This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gavin.collins (talk | contribs) at 09:33, 1 November 2010 (→Neither cities nor 'bots are the real problem area.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:33, 1 November 2010 by Gavin.collins (talk | contribs) (→Neither cities nor 'bots are the real problem area.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
To discuss the notability imparted by specific sources, please go to Misplaced Pages:Notability/Noticeboard. See also: Misplaced Pages talk:Relevance (and archives) |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
Question about notability.
I have a rticle I'm interested in writing on a football team fan. He has been featured in news over the last ten years for being a tailgater and has even been featured on xome nfl films. I'm not familiar with how notability would work in this situation. Would like some feedback or a point to the correct venue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is precedent for such an article, see Fireman Ed. J04n(talk page) 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks I added Ken "Pinto Ron" Johnson Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Should the general notability guideline be used to support deletion?
I have written an essay that claims that using the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) to support deletion in an AfD is a logical error because the guideline creates a "presumption of notability," not a presumption of non-notability. Unless the guideline is rewritten, the general notability guideline should have no weight to support deletion, though satisfaction of the guideline's conditions may be used to support retention. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I would disagree with that. There are times when GNG supports deletion. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree as well. It's understanding that we delete topics that are not notable, and that for most topics, you must demonstrate it to be notable through the GNG; others can be met through the sub notability guidelines, and even in some cases, persuasive arguments at AFD without evidence can do it. But barring those two cases, people are going to evaluate an article by the GNG and that's going to guide notability. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree as well. It is not a logical fallacy to say that something that fails an inclusion guideline should not be included, nor it is fallacious to point to how a thing fails to satisfy an inclusion guideline in order to argue that it should not be included. I should write an essay on how everyone I've ever heard utter or seen write the phrase "logical fallacy" advances a specious argument. I would not, however, put it in the Misplaced Pages namespace: that would be a user essay. RJC Contribs 19:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're using hypertechnical nitpicking at language. Guidelines are not laws that must be "interpreted exactly as written", they describe practice. In practice, articles must pass the primary notability guideline (in addition to all other content policies). There are some mistakes made (Masem mentions two: thinking that passing a subguideline without passing the main allows an article, and the foot-stomping, bloc-voting, and yelling of "But we should keep it ANYWAY!"). But in practice, articles which do not pass the GNG are always ultimately cleaned up, be that by deletion, merger, what have you. I've seen obstructionist tactics delay that, but never stop it. Seraphimblade 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree as well. It is not a logical fallacy to say that something that fails an inclusion guideline should not be included, nor it is fallacious to point to how a thing fails to satisfy an inclusion guideline in order to argue that it should not be included. I should write an essay on how everyone I've ever heard utter or seen write the phrase "logical fallacy" advances a specious argument. I would not, however, put it in the Misplaced Pages namespace: that would be a user essay. RJC Contribs 19:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree as well. It's understanding that we delete topics that are not notable, and that for most topics, you must demonstrate it to be notable through the GNG; others can be met through the sub notability guidelines, and even in some cases, persuasive arguments at AFD without evidence can do it. But barring those two cases, people are going to evaluate an article by the GNG and that's going to guide notability. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- Many things are verifiable, but it is very doubtful some of them belong in an encyclopedia. Thousands of AFD results have removed articles about subjects which just do not satisfy the general notability guideline. The guideline should represent the consensus of the community, while being in accord with policies. Not everything that exists needs its own standalone encyclopedia article. We look for multiple instances of significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources. Not every person, place, thing, organization, or creative work is notable enough to have its own article. There is some presumption of notability for some people, such as politicians at a national or state assembly level, and in recent years high schools and legitimate colleges have in general been kept, even if nothing more than directory type information and local press coverage is found. Misplaced Pages has for some reason granted blanket notability to all inhabited places, even if it is a mere dot on a map and nothing at all is known about its population (sometimes a handful) history or features. There seem to be de facto notability for licensed radio broadcast stations which originate a portion of their own programming. Typically anyone who played even part of a game in the highest level of a professional sport gets an article, without requiring the GNG be satisfied with references. A particular church, local shopping mall, small bridge or elementary school might or might not be notable. The typical one gets redirected, deleted or merged. The proposed essay is unlikely to change any of this, unless many people read it, and it gets cited a lot as an essay in deletion debates. Edison (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask all of the commenters above: Why was the general notability guideline written in such a confusing fashion? Why didn't it just say something like "If a topic passes these tests it's presumed to be notable, but if it doesn't pass these tests it's presumed to be non-notable"? The WP writers are generally very good at expressing themselves. It's not convincing to me that on a guideline they would mean something other than the clear meaning of what they wrote. I have no problem with the interpretation above if it truly reflects consensus. However, nothing written so far convinces me that that's what occurred. Could someone point me to the discussion that resulted in the general notability guideline as presently written?
Notability is a very contentious issue. If the guideline doesn't represent actual practice, it would help everyone if the guideline were rewritten to match. — HowardBGolden (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect that you find the guideline confusing because actual practice is confusing. Misplaced Pages has always had those who hold an "inclusionist" viewpoint and those who have an "exclusionist" viewpoint (it is a debate that goes all the way back to the early days of Misplaced Pages). The GNG is an attempt to find a compromise between these two views. Neither side is completely happy with the result, but they can live with the compromise. Blueboar (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a binary, on-off kind of question. There are things that are notable, things that are not notable, and things that are in the large gray blur between the two.
- Additionally, some subjects are certainly notable, but are better handled as a subsection of a larger topic. For example, I'm sure we could find enough sources to support an article "Use of antibiotics in European chicken farming", but that information is probably better presented in the context of a larger subject, such as antibiotics, poultry farming, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The start of any discussion about Misplaced Pages's use of notability is to say it a term of art: It is a shorthand way to say important, significant, best, worst, first, last, greatest, least, ... etc. -enough to get a stand-alone entry in Misplaced Pages. There's some objective criteria for that, but not all the articles we want to include have criteria that can be measured on an objective scale, or numerically counted. Over time a proxy for subjective criteria was developed: look at the quality and quantity of independent coverage the topic gets, rather than having editors argue directly over the subjective merits for a topic's inclusion. The point about WP:GNG not being the final word, is that editors still get to argue directly over the subjective merits for a topic's inclusion, but demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject shifts the debate to one showing reasons for not including the article in spite of passing GNG. Logical or not, that is how presumption has been interpreted, and supported, by a consensus of people editing this guideline. patsw (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
What is the consensus on City articles?
What do the articles have to have to meet the requirements to be included in the encyclopedia? I have seen many articles of one line, plus an info box with a map of the general location. For example, like Monark Springs, Missouri? Any discussion on this would be helpful.--Talktome 16:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- It is a tentative consensus that any government-recognized settlement or larger should have an article, whether it meets the GNG immediately or not, due to the assumption that such places will have sources yet identified to expand them. See WP:OUTCOMES -- MASEM (t) 17:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
- A case of inherent notability (grumble, grumble, grumble... frown). I disagree with the consensus, but it is consensus. Blueboar (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Some background, years ago the bot approvers approved WP:BOTS that would (and continue to this day) to mine geographical and demographic data from government and authoritative non-government sources to create stand-alone articles. Click on Random article a few times and you are bound to encounter one of them. The de-facto guideline for gazetteer content in Misplaced Pages is that any place name or named geographic artifact referenced to a government or other authoritative source is a candidate stand-alone article. For a new place name article entered by a human editor, that editor should be able to find significant coverage in reliable sources such as local media, and a reference to a government source using this place name would be helpful if the article is to survive an Afd challenge. Going back and deciding which gazetteer content articles should be deleted is futile (other than hoaxes and errors), as a bot may come along and simply recreate it. One has to realize that the Misplaced Pages is an unfinished work -- the next visitor to the Monark Springs, Missouri article may want to improve it. patsw (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this is correct. Hopefully someday, we'll come around, and clean up there by putting the never-improvable articles into "List of inhabited places in (county or similar administrative division)" with bluelinks to the genuinely notable ones, but for now, that doesn't tend to happen. Right now, we seem to want a garbage article on every 10-person populated place with no more data possible than its name, location, and population. I think a conversation on what to do with those is long overdue, as I know I'm not the only person to see this as utterly ridiculous. Seraphimblade 11:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's why I called it tentative consensus. It's a holdover before WP:N that seems impossible to get rid of but one that, every time its tried, we can't do anything with because of the long-standing consensus. We can still be a gazetteer by using lists of these and have redirects so when people can expand them, its possible, but as we are not tolerant of such this for any other areas, we really need to start reconsidering that point. --MASEM (t) 12:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- If a bot is re-creating articles that have been deleted by the humans at AfD, then the bot needs to be either fixed or sent to the scrap heap. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's why I called it tentative consensus. It's a holdover before WP:N that seems impossible to get rid of but one that, every time its tried, we can't do anything with because of the long-standing consensus. We can still be a gazetteer by using lists of these and have redirects so when people can expand them, its possible, but as we are not tolerant of such this for any other areas, we really need to start reconsidering that point. --MASEM (t) 12:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note for the record, that no one has suggested that minor (unofficial) villages (or other "places") that are not government entities, be included without notability. Student7 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- True enough, but not really solving the problem. The problematic articles generally are "census-designated places" or the equivalent in their country. They're still largely permastubs, and still need cleaned up. Seraphimblade 22:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Note for the record, that no one has suggested that minor (unofficial) villages (or other "places") that are not government entities, be included without notability. Student7 (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Reference added, i'm such a jerk like that. :P Anyways, the consensus is that, any place that is designated of a certain size and recognized by a government will, almost unfailingly, have enough references that can be found somewhere that will allow the article to be improved to at least Start class. Thus, these stub articles are made so that someone can come along later and improve them with the sources that are assumed to be out there. Thus, a list would be a bit redundant, beyond the city lists that already exist, since all cities and towns are assumed notable. Silverseren 22:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes the assumption is that sources exist "out there somewhere" ... even though that assumption is not always accurate. The problem is that it is all but impossible to disprove such assumptions. And so we end up with permastubs that no one will ever be able to improve. Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- We used to make that assumption for schools, too. The problem there is the same as the one here—often, in practice, little more than directory-style information exists, especially about smaller places. We're never going to fail to find sources about Denver, Colorado, or even Sequim, Washington, but for tiny places with only a few people, no sources may realistically exist. Seraphimblade 23:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is perfectly clear that sources do exist if you get off the internet and go looking in libraries and archives. I also think that there is no problem with stubs on places. Readers want to go direct to the place, not to a list, and the information in the stub may be all they want. I would also suggest that if you go away from refined policy/guidelines places like this talk page, which I rarely frequent, you will find that a majority of editors agree with me. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Reply to both: I don't know, I would say that you could give me almost any recognized town and I would be able to find something for it, at minimum. It's only in very, very rare instances that there is nothing to find. That is why consensus is as it is. For almost every single case, it has been proven that there is indeed something to find and add. Though I would consider schools to be much harder to ref, info-wise, than entire towns, even if they are towns with only a dozen people. Silverseren 00:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't disagree... a lot of the time a source does exist. My gripe is that when people have gone to the library etc. and still can not find sources... the article is kept on the assumption that you simply didn't look hard enough. There does need to be a point where we say, "You know... maybe we were wrong on this one". Blueboar (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- That would be a situation where consensus is made that enough searching has been done, nothing has been found, and thus the article should be redirected to a list that will include it. That does happen, don't doubt that. It just happens rarely, because sources are usually found. What do you think of what i've done with Monark Springs, Missouri? Good, neh? Silverseren 01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I have found that too often the consensus isn't that enough searching is has been done... because a source has to exist... it just has to! and any AfD gets flooded with "sources exist (because I assume they must)" keep votes. BTW... I am making a general gripe about "inherited notability"... and not focusing on any one topic area. I jsut needed to vent my frustration for a second. Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since I live in New York, on occasion I have tried to get a reference for a biographical or organization article by visiting a NYPL reference library and not been able to find a reference. I add a note to the talk page that an unsuccessful attempt was made. I'm not claiming that I'm the final word on matters like this, but at least it forestalls the "nobody has bothered to look" argument. patsw (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think we are stuck on "census designated places" in the US. Can't comment on equivalents elsewhere. CDPs were often dumped out by bots into articles from data. They have at least one ref: the government. I was not aware that CDPs were lightly constructed by the government, though I suppose head counts could get real meager in the boonies, like Wyoming or Alaska or someplace like that.
- I assume that editors have already tried Afds on these non-CDP places. Student7 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of an article on a non-CDP place? Silverseren 14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Chinatown, Manhattan patsw (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- NoHo is a more marginal example. A city is notable only if it has been the subject of significant coverage, and census data alone does not provide evidence of notability. Simply assuming all settlements to be notable is too broad an approach to follow, since Misplaced Pages is based on verfiable evidence of notability, rather than hearsay. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- No, WP is based on what consensus wants, which is why this settlement arguments are often kept. The question we should be asking, however, is if notability is now a significant part of consensus as to challenge the long-standing consensus that settlement articles are by default kept. The fact that this keeps coming up suggests that either the long-standing position is no longer applicable, or that there is another reason that we keep these that is otherwise understated, needs to be made. --MASEM (t) 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- NoHo is a more marginal example. A city is notable only if it has been the subject of significant coverage, and census data alone does not provide evidence of notability. Simply assuming all settlements to be notable is too broad an approach to follow, since Misplaced Pages is based on verfiable evidence of notability, rather than hearsay. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Chinatown, Manhattan patsw (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of an article on a non-CDP place? Silverseren 14:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Since I live in New York, on occasion I have tried to get a reference for a biographical or organization article by visiting a NYPL reference library and not been able to find a reference. I add a note to the talk page that an unsuccessful attempt was made. I'm not claiming that I'm the final word on matters like this, but at least it forestalls the "nobody has bothered to look" argument. patsw (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, but I have found that too often the consensus isn't that enough searching is has been done... because a source has to exist... it just has to! and any AfD gets flooded with "sources exist (because I assume they must)" keep votes. BTW... I am making a general gripe about "inherited notability"... and not focusing on any one topic area. I jsut needed to vent my frustration for a second. Blueboar (talk) 01:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, what I meant by my question above was, can you give me an example of a non-CDP article that is non-notable? Both Chinatown and NoHo are clearly notable. Since the long-standing consensus is that it is extremely rare to find a place article that can't be referenced, if you're going to overturn that, then you need to prove that there are a number of place articles that are truly non-notable. If you can't do that, then you don't really have an argument against the long-standing consensus. Silverseren 22:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really see the problem as non-CDP places that are non-notable, as those are often removed anyway. The real problem is the places which are CDP (or the equivalent in their jurisdiction) but are still non-notable, i.e., we can find little or nothing more than directory information for them. If you want to find several of those, hit "random article" several times, and chances are you'll hit at least one. Seraphimblade 22:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, i'd like to ask you to find me one, because long-standing consensus seems to be that it is unlikely that you are going to find a non-notable article, CDP or non-CDP. Silverseren 00:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't really see the problem as non-CDP places that are non-notable, as those are often removed anyway. The real problem is the places which are CDP (or the equivalent in their jurisdiction) but are still non-notable, i.e., we can find little or nothing more than directory information for them. If you want to find several of those, hit "random article" several times, and chances are you'll hit at least one. Seraphimblade 22:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Please avoid a circular definition of "notable" here. patsw (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- WP:DIRECTORY is now a redirect to WP:Quick directory. I believe you meant WP:NOTDIRECTORY and none of the seven sections there is applicable to geographic information. patsw (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I did indeed mean WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and thanks for reminding me that one doesn't go where one would think. I do, however, in addition to thinking the spirit of "not being a directory" applies here, think that as far as the "letter" goes, points 4 and 7 at NOTDIRECTORY are quite applicable. I think the spirit of Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information also applies here (I'm not sure what better definition you get of "indiscriminate" than "having a bot mass create articles"), and certainly the guideline whose talk page we're talking on applies, since despite frequent assertions, I still don't see any indicator of notability for these places. But, since Silver seren has requested to put up or shut up, and that's a reasonable enough request, here's a list of places I challenge you to find me substantive sourcing for. Not just coordinates and population and verification that they exist, but enough to write a full article, not a permastub. I'm finding these through using random article, so they're in no particular order. (The fact that one can quickly find these through random article should show you what percentage of our namespace these bot stubs are taking up.) Seraphimblade 12:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
List of articles I challenge people to find sufficient reliable, third-party (unaffiliated with the place!) sourcing for a real, full article for. I'm not even selecting these based on not being able to find sources, they're just the first unreferenced or primary only referenced articles I've run across on a random article walk, so if sources really are so readily and obviously available for every government-recognized inhabited place as proponents of "Keep all places!" propose they are, showing that sources exist for all these places should be a breeze.
- Koituiy
- Tõdu
- Trégourez
- Jazdowice
- Marilla Township, Michigan (being slightly longer and largely primary only does not notability make, nor does demographic data in prose a non-directory entry make!)
So, there are five random place articles, currently either unsourced or largely or solely based upon primary sources, and illustrative of the problem. Since sources are so clearly and obviously available for every government-recognized inhabited place in the world, though, I'm going to quickly be proven wrong, and soon you'll be showing me showing me those substantive sources that do more than mention these places and give a few bare details about them—right? Seraphimblade 12:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- It's even worse :-) As far as I can tell, Koituiy and Kaitui are actually two very similar stubs about the same place (also called Kaituiy sometimes). Kaitui has a secondary school, an a road accident killing 13 or 14 people happened there. About 5,000 people live there, so it's not really small, but one article will certainly be enough for it... Tõdu could better be merged to the parish, Trégourez I can see surviving as an article (it has some monuments and the like, and about 1000 inhabitants), Jazdowice could better be merged to a regional article, and Marilla Township seems to have a few pages here. Fram (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Koituiy and Kaitui may be a problem, but I do not agree with any of these suggested merges. These articles are just what readers want about a place. Place articles do not have to be lo be long or even "start". The lowly stub is still of value. We should not always say that stubs have to be expanded or merged. Short articles are good things for some items and small places is one of them. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I initially agreed with the assement, but I went through and started looking up towns I consider insignificant that I grew up near. Surprisingly, there are referenced articles for them, and I learned some interesting history. I would vote "keep" on Marilla Township, Michigan. For the rest, they'll be harder to source. For example, if Kenya doesn't have widespread internet access, resources about towns in Kenya may not be online, and those that are may not be in English. Denaar (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
What are the definitions of source and notable that apply to this challenge? patsw (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's an example of a populated-place article that I successfully deleted through a WP:PROD: King Arthur Court, Tennessee. This was an article that was created on the basis of a "populated place" entry in the U.S. Geographic Names Information System, which listing could be considered a form of government recognition. I researched the place and determined that King Arthur Court is the name of a small residential subdivision -- a nonnotable place that doesn't even have a history (being fairly new). Odd as it may seem, if this had been a tiny rural settlement or a settlement that no longer exists but has a documented history (there are many of these in my local area, such as Wheat, Tennessee, Fraterville, Tennessee, Loyston, Tennessee, Forbus, Tennessee, and Fork Mountain, Tennessee), I probably would argue to keep the article, with or without evidence of government recognition. --Orlady (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Orlady on the delete, and the keeps! There are a number of cities that document "neighborhoods", but these neighborhoods are quite large, recognizable and not sub-division "pushing" (and sometimes CDPs in their own right).Student7 (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- In reply to patsw, the definition of "source" is a reliable source as defined at the relevant guideline—a source provided by an entity which is well regarded for fact checking and accuracy. The definition of notability is as defined in this guideline itself—multiple such reliable sources which are unaffiliated with the subject have covered the subject in sufficient depth that a full and complete article (not just a stub) can be written based upon such source material. Primary or affiliated source material may be used as a supplement, but not the main or sole basis of the article, as described at the requirements for verifiability. Seraphimblade 02:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- i fail to see the urgency. it's not like a town will sue for defamation. this is a subset of the larger problem of Category:Articles lacking sources: only 278,000 articles. instituting references was a good thing; not implementing article sourcing is a bad thing. do you want to institute a project to source unreferenced geo articles? i'm chipping away a little at it, but it's hard for me to get excited. Accotink2 talk 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know where you got the idea of a suit for defamation, as you're the only one who brought that up. Sources are required for verifiability, not just when there's a chance someone will sue. As to the town articles, I've no problem with any article for which substantive sourcing can be demonstrated. The problem I'm finding is that for many of these "geo articles", very little sourcing seems to even exist. The first is just a need for work, but the second reflects an unsustainable, inappropriate article. Seraphimblade 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- i brought up defamation, since that is the excuse at BLP to delete articles without sources. the lawyers are active writing OTRS tickets, and making a fuss when false info remains on a persons bio. i take it few places have threatened suit, or made copyright DMCA notice. rather than make claims about the unknown, based on impressions of articles i have encountered, i would rather institute article sourcing, fixing the problem.Accotink2 talk 17:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, WP:V only requires citations if one of two conditions are met:
- The article contains a direct quotation, or
- The article contains material that has been challenged (e.g., fact tags present), or is WP:likely to be challenged.
- If neither of those two conditions are relevant, then an article can be completely unref'd and still technically comply with WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure which version of WP:V you're reading, but that's not what it says. All material must be attributable to a reliable source, without exception. An actual cite is only required if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, but there has to be a source out there that does confirm what you're saying, even if it seems "obvious" or "plain". But everything must be backed up by what reliable sources have to say, even if in some cases ("The Earth orbits the Sun") it isn't actually necessary to specifically site a particular source. There are tons of sources that say the Earth orbits the Sun. Seraphimblade 04:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- You can pick just about any version over the last few years. While it must be possible for all the material to be verified (in some source, somewhere, some language, etc.), WP:V doesn't actually require editors to name a single citation anywhere in any article, or even to know which specific source supports a claim, unless and until one of those two conditions are met. If there are no direct quotations and no challenges, then WP:V does not require editors to name any sources at all in the article, even if the material is decidedly more complex than "The Earth orbits the Sun".
(NB that I'm not actually recommending that editors follow this, ah, extremely minimalist approach, but only saying that the minimum requirements set forth by the policy are actually quite low.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade is right. You're not reading. Our verifiability and deletion policies have for many years required the existence of sources, cited or not. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I am confused by this conversation. I say, WP:V doesn't require editors to cite any sources at all (unless one of the two stated conditions are met) (although the sources must exist, they need not be named). You say, You're wrong, because WP:V doesn't require editors to cite any sources at all (although the sources must exist)! Where exactly are we disagreeing? Aren't we both saying that it is possible for a completely unref'd article to be in compliance with WP:V (assuming the absence of direct quotations and challenges)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade is right. You're not reading. Our verifiability and deletion policies have for many years required the existence of sources, cited or not. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- You can pick just about any version over the last few years. While it must be possible for all the material to be verified (in some source, somewhere, some language, etc.), WP:V doesn't actually require editors to name a single citation anywhere in any article, or even to know which specific source supports a claim, unless and until one of those two conditions are met. If there are no direct quotations and no challenges, then WP:V does not require editors to name any sources at all in the article, even if the material is decidedly more complex than "The Earth orbits the Sun".
- I'm not sure which version of WP:V you're reading, but that's not what it says. All material must be attributable to a reliable source, without exception. An actual cite is only required if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, but there has to be a source out there that does confirm what you're saying, even if it seems "obvious" or "plain". But everything must be backed up by what reliable sources have to say, even if in some cases ("The Earth orbits the Sun") it isn't actually necessary to specifically site a particular source. There are tons of sources that say the Earth orbits the Sun. Seraphimblade 04:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know where you got the idea of a suit for defamation, as you're the only one who brought that up. Sources are required for verifiability, not just when there's a chance someone will sue. As to the town articles, I've no problem with any article for which substantive sourcing can be demonstrated. The problem I'm finding is that for many of these "geo articles", very little sourcing seems to even exist. The first is just a need for work, but the second reflects an unsustainable, inappropriate article. Seraphimblade 03:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- i fail to see the urgency. it's not like a town will sue for defamation. this is a subset of the larger problem of Category:Articles lacking sources: only 278,000 articles. instituting references was a good thing; not implementing article sourcing is a bad thing. do you want to institute a project to source unreferenced geo articles? i'm chipping away a little at it, but it's hard for me to get excited. Accotink2 talk 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
(Came here following a note left on my talk page; presumably because I ran the bot that created the Polish village articles.) In terms of being the world's best information source, Misplaced Pages certainly wants to have information on as many places as possible, however tiny or distant from America's east coast they may happen to be, as long as they're not entirely imaginary. The question is at what level we should create separate articles for them, and when we should deal with a set of places within a single article. I certainly think we should take a long-term view, and keep articles in stub form if there's a realistic chance that they will be expanded sometime in the future, probably by someone with access to local resources - this not only makes the encyclopedia better, but also surely brings a lot of new editors to Misplaced Pages. Experience seems to tell us that any settlement of any size beyond just a couple of houses will have a history and other sourceable information - somewhere - to make a worthwhile article. However, there are certainly also cases where a place that's been given a separate article is really not going anywhere and can be best dealt with together with other locations (particularly when it's effectively been absorbed into a larger unit, or when it really is just a house and a gas station). This sort of merger is best handled by people with local knowledge, and I'm sure there are many cases on Misplaced Pages where it would be a good step to take; one thing we ought to sort out, though, is how to handle coordinates, as there are applications that create atlases out of the coordinates we provide for articles, and if we're going to start merging more places, then we need to establish a way of defining multiple coordinates (for different named places) within a single article, and then allow the applications to be adapted to support this. (Unless such a method already exists and I don't know about it, which is quite possible.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and a PS - I really think this is a different issue from that of "notability" as it applies to, say, people - when we decide a person is not notable, we're basically (in most cases) saying we don't have any use for any biographical information about that person, anywhere. With places, the question is not so much whether it's notable enough to be mentioned, but whether the information about it is more conveniently presented in a separate article or as part of a larger article.--Kotniski (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be of any use, technically, if we merged/redirected small places to a larger unit (e.g. for Belgium many current submunicipalities are merged into the main municipality article, even when they were independent municipalities themselves until thirty years ago), but kept the coordinates on the redirect? Fram (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- What is the point of dumping non-notable locations into lists? If a city is not the subject of significant coverage, that is an indication that it is not really suited for a standalone article. Putting a non-notable city into a list with other cities that are not suited to a standalone article does not improve matters either.
Essentially we are coming full circle to the issue of whether Misplaced Pages is an almanac of all stuff, or just notable topics. Lists of non-notable cities provide less context to the reader than a map, so why create them? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Merging and redirecting a location to an article about a larger location is not "dumping into a list". A cty like Geraardsbergen is composed of Geraardsbergen, and a number of smaller villages around it. As long as not enough info is found about Goeferdinge, redirectig it to the main article is a normal procedure. Not mentioning Goeferdinge at the article Geraardsbergen would be a serious lack of information, and not redirecting it wouldn't help anyone. Basically, you are complaining about a solution no one has proposed. Fram (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think your view that "redirecting it to the main article is normal procedure" is dependent on the level of significant coverage afforded to a settlement. We know that Misplaced Pages is a not a directory of every village in the world; rather it provides encylopedic coverage about a settlement if there are sources to provide context (commentary, analysis or criticism) to the reader. Redirects don't provide context, so I don't see what useful purpose a redirect could serve. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Redirects don't provide context? Imagine you come across a souce like this one, and want to know more about the villages mentioned. With a redirect, you can easily find that Goeferdinge is a part of Geraardsbergen, and get the general location and so on of it. For a town that may not warrant a separate article, or doesn't yet have one, this is sufficient context and a useful purpose. Even better would be if Geraardsbergen had short sections on the dependent villages, discussing e.g. the castle and church of Goeferdinge, as described here. In general, if a settlement has some longevity, is included in censuses and the like, is regularly mentioned in sources, ... then redirecting it is the perfect solution if there isn't enough for a decent stand-alone article. Only for settlements that are nothing but a speck on one map may redirects be overkill. Fram (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, certainly there should be redirects (or dab entries, as appropriate) from any placenames that are dealt with within larger articles. It doesn't matter whether something has had "significant coverage", just that we know it really is there. No purpose is served by making it harder for people to find the information we provide (or by not providing information just because it doesn't fall into the categories of analysis or criticism).--Kotniski (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree as well. Quite often, subjects which are not notable in themselves, but are covered in a larger article on a notable subject, are redirected to the article where they're mentioned. I fail to see the harm in that. Seraphimblade 10:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think your view that "redirecting it to the main article is normal procedure" is dependent on the level of significant coverage afforded to a settlement. We know that Misplaced Pages is a not a directory of every village in the world; rather it provides encylopedic coverage about a settlement if there are sources to provide context (commentary, analysis or criticism) to the reader. Redirects don't provide context, so I don't see what useful purpose a redirect could serve. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Merging and redirecting a location to an article about a larger location is not "dumping into a list". A cty like Geraardsbergen is composed of Geraardsbergen, and a number of smaller villages around it. As long as not enough info is found about Goeferdinge, redirectig it to the main article is a normal procedure. Not mentioning Goeferdinge at the article Geraardsbergen would be a serious lack of information, and not redirecting it wouldn't help anyone. Basically, you are complaining about a solution no one has proposed. Fram (talk) 08:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- What is the point of dumping non-notable locations into lists? If a city is not the subject of significant coverage, that is an indication that it is not really suited for a standalone article. Putting a non-notable city into a list with other cities that are not suited to a standalone article does not improve matters either.
Neither cities nor 'bots are the real problem area.
The history given by patsw above is correct up to a point. But note that it does not apply to Monark Springs, Missouri, which is not a Rambot-generated article. You can tell the Rambot-generated ones. They weren't created in 2006. ☺
All of the Rambot articles contained several paragraphs. They weren't one-sentence stubs. They also (apart from some very early ones) cited a source right from the start. If you rewind to the early revisions, it won't be recognizable to modern Wikipedian eyes. But we didn't have the citation templates then that we do now. (In fact, many old revisions of articles have illegible or invisible citations, because we've since deleted the old citation templates that we once had.) Several later 'bot runs were related to tweaking the citation as standards and mechanisms changed. Huntsville, Alabama is an example of an early article, created by Ram-Man directly, as is Montgomery, Alabama. Citation changing edits looked like this, and other improvements were subsequent passes like these.
We've discussed Rambot-like runs for other countries over the years. Fortunately, Rambot set a high standard. People have maintained that the good things about it were that it provided more than just a bare-infobox article with no prose, and that it worked from and cited reliable sources.
The problematic articles haven't been the cities. You're looking at the wrong things. Cities usually are documented by governments, historians, (human) geographers, planners, and the like. The problematic articles have been the neighbourhoods, the subdivisions, the areas known only in estate agent speak, and the roads and streets.
One current problem article, demonstrating how the populated place doctrine is sometimes stretched by complete misinterpretation of sources, is Grove Avenue, London (AfD discussion). I've been following the AFD discussion. The article started badly, with outright falsehoods, and it didn't really get better as people stuffed in random factoids that Google searches said were vagely related to the subject. In fact, the subject is an utterly unremarkable, and unremarked-upon, minor suburban backstreet. Bigger digger has let the cat out of the bag somewhat, after I teased xem at User talk:DGG, but at User:Uncle G/Missing encyclopaedic articles I pointed out how I knew that no-one, partway through the discussion, had actually properly read the sources that they were citing. It hadn't been noticed, for example, that one of the supporting sources was (a) published years before these roads even existed at all, and (b) written by the erstwhile owner, Sir Montagu Sharpe, of Hanwell Park (see this and this and this), which is a historical subject where a minor coincidental street that is but one part of a housing development — one of several to exist where the encyclopaedic, documented and remarked-upon, subjects once were — is not.
Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Cities usually are documented, but not always, and this is the problem. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Some governments periodically restructure administrative units for efficiency so that towns that were in X, are now in Y. Misplaced Pages must certainly track these changes. Having said that, there is no reason for the encyclopedia to lose a town article simply because of an administrative change at the national level. There may be a shortage of editors forcing articles in certain places to do "double duty," but once identified and an article constructed, I would hope that we would not "lose" towns. They may be "out of sight" at a national level for political reasons, but we don't have to misplace them here. Student7 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- If an permastub offers less information than a dot on a map, then there is no rationale for inclusion. The purpose of an encyclopedia is that it offers the reader with not just information, but context (i.e. commentary, criticism, and analysis) as well. The guidelines are clear: if a settlement is not notable, then Misplaced Pages does not need to have an article about it at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Some governments periodically restructure administrative units for efficiency so that towns that were in X, are now in Y. Misplaced Pages must certainly track these changes. Having said that, there is no reason for the encyclopedia to lose a town article simply because of an administrative change at the national level. There may be a shortage of editors forcing articles in certain places to do "double duty," but once identified and an article constructed, I would hope that we would not "lose" towns. They may be "out of sight" at a national level for political reasons, but we don't have to misplace them here. Student7 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
When it comes to gazetteer content, hoaxes and errors are the only problems
Place names and population center articles should not require significant coverage by multiple independent sources. The BLP problem and the image permission problem are exposures to Misplaced Pages's liability and reputation. The low barrier to inclusion for gazetter content as stand-alone articles -- namely, verification in a government or other authoritative source is good for the Misplaced Pages. I think suggestions that eliminate hoaxes and errors are good. Raising the content bar for short but accurate and verifiable gazetteer content articles to require significant coverage by multiple independent sources, is a pretext for thousands of unnecessary and unwanted deletions. patsw (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not deletions, but mergers and redirects. I don't think that apart from Gavin Collins, anyone thinks that outright deletion is the best solution. Fram (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly, there's absolutely no reason why we cannot place places that only have gazetteer-like content (location and population) into a larger series of tables with redirects and the like so that 1) we actually have tables of the type that appear in gazetteers for all cities/settlements whether they have an article or not and 2) that if there actually is enough about a settlement that appears later, we can replace the redirect with that additional information. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I could support a guideline along those lines, if
- there was consensus that this would apply to both bot- and human- created content.
- this would not become a justification for mass deletions.
- it would be explicit in each list-style article that expansion of an entry in it into an stand-alone article would be encouraged with verifiable information from a reliable source.
- we evaluate what this does to the usability of Misplaced Pages for non-experts, and what the search engine impact will be. patsw (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I could support a guideline along those lines, if
- Exactly, there's absolutely no reason why we cannot place places that only have gazetteer-like content (location and population) into a larger series of tables with redirects and the like so that 1) we actually have tables of the type that appear in gazetteers for all cities/settlements whether they have an article or not and 2) that if there actually is enough about a settlement that appears later, we can replace the redirect with that additional information. --MASEM (t) 13:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a directory of locations. We have discussed this issue before regarding Current practice, and simply put, Misplaced Pages can't work as a travel guide. Places have to be notable to get their own standalone pages, because Misplaced Pages is about encyclopedic articles, not lists of statistics and map co-ordinates. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Not sure I follow - travel guides aren't lists of statistics and coordinates. But there's plenty of room for all these types of information in Misplaced Pages - it's just a question of how to present it. I don't think we should be collasping articles into lists purely because there's little information in them at the moment - we should also have a pretty good idea that the places are of a type which typically won't generate enough information for an article even in the long term. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, and stub articles on viable topics (not only places) encourage that progress. --Kotniski (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Place names and population center articles should not require significant coverage by multiple independent sources. I agree as to "multiple sources"... but they should have significant coverage by at least one independent source. That is a bare minimum for all articles ... it's how we know the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, yes and no... it's how we've chosen to define notability, but in many cases, we "know" that things are notable purely on the basis of being reliably informed as to what those things are (that they belong to categories of things that generally turn out to be notable).--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I also think we should strongly discourage further bot created articles. They seem to create nothing but problems. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Huh???? They create articles, which is how Misplaced Pages grows. The average bot-created article probably creates far fewer problems than the average human-created article.--Kotniski (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Place names and population center articles should not require significant coverage by multiple independent sources. I agree as to "multiple sources"... but they should have significant coverage by at least one independent source. That is a bare minimum for all articles ... it's how we know the topic is notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- It serves no useful purpose. I don't think we want bots creating thousands of useless redirects is the issue here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of a useless redirect that a bot has created?--Kotniski (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Redirects are absolutely necessary if we are going to trim down barely-referenced geographical locations. Per one of Patsw's concerns, even if we don't have an article on it, every verifiable populated settlement should be searchable through WP's engine landing the person on the larger topic or list if there's no article for it (barring misspellings and the like). Redirects are free and cheap, allow us to retain past editing history of these articles should they be replaced that way, and allow for the article to be recreated from the history without help of an admin. Using redirects must be a bare minimum standard before we even talk about removing these articles otherwise. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bots are great for generating indiscriminate information... but Misplaced Pages is not a collection of indiscriminate information. A bot can compile coverage... but it can not determine whether coverage is "significant"... a bot can identify a name... but not tell if there are alternate names, or which of those alternative names is the best choice to use as the title of the article. You need humans to do all this. Writing articles ... and, perhaps more importantly, determining whether an article should be written in the first place requires human decision making. Yes, bot-created articles can make Misplaced Pages grow... but do they make it grow in the direction we want it to grow? "Growth" for its own sake is not in the best interest of the project. Do we really want Misplaced Pages to be filled with thousands of permastubs. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, something's only a permastub if it really is on a topic that nothing can be said about. If it's on a topic that belongs to a category of things that typically can be written about, then it's not a permastub, because one day ("there is no deadline") someone will come along and write about it. So certainly bots need to operate sensibly, based on reliable input data, and people can certainly make manual improvements to what they do (e.g. "I know that these two officially separate villages really make up one larger unit, so I can merge them and write an article about the two together"), but I see no evidence that the use of automated processes to create some categories of articles causes any dire problems - it simply saves time for the person doing it, allowing them to spend more time on the things that can only be done manually.--Kotniski (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- If a permastub really is on a topic that nothing can be said about, then I don't think there is any rationale for perma-redirects either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is a huge gap better a topic where there is absolutely zero to talk about it, and a topic where only one sentence could be written about it. The latter at least can be incorporated into some larger topic and thus making the redirect a valuable addition. We're talking articles that fit within this category as opposed to ones with zero information completely. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we are going to resolve philosophical question on whether bots should be writing articles any time soon... instead we should focus on the problems already caused by bots writing articles on places (ie the need to evaluate any bot created articles and see which ones need to be merged/redirected into other articles, etc.) Sadly, that is something that only a human can do. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know why you're talking so negatively - is there really a problem here? All stubs, whether created manually or using bots, can by definition be improved in many different ways. That doesn't make them a "problem", more of an opportunity. Nothing "needs" to be merged, in the sense that any great harm is being done by it not being merged; appropriate merging is just one of the ways that some articles (whether bot or manual creations) might be improved. I really don't see what purpose is behind all this fuss. --Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we are going to resolve philosophical question on whether bots should be writing articles any time soon... instead we should focus on the problems already caused by bots writing articles on places (ie the need to evaluate any bot created articles and see which ones need to be merged/redirected into other articles, etc.) Sadly, that is something that only a human can do. Blueboar (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is a huge gap better a topic where there is absolutely zero to talk about it, and a topic where only one sentence could be written about it. The latter at least can be incorporated into some larger topic and thus making the redirect a valuable addition. We're talking articles that fit within this category as opposed to ones with zero information completely. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- If a permastub really is on a topic that nothing can be said about, then I don't think there is any rationale for perma-redirects either. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 17:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, something's only a permastub if it really is on a topic that nothing can be said about. If it's on a topic that belongs to a category of things that typically can be written about, then it's not a permastub, because one day ("there is no deadline") someone will come along and write about it. So certainly bots need to operate sensibly, based on reliable input data, and people can certainly make manual improvements to what they do (e.g. "I know that these two officially separate villages really make up one larger unit, so I can merge them and write an article about the two together"), but I see no evidence that the use of automated processes to create some categories of articles causes any dire problems - it simply saves time for the person doing it, allowing them to spend more time on the things that can only be done manually.--Kotniski (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bots are great for generating indiscriminate information... but Misplaced Pages is not a collection of indiscriminate information. A bot can compile coverage... but it can not determine whether coverage is "significant"... a bot can identify a name... but not tell if there are alternate names, or which of those alternative names is the best choice to use as the title of the article. You need humans to do all this. Writing articles ... and, perhaps more importantly, determining whether an article should be written in the first place requires human decision making. Yes, bot-created articles can make Misplaced Pages grow... but do they make it grow in the direction we want it to grow? "Growth" for its own sake is not in the best interest of the project. Do we really want Misplaced Pages to be filled with thousands of permastubs. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- It serves no useful purpose. I don't think we want bots creating thousands of useless redirects is the issue here. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I have followed this discussion for a while and am not quite clear on what the major points of contention are. That said, place name articles (Gazetteer stuff), whether they are stubs or not are appropriate for WP. As a avid reader of western U.S. history, especially late 19th and early 20th local and regional histories, I have come to the conclusion that just about any named place is mentioned in reliable sources of some sort. A great many towns are discussed in some fashion in local and regional histories. For any named place, it is highly unlikely that the only reliable source that mentions the place is an online geographic database. Of course the trouble is finding those sources. It is always disturbing to me to read: I searched for Bob City, Kansas in Google and got no hits, therefore it’s not notable when logically, since its (hypothetically) existed for 100 years, somebody has probably written about it. Indeed we have to find those sources, but deleting place name articles because there are no internet hits should be discouraged. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely agree with that, particularly since it would create a huge systemic bias towards the more Web-developed countries.--Kotniski (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is inherently notable, and nothing should get a free pass for inclusion. Bot-generated geographic articles should never have been permitted earlier, and should never be permitted to operate again. There should only be articles about geographic places that meet our normal standards for inclusion: significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Atlases and censuses, being efforts to accumulate information about every item in a class, do not contribute to notability.—Kww(talk) 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
How is this discussion productive?
It's just a rehash of a discussion that has been done a hundred times. And every single time, the community has said that, per Misplaced Pages being a gazetteer in the five pillars, the addition of all places as stubs is beneficial, as information on every town exists somewhere, so there is no such thing as a non-notable place. Please also note that WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not cover articles on towns. The closest things that would fit is "Excessive listing of statistics", which towns really don't, since the infobox isn't a listing of statistics.
Please also note that, if anyone is going to actively try to change this policy, this discussion should not be here, but in the Village Pump. If you want to do this all over again there, feel free. I've been involved in four such discussions there on this topic during my time on WP and they all come back to the long-standing consensus. Silverseren 19:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is no agreement that such articles are better as permastubs than as part of larger articles. We need to have the info, but that doesn't mean that it should e as a separate article all the time. The five pillars don't support or oppose separate articles, they only mean that we should have the info somewhere (and even the, it claims that we incorporate elements of gazetteers, not that we duplicate them). Fram (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think if we can do anything productive here, it's try to define (at least roughly, because national differences probably mean that no exact universal definition will ever be satisfactory) what status a place has to have in order to "deserve" its own article (i.e. for what kinds of places do we expect an article to develop eventually, even if if consists of only very basic information at the moment.) From a European perspective, I would suggest that the boundary would be more or less "village - yes; hamlet - no". Though that's not to suggest I would support deleting any existing articles without ensuring that the information gets fully upmerged and an appropriate redirect left in place.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that that needs to be outlined. I'm pretty sure that it is just already assumed that it requires village level and up, but it being specifically stated somewhere would be more useful. Silverseren 21:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I never said anything about permastubs, if you'll notice. I said that they should be created as stubs, as it is clear that there is information somewhere that can expand them beyond basic stubs. Silverseren 21:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think if we can do anything productive here, it's try to define (at least roughly, because national differences probably mean that no exact universal definition will ever be satisfactory) what status a place has to have in order to "deserve" its own article (i.e. for what kinds of places do we expect an article to develop eventually, even if if consists of only very basic information at the moment.) From a European perspective, I would suggest that the boundary would be more or less "village - yes; hamlet - no". Though that's not to suggest I would support deleting any existing articles without ensuring that the information gets fully upmerged and an appropriate redirect left in place.--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not sure there is a "long-standing consensus" so much as a "self-fulfilling prophecy"—people shout loudly enough that there's a significant consensus, and cite an essay as though it were equivalent to policy. There is at least one point of NOT that clearly applies to the articles (Misplaced Pages is not a directory), and several that I'd say pretty clearly apply in spirit. For example, the examples of indiscriminate information collection under Misplaced Pages is not indiscriminate are not meant to be an exhaustive list of every way one can be indiscriminate, just examples of things that would violate the guideline. "Treat all ____________ the same way regardless of how much sourcing there is for them" is by definition indiscriminate—standards are being disregarded. But honestly, I don't see this consensus. I see a situation similar to the old schools debate—a lot of foot stomping and bloc voting to give the appearance of a consensus, while a whole lot of people sit back and shake their heads, and keep bringing up "Uh...folks, if there is a consensus here, we've got this one quite wrong." Seraphimblade 13:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- It does come down to people shouting that there's a consensus, but I've never seen one. Articles on every speck in an atlas are not only unwarranted, they are counter-productive and work against the purposes of an encyclopedia. It's much better to have a decent article on Yak-herding villages of Upper Slobovia with redirects to the article from each village in Upper Slobovia that participates in yak herding than it is to have tiny one-line articles about each such village. By the time one is discussing a region, there is usually enough information to say something meaningful and enough context to make that meaningful information relevant in some manner.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Count me as another person who thinks a merge/redirect strategy is the best way to create meaningful and useful context for these obscure settlements. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- It does come down to people shouting that there's a consensus, but I've never seen one. Articles on every speck in an atlas are not only unwarranted, they are counter-productive and work against the purposes of an encyclopedia. It's much better to have a decent article on Yak-herding villages of Upper Slobovia with redirects to the article from each village in Upper Slobovia that participates in yak herding than it is to have tiny one-line articles about each such village. By the time one is discussing a region, there is usually enough information to say something meaningful and enough context to make that meaningful information relevant in some manner.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then, like I said, if you truly want to try and change the policy, feel free to take it to the Village Pump. I am quite certain on what the outcome will be, since i've been involved in other discussions of this very nature. It is not that "It does come down to people shouting that there's a consensus", since the discussions and voting have certainly been made before. Just because you haven't been a part of one doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Silverseren 21:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- The consensus of settlements is summed up in WP:ITSLOCAL. Just because an editor or bot can verify that a settlement exists, that is not justification for a standalone article. Evidence of notability is the only knockout evidence that a settlement should have its own article. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Old Discussions
For your perusal, here's some examples of old discussions.
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 55#Atlas.2Fgazetteer entries
Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 79#Notability of cities.2C towns.2C and neighborhoods
There's, of course, a lot more discussions in that vein out there. I find it interesting that it generally seems to always be the same people starting these discussions or being primarily involved. But whenever it is put to a vote, the community shows that it is extremely opposed. Silverseren 21:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, those discussions look to me to be a part of the self-supporting myth phenomenon. Most people aren't making any cogent arguments for exactly why an independent article for each and every speck on each and every map is a good idea. Instead, they are arguing that everyone has already agreed. The existence of the recurring argument is pretty strong evidence that there is a reasonably sizable group of editors that feel that there shouldn't be such articles, and it's a pretty senior group of editors overall.—Kww(talk) 22:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just as there are an even more reasonable size group of editors, who are also pretty senior, Firsfron for example, who feel that there should be such articles. Silverseren 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't as much matter. There used to be such a situation with schools, too, but they eventually got cleaned up. We'll eventually get it here too. Some of this stuff just takes some time. Seraphimblade 00:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yup... Remember consensus can change. There is nothing wrong with periodically sounding out the community to determine whether consensus has changed... as long as you accept what ever the current consensus happens to be. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Except you aren't sounding out the community, you're discussing this on a page that almost no one will end up going to. Silverseren 00:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yup... Remember consensus can change. There is nothing wrong with periodically sounding out the community to determine whether consensus has changed... as long as you accept what ever the current consensus happens to be. Blueboar (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- That doesn't as much matter. There used to be such a situation with schools, too, but they eventually got cleaned up. We'll eventually get it here too. Some of this stuff just takes some time. Seraphimblade 00:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just as there are an even more reasonable size group of editors, who are also pretty senior, Firsfron for example, who feel that there should be such articles. Silverseren 23:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Fourth Village pump thread started. WP:VPR#Cities--intelati 01:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
From my own perspective, the bar for adding a article to Misplaced Pages has been rising and rising since 2006. We have a big test called WP:GNG and some specialized tests WP:SNG which attempt to align several things:
- Consistency with the existing content of Misplaced Pages and existing policies (a.k.a. precedent)
- The evolving desire among editors for all new articles to conform to present guidelines (i.e. delete at the start, rather than wait for improvement)
- What the outcome of AFD's are now, compared to what the policies and guidelines state now (and tweak as necessary)
Several guidelines emerged in the last three years to cover biographical articles, articles about corporations and organizations, articles on intellectual artifacts (books, episodic television, etc.), and other SNG's. These guidelines came into existence and continue to have broad support among editors because, I believe, the alternative, i.e. to allow any article to be created, or (worse) to argue, from scratch, each questionable article in Afd. This is unattractive because there is no obvious objective filter for a person, corporation, etc. to have a stand-alone Misplaced Pages article.
However, when it comes to gazetteer articles, an obvious objective criterion exists, in the form of a government or equivalent source attesting to its existence. This doesn't imply that the content provided by the source has rich content or is even correct, but it is an authority that can be appealed to. Let me make explicit as someone asked earlier why we have so many gazetteer stubs, i.e. the status quo:
- Approved bots have created gazetteer stubs based upon reliable sources.
- The expectation is that since they are neither hoaxes nor incorrect they will be improved if there is interest on the part of a local editor.
- There is no explicit prohibition against them in WP:NOT.
- There is the implicit recognition that the Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, almanac, and gazetteer in the Five Pillars of the Misplaced Pages.
- Unlike Wiktionary for dictionary content, no alternative Wiki for exists gazetteer content. (Although there are travel and tourism wikis). The best Wiki for gazetteer content is Misplaced Pages.
- The Misplaced Pages is not paper.
- The Misplaced Pages has no deadline.
- The Misplaced Pages is a work in progress.
- Gazetteers typically are exhaustive rather than selective as encyclopedia are.
- In terms of Misplaced Pages usability, it easier for an subject to be found in a search engine as a stand-alone article than as an item within a list.
- Finally, the case has not be made that such gazetteer stubs are bad in a way that has attracted a consensus that modifies the WP:NOT policy or creates a WP:Gazetteer Content guideline. patsw (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The big point here is consensus can change - the majority of the geobots ran before WP:N was even a strong idea. If someone today suggested the same idea about running such bots to create articles, they would likely fail to gain consensus. So we're deal with something that likely was grandfathered for some time but now many argue that grandfathering period is over.
- And I stress a key point: we can suit the requirements of being a gazetteer without having to have stubby articles - lists and tables are perfect for this function. All the points you address above are satified by using list of non-notable settles with redirects from the stubs, while also satisfying today's notability requiremetns. --MASEM (t) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- Bots are currently being used all over the 'pedia to make articles on biology topics, such as species of insects, plants, and such. Those are generally referenced to a government or national biological database, much like articles on places are. And these biology articles are being done now, with a number of the bots having been put into commissions and consensus made for them to be put into action only a couple months ago (or less than a year). What about those sorts of articles? Silverseren 17:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- These sorts of articles contravene Misplaced Pages's notability of guideline, as tertiary information on its own is not evidence of notability. The copying of government databases does not in any way justify the mass creation of permastubs. I have said this many times, but there is no goverance being applied to the work of bots: they are simply overwhealming Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines by creating de facto standards based on the personal views of the bot operators. Simply transcribing Wikispecies into Misplaced Pages for personal glory makes no sense as these stubs offer no context to the reader. Misplaced Pages is being turned into a mirror website for various governmental databases by these bots, despite the prohibition against this activity made clear by WP:NOT#MIRROR. Next they will be transcribing stars and galaxies into Misplaced Pages, and there are more of them than there are people on this planet. Where will this craziness end? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Bots are currently being used all over the 'pedia to make articles on biology topics, such as species of insects, plants, and such. Those are generally referenced to a government or national biological database, much like articles on places are. And these biology articles are being done now, with a number of the bots having been put into commissions and consensus made for them to be put into action only a couple months ago (or less than a year). What about those sorts of articles? Silverseren 17:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hey phone
I'd heard some years ago that a phone was used during the trench warfare of WWI called the Hey phone. I've found very little info about it except that a version of it continues to be used for comunication by cavers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen from Coventry (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sources? if not, consider it non-notable. Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- However, it's possible that an article on World War I communications equipment in general might be quite suitable, and right now I can't find anything like that. Seraphimblade 13:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Just to ease my suspicious mind ... is this real, or is the "hey phone" a joke reference to people yelling "Hey"? Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages:Reference desk is across the quad. It's the blue door. Uncle G (talk) 21:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)