer reading. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
You can provide diffs, as required by WP:ASPERSIONS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]
Ah, just one more thing sir. It's questions like this that keep me up at night. Why do you have an axe to grind with WP:USRD? The constant interactions between yourself and members of USRD across the site seem to suggest it. Somehow you prefer to keep going after articles under the project's scope. Then you give people reverting your edits a hard time on their talk pages, even going as far as to ping them on the talk page in hopes of baiting them into an argument or fight. Like the one over at US 11. As for the user talk page, User talk:Imzadi1979 should cover that. Something ain't adding up and I think you know that too.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 15:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Not a single one of those diffs supports the assertions made. If you would prefer I can join USRD, I have no axe to grind. Pinging someone when you open a talk page discussion is considered a common courtesy, if you do not do that I suggest you start now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Not if it's to do what you did with Fredddie on US 11 in an attempt to gaslight others or bait them into a fight. You want to join WP:USRD though, be my guest. Doesn't change what I said about the axe to grind. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 00:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Your repeated description of following WP:BRD as baiting people to fight is out of synch with my understanding of how consensus works on wikipedia. Those are invitations to discussion, which is exactly what is supposed to happen in that situation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
And these editors would be who exactly? Nobody in the current conversation has made that argument and I don't actually think I've *ever* seen someone make that argument so if anyone ever has some diffs would be nice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
That‘s quite impressive about the Michigan road articles! I hope your hyperbole is not referring to me. I have my own opinions, but I‘m primarily trying to gauge what the community thinks. It‘s not my intention to have as many road articles as possible deleted as quickly as possible, or anything like that. Re. rule-lawyering and IAR, I replied below. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 05:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

IMO Dough4872 summarized it very well. Including my opinion on the "never built" question. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Option 2 The concept of automatic notability – sources not required! – is not acceptable. With respect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European route E404, something that does not exist cannot be notable on the basis of being a road when it is not in fact a road. This must pass GNG for an article. Reywas92Talk 17:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Option 2, per Reywas92. Roads can easily be covered in other articles, they don't necessarily need standalone pages, and especially not when they were never even built in the first place. The drive to have an (overly-detailed) article for every road of X designation regardless of secondary independent significant coverage is incompatible with NOTDIRECTORY. JoelleJay (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Option 2, per Reywas92 and JoelleJay. BilledMammal (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been watching this slow-moving trainwreck from the sidelines for several months but I can stay silent no longer upon seeing this discussion. I just feel I have to get something off my chest before this whole thing ends with roads editors being driven off Wikipedia entirely, which appears to be the end goal of those on the more stringent side of this debate.

When I started editing Wikipedia in 2012, I was a bright-eyed high-schooler who truly believed in the Wikimedia vision. I did everything from content creation to anti-vandalism, even dipped my toes into a few other WMF sites. For a few years, this place was my life. I honestly believed I was meaningfully contributing to something much bigger than myself, and I cherished every moment of it, from the articles I wrote to the friends I made along the way—friends I still keep in touch with today and whose pursuits I have of my own accord kept tabs on throughout; I was not canvassed to this discussion and I actually imagine some of my friends may be upset with me for spouting this out.

What eventually drove me away was everything else: the labyrinth of bureaucracy, the needless red tape, the unending drama (ironic, I know). People whose main purpose seemed to be to tell other people what they couldn't do. People for whom positively contributing to the encyclopedia was secondary and preventing what they perceived as negative contributions was primary. I do not for the life of me understand these people. For some of them, I don't even think it's an inclusionist vs. deletionist thing; it's just people waking up and dedicating their free time to "Wiki-lawyering" subject matters on which they seem to have limited interest or knowledge, making the wide majority of their edits outside mainspace. They operate as if their actions are unimpeachable, casually stating their opinions as if they're facts backed up by the highest laws of the land. If other people in your circle show up to the discussion, they immediately accuse you of canvassing despite the base behavioral assumption on this website ostensibly being good faith. When you try to defend yourself against these obvious bad-faith accusations, you get told to assume good faith yourself. It's a joke, and avoiding this carnival is why I've stuck almost entirely to minor copyedits for the past half-decade.

So I ask these people: what exactly is your purpose? You can say you're just interpreting WP:NOT or any other policy, guideline, or even essay, but in the case of GEOROAD, it's been clear that different interpretations of these bylaws have been the consensus for eons, and the result has been a whole bunch of excellent content from highly skilled writers and researchers. What makes you now so intent on trying to change that consensus? On axing a veritably phenomenal resource on the history of North American transportation that's still getting better and growing each day, as it has been for the past 18 years? You really want to throw almost two decades of hard work (and the thriving community responsible for it) in the trash on some arbitrary technicality, the merits of which are dubious at best? For whom? For what?

On a site that was originally conceived of to be "the sum of all human knowledge", this nonsensical mindset boggles me to no end. More than that, the manner in which this metaphorical burning of the Alexandria Library is being carried out is shameful. It's just people roleplaying as politicians, redlining the USRD community with questionable authority and for utterly unknown reasons. If (and probably when) Option 2 earns the consensus in this discussion, I hope these people find what they're looking for. TCN7JM 21:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

In this topic area we also have a lot of low quality content from unskilled writers and researchers. Nobody is proposing that we throw the baby out with the bathwater unless I'm missing something. I don't see a rational basis for this hyperbolic rant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The basis is that you and a few other editors have been playing every card in your deck for months to try to make the community consensus that roads content does not belong on Wikipedia.
It's not just random stubs from outside the USA; it's well established articles from well established editors (even Featured Articles have become the subject of seemingly undue scrutiny), as well as other articles in the same secondary highway systems that people simply haven't gotten around to yet (this is allowed per NEXIST).
After several pointed XfDs, an RfC in which people tried to disqualify maps on the bogus basis of being primary sources, and this attempt to fundamentally rewrite the notability guideline at the core of the project, I don't think it's that far a leap to the conclusion that roads being cut from Wikipedia is the objective, especially given your insistence that subjects can be undeserving of articles despite passing all relevant notability guidelines.
To call me irrational and hyperbolic shows an astonishing lack of self-awareness. TCN7JM 20:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I don‘t think anybody here has the intention to remove all road articles from Wikipedia, and I cannot imagine how any change to this notability guideline would affect featured articles with their incredibly high sourcing standards. To the best of my knowledge, the coordination you are seeing behind this doesn‘t exist; this supposed feud significantly predates my activity on Wikipedia, for example. I‘m going to respond to the original comment later, but this reply does seem to be primarily hyperbole and unsubstantiated accusations of bad faith or ulterior motives. On the other hand, I understand that this is a highly sensitive topic, and I assume that your worries are not without basis. As I said, I‘ll address the top-level comment in due time. Thanks for your work and input. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 22:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The only possible way that this could effect featured articles is if there was some sort of mistake in the FA process (which happens, especially for FA and GA discussion pre-2015 or so, many of them just don't reflect modern FA and GA standards and their status as such is zombie not legitimate). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no coordinated effort to "remove all road articles". I don't believe a single editor wants that result, let alone an entire group coordinating off-wiki. With that said, there is a group with a secret strategy, coordinating off-wiki, to do the opposite. BilledMammal (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed... I believe I am the boogeyman of the year for the roads editors and even I don't think that more than 5% of roads articles need to be merged/deleted... The numbers probably closer to 2-3%... We're talking a tiny minority of state highways which are only state highways due to geographic, fiscal, and political peccadillos like South Dakota Highway 324. They should never have been created in the first place, if blame is to be placed it belongs with those who created articles for non-notable topics not the competent editors who noticed that the topics weren't notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think their comments are as personal as it might appear, and categorising yourself as a specific victim ("boogeyman") of deliberate attack is probably not a good strategy. It's natural, but these disputes are hardly personal matters, and they're usually not directed at any specific editor. It helps to remember that you're not attacking anyone specific; others aren't doing it (to you) either. Assuming that it's about myself, personally, almost never contributes to my wellbeing. So I assume the contrary. That assumption has been quite helpful for me :) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Its a little more complicated than that, rest assured there are a number of roads editors who see a cabal and me as some sort of ringleader. It hasn't been subtle and it hasn't been pleasant but it doesn't need to be re-litigated here. The core point that even those on the most extreme end of the "other side" from the legacy roads editors aren't actually arguing for large-scale changes let alone to purge all roads articles stands. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm certainly unaware of some of this history, and I don't mean to dismiss it or the effects it has had on people. But my point is: It's not about anyone as a person. I agree that this strawman that has been drawn up is an unconstructive way to argue at best. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 18:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
With all due respect, if you're self-admittedly unaware of the history of this feud, then perhaps it's not your place to comment on it. What's unconstructive is strongly insinuating that I am an unskilled writer in a public forum and calling another editor who's written multiple Featured Articles incompetent on his talk page. If Horse Eye's Back doesn't earn some sort of block for POINTy editing, violating NPA, or some other behavioral issue, then this site is truly broken beyond repair. I'm simply responding in kind, which is apparently allowed. TCN7JM 21:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I‘m not commenting on this feud, i.e. any past discussions that you or other editors here may have had. I gave my input on how I deal with disputes in general, and on your specific comment here in this section. You‘re right that I‘m in no position to make judgements about past disputes between editors on this matter, and I‘m not doing that.
I do agree that personal attacks (referring to specific editors as „unskilled“ or „incompetent“, for example) are not acceptable, nor constructive. But arguing against a strawman that represents none of the other people in the discussion is not constructive either. Both of those can be true at once. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 21:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like straight up harassment and hounding. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
No one is amused by this baseless accusation of yours. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 03:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Follow the link; you will see I present evidence. BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back Would you like to explain why you spent 45 minutes targeting articles specifically created by me to be tagged for notability immediately following this comment despite no consensus yet having been formed in this discussion? TCN7JM 17:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
This conversation has no bearing on whether those articles are notable or not. I clearly said we had a lot of low quality content from unskilled writers and researchers. You are now complaining about those low quality articles from unskilled writers and researchers being tagged. I also don't believe that all of the articles I've tagged are yours... If that is incorrect I apologize. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
How recently do you think I was born? TCN7JM 21:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd say 2000 or earlier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1, and I strongly object to not taking this question to RFC and changing the policy in a closed door manner. --Rschen7754 23:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    WP:RFCBEFORE requires that editors at least attempt to resolve issues / find consensus without an RfC. I don‘t think anyone had the intention of rewriting without RfC; that‘s precisely why I kept Option 2 so unspecific and unactionable. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 07:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
    WP:RFCBEFORE is a section on an information page; it is not a policy or guideline, and so cannot be said to require anything. Many Wikipedians may consider it to be good advice, but it is not a requirement. Donald Albury 14:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
    You‘re right, I should have said that differently. But it is the source of information that I used, and I don‘t appreciate that Rschen7754 assumed that my intention was to change a guideline without the due transparency. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 14:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1a - Being assigned into a system of national or sub-national routes usually does come with coverage if one looks in the right areas (and doesn't disregard maps, which are a valid source as determined in a lengthy RfC). Whether it was built or not doesn't matter; in many cases, the unbuilt road will have garnered far more press coverage because of protracted disputes. The wave of deletions and redirects that seem to outright ignore WP:NEXIST is deeply concerning. I fear that many "undesirable" subjects will continue to be culled until Wikipedia is nothing more than a collection of pop culture and news articles on top of a woefully undersized copy of Britannica. SounderBruce 07:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Passing a SNG or the GNG doesn't mean that a topic is automatically notable, consensus may still be that it should be deleted, merged, and/or redirected... That is a feature of wikipedia, not a bug. See WP:N "articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Also note that per that consensus while maps can be used as sources they in general don't count towards notability which is what you appear to be implying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The goalposts keep moving. Rschen7754 20:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
No, that's always been the case. An article which passes WP:GNG may yet fail WP:NOT. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to add that part of the reason notability is exclusively in guidelines is to allow for some additional flexibility in making deletion decisions based on notability. WP:DELREASON states that content "not suitable for an encyclopedia" can be deleted on those grounds alone, even if it is appropriate in other respects (like notability or BLP). Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 11:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Haven't moved anything. Those have been the goalposts my entire time on wikipedia, more likely you just never knew where the goalposts were. Ignorance on your part, not malice on my part. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
And I repeat, Beeching Axe, Great Purge and a toxic mentality of destroying the entire purpose of a public repository of various subjects for the sad and egotistically conceited purpose of becoming an Encyclopedia Britannica ripoff.— MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 01:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Please tone down the rhetoric, and keep Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions in mind. Remember, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Donald Albury 14:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This is not rhetoric. It's the truth. There is mass deletions snd attempts to purge the website of content. The Great Purge is a very real threat. And I attacked no individual personally in my statement, it was a generalized comment. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 00:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Article deletion does not equal "purging content". Content can exist in forms other than standalone articles. Wikipedia is also not a "public repository" of information, it is a curated summary of encyclopedic material. JoelleJay (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi @TCN7JM. First, I'd like to thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I sincerely hope that this discussion, whatever its outcome, does not drive you away from Wikipedia. Competent editors are the most valuable resource we have, and I'd never intentionally try to drive one away. If this discussion is discouraging to you, I hope that you stay around anyway.
I understand that past discussion on notability have been frustrating. AfD, notability, and deletion are notoriously touchy subjects; that much I know even from my somewhat brief tenure as an active editor. I hope this discussion goes better; I think we can all contribute to an environment where WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are upheld even when we are fiercely disagreeing on something.
Really, my original purpose was to see how much support GEOROAD currently has from the community. It was not to open old wounds, nor to bring about any specific outcome. I have my opinions, but those are only a small constituent part of broader consensus. I don't want to throw away decades of commendable work.
As for my opinions, I don't think permastubs along the lines of "Highway XYZ is a highway that goes from A to B." are particularly useful, nor are they the result of the hard work you want to protect. I don't think anyone in this discussion wants to remove all articles on roads, or anything remotely like that. I certainly don't. But it's good for Wikipedia when its core content policies are upheld, and notability is an important mechanism for upholding WP:V and WP:OR, amongst others. I hope that you understand where I'm coming from with that.
We'll see how the discussion goes. To me, it looks like there isn't widespread agreement on this guideline. But it shouldn't be substantially changed without an RfC, so if no consensus that GEOROAD is widely supported develops here, that'll be the next step. But I don't see this going as far as "Roads need to meet WP:GNG." That's not an outcome I'd hope for, anyways.
Thanks again for your hard work over the years. As I said, I hope you stick around, because Wikipedia needs people like you who write on topics outside the mainstream that are still immensely useful to readers. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it's important to have the historical context that the roads projects have had to have this fight over and over and over again and again and again, ever since 2005 since I first set foot on this website. If we didn't have to keep having this discussion at various forums every six months, we'd probably have half as many stubs, as recurrent existential crises are a rather large distraction to productive editing. That this conversation is occurring yet again right after recent mass-deletions/draftifications and notability limitations like the Olympian and area code discussions is bound to get everyone wound up. So you may have simply accidentally stumbled upon the worst possible time to ask this question. It happens...
I actually rely on these "Highway XYZ is a highway that goes from A to B" articles as an essential resource for my day job, since there's really no other easy way to look them up, short of poring over a map playing Where's Waldo to spot the highway you're interested in, or learning where fifty-plus different transportation agencies keep the raw data. (If it's even online in searchable form!) It's important enough to me that I've taken steps to ensure I have a copy of all of them in case they do get destroyed, but I really shouldn't have to be in the position of having to cross my fingers and hope Wikipedia doesn't decide it would rather slavishly follow some policy than do its job as a useful reference tool. I'm in the same boat as TCN7JM; if Wikipedia's road articles are curtailed to the extent that some people seem to be gunning for, my plan is to turn in my bit and ride off into the sunset, since there's really wouldn't be much for me here anymore. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
So you may have simply accidentally stumbled upon the worst possible time to ask this question. That indeed appears to be the case. I‘m here because from my (limited and recent) experience at AfD, there are both disagreements on interpretation of GEOROAD and a lot of people who say „well we have to accept that it‘s notable because of GEOROAD but I‘d really rather not.“ If nothing else, I hope this discussion yields an answer to the question on unbuilt roads.
There‘s a case to be made that those permastubs are useful in some cases, like yours. But they do need to be compatible with the core content policies, in my opinion. I don‘t intend to blindly enforce policy for its own sake, and IAR gives us all the leeway we need to deviate from policy when it makes Wikipedia better. So really, the question I was asking myself was whether or not the community supports such a derogation for road permastubs, because that‘s implied by this notability guideline.
Thanks for your input :) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 05:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
List articles are also great for containing articles about roads that are part of a larger network which would fall into permastub category. Often times the include vs remove debate ignores the fact not everything needs a stand-alone page, but that we should be trying to include as much information as possible about everything we can. SportingFlyer T·C 12:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
That's a really good point to remember during this discussion, thanks! Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The RFC is inadvertently structurally defective because the wording for option #1 has a very high bar ("reflects community consensus")/ poison pill instead of what it should have been which is that the status quo is simply preferred / better than option #2. Per my previous post, Dough4872's 00:04, 18 August 2023 post is same as my opinion and what I would have written myself. Which is option #1 but there's no way that any actionable result should come out of an RFC with the described issue. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC) Sincerely,

  • While I don't like how this is worded, I agree with the status quo, so Option 1b. I don't think GEOROAD covers unbuilt roads per se - considering the guideline's wording of "road network," a nonexistent road would not have ever been part of a physical road network. However, something like the Bay Freeway where there are dozens of sources because of the public opposition and lawsuits clearly meets the GNG and wouldn't be in question. --Sable232 (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - There simply is no such thing as automatic notability (which is what "typically notable" ends up being interpreted as). There is also no good reason for distinguishing between one type of road and another - they are all roads. This discussion about "unbuilt roads" is emblematic of the problem we create when we go down the road of saying some things just don't need to have any real sourcing at all - there's people on here who literally argue that "the road is a source". FOARP (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 As FOARP says, there is no automatic notability. Too many SNPs have been built on the assumption that enough reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability can be found for every item in a class, and interpreted to mean that there is no need to demonstrate notability before creating an article for any item in that class. The real world is not that neat, and we end up with articles for which notability cannot be established even after extensive searching for sources. Sometimes, we end up with thousands of articles in a class for which notability cannot be established. Beyond that, even if a item can be demonstrated to be notable, it may not need a stand-alone article, but more appropriately be included in an article of larger scope. - Donald Albury 13:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 — not a fan of the exact phrasing, but I do agree that it's not broken and doesn't need fixing. XOR'easter (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1b is how I read the guideline right now, same as Sable232. If a word tweak to make that more explicit is really needed, fine, but I don't have a fundamental problem with WP:GEOROAD as it stands. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_10&oldid=1191459268"