Wikipedia talk:Notability (streets, roads, and highways)/failed
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Gigs in topic Mark as failed to achieve consensus
Again?! edit
What makes this proposal stand out among Wikipedia:Notability (highways), Wikipedia:Places of local interest, Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)_(failed_proposal), Wikipedia:Notability (buildings, structures, and landmarks), Wikipedia:Notability (streets and roads)... and other dead wood in Category:Wikipedia rejected proposals? Drawing the line between real boulevards and "boulevards lined with commercial outfits"? NVO (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Many of the previous proposals were dead because people could not agree upon various things. These ones are simplified versus all the other previous ones, which I have looked over to see what didn't work about them.
- For example, people couldn't agree on whether an atlas was a reliable source. What I came up with as an idea is that it could be used to verify information, but not to establish notability. Sebwite (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- IMO, it will go into the same graveyard. For a few folks like yours truly "X generally is notable if it meets Wikipedia's WP:N guidelines" is a deal breaker. Does it mean that X that meets WP:N may be non-notable? Does it mean that X not meeting WP:N may be deemed notable? It's supposed to be a guideline, not a charade. NVO (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are some topics that even if they are covered by multiple, independent sources, there are still other problems. How about if 10,000 streets from every metropolitan area were covered in multiple, independent sources. A line would have to be drawn somewhere with that. Sebwite (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
- Drawing a line without reference to general gudelines and policies is simple within the same environment; draw a line in Manhattan, and it won't work in Staten Island. If a significant group of editors is keen on describing every street of a city, assure basic article quality, maintain the mass of articles in the future - it's fine with me. The only line to draw is: can the community sustain creation of nice, helpful, up-to-date, properly references articles instead of middle school fancruft crap? more instructions won't help in attracting and retaining active editors. NVO (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
However, don't atlases generally devote thicker lines to roads they consider more notable than others (i.e., main roads, larger connectors) from a travel or transport point of view? So there is still some elbow room for using maps and atlases to determine notability. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is why I'm reviving the idea of maps and atlases as sources that determine notability. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Caution... it is incorrect to say that atlases and maps are always reliable, secondary sources. A hand drawn map made by Napoleon of the terrain around Austerlitz would be a primary source, even if it ends up being published in a biography of Napoleon. Also, I believe that most published atlases are normally considered tertiary sources (although I am less sure of that).
- As for bolding, different maps and atlases have different criteria for bolding. Scope and scale need to be considered: A world atlas may only show major highways in bold... a county atlas may show any paved road in bold. Also, there is no standardization: One map maker may use bolding to indicate the number of lanes (2 lanes = not bold... 4 lanes = bold), while another will use it to indicate county/state/national road designation (2 lane US route = bold, but larger 4 lane State road = not bold). Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, atlases that are tertiary sources may often be direct compilations of secondary sources, for all I know. And they might be essentially repackagings of primary or secondary sources. While a hand-drawn map made by Napoleon might be a primary source, maps compiled or put together as published maps may be secondary sources, whereas something like a GIS might be a primary source. As for depictions of notability, yeah, one needs to discern between atlases' ideas of notability. (County atlases might show paved roads as more notable than unpaved, and so on and so forth, although I do not reckon distinctions between US and state highways as being important for notability and would advise such distinctions be avoided.) A notable road would ideally be one that had much traffic, or was intended to, and/or one that would affect a large number of people. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Atlases can be considered reliable sources, but they're not appropriate to be used as part of WP:GNG, firstly because they fail to give "significant" coverage of each individual road and secondly because of the incredibly low standards for inclusion in an atlas. Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Significance is communicated differently in different communications. It can come in the form of a lengthy discourse, or a very bold line, or a mighty headline and a front-page article, but, still, there are different approaches to significance. As for "low standards for inclusion", those standards are quite credible; atlases set out to include every road anyhow. Thus, there is a need to distinguish the major from the minor. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- But your idea doesn't. Saying "X is notable because it's in an atlas" as you've previously done makes no exception for roads that are completely unimportant. Hence, inclusion in an atlas should not be considered evidence of notability, only a reliable source for the purpose of verifying things. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- My idea doesn't what? Saying "X is notable because it's considered notable by multiple atlases", or "X is notable because it's considered notable by an atlas and is referred to extensively in a couple of magazines and headlined in a newspaper", makes much more sense than "X is notable because it's in an atlas"; furthermore, what makes a road important? It's triangulation that is more important than any one source. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- But your idea doesn't. Saying "X is notable because it's in an atlas" as you've previously done makes no exception for roads that are completely unimportant. Hence, inclusion in an atlas should not be considered evidence of notability, only a reliable source for the purpose of verifying things. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Significance is communicated differently in different communications. It can come in the form of a lengthy discourse, or a very bold line, or a mighty headline and a front-page article, but, still, there are different approaches to significance. As for "low standards for inclusion", those standards are quite credible; atlases set out to include every road anyhow. Thus, there is a need to distinguish the major from the minor. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Atlases can be considered reliable sources, but they're not appropriate to be used as part of WP:GNG, firstly because they fail to give "significant" coverage of each individual road and secondly because of the incredibly low standards for inclusion in an atlas. Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think a map or an atlas can give you a very good indication that a road might have a claim to notability... but I don't think maps and atlases establish that a road does have a claim to notability. Too many variables to consider. Blueboar (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- Well, atlases that are tertiary sources may often be direct compilations of secondary sources, for all I know. And they might be essentially repackagings of primary or secondary sources. While a hand-drawn map made by Napoleon might be a primary source, maps compiled or put together as published maps may be secondary sources, whereas something like a GIS might be a primary source. As for depictions of notability, yeah, one needs to discern between atlases' ideas of notability. (County atlases might show paved roads as more notable than unpaved, and so on and so forth, although I do not reckon distinctions between US and state highways as being important for notability and would advise such distinctions be avoided.) A notable road would ideally be one that had much traffic, or was intended to, and/or one that would affect a large number of people. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Mark as failed to achieve consensus edit
Given that the original discussion of this proposal was quite divided, and that there has been no further discussion for at least 6 weeks, I think it makes sense to mark this proposal as failing to achieve consensus. If I hear no compelling reason not to , I will do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)