| Revision as of 11:36, 26 December 2006 editVanished user 5zariu3jisj0j4irj (talk | contribs)36,325 edits →Railway Stations← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:27, 22 May 2022 edit undoIzno (talk | contribs)Checkusers, Interface administrators, Administrators115,754 edits std template | ||
| (113 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{archives}} | |||
| == Proposal == | |||
| From time to time, I've seen debates about masts, railway stations, schools (multiple times), malls, and similar objects go by, and they often have a lot of common themes to them. I thought I'd create a proposal that covers these common themes, so that this discussion doesn't have to occur dozens of times. Right now it's all my own work, so I'd appreciate others editing it (or at least commenting on it) so that it can better reflect community consensus. Thanks, ] // ] 14:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == This appears to be heating up again... == | |||
| :Good work on preparing this. One concern I have is that city articles already tend to accumulate too many lists. Consider ], and the number of lists found in that article. Do we also want bullet points on each hospital, church, park, and major street? I am somewhat dubious of encouraging incorporating this information into the community page. - ] 02:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ...so it's worth asking - where's the consensus? I'm not sure I'm seeing it myself, and I've had this watchlisted since December, but haven't had much to add for input. What's questionable to me is why we need this to begin with, but hey. --] <small>]</small> 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are several areas that it is logical for new articles to develop as the information fills in. These would include, sports, transportation, education and media. This should tend to keep the size of the main article manageable. ] 04:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I'm not going to join the discussion here; instead, I'll drop a note on the village pump and ask people to comment. I believe that, if it has no consensus, there are people that disagree with the page content, and if they do they can probably discuss that with the people who wrote it. The reason I put back the guideline tag is that the page was apparently stable for a month and a half, and the person who removed it did not give a reason in his edit summary. But I'm taking this off my watchlist for now. ] 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. I'm not a big fan of a lot of lists either. However, I don't necessarily see this as introducing more lists for two reasons: | |||
| ::#This proposal encourages spinning out new articles on each of the subsections as they fill in. Taking ] as an example, if someone were to add a list of schools to the "Education and culture" section, the section might be large enough to justify breaking it out into ]. The summary that would be left in ] probably wouldn't include those bullet points. | |||
| ::#There'll be more information about these places in the main article that sections can be written in prose. Taking ] as an example again, a lot of the bullet points are for things of local interest that are not discussed in the article. If we were to cover the TV/radio stations in the Sudbury article, (not that I'm saying we necessarily should, because there's already a lot of information in those articles) there is enough information about these stations to write in prose, not lists. | |||
| ::Maybe I'll update the proposal to mention prose a bit more as well. ] // ] 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose'''. Not that this is a poll or anything, but Radiant's ad implies looking for opinions. The problem is that this starts with a paragraph on criteria for inclusion (if enough r & v information exists...), then says "it is not the purpose of this article ... to define additional criteria for inclusion". Pick one. The paragraph, by the way, contradicts with ]. Every other family-run restaurant has a "history of this restaurant" on the back of their menus, that is several paragraphs long, reasonably reliable (several generations of the family say so, no one contradicts them), and clearly verifiable (go to the restaurant, you'll get a menu; it may even be up on their web site). It may even be an interesting history (grandpa grew up in A, learned how to make the world's best B, married the love of his life from C, opened a small place in D, moved to E ...) According to that paragraph, every other restaurant now deserves an article? Not according to Misplaced Pages:Notability which requires that story be printed by multiple unrelated sources. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Examples of Local Facilities== | |||
| I have been looking at several examples to try and understand what might apply. I presume the guideline would apply to many types of public facilities not just the ones named. Here are four that I have found: | |||
| * Airport - ] | |||
| * Cemetery/Memorials - ] | |||
| * Hospital - ] | |||
| * School - ] | |||
| * Sports Facility - ] | |||
| * '''Delete this page''' I don't see any special case here where a notable topic would not qualify under the notability guidelines. This is a perfect example of ] to no salient purpose. Even as an essay it contradicts the other guidelines.--] 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| These are intended as examples for discussion, my hope is the guideline would be applicable in any cases like these. ] 19:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Overall, I think I agree most with this. It's like we're saying "yeah, we know we told you that X is 'notable', but since it may be of local interest, it really isn't." It's not "CREEP"y as much as contradictory. --] <small>]</small> 13:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Put this up for <s>a vote</s> discussion to ensure whether if this has consensus or not''' - While its a good idea in general, this needs to gain consensus, not have a few people making it and enforcing it on others that has no idea about the guideline. --] (] <small>•</small> ]) 12:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I pretty much agree that most of this is covered better (and in a less wishy-washy fashion) elsewhere. There may be a place for a "local interest topics" subheading in other notability-related pages, but the general focus should be on reliability and detail, not geography. Anything else shows up our cultural bias to ill effect. -- '']']'' 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===We seem to be developing a consensus on several points:=== | |||
| *My intent was that these guidelines would also apply to sites like these (as an aside, the list of sites in the intro was mainly based on articles that I'd seen previous discussions and/or a lot of AfDs on). I would think that the articles listed in the example above would all qualify as "places of local interest" based on the current content of their articles. ] // ] 20:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :(1) These aren't guidelines | |||
| :(2) the form and format is inconsistent with the other notability guidelines | |||
| :(3) the standards hre contradict other notability guidelines | |||
| I propose that we label this page as an essay, then consider whether it can be improved or should be deleted. --] 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| =="Avoid linking to these places of local importance until the articles are written. This makes it harder to create an article that will show up on AfD."== | |||
| I strongly disagree with this. Too often I've seen an article that talks about a local landmark and doesn't link to it, because people are afraid of red links. This proposed practice causes problems when the articles are written. --] (] - ]) 06:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Unincorporated towns, villages and settlements == | |||
| :I think there are pluses and minuses to this point. On the plus side, it doesn't "encourage" new articles on topics with little potential for a nontrivial article. On the minus side, as you mentioned, it causes new articles not to be automatically linked to. The proposal does say "When making a new article, ensure that the appropriate article about the community contains a link to the place in question.", but realistically this isn't always going to happen. | |||
| :I'm wondering if it would make more sense to change the statement to suggest that editors consider the potential of new articles, rather than just saying "avoid linking". Maybe something along the lines of "Before creating redlinks to places of local interest, consider the potential for a nontrivial article to be created about the topic". Comments? ] // ] 01:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| After having poked around the various policy pages on notability and coming up largely empty handed, I'm turning to this page here to see if some discussion on the subject can't be revived. I realize the article was marked 'inactive' but if some more discussion and interest can be generated, I think there is still some need for consensus on this subject. | |||
| == A variety of issues. == | |||
| Briefly discussed above was the issue of small villages and whether they pass inclusion standards. My concern has arisen after trying to edit and improve some articles regarding unincorporated towns tagged {{tl|importance}}. Previously I had seen people arguing that geographical places had "inherent" notability and did not need further sources to "prove importance", and whether that is some kind of consensus or not I am unsure. | |||
| A few issues with this guideline: | |||
| :# ] a directory. Directory information should not be included anywhere, whether on a community article or on a specific article. | |||
| :# "Well-known former residents/employees/attendees/students/etc. of the place" This is a recipe for problems unless we insist that the people are not just "well-known" but ]. | |||
| :# In general, this does nothing to establish when such articles should even exist and seems to imply that a large number of things demmed non-encyclopedic/non-notable now would be included in the encyclopedia. This is not a good thing. | |||
| :# I like most of the last set of reccomendations, but they seem commonsensical to the point of redundancy. For example, if this became a guideline, of course one would want to point new users to it if there edits were not within the guideline. | |||
| Admittedly my understanding of the issue will be somewhat skewed toward how things work in the United States, particularly the western US, but it could be applicable to villages everywhere. Anyway, my concern is thus : In terms of incorporated cities, towns, and townships, I doubt there is any question as to whether or not they are notable enough for articles - finding sources of information for such entities should be simple. Unincorporated towns that lack government are another matter, and particularly those that are isolated from major population centers, may lack sources of information that are easy to get a hold of. This means that there are many small towns that may have notability of limited and local scope - but does that make them not inclusion worthy? | |||
| ] 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Further complicating the issue are other unincorporated community entities that are less distinct, such as neighborhoods of a city, subdivisions, master-planned communities, named trailer parks, and the list goes on. In all liklihood it is probably not difficult to establish the existence of these entities, but a question arises as to where to place the bar for inclusion. I find it difficult to set that bar without being arbitrary. In my opinion, an unincorporated town that nevertheless has some kind of cohesive community merits an article of its own, but a neighborhood of an existing city does not (except in the case that it has some kind of historical significance). | |||
| :Thanks for your comments. In reply: | |||
| :#] also states "Misplaced Pages also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted", so IMHO I don't think that what this proposal is suggesting is significantly in violation of this policy. Nonetheless, I removed the explicit suggestion to put the information in the parent article and removed some bits of information that are discouraged in ]. Also, "directory" might not be the word I'm looking for here either in this proposal; if someone can suggest another word that would be cool too. | |||
| :#I've edited this point to state that it's referring to people along the lines of those that have their own article. Does that make more sense? | |||
| :#Not sure whether this has really been spelled out in the proposal, but the threshold that I had intended was when there was enough verifiable information to create a "sufficiently large" article. Exactly what "sufficiently large" is hasn't been spelled out, but it could be (e.g. non-stub). My experience is that, on AfD, even articles about very insignificant topics often get kept if they are sufficiently verifiable and long. This point is probably a very interesting one that may need further discussion. | |||
| :#I agree with this one to a certain extent. What would you suggest? | |||
| :Thanks again, ] // ] 02:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Further to yesterday's response, the response to #3 wasn't all that great; I meant to have put a greater emphasis on article quality. If an article about a place of local interest is of sufficient quality, I think it should be kept as its own article. We already have lots of low-quality articles about such places; this proposal suggests merging the low-quality ones and keeping the high-quality ones in their own articles. ] // ] 01:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Do we use the simple inclusion criteria "If reliable secondary sources can be found then it is notable and warrants its own article"? Is there some other standard of what gets its own article as opposed to what should merely be mentioned under a parent region? | |||
| == Tagging this as an essay == | |||
| Hoping to get some feedback here! ] 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Having thought about this one a bit, I don't think that there's enough support for this to be a guideline in terms of editors either practising this behaviour or editing/discussing this page. So, I've tagged this as an essay (I noticed that {{Tl|descriptive}}, which seems to fit better, also puts pages in ], so I used that one instead) and if support grows for these ideas later we can look at turning this into a guideline then. ] // ] 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Unincorporated has different legal meanings in different U.S. States, as well as in different countries. Unincorporated places can be quite large and quite significant. For example, ] has a population of over 18,000. The guideline at ] is that "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." So the problem you bring up is better handled by merging than deletion. If a place exists, but there is not enough content for a stand alone article, it should be merged into a parent article. But if it is a CDP in the US, it should be left as a stand alone article for consistency. ] 02:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Including applicable Wikiprojects in policy == | |||
| :Thanks for pointing out the Common outcomes page, I had been looking for something just like that! I guess that it at least helps to clarify but I suppose there is still the issue of subjective definitions - for example, what constitutes the line between a village and just a "named place". For some real-world examples, ] is an unincorporated community that is fairly obvious - it has its own post office and I doubt anyone would argue against it being a town/village. One might argue ] is just a trailer park, as it lacks its own post office or any services, however the department of transportation identifies it with a sign on the highway stating "Circle City". Does this constitute a village/town? Finally there is ] (which is a bad article to begin with) is claimed to be a "town" by some but in reality appears to be little more than a service station. Is this something best left up to the discretion of the editors, and if someone doesn't believe that it fits the definition of a town and is not otherwise notable, take appropriate action? ] 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Given the proliferation of geographically-based WikiProjects, I believe that they should have a role to play in determining what is notable in their respective regions. Community standards may vary. --''']''' (]) 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The reason all human habitations are considered notable is to maintain ]. The type of housing is irrelevant. Whether the residents live in ]s or ]s or ] should not come into play. The issue with the ] article is a lack of ] information, not the physical characteristics of the place itself. | |||
| ::] is actually a good example of why arbitrary prescriptive guidelines do not work. A little web research turned up lots of information about this town, which is notable for its small size. I was able to find two sources with editorial supervision, so this article would meet even the disputed ] guideline. ] 12:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::You bring up good points there, and I don't disagree with you. Perhaps my bringing up ] is a bad example as it is notable for other reasons, I was just trying to find an example of a "town" whose designation as such might be questionable. | |||
| :::The more I consider the issue the more I am coming to the conclusion that creating any arbitrary set of inclusion criteria for human settlements is going to be flawed and should probably be left to the judgement of the editors on a case-by-case basis. Thank you for the input! ] 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : I've been struggling over the problem of which villages & hamlets from the non-Western world should be included in Misplaced Pages for some time now, in part due to a passionate debate I had about one such place. (I've put off writing this down because I've struggled with a simple & clear way to express these guidelines.) Many villages & hamlets are transient landmarks: due to famine, epidemics, war -- or just because the community thinks its a good idea -- they can change their name, move or vanish. (I know of at least one documented example of this happening in Ethiopia.) As a result, for this category I've been meaning to propose the following guideline for inclusion to Misplaced Pages. For a village, hamlet (or what in the US might be called an "unincorporated community") to be included, it must be mentioned in at least one of two types of reliable sources: | |||
| == Villages == | |||
| :* An official publication, like a government census, or an ] report or publication; and/or | |||
| Do villages -- that is, small, unincorporated communities -- fall under this proposed guideline? Especially villages in Latin America, Africa, & Asia? I've been thinking about this problem, & can see arguments for & against including them. -- ] 16:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* An eyewitness report that the place ''does'' exist. | |||
| :My answer would be "maybe". My idea behind this guideline is to encourage higher overall article quality by encouraging people to not create stubs and to merge them into location articles. So, in cases where there really isn't a lot to say about the communities, it probably makes sense to merge them into a parent article. On the other hand, if there is a fair bit to say and these villages contain places of local interest of their own, then it probably makes sense that they stand on their own, and can be used as a merge target for those places of local interest. This could probably also apply to subdivisions in North America and Europe as well. ] // ] 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This would exclude certain sources of online information (such as failingrain.com), which do not explicitly guarrantee the existence of a place, while allowing sources like travellers' accounts or guidebooks -- which can be reasonably expected not to be making facts up. While this is probably restating ] in slightly different words, I honestly can't see how someone could argue a village is notable if no one has been there. (Villages from fiction or legend are an entirely separate issue.) -- ] 17:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *That makes sense. I would add that we have quite a bit of precedent in creating articles on each individual village, but not each individual item within said village. ] 11:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Naturally, the content must still be ]. This is an example of where a single reference might be sufficient. There is a related ongoing debate at the disputed ] guideline page over the issue of number and nature of sources needed for an article. ] 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I like your proposed guideline and I think this issue should be taken further because I know in North Carolina, we're having the same problem with keeping/deleting articles about unincorporated communities... the policy isn't consistent and there is no guideline that I can find to help. As far as deserving of articles... how small do we go? I mean, if you look at a map you may see in really small text a community called "Enterprise" and you live in it, but you've never heard of it... it's just a collection of housing developments someone somewhere decided to name. So, as a result, I say that there needs to be at least one source that focuses on the community whether its a newspaper article or county history website... something. I don't trust maps as far as knowing about unincorporated areas... they don't even have road names correct a lot of times. I do not believe that just because you see it on a map makes it automatically exist, so I think that needs to be addressed. Keep in mind that ]. Also, as far as the USA is concerned, if you can't find the place in the , I doubt that the area has any name of importance. (I have similar conversation going on at ]) --] 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :One more thing: as far as merging in the United States, where would we merge them into? Should we create articles that encompass many unincorporated areas like ] or merge them into the county article or the township article? --] 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I find this a really interesting one. In the ], there are many very small ]. Despite this, I can usually find a few sources for the ones that I created articles on.-''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> <sub>''']'''</sub> 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Finding ] for even the tiniest hamlet in the UK is extremely simple. The local council is the obvious starting point, given that the entire territory of the UK is subject to the juridiction of a local authority; somewhere in the ], for example, there is bound to be a (no matter how short) commentary on the character and town planning considerations relating to the village. To expand the article into more than a permastub, village libraries commonly have a section on 'Local Interest', usually with a variety of books by local historians. For a broader coverage, by now ]'s ''Buildings of England'' has articles on almost the entire country, for example. ] (]) 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==AFDs which relate to this proposed guideline== | |||
| == So, what do you think? (-: == | |||
| *] April 26, 2007 | |||
| *]April 26, 2007 | |||
| *] April 26, 2007 | |||
| *] April 26, 2007 | |||
| *] April 26, 2007 | |||
| *] April 26, 2007 | |||
| *] April 26, 2007 | |||
| *] April 26, 2007 | |||
| *] April 26, 2007 | |||
| *] April 26, 2007 | |||
| *] April 26, 2007. | |||
| Many editors argued for merging them with the articles for the governmental unit (county, city) in which they are located, expressing sentiments similar to those in this proposed guideline. (noted by ] 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)) | |||
| * LOCAL is a sensible guideline, so I'm not sure why this was changed to "inactive" seeing that so many active editors are actively citing it in good faith. ] 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| For the past two months, the text of this proposal has been fairly static and there haven't been any serious problems raised here. I'd previously assumed that that was because no-one really cared one way or another about the proposal. (-: Lately, however, I've noticed multiple people citing it in guideline or AFD discussions or otherwise applying it. So, maybe it's useful after all. With that in mind, I'd like to get a feeling for what other people are feeling about the proposal. Should it be a guideline? Should any changes be made? Are there any serious problems? TIA, ] // ] 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because there was actually no consensus to making this a guideline. Only a few editors decided to make this a 'guideline' without outside consultation. --] (] <small>•</small> ]) 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Oh really, and exactly who were these "few" editors supposed to consult again? ] 08:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: , and read the first topic up top of this page. --] (] '''·''' ]) 12:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **Let's not do that, guidelines aren't created by polls on them. I think the intent of this (proposed) guideline is useful, and it certainly appears to be referenced by people in discussion. I'll add a link on the village pump for some more feedback. If there are no objections to the content of this page, it qualifies (and of course details can always be changed later). ] 09:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: It was a rhetorical question, the point being that this guideline is in such broad useage that no one need consultation, nor is there an official body that approves such guidelines. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, and I do believe that the consensus amongst those with common sense agreed this was a sound guideline to reduce strife within the community. ] 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I agree that a poll is inappropriate. I also like the underlining thinking of the proposal (roughly, please don't create an article about a place of local interest unless there is something interesting you can say about it). My only worry is that the proposal tends to presume, albeit does not mandate, a certain succession of steps in the creation of the article. I fear that some AfD particpiants will interpret these steps to be mandatory, and strike any place of local interest that has not been spun off of the article for its parent community.-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 13:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == This needs to be reworked in a way so that it can become a notability guideline == | |||
| **I've attempted to word the proposal so that the recommended succession is not depicted as the only valid one ("consider the following", "should be added", etc.). I've also attempted to emphasise merging over deletion, so that if the information isn't lost permanently and the article can be unredirected later if there's agreement to do so. Having said that, the proposal may not be worded in the best manner. Do you have any suggestions for anything that you would change to alleviate your concerns? Thanks, ] // ] 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just saying. Any suggestions for improvement?--''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> <sub>''']'''</sub> 14:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***Please pardon the delay in my reply. After reading the propal carefully, I may suggest a line that any article about a place of local interest that meets the later requirements (e.g. references, pictures, etc.), is keepable even if it did not follow the suggested development track. That would make it explicit that article need not follow the recommended development path, although they ideally should, but do need certain content to be worth having around.-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 13:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Amen to that. ] 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****Good idea, I've added a paragraph in the problem articles section to mention that articles that are "good enough" (not my exact words) can generally stand on their own. Typically, most editors don't feel the need to cleanup, merge, or delete sufficiently long and well-referenced articles about such subjects right now, so I think that this addition makes sense. ] // ] 22:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == What's the difference between local and global (? or whatever the opposite is)== | |||
| =="Places"== | |||
| Some time ago - and I'm quite unsure of where I did so - I commented on the use of the word "place" in Misplaced Pages. There are a great many articles with the title something like "Places in xxxxx" which then go on to list cities, towns and villages: see, for example ]. To my geographical understanding, they should be much better called settlements. The article on ] shows how broad it can be: and somewhat too vague a term. Now there is this suggestion, which actually brings in the lower end of the spectrum of the word "place". It might cause some confusion, though, given that the previous usage is as I have pointed out. ] 06:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've intentionally used the word "place" to be vague—the intention is that this guideline could apply not only to unincorporated settlements but to things found in them like airports, railway stations, schools, and things like that. If you can think of another word that might better describe this entire class of things, feel free to suggest it. ] // ] 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'd presume that places on the UNESCO list are definitely beyond "local" curse. National parliaments, national cathedrals (where these exist) are not local either. What about less obvious local places, i.e. ] or ]? Draw me the line. ] (]) 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==Neighborhoods== | |||
| Good policy - perhaps this should apply to neighborhoods as well? Take, for example, ] -- a stub about a neighborhood that shows little notability. Underneath, we see the ] box. Shouldn't all neighborhoods simply be included in a "Neighborhoods of (Metro Area)..." article and only be broken out if there's substantial notability to warrant a separate article for that neighborhood (e.g. ], ], or ])? I would imagine that distinct communities (i.e. a distinct city government) will always warrant an article, but neighborhoods should be the exception, not the rule. So I would propose this: a) neighborhoods should be listed within the main city's article; b) if there are a substantial number of neighborhoods and/or content about these neighborhoods, this information would split to a "Neighborhoods of (City)" article; c) if, and only if, a neighborhood has notability on its own merits (e.g. historical events, major identifiable regional / national name recognition, etc.), then it would warrant its own article. Thoughts? ] 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree; I think that it makes sense for neighbourhoods to be treated as you mentioned above, and since this is similar to the strategy described in this proposal I think it makes sense for these to be covered by this guideline. Since I see a fair bit of neighbourhood articles I've added that to the list of "places" in the intro. ] // ] 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I likewise agree. ] 09:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Seems okay to me. Maybe major sections of cities, but we don't need an article for every single neighborhood (especially because the boundaries and names of neighborhoods are not always clear).-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 13:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== I like this. == | ||
| One other thought ... While surfing random articles, I've also run across ] articles ("subdivision" as used in the U.S. and Canada to identify a group of homes with a common homeowner's association and often the same builder. (See some examples ... ], ]...) I'd like to include a proposed addition to this policy that subdivisions are (by default) not notable. Again, if an article's editors can establish notability through events that occurred within the subdivision, so be it. But generally even if notability can be established, such notability probably belongs to the city, not the subdivision. Thoughts? ] 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *: I think this a good idea, although I would suggest any such guideline be limited. Certain subdivisions may be historically significant because of there backstory (see ] and ]). I also think that these guidlines are not so much a hard and fast binary notable-nonnotable guideline, but instead helping editors create and write articles wisely. Perhaps something along the lines, and I'm thinking aloud here, of "avoid creating articles about ] (definition of subdivision) unless there are verifiable sources about the subdivision." Well, that's my thoughts for now.-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 13:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:: I think that makes perfect sense and is a good clarification of this point. ] 15:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I've added a paragraph to the proposal mentioning to consider how much information about the topic is available before creating the article, and gave an example of "unremarkable subdivisions". ] // ] 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I had occasion to refer this essay to a person who wants to write an article about a historic preservation overlay zone in Los Angeles and call it a "neighborhood." I found this piece helpful in organizing some of my own thoughts as well. ] (]) 02:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Guideline == | |||
| == Failed == | |||
| Since no-one's mentioned that they disagree with this in principle, and since it is being used, I've tagged this as a guideline. Certainly a bit of rewording might still be useful in places, so feel free to continue tweaking the wording if there's the need. ] // ] 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This proposal has now been existence more than ten years without being accepted, and it is a large number of years since there was any discussion about it here. Isn't it time to tag it as {{failed}}? ] (]) 18:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| : I completely agree on making it a guideline. And thanks to those involved in writing it, as I agree that this was very much needed, so it's good to have guidance on what to do with these kinds of articles. :) One suggestion I would have though, has to do with streamlining the way that they're handled. For example, I routinely scan about a thousand articles at a time, looking for places where I can add {{tl|uncat}} or {{tl|wikify}} tags, plus I'll do alot of speedy-deletion recommendations per {{tl|db-spam}}, {{tl|db-bio}}, {{tl|db-music}}, etc. Once I'm "on a roll", I really don't have time to also handle merges, which can take several minutes per article to figure out what needs to be merged, and where it needs to be merged to. In terms of these "local" articles, could we perhaps create a {{tl|local}} template that I could use? It could put a banner at the top of the page advising the editor about ], and also add the article to a category like, "Local articles needing merging" or something. That way if I see an article about a fountain or local park, I could quickly flag it as needing attention, but not have to come to a screeching halt in terms of scanning other new articles. Then someone else (or maybe me, on a second pass) could go through later to be more specific about where it needed to be merged. --] 00:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd kind of been thinking about that too. So, I've created {{Tl|local}}. Feel free to tweak the wording and let me know if you have any comments. Cheers, ] // ] 02:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Great job! I'm populating the category now. BTW, what's the current feeling on individual railway station stops? Are we leaving them be, or should I tag those as well? --] 03:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would say that they can be tagged as well if they don't appear to be particularly special. We had a fair bit of discussion about this previously on ], and ], which I based a little bit of this guideline on, was the result. ] // ] 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please don't. No article on an individual railway station has been deleted since at least 2003 - there was a strong consensus to keep them long before even schools became an issue. I will revert any such taggings accordingly; if you want these deleted or merged, get an actual consensus to do it. ] 00:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There's agreement at ] that merging such things is okay. That's good enough for me. Besides, no-one's suggesting we delete anything here. ] // ] 00:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I see no such agreement there, let alone any discussion with more than a couplke of people. I will vehemently object to and revert any unilateral merging of any train station articles that attempts to override the long-standing consensus that such topics are notable. ] 00:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Just to clarify something, I didn't state that there was a consensus, just that several people felt that these articles didn't need to stand on their own. Having said that, as you're well aware from being around here for a few years, one of our main principles is to ] and just do things. If you feel that a group of articles should be merged, you can just do it, you don't need to reach consensus about everything before you do it. One corollary is that you can boldly revert too. Once that happens, the next natural step is to ] and try to reach agreement. If you are genuinely interested in how to improve the quality of such articles and the encyclopedia in general, then I'd be glad to discuss this with you. On the other hand, if you just want to unilaterally revert because you have a rollback button, well, so do I. ] // ] 02:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::You don't get to delete or merge things unilaterally. If it is contested, you get a consensus to do it. I am simply saying that, as there has been a long-standing precedent that all railway stations are notable, I will object in each and every case, and I'd be surprised if you could get a consensus to do anything other than keep the status quo in any such case. ] 03:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::One more thing... this guideline makes no judgements about whether a topic is "notable" or not. It only attempts to make judgements as to how to best represent information. ] // ] 03:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: A suburb page is for general information on that suburb - the sort of information which a good railway station page should have (history, architecture, workings, etc.) would be completely out of place on that page. I also absolutely no benefit in merging station pages into line pages. When there has been a long-standing precedent that stations are notable enough for articles, and we've been able to write quite a number of good articles on them, I'm see little reason to change the status quo. ] 03:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::: Can you please provide a link to a discussion or guideline which confirms this consensus? --] 01:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::: There has been a long-standing precedent that all railway stations are notable, with every single case of a railway station being nominated for deletion being kept (I can't even recall a no-consensus-keep result) since at least 2003. Precedents hammered out over years of practice and agreement among many, many editors are worth a heck of a lot more than obscure guidelines written up by four people. ] 03:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Well, no. There is a long-standing lack of consensus about how stations articles should be written, or even '''if''' they should be written. One can see this in the ] and in ]. As the instigator of both discussions, I observe that the situation hasn't improved: train station articles are still largely cluttery accumulations of railfan-cruft without respect to good organization or for that matter the communities in which they reside, and many of them are simply timetable entries heavily padded by hypertext apparatus. | |||
| ::::::::::Nothing has been "hammered out" about train stations. What we have is paralysis, which in my opinion has its genesis in the investment made in the numerous articles on ''some'' rail systems, and also (again, this is only my opinion) in a lot of anti-American attitude. The larger problem is that passenger service is treated in these articles as a lot of trees without any forest; it has always seemed to me that it made more sense to talk about the lines/routes for the most part, and that therefore most stations would only be discussed in that context. What we have instead is long catalogs of stations (and often enough non-existent stations) with little or no overall discussion. And since the exceptions to this have tended to be American, defense of the effort it took to create these has historically been coupled to a condescension about the relative paucity of American service. ] 19:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::See my comment above. ] // ] 03:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::#To toss in by two cents, You can be ] and try to merge in railway station articles, but I must state a few caveats. This is a guideline on the path of article creation, not article elimination or merging. Further, merging articles that other editors care about may cause much unpleasantness. It may be prudent to try to yet the trains project work out their strategy. Also, I recommend against putting any such article on ], less it open up another can of worms.-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 04:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Inclusion Criteria == | |||
| This guideline discusses how to break off an article into subarticles, but doesn't provide clear guidance on when a neighborhood, street, or building, etc. is or is not encyclopedic. Suggest providing clearer guidance. Should every neighborhood get an article? Best, --] 04:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There's a difference between "encyclopedic" and "should get its own article". Individual streets, buildings, neighbourhoods, etc. are encyclopedic if they meet our core content policies ], ], and ]. Even if they do meet these criteria, they likely don't need their own article; however, the solution is not to delete the content, but to merge it into the parent community's article. The purpose of this guideline is more to help editors create quality articles, and not so much to define specific inclusion criteria. So, the criterion used in this guideline is if "enough verifiable information is available" for its own article. So, if you can create a high-quality article about a neighbourhood (e.g. longer than a stub, contains useful, verifiable information, etc.), go ahead. If not, add the information to the community article instead of creating a new one. ] // ] 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In many cases, adding information to an existing article and then breaking it out when it grows seems to avoid many problems. You are less likely to create a stub, and the fact that the material has existed makes it easier to defend as being notable. In the worst case, the AfD should be to merge it back to the article it was in to begin with, not a big problem. The only problem I recall having in doing this was an editor who felt that the material should have remained in the main article, it was about 32K in size. This approach also allows an editor to see several items of a like nature that may not justify an article on their own, but if combined could justify another article. Again it is a subjective decision and editors have to use their judgement as to what is 'right'. ] 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I pretty much agree with Vegaswikian and JYolkowski. What is recommended is a prudent way to write about places of local interest, including neighborhoods. Unfortunately, there is no magical dividing line on when neighborhood, or an school, or almost any other local interest item, for that matter, deserves its own article.-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I concur that this should be intended more as a recommendation than a list of criteria. Accordingly, I've changed the guideline template (it still says it's a guideline, but does not mention notability criteria). --] 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Shopping malls== | |||
| I went through tagging several shopping malls with {{tl|local}}, and promptly had my changes reverted, even though the articles had no references aside from the malls' own websites. So I thought I'd start this discussion here to get more comment, or to ask if anyone could point me to previous discussions about the notability of these establishments? --] 05:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *On AfD, some malls survive and some get deleted. If the article is simply based on the mall's web site, then AfD might be the best choice if it appears to be not notable. {{tl|local}} is an attempt to avoid AfD. But if that's what other editors desire and if the article is not notable, then it may be the better choice. Was any reason for thd reverts provided? ] 05:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** (edit conflict) Please see: ] and ]. --] 05:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This action is extremely biased. the Mall of America is allowed to have it's own article without complaint, why not others? Because it's more famous? Well, elonka is tagging malls that are in foreign countries, which for all she knows may be just as well known in their respective locations. {{unsigned2|23:32, October 30, 2006 |75.7.198.245 }} | |||
| :::The ] is a major mall and ]. If as you say, those other malls 'may be just as well known in their respective locations' then the {{tl|local}} template would be appropiate. The Mall of America is not just know locally, but is a popular attraction and well know in several countries. ] 05:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *FYI, I selected one of those articles and put it on ] to see if it would get support. So far that support has not shown up. So I think you have support to add the {{tl|local}} template back in or nominate the articles for deltion where they will likely be deleted. ] 03:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::For what it's worth, I agree with ]'s placement of the {{tl|local}} tag on most of those shopping centre articles - I think it's quite appropriate as a cleanup alert for notability and references, and better than deleting them - and I don't think Rebecca should have mass-removed them the way she did. That said, there's a bit of a double-standard at play here when the ] article (which is being frequently cited as "obviously" notable and famous), has only ''one'' reference, yet we seem to be requiring Australian shopping centres to have multiple non-trivial references (despite Australian user support), which even when added still aren't good enough for some editors (]). --] 04:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::The mass-application of the {{tl|local}} tag was done indiscriminately, without regard to whether the articles needed cleanup, or whether they already made a strong claim to notability, as several articles which were fine, and several which made clear why they were notable, were also hit. I don't have any objection on principle to their use in a more sensible manner, but it's kind of useless - do you actually think that whacking a tag on the page is going to achieve anything apart from making the page look even worse than it did? ] 04:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, I guess the application of the tag was indiscriminate, fair point. Where I agree with you Rebecca is that these kind of "campaigns" against certain types of articles (shopping malls, biscuits, etc.) can really miss the point, particularly where the editor's location or background give them no perspective into the subject's notability, or insight into researching for improvement; and their rush to tag or delete a huge number of articles can cause them to miss notability assertion, references and edit history. This is particularly the case with new, untested or contentious tags, criteria and policies such as {{tl|local}} and the G11 speedy criterion. My point is that I'd much rather see a cleanup tag ugly up a page (as I use them a lot to fix up articles) than an article with potential be deleted or even speedy deleted, and you could have applied the same diligence in removing the tags that ] should have applied when adding them. --] 04:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Fair point - I'll endeavour to do that if this happens again. ] 04:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Rebecca seems to have a tendency to mis-represent my actions. I strongly protest any claim that I placed the {{tl|local}} tag "indiscriminately," as that is absolutely untrue. What I did, was to look at the dozens of articles that were recently created by {{user|Tuddy}}. Most of the articles were in appalling shape anyway, needing cleanup and with no categories (which is why my attention was drawn to them in the first place). On each one, I looked to see if it had any references beyond the store's own website. If it did not, then I tagged it. If there were verifiable references proving notability, I did ''not'' tag it. Further, Rebecca never contacted me even once to express concerns about the tags, she just immediately launched into a mass revert, and then when I noticed this on my watchlist and questioned her about it, she responded with bad faith accusations and incivility. If we're talking about "indicriminate" reverts, how about these by Rebecca, where she reverted me placing a {{tl|prod2}} tag , or reverting my addition of {{tl|primarysources}} tags to articles which clearly deserved them, as there were no references aside from their own commercial websites . --] 18:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Consensus == | |||
| This proposal didn't seem to get much publicity the first time it went around. I therefore suggest we note it on the village pump and one or two other places and maybe have a straw poll to double-check the consensus behind it (and yes, as some may already guess, I'm not in favor of certain aspects of this). ] 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Is anyone paying attention here? I'm just wondering because looking at what actually happens at AfDs, this guideline seems to be almost completely ignored. ] 18:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is this happening after an editor points out that the article meets or does not meet this guideline? Are the articles in question being kept because they are notable for something not mentioned in this guideline? Is the vote being taken over by those in the local community so that a broad consensus is not being represented in the vote? ] 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now that you mention it, the latter option seems to be a common occurrence. We should probably mention it somehow in the guideline. Also, a stronger mention of Wikitravel as a suggested possible alternative venue for locally relevant information is definitely in order. --] 19:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Alternatively, maybe it's just that people who actually know what the thing proposed for deletion is and how notable it is are better judges of notability than some dude on the other side of the world who picked it out at random and decided it didn't interest him. ] 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's precisely my point. The notability of a given article shouldn't be assessed by those who have a local interest in it, or indeed by any single user. Guidelines and notability criteria are what we need, and this guideline may be of help in that direction. --] 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Consensus..when? How many people voted? Was it advertised? Sorry I'm late to the party.--] 23:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Nope, he was ''suggesting'' we vote to reach consensus. =) --] 05:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*And the voting is not such a good idea. Rather I'm interested in the arguments mentioned above by Vegas and Nehwyn. If this guideline does not match what actually happens, we should reword it, e.g. adding a clause on Wikitravel, or by putting more emphasis on merging articles about places into e.g. the article on the town they're in. ] 13:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I just brought up a straw poll as a possibility. I'm really not sure this at all reflects current consensus More movement to wikitravel would be a good thing. ] 18:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::"It is not the purpose of this guideline to create new methods of handling concerns about these articles, nor to define additional criteria for inclusion or deletion of these articles." So your observation that this guideline is ignored at AFD is probably not very surprising -- it has no particular bearing on deletion. The main point of this proposal is to make explicit a long-standing agreement about how to organize information. See also ], which similarly finds little application on AFD. ] ] 18:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Regarding the guideline not being used, whatlinkshere indicates that around 50 AfD debates link here. Probably half of them are me commenting (-: , but that still leaves several other people using it as an argument. Sure, this isn't a huge number of people, but enough to indicate that it has some acceptance. As well, I think that it does reflect consensus in a few other small ways (examples available upon request). Based on the comments above, it might be rather instructive to make a study of what goes on at AfD. This might be something that I'll be looking into shortly. ] // ] 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Large cities == | |||
| I like this proposal but I noticed one problem, what should we do if the local road, shopping center, etc is in a large city. Right now most articles on large cities has no place to put that infomation, and it's mostly unneeded. For example ] creates an article on a small, non historic local church in ]. There is no point in merging that info to the article so what happens now. We should add some info about using this proposal in large cities as this guideline currently looks like it's only good for those types of articles that are in small communities or towns. Thanks ] ] 02:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hopefully the article has been written in ] as suggested in ] (but just common sense anyway even if it wasn't suggested there). In that case, a ] or ] or something like that's probably been created, which would make a good merge target. If not (which appears to be the case here (-: ) well, that sort of makes things hard. Of course, if editors have created a whole bunch of tiny Miami church articles, you could merge all of those together into a meaningful article. ] // ] 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd create a "List of churches in Miami", put an "incomplete" tag on it, and merge it there. --] 06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notability?== | |||
| Prompted by recent comments I've received, I wanted to clarify something, as I'm not sure a consensus has been reached. It was pointed out in a couple of discussions above that this guideline contains no inclusion criteria and indeed does not deal with notability or is used in deletion debates as notability guidelines often are, but is rather intended as a guide or reccommendation on how to deal with places of local interests, and how best to present information about them. Now just to make sure: | |||
| * Would you rather this guideline continued in the current direction, or | |||
| * Would you rather this guideline discussed notability explicitly and list inclusion criteria instead? --] 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *This page ] in deletion debates. Note that most other notability guidelines do not deal strictly with deletion, but exactly with "recommendations on how to deal with their subject, and how best to present information". I fail to see the difference you imply. (]) 12:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The presence or absence of inclusion criteria, for one, is quite an easy difference to spot. --] 12:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, but ] (one of our oldest notability guidelines) doesn't have them either. (]) 13:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *::I believe Radiant! has a point. While WP:LOCAL lacks clear cut criteria--which is probably impossible considering the diverse variety of entities includes as items of local interest--on a full reading, the guideline does indicate when a article is not in a state to be a standalone article (e.g. a couple of lines of directory like information, article created without regard to the community article).-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 14:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::"Notable" and "deserves its own article" are not the same thing. The guideline only deals with the latter problem; there is no mention of the former. --] 18:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*But they are related; you are referring to a dichotomy that does not in fact exist. Apart from its weak wording, this page is substantially similar to other notability guidelines. (]) 10:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Where do we draw the line?== | |||
| Let's use a practical, real-life example of local ''notability'' discussion, and see if we can establish a consensus. A service station. (Works the same with "a pub", "a chemist's", or any given type of public venue, really.) Based on position, where would you draw the notability line: | |||
| # the first service station in the nation | |||
| # the first service station in a region of that nation | |||
| # the first service station in a city | |||
| # the first service station on a given road | |||
| --] 18:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Regardless of what the claim is, I'd still want to see third-party confirmation of notability. Even if an article says that a gas station was "the first in Montana", and even if I personally agreed that "first gas station in Montana" was notable, if we don't have a secondary reference ''proving'' this claim, then there shouldn't be a separate article on that gas station. --] 18:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Verifiability is not the point here... so let's assume "verifiably the first" in the examples above. (It's notability I want to discuss.) --] 19:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Okay, so like if there were a peer-reviewed book that listed every gas station in the United States, by date, so it could easily be determined which gas station was "the first" in any particular venue... In that case, I would want third-party verification of notability, meaning newspaper articles or something else showing that a gas station was genuinely notable for its "first" status, ''outside'' of its local area. In other words, if Joe's Station, in Whistle Stop, Kansas was written up in the Whistle Stop newsletter, that wouldn't be enough for me, but if the station were mentioned in Kansas travel guides as worth a visit (meaning that it had at least one full paragraph in more than one travel guide), then I think that that might be enough for a "Weak Keep" from me. --] 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Uhm, I agree, but I probably didn't quite explain myself. Assume the claims above are all verified and referenced. Which of those claim would you think is enough to warrant a separate article instead of a merge as per ]? --] 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::As per Elonka the notability would be determined by a reference in an outside source to it being notable. The first something is not necessarily notable in itself. Your list above would not necessarily give rise on any count to a separate article - even first in the nation could be merged into some other article if there is nothing more to say on the subject than that fact.--] <sup>]</sup> 20:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Now that's what I meant this discussion to be about. So you'd draw the line above them, i.e. none of those claims is sufficient. --] 06:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, none of the claims is sufficient by themselves. If I think about my own neck of the woods, I cannot image the first petrol station in Australia would be notable if that was the only claim to notability. It would need some context and some other points of interest, else merge into a history of motoring in Australia or whatever, or the locality article. There are many nations, perhaps we could have an article about or list of the first petrol stations in all nations - could be interesting :-)--] <sup>]</sup> 09:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Regardless of the "first" gas station and such, it has been established on AFD that local instances of a global concern aren't notable (e.g. the MacDonalds in any random city) and such things as shoppnig malls or churches have a tendency of ending up deleted unless there's something extraordinary about them. (]) 10:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ** I'm continuing to see a steady stream of shopping mall articles flow in. I'm tagging them with {{tl|local}}, but on many of them, my gut says it would be better to use {{tl|db-spam}}. See ] for the current list. In any case, since there's a lot of talk about AfD precedent on this page, perhaps we should create a list of precedents, and maybe even a "local-area-related deletions" page, as a centralized collection point for these things? --] 06:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *** Thanks for the reminder to start watching your contributions again. You can deliberately misrepresent the spam deletion criterion all you want, but thankfully you're not an admin, so any taggings you do can be easily reverted. ] 09:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ****Calling the mall articles "spam" is questionable. However, their origin and content are also questionable. Information about the ''current'' state of any mall come under the heading of '''Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide''', which is specifically stated in ]. This goes back to one of my complaints about ] articles: that they tend to repeat information from the system timetables, but that information is better obtained officially rather than here. Likewise, information about any mall ''now'' is better obtained from their own website-- and if they don't have one, it's going to be very hard to argue that they are notable, much less to avoid a routine accusation of ]. Which brings us to the historical information. Except for genuinely notable mallswhose greater historical importance is unquestionable, this is inevitably also original research by Misplaced Pages standards. I personally see these articles, like the vast majority of the train station articles, as things that are written because they can be, not because there is the slightest need to have them written. In any case they are yet another source of wikiclutter. ] 12:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Likewise, I have seen several articles on a road that had no information beyond what would be found on a map - and where the author had not realized that such information is in fact better presented as a map. WP:NOT the yellow pages either. (]) 14:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I think there is a (admittedly blurry) line that can be drawn between places of ''local'' interest, and places of no real interest whatsoever. One rough rule of thumb would be to consider whether the place would merit a mention in the article on the place itself (or other summary style articles about the place). You most likely wouldn't mention, say, the local McDonald's or gas station in an article about a town unless there was something to say about it (e.g. it's well-known for some reason), so they wouldn't fall under the scope of this guideline (they may fall under the scope of other guidelines though). Malls, for example, are generally better-known within a community and are the sort of things that could fall under the scope of this guideline. ] // ] 19:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I think JYolkowski is onto something. Merge an article about a run of the mill item (e.g. Traffic lights, McDonalds, a Gas Station), would clutter up the town's article with things most people care little about. But subjects that carry some import in town, like the local mall, certainly are worthy of a mention in their locality's article, with the possibility of spinning off when the material on the entity is adequately developed, sourced, etc.-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 23:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| A case study in LOCAL... now on its 2nd AfD. we have a lot to learn from this and other debacles. - <b>]</b><small> ]</small> 23:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Consensus? == | |||
| {{User|Rebecca}} said in her edit summary, ''"Five people do not get to create Misplaced Pages policy on their own, then try to force it on others. This is still an essay until it has an actual consensus."'' As such, I've put back the {{tl|proposed}} for now, and would like to hear what the objections are to this page. (]) 16:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the guidelines are good, but a short summary should be provided: "If a subject is not verifiably of interest outside its own locality, but is verifiably of interest within it, it should be mentioned within the locality article and merged to it if need be. If the subject is verifiably notable outside its locality, and all policies such as ] and ] can be met, it merits its own article. ] 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I'm not so sure summary adequately captures to whole spirit of WP:LOCAL. I wish to note that, in my mind, the simple fact that a subject is not of interest outside of interest to its local community is not necessarily fatal to the subject having a separate article, but in such instances the article must have substantial non-directory content on the subject, otherwise the content should be merged into an article on the locality. Under all circumstances, information about subjects of local interest must conform to all content policies, including ], ], and ]. Anyway, that's my thoughts.-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good point-perhaps more like this? "If enough reliable source material exists with which to write a full and complete article on a subject, the subject should have its own article. If some verifiable information exists on a subject of local notability, but would not be enough for a full and comprehensive article, the subject should instead be covered as part of its parent locality." Would that address that adequately? ] 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree that a summary similar to this might be useful, although I'm not picky about the wording. I think the specific objection mentioned above is unfounded. It's not five people that are referencing this in AfD discussions; it's quite a lot of people. Second of all, the purpose of this guideline is to ''avoid'' deleting things where reasonable, although that might need to be spelled out better as above. ] // ] 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I generally agree with JYolkowski. Ideally, WP:LOCAL should discourage the creation of insubstantial stand alone articles about places of local interest, but instead encourage either adding content to the locality's article or creating those article with substantive, more thorough, content. The objection to the limited number of people participating in the development of this guideline is of limited effect, as I know of other guidelines that are shepherded by a few users. I doubt it should be a concern, because WP:LOCAL has been well advertised, with other editors free to join in and voice their opinion. Anyway, the proof of the acceptance of WP:LOCAL ultimately will be how it is applied in practice, both in article creation and in AfD outcomes.-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 02:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The problem with Seraphimblade's definition, however, lies in proving that something that something is "verifably of interest outside its own locality". The way we always determined these things until a couple of people came along recently was to ask people outside the locality, rather than engaging in increasingly arbitrary tests that have no bearing on whether something is actually notable. ] 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agree entirely. I put a draft summary into the main page, please let me know if you think that would be workable. ] 05:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::(Sorry, been away for a few weeks) Since no-one's disagreed with the current rewording, I've moved this rewording up, removed the mention of AfD in the lead paragraph, and tagged this as a notability criteria guideline. Anyway, feel free to discuss further here. ] // ] 00:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Concern == | |||
| Following this editor "A" writes an article on a significant building they decide that the street may warrant an article. They follow this guide and create a paragraph to cover the information they need without causing fluff or irrelevant information on that article. They use a single reference for that. | |||
| Along comes editor "B" comes along and writes about another place on the same street and comes to the same conclusion but this editor decides that the street might be worthy of a seperate article. They instead create a two paragraph stub from the reference they know about. | |||
| Editor "C" is doing some stub sort or ficking through random articles and come across the stub, contact edior B shows them this guideline. Editor B then expands his original article with information from the stub, then contacts editor "C" who deletes the stub. | |||
| Multiply this across another ten subjects with everybody adding a litle bit of information to individual articles, instead of editor "A" creating a stub, and everbody else linking in and add their little piece of information. What we end up with is a dozen articles with the same/similar information and nothing linking them altogether. The consider roads like ] thats 550km long but within local areas only small section of 1-2km may be referred to any one article, 50 times over. | |||
| Editors being people will also follow this format for other things like plants, animals, people, places where only a passing mention is warranted. Editor "B" may have a significant piece of information or image on the article that editor "A" wrote but because they haven't linked via another article editor "B"s information never gets into that article. ] 05:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Couldn't this problem be solved by creating a bunch of sensible redirects? (]) 12:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *:what are sensible redirects, redirects only point to an article they cant point to subsections, though you could create a soft redirect or Dab, but currently you'd get massacred at FA for not linking directly. This guideline doesnt say use redirects is says if you have only a small amount of information dont create a stub just include it into your article until theres enough accumulated information to create a daughter article. What I'm saying is that if red links and stub arent created then information doesnt get shared across all potential articles editor B may never know that they have information that could benefit editor A article. Even more specifically ] is geographic feature such one person writing an article on ] may just consider the name of the ] to have been because of that feature existed where it was first discovered and miss the connection to a significant explorer/exploration period of Westren Australia. ] 13:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Redirects to sections do work. This and several other related bugs with redirects were fixed a while ago. You can also use a category on a redrirect which exposes the redirect to more editors which improves the chance that it will be expanded. ] 17:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Actually, I think this can be readily handled. The proposal/guideline specifies that information not deserving its own article should go into an article specific to the locality, not an article on a specific structure within the locality. Thus, information in road can go into "Anytown, Anystate" or, if the amount of information about road in the locality gets to long, "Streets in Anytown, Anystate". Anyway, major (numbered) highways often can and do have there own articles, which can be linked from locality and place of local interest articles. Thus, A's article may read, "The ''Foo Building'' is located on ]."-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Churches and Malls== | |||
| I do not see in this guideline much help in determining whether to keep or delete a particular mall, church, library, post office, mast, hotel, train station, bus stop, or other local instance of a ubiquitous phenomenon. People love to cut and paste from some big book or database and make hundreds of articles, just like people love to do crosswords or create row after row of knitting. But all we wind up with is a slew of stubby articles just informing us that thus and such entity is located at thus and such location. Then the source database changes, and we are left with stale and incorrect information. The person seeking a post office, train station, library, or church would be better served Googling for same in the geographic are of interest and getting their information from the source. I have seen above indignant handwaving assertions that "It is a well established precedent that all X's are deserving of an article," without any real source cited to affirm the claim. I like to see more specific guidelines which try to distinguish between the malls (]), the churches (]) etc which should have articles from the greater number which are so ordinary and non-notable that they should not, just as there are such guidelines as ] and ]. Editors have shown their happiness in deleting articles about local institutions even if the articles are lengthy and well referenced, claiming that the newspaper stories are "a directory of local events," "only make a passing reference," or "are in the nature of press releases" or "only mention it briefly" in a national publication. Citing an established guideline can be a help in keeping an article in such a debate, as well as a tool for winnowing out entries no one is likely to seek out, or which are just there as advertising and to put out the link to the organization's own website. ] 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It is not, however, if - as is so often the case - only one side of the debate (and usually only a couple of people) writes the guideline, and then tries to use it to bludgeon AfD voters into voting according to their particular view. ] 01:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Churches are so often more notable than just their local communities. I think churches and shopping centres should have their own guidelines for notability. ] 04:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The purpose of this guideline isn't to decide whether to keep or delete a specific article, it's to suggest where information about a specific topic is best located. So, suggestions on whether to keep or delete a specific church are outside this guideline's scope. ] // ] 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This has been cited by some of its authors in deletion discussions, so I don't think that's necessarily true. Moreover, when a so-called merge involves cutting out most of an article's content (as an actual article on a church wouldn't fit well merged straight into a town article, they tend to get cut down a couple of sentences), it ''is'' in effect a would-be deletion criterion. ] 02:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::WP:SCHOOLS/3 isn't a deletion guideline either but people seem to use it as such. I think I'll start picking on people who use these at AfD to better explain their "vote". Feel free to do so as well. ] // ] 18:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'll add a link to the discussion at ], since that proposed guideline has been merged into this article. ] 01:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Railway Stations == | |||
| Can we please remove railway stations from this policy? Consensus here has been at least for the last couple of years to keep all railway stations, and it's not right that suddenly we introduce them into this criterion, only to have people in favour of deleting articles everwhere to start excluding them on the basis of someone's policy here - they need their own discussion if we are going to start excluding railway station articles from Misplaced Pages. ] 08:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems to me that most railway station articles (absent ]) are excellent candidates for merging, per this <s>policy</s> guideline. No reason for deleting them, of course, but no reason for supporting the current "forest of permastubs" either. Side note: It's odd that railway stations have gotten a relatively free pass, while schools -- which play a far more significant role in most communities -- have been hounded by calls for deletion. ] 09:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Definitely agree there-I think this would be an excellent way to handle them, though I don't think railway stations should get an automatic "pass" to notability any more then anything. Effectively, the "consensus" is being challenged-why shouldn't railway stations be subject to the requirement of secondary and nontrivial coverage? ] 09:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Because the "guideline" is arbitrary as all hell, and railway station articles have repeatedly been found to be notable and interesting to many over the space of many years. I'm so fed up with this attitude - seemingly only developed in the last three months of "oh, it doesn't interest me, therefore I want it deleted, and I'm going to use the excuse of their lack of references, despite the fact that nearly the whole encyclopedia lacks references, to single out this particular topic for deletion". ] 11:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Curious-do you believe the lack of references is not a problem, or that if it is it shouldn't be worked on? Also, I'm curious how the notability guideline is arbitrary-it seems to me a pretty logical application of ], ], and ]. Those say if ''part'' of an article is unverifiable it doesn't belong, seems a pretty reasonable extension to say that if the ''whole'' article can't be reliably sourced it doesn't belong. I don't believe this is a question of interest (it certainly isn't for me, and I've in fact !voted keep in AfD subjects which don't interest me a bit because they're sourced and delete in those which do, due to the existence and use of or lack of sources respectively), it's about ''sourcing''. ] 11:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This isn't about sourcing, and it isn't about the material being unverifiable. No one is seriously suggesting that just about any of these articles have any information that is factually incorrect, nor is anyone suggesting that the material in these articles can't be referenced. The vast majority of the encyclopedia is unsourced at present, including topics - particularly biographies of living persons, controversial topics, and academic and technical content - where sources are very badly (and urgently) needed to avoid negative real-world ramifications. These are the topics where any genuine reference effort would be aimed, but they're not. Rather, the excuse of referencing is being used to attempt to subvert long-standing notability consensuses and try and get topics which a couple of very concerted editors aren't interested in and have decided must be deleted as a result. This is wasting valuable time that could be spent on much more important projects in the hope of furthering deletion games, which is frankly pathetic. ] 11:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Believe me, that attitude is much older than three months. See ], ], et cetera. But please note that this guideline does not advocate deletion, except for articles which appear to be both unsourced and ''unsourceable''. Instead, it advocates merging (or adding information to existing articles). This is an important distinction; unfortunately there are a lot of AfD regulars who prefer to vote "delete" even when a merge is obviously what's called for. -- ] 11:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 20:27, 22 May 2022
 Archives | ||
|
||
This appears to be heating up again...
...so it's worth asking - where's the consensus? I'm not sure I'm seeing it myself, and I've had this watchlisted since December, but haven't had much to add for input. What's questionable to me is why we need this to begin with, but hey. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not going to join the discussion here; instead, I'll drop a note on the village pump and ask people to comment. I believe that, if it has no consensus, there are people that disagree with the page content, and if they do they can probably discuss that with the people who wrote it. The reason I put back the guideline tag is that the page was apparently stable for a month and a half, and the person who removed it did not give a reason in his edit summary. But I'm taking this off my watchlist for now. >Radiant< 17:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not that this is a poll or anything, but Radiant's ad implies looking for opinions. The problem is that this starts with a paragraph on criteria for inclusion (if enough r & v information exists...), then says "it is not the purpose of this article ... to define additional criteria for inclusion". Pick one. The paragraph, by the way, contradicts with Misplaced Pages:Notability. Every other family-run restaurant has a "history of this restaurant" on the back of their menus, that is several paragraphs long, reasonably reliable (several generations of the family say so, no one contradicts them), and clearly verifiable (go to the restaurant, you'll get a menu; it may even be up on their web site). It may even be an interesting history (grandpa grew up in A, learned how to make the world's best B, married the love of his life from C, opened a small place in D, moved to E ...) According to that paragraph, every other restaurant now deserves an article? Not according to Misplaced Pages:Notability which requires that story be printed by multiple unrelated sources. --AnonEMouse 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete this page I don't see any special case here where a notable topic would not qualify under the notability guidelines. This is a perfect example of WP:CREEP to no salient purpose. Even as an essay it contradicts the other guidelines.--Kevin Murray 21:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Overall, I think I agree most with this. It's like we're saying "yeah, we know we told you that X is 'notable', but since it may be of local interest, it really isn't." It's not "CREEP"y as much as contradictory. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Put this up for
a votediscussion to ensure whether if this has consensus or not - While its a good idea in general, this needs to gain consensus, not have a few people making it and enforcing it on others that has no idea about the guideline. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 12:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC) - I pretty much agree that most of this is covered better (and in a less wishy-washy fashion) elsewhere. There may be a place for a "local interest topics" subheading in other notability-related pages, but the general focus should be on reliability and detail, not geography. Anything else shows up our cultural bias to ill effect. -- nae'blis 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be developing a consensus on several points:
- (1) These aren't guidelines
- (2) the form and format is inconsistent with the other notability guidelines
- (3) the standards hre contradict other notability guidelines
I propose that we label this page as an essay, then consider whether it can be improved or should be deleted. --Kevin Murray 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Unincorporated towns, villages and settlements
After having poked around the various policy pages on notability and coming up largely empty handed, I'm turning to this page here to see if some discussion on the subject can't be revived. I realize the article was marked 'inactive' but if some more discussion and interest can be generated, I think there is still some need for consensus on this subject.
Briefly discussed above was the issue of small villages and whether they pass inclusion standards. My concern has arisen after trying to edit and improve some articles regarding unincorporated towns tagged {{importance}}. Previously I had seen people arguing that geographical places had "inherent" notability and did not need further sources to "prove importance", and whether that is some kind of consensus or not I am unsure.
Admittedly my understanding of the issue will be somewhat skewed toward how things work in the United States, particularly the western US, but it could be applicable to villages everywhere. Anyway, my concern is thus : In terms of incorporated cities, towns, and townships, I doubt there is any question as to whether or not they are notable enough for articles - finding sources of information for such entities should be simple. Unincorporated towns that lack government are another matter, and particularly those that are isolated from major population centers, may lack sources of information that are easy to get a hold of. This means that there are many small towns that may have notability of limited and local scope - but does that make them not inclusion worthy?
Further complicating the issue are other unincorporated community entities that are less distinct, such as neighborhoods of a city, subdivisions, master-planned communities, named trailer parks, and the list goes on. In all liklihood it is probably not difficult to establish the existence of these entities, but a question arises as to where to place the bar for inclusion. I find it difficult to set that bar without being arbitrary. In my opinion, an unincorporated town that nevertheless has some kind of cohesive community merits an article of its own, but a neighborhood of an existing city does not (except in the case that it has some kind of historical significance).
Do we use the simple inclusion criteria "If reliable secondary sources can be found then it is notable and warrants its own article"? Is there some other standard of what gets its own article as opposed to what should merely be mentioned under a parent region?
Hoping to get some feedback here! Arkyan 17:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Unincorporated has different legal meanings in different U.S. States, as well as in different countries. Unincorporated places can be quite large and quite significant. For example, Huntington (CDP), New York has a population of over 18,000. The guideline at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes is that "Cities and villages are notable, regardless of size." So the problem you bring up is better handled by merging than deletion. If a place exists, but there is not enough content for a stand alone article, it should be merged into a parent article. But if it is a CDP in the US, it should be left as a stand alone article for consistency. Dhaluza 02:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the Common outcomes page, I had been looking for something just like that! I guess that it at least helps to clarify but I suppose there is still the issue of subjective definitions - for example, what constitutes the line between a village and just a "named place". For some real-world examples, Wittmann, Arizona is an unincorporated community that is fairly obvious - it has its own post office and I doubt anyone would argue against it being a town/village. One might argue Circle City, Arizona is just a trailer park, as it lacks its own post office or any services, however the department of transportation identifies it with a sign on the highway stating "Circle City". Does this constitute a village/town? Finally there is Nothing, Arizona (which is a bad article to begin with) is claimed to be a "town" by some but in reality appears to be little more than a service station. Is this something best left up to the discretion of the editors, and if someone doesn't believe that it fits the definition of a town and is not otherwise notable, take appropriate action? Arkyan 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The reason all human habitations are considered notable is to maintain WP:NPOV. The type of housing is irrelevant. Whether the residents live in mobile homes or huts or caves should not come into play. The issue with the Circle City, Arizona article is a lack of WP:ATT information, not the physical characteristics of the place itself.
- Nothing, Arizona is actually a good example of why arbitrary prescriptive guidelines do not work. A little web research turned up lots of information about this town, which is notable for its small size. I was able to find two sources with editorial supervision, so this article would meet even the disputed WP:N guideline. Dhaluza 12:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- You bring up good points there, and I don't disagree with you. Perhaps my bringing up Nothing, Arizona is a bad example as it is notable for other reasons, I was just trying to find an example of a "town" whose designation as such might be questionable.
- The more I consider the issue the more I am coming to the conclusion that creating any arbitrary set of inclusion criteria for human settlements is going to be flawed and should probably be left to the judgement of the editors on a case-by-case basis. Thank you for the input! Arkyan 17:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've been struggling over the problem of which villages & hamlets from the non-Western world should be included in Misplaced Pages for some time now, in part due to a passionate debate I had about one such place. (I've put off writing this down because I've struggled with a simple & clear way to express these guidelines.) Many villages & hamlets are transient landmarks: due to famine, epidemics, war -- or just because the community thinks its a good idea -- they can change their name, move or vanish. (I know of at least one documented example of this happening in Ethiopia.) As a result, for this category I've been meaning to propose the following guideline for inclusion to Misplaced Pages. For a village, hamlet (or what in the US might be called an "unincorporated community") to be included, it must be mentioned in at least one of two types of reliable sources:
- An official publication, like a government census, or an NGO report or publication; and/or
- An eyewitness report that the place does exist.
- This would exclude certain sources of online information (such as failingrain.com), which do not explicitly guarrantee the existence of a place, while allowing sources like travellers' accounts or guidebooks -- which can be reasonably expected not to be making facts up. While this is probably restating Misplaced Pages:Verification in slightly different words, I honestly can't see how someone could argue a village is notable if no one has been there. (Villages from fiction or legend are an entirely separate issue.) -- llywrch 17:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Naturally, the content must still be WP:V. This is an example of where a single reference might be sufficient. There is a related ongoing debate at the disputed WT:N guideline page over the issue of number and nature of sources needed for an article. Dhaluza 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I like your proposed guideline and I think this issue should be taken further because I know in North Carolina, we're having the same problem with keeping/deleting articles about unincorporated communities... the policy isn't consistent and there is no guideline that I can find to help. As far as deserving of articles... how small do we go? I mean, if you look at a map you may see in really small text a community called "Enterprise" and you live in it, but you've never heard of it... it's just a collection of housing developments someone somewhere decided to name. So, as a result, I say that there needs to be at least one source that focuses on the community whether its a newspaper article or county history website... something. I don't trust maps as far as knowing about unincorporated areas... they don't even have road names correct a lot of times. I do not believe that just because you see it on a map makes it automatically exist, so I think that needs to be addressed. Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a directory or a travel guide. Also, as far as the USA is concerned, if you can't find the place in the USGS Geographic Names Information System, I doubt that the area has any name of importance. (I have similar conversation going on at WT:NCAR#Unincorporated communities in North Carolina) --Triadian 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- One more thing: as far as merging in the United States, where would we merge them into? Should we create articles that encompass many unincorporated areas like Unincorporated communities in Stanly County, North Carolina or merge them into the county article or the township article? --Triadian 22:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- I find this a really interesting one. In the United Kingdom, there are many very small hamlets. Despite this, I can usually find a few sources for the ones that I created articles on.-h i s r e s e a r c h 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Finding reliable sources for even the tiniest hamlet in the UK is extremely simple. The local council is the obvious starting point, given that the entire territory of the UK is subject to the juridiction of a local authority; somewhere in the Local Plan, for example, there is bound to be a (no matter how short) commentary on the character and town planning considerations relating to the village. To expand the article into more than a permastub, village libraries commonly have a section on 'Local Interest', usually with a variety of books by local historians. For a broader coverage, by now Pevsner's Buildings of England has articles on almost the entire country, for example. DWaterson (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I find this a really interesting one. In the United Kingdom, there are many very small hamlets. Despite this, I can usually find a few sources for the ones that I created articles on.-h i s r e s e a r c h 06:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
AFDs which relate to this proposed guideline
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sevier County Sheriff's Office April 26, 2007
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bristol Tennessee Police DepartmentApril 26, 2007
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cut Bank Police Department April 26, 2007
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gallatin County Sheriff's Office April 26, 2007
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Fire Department April 26, 2007
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gatlinburg Public Services April 26, 2007
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kingsport Police Department April 26, 2007
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pigeon Forge Public Services April 26, 2007
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Roanoke City Sheriff's Office April 26, 2007
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sevier County Sheriff's Office April 26, 2007
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sullivan County Tennessee Sheriff's Office April 26, 2007.
Many editors argued for merging them with the articles for the governmental unit (county, city) in which they are located, expressing sentiments similar to those in this proposed guideline. (noted by Edison 17:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC))
- LOCAL is a sensible guideline, so I'm not sure why this was changed to "inactive" seeing that so many active editors are actively citing it in good faith. Silensor 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Because there was actually no consensus to making this a guideline. Only a few editors decided to make this a 'guideline' without outside consultation. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh really, and exactly who were these "few" editors supposed to consult again? Silensor 08:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- , and read the first topic up top of this page. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 12:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was a rhetorical question, the point being that this guideline is in such broad useage that no one need consultation, nor is there an official body that approves such guidelines. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, and I do believe that the consensus amongst those with common sense agreed this was a sound guideline to reduce strife within the community. Silensor 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This needs to be reworked in a way so that it can become a notability guideline
Just saying. Any suggestions for improvement?--h i s r e s e a r c h 14:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Amen to that. Silensor 05:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the difference between local and global (? or whatever the opposite is)
I'd presume that places on the UNESCO list are definitely beyond "local" curse. National parliaments, national cathedrals (where these exist) are not local either. What about less obvious local places, i.e. Flatiron Building or Basilica of San Domenico? Draw me the line. NVO (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I like this.
I had occasion to refer this essay to a person who wants to write an article about a historic preservation overlay zone in Los Angeles and call it a "neighborhood." I found this piece helpful in organizing some of my own thoughts as well. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Failed
This proposal has now been existence more than ten years without being accepted, and it is a large number of years since there was any discussion about it here. Isn't it time to tag it as
 | This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump. |
? FOARP (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Category: