Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 8

< Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Mxn in topic Townships
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 12
Latest comment: 1 year ago23 comments5 people in discussion

Hi. I am asking the question, it seems we have a specific guidelines on notability which is generalised but woolly. Take User:Crouch, Swale questions above. When is an English parish a legal place? Take North Shoebury, a parish that did not exist at the time of the Domesday Book, that was created between the creation of the book and the 12th century. It lasted until the 1930s, when it was split up between Southend and Rochford. North Shoebury as a village kept its separate identity until the 1980s when the farmland that separated it from South Shoebury was built on. The ecclesiastical parish still exists, but its administrative side no longer exists, as it has been separated between Shoeburyness and West Shoebury Ward's. So technically where does this sit? We had a page for North Shoebury, but I merged and redirected this into the Shoeburyness page as it had little information. User:Crouch, Swale is of the opinion that as t⁷he parish existed it should have its own page, but he raised this after I had completed the merge.

So when does a parish, former or not be notable to have an article? As parishes can cover more than one legally recognised habitable place (Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet Parish for example), does WP:Notability (geographic features) really cover parishes or just the actual places? And as per User:Crouch, Swale, should we have and administrative area section to make it clearer? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Davidstewartharvey: North Shoebury was a parish in Rochford Rural District until it was abolished. It being a rural parish means it would have had a parish council or at least parish meeting so would qualify as legally recognized. In the case of Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet we rightly also have articles at Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet covering the villages as well as former parishes.
With regards to North Shoebury the settlement still exists but indeed is now part of the settlement and unparished area of Southend-on-Sea. WP:GEOLAND notes "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history". Yes you may be correct that today North Shoebury may be less of a distinct entity than it was before the 1980s but that doesn't mean it no longer qualifies for an article. Cambridge Town is different as that was never a parish in its own right. See WP:DEFUNCT for examples of things that no longer exist.
If you look at cases where something was renamed then generally the articles should be combined like Cuckfield Rural redirecting to Ansty and Staplefield because the parish was renamed not abolished. Similarly if you look at Talk:Somerset County Council#Merger proposal the 2 articles were on the same (or almost the same) topic, see WP:MERGEREASON while "North Shoebury" and "Shoeburyness" are distinctly different topics even if there is some overlap, see WP:NOTMERGE 3. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem is if you type in place in to search in Wikipedia you get Human settlement which keads as "In geography, statistics and archaeology, a settlement, locality or populated place is a community of people living in a particular place. The complexity of a settlement can range from a minuscule number of dwellings grouped together to the largest of cities with surrounding urbanized areas. Settlements may include hamlets, villages, towns and cities. A settlement may have known historical properties such as the date or era in which it was first settled, or first settled by particular people. The process of settlement envolves human migration". Parishes are not mentioned as they are an administrative area, which Wikipedia states "A parish is an administrative division used by several countries." There is no mention in this notability guideline of administrative areas. In fact the government notability guideline was rejected previous. This is why I ask the question, and as you have already put forward previous in this talk page, changes to include administrative areas, which i would support to make this guideline less woolly.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Part of why its woolly is that it has to apply to the whole world, this isn't an encyclopedia about the UK so specializing it for the UK would be inappropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
But should we define what is a legal place? Administrative areas can include multiple legal recognised places. I have seen arguements that administrative area articles are just duplicates of the actual town, village or city.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Of course not, we should leave that definition up to the duly appointed legal authorities in each jurisdiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
You miss the point. Administrative areas are just that, not a place ie. a city, town or village as described in human settlement. In some cases Administrative areas cover several towns and cities, take Greater Manchester Combined Authority. This is not a legal place but an administrative area, as the cities Manchester and Salford, towns Oldham, Bury etc are the human settlement. In Organization and companies, there is clear guidelines and cknsiderably more comprehensive that these guidelines. Why can't we have something like User:Crouch, Swale has proposed?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
And you miss mine... What is a legal place will be different in every country. This attempt at drawing a bright line is Don Quixote esque because such a line doesn't exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Davidstewartharvey: Does the essay Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements (which isn't UK specific) that I wrote a few years ago help answer you're point? When it comes down to parishes (4th order divisions) that have the same name as a settlement they are normally combined into 1 article like Hatfield Peverel even though it contains other settlements like Nounsley. When it comes to districts like Rochford District they are normally separate from the settlement Rochford (which is also a parish). I think we may need better guidance on what administrative divisions are notable in the 1st place but for North Shoebury the point at WP:PLACEOUTCOMES "Smaller suburbs are generally merged, being listed under the primary city article, except when they consist of legally separate municipalities or communes (e.g., having their own governments)." likely applies since North Shoebury was once a municipality (parish) it can have an article but the municipality doesn't need a separate article from the settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I used North Shoebury as an example. I think we do need real definition on administrative areas, as even in most parts of the world there is a structure to administrative areas which are comparable. This notability guideline is just over 9600 bytes, which compared to Organization & Company which is over 41k, it is very light and giving proper definition is really required.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Sort of unspoken is that it had/has a government and a government which is the primary government at that level. In a typical US location that might mean city, county, state, country but typically not abstract entities like irrigation districts. And the fallback is when in doubt, it needs to confirm meeting GNG at the outset. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, "unspoken". Looking at most countries on Wikipedia we have pages confirming the administrative areas. Why can't we have a statement stating: Administrative Areas that are defined in each national Administrative divisions article pages are notable. We could create a category to link each article and add it to the guideline as a see here hatnote?Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with David that we probably need a guideline for administrative units as well as settlements as I suggested at #Administrative units.

The point about informal regions being under "Populated places without legal recognition" does touch on this and WP:PLACEOUTCOMES says "Legally recognized cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence and legal recognition can be verified through a reliable source. This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities."

As far as I'm aware with regards to notability of administrative units generally the following are presumed notable as long as legally recognized in the country they are in (as different countries may have different definitions for the same word)

  • Countries like France or Scotland
  • "States" namely national subdivisions which in the "US" and Germany are called "states" while in England are called "(ceremonial) counties"
  • "Districts" namely the next unit which in the US is called a "county" and in Germany and England called a district
  • Municipalities which often have a translation such as in Germany in German is "Gemeinden" or in England they are called "(civil) parishes"
  • Formal regions (as opposed to informal ones the guideline references) such as Regions of England

Normally if the division appears in a national census (excluding census tracts) it would likely be notable.

Those that are generally not notable include:

  • Census tracts
  • Sewage treatment districts
  • Irrigation districts

With respect to "places" in terms of the likes of settlements and other physical places the following are generally notable

  • Any city, town, village or even hamlet or suburb that appears in a national census.

Exclusions are

Just a note that not all US states have counties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I think they do except that in Louisiana they call them parishes? North8000 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Most of New England as well and plenty more besides. This is why for federal statistical purposes county equivalent is a thing, but there isn't always a county equivalent government... Sometimes its purely a statistical fiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yep, and Alaska use Boroughs. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes it would the the equivalences on the relevant country. On a similar note some English counties don't have any districts and some districts and even counties don't contain any parishes such as Northumberland not containing an districts since 2009 and Watford not containing any parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And the US there are townships which have many different meanings/structures even within the US. Some clearly notable, some clearly non-notable. And that's all just within the US. Trying to more specific could get really complicated. North8000 (talk) 20:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

At risk of instruction creep would it be a good idea to create a geographical notability guideline/essay for specific countries while maintaining the generic one? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I am going to create it as an RFC so we can get a bigger concensus. Bare with me first time! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
There's more than notability to consider, per WP:PAGEDECIDE. There might be an administrative division of some kind that merits coverage, but there might be very little to say about it by itself, or little to say that doesn't duplicate another existing article or divorce its content from the context of the (presumably overlapping) area. CMD (talk) 06:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Rfc on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The geographic features SNG states that Settlements and administrative regions, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. The question was what is a legal recognised place? If you type place into Wikipedia search, you get Human settlement which the lead reads: In geography, statistics and archaeology, a settlement, locality or populated place is a community of people living in a particular place. The complexity of a settlement can range from a minuscule number of dwellings grouped together to the largest of cities with surrounding urbanized areas. Settlements may include hamlets, villages, towns and cities. A settlement may have known historical properties such as the date or era in which it was first settled, or first settled by particular people. The process of settlement envolves human migration. This does not mention formal Administrative Districts/Areas, just cities, towns, villages and hamlets. A discussion was started on the Notability (geographical features) talk page where user:North8000 stated Administrative Districts/Areas came in under the "unspoken" rule that they count as legal places.

This seems like madness. I believe we should in some way confirm what formal Administrative Districts/Areas (also know as subdivisions) are legally recognised places. However the arguement is that there is so many different levels of these across the world that you cannot have a this in this SNG. However I have pointed out, this SNG is just over 9600 bytes, with SNG Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), has much greater detail and is over 41,000 bytes on size, and gives greater clarification on what is notable, so size should not be an issue. Why can't we have a rule on formal Administrative Districts/Areas?

I therefore have put forward the following:

1. Status quo. Dont change anything and keep the existing unspoken rule.

2. Add in formal Administrative districts/ areas, with hatnote leading to a guideline on what is allowed and what isn't?

3. Add a section for formal Administrative districts/ areas, which lists what will be accepted as formal, with a new category set up and linked to each of the Administrative districts / areas / subdivision pages for each country (or state in terms of the US).

Thankyou for your paticipation. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed refactoring

Latest comment: 1 year ago30 comments10 people in discussion

I notice that the section and subsection headers of this guideline don't make a lot of sense --- why are "roads" and "train stations" separate from "buildings and objects"? There is a nice hierarchy in the geographic features WP article: natural vs artificial features, within artificial features there are settlements, administrative regions, and engineered constructs.

I have refactored the guideline to follow this hierarchy: you can see the proposed refactoring at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/refactor. Note that this refactor does not change the wording of the guideline: it simply sorts the guideline components into more obvious sections.

Any comments or thoughts on this proposal? — hike395 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

This would imply that roads and train stations would be under The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. which is a controversial change to make. --Rschen7754 01:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I thought they already were covered by that statement? Aren't roads and train stations man-made geographical features? If not, what would that statement cover? — hike395 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
There is some ambiguity over whether that statement was intended to apply to the road and train station sections. In several recent AFDs, the (novel) argument has been made that the particular statement in question nullifies the entirety of the road section, which tells us how to apply WP:NEXIST to roads. --Rschen7754 02:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Rschen7754: That argument doesn't sound correct to me. Could you kindly give a link to an example from AfD? I'm not sure whether the argument is being apply to a major (international/national/state) highway, or a minor (county/region/local) road? — hike395 (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Highway 93 (Karnataka) among others as listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/All article alerts/Archive 1. --Rschen7754 19:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Not seeing that argument being made. I am seeing you make the argument that "typically" means "automatically" and not "typically." which is a little odd. You understand that typically means that not all articles which fall under those conditions will be notable, correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
To put it another way: I think that it's implicit that a section title that is more specific to the topic at hand is the applicable one rather than one that is less specific. In this case separating them removes them from under "mere including on a map" criteria. So your proposal is for a significant change. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Please go ahead and carry out this necessary refactoring. It is completely nonsensical to treat roads and railways differently to other man-made structures. FOARP (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
    I’ll add that I also do not believe this changes the situation, since it has always been the case that simply being featured in maps, directories, indexed, geographical dictionaries etc. does not sustain notability.FOARP (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I disagree with your rationale if it were to change the individual guidelines but from a closer review of your proposal, it appears that you just organized the current requirements better without changing them. North8000 (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose No, this would be a significant change in the policy and needs wider input at a minimum. --Rschen7754 00:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I concur with North8000, above, and believe that it is not a significant change in policy. How do you recommend getting wider input? — hike395 (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Posts at relevant venues, or RFC. --Rschen7754 02:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Posted a notice at the following WikiProjects: Notability, Geography, Mountains, Rivers, Lakes, Islands, National Register of Historic Places, Cities, Countries, Bridges and Tunnels, Dams, Trains, Highways. — hike395 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, doesn't change policy; roads and train stations are man-made geographical features. BilledMammal (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment/clarification The OP seemed to give the impression that it was arguing that, based on using set theory, that roads and train stations should be treated the same as building and objects. I disagree with that rationale, and such is not currently the case and such would be a major change. However, upon looking at the actual proposal, I think that it does not make that change or any change in the actual guidelines. It merely organizes them better. The individual items are "self contained" and do not inherit anything from their heading. And so IMO, the proposal does not make any change of substance to the guideline. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I did not mean to claim that roads and train stations should be treated the same as building and objects. They clearly currently have different guidelines (the building-relevant guidelines at WP:NBUILD are different from WP:NTRAINSTATION and from WP:GEOROAD), and I don't want to change that. I agree with North8000 that guidelines are "self contained" and should not inherit from headers. The sticking point seems to be in the interpretation of The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability. I would have thought that this currently applies to all man-made geographical features, including buildings, objects, train stations, and roads. If you look at the discussion from 2012 that established WP:GEOROAD, it didn't discuss that pre-existing sentence at all. The discussion that created NTRAINSTATION specifically mentioned that sentence --- editors seemed to agree that the sentence covered train stations. I don't see any historical consensus for excluding roads or train stations from the "insufficient for notability" sentence. — hike395 (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Hike395: I think that you keep shooting yourself in the foot. :-) The main basis for the the supports here and for potentially bypassing a wider RFC would be that your proposal has no changes of substance. Yet your OP and last post seem imply that there are changes by providing justification for implied changes. Changes that don't appear to be in there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's unfortunate. I'm trying to say that there are no changes. There's one editor who thinks that this changes the guidelines, and I'm trying to argue that it doesn't change the guidelines. Maybe I should stop arguing that it doesn't change things: maybe it's obvious. — hike395 (talk) 15:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: See the first paragraph of this Talk section --- I'm just trying to organize/tidy the notability guidelines without changing them. The refactor just adds new section headers and sorts existing guidelines into the headers. No changes to the guidelines are anticipated. I proposed this because the current presentation of the guidelines doesn't make sense to me (why do we have separate top-level sections on "Buildings and Objects", "Train stations", and "Roads"?) It's purely intended to be friendlier for editors to read. — hike395 (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support, as far as I can tell this is just housekeeping/organization, I don't think it changes anything but it does make our existing standards easier to understand. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Support Update: support reorganization effort. Oppose without a clear explanation of what you're trying to change. I'd expect a line-by-line; instead we get nothing. ɱ (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ɱ: looks like you missed Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)/refactor (not a bug deal, I didn't understand what I was looking at initially either). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I see now. I am leaning toward support, but recommend that train stations be combined with transportation facilities, or made a sub-bullet of it. ɱ (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Hike395: I also recommend bolding "this refactor does not change the wording of the guideline"; I missed that part upon first read-through. Good work however. ɱ (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your bolding suggestion! I also added a little memo on top of the proposal. I see what you mean that "train stations" are actually "transportation facilities". The problem is that "train stations" are also "infrastructure", and "roads" are also "infrastructure", so there isn't a clean way to make sub-bullets (IMO). As written currently the guidelines are a bit messy, but I didn't want to change any wording. I thought it was safest to just leave them as parallel bullets. But if other editors want to make a different structure, I'm open to anything sensible. — hike395 (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Townships

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Are townships (abolished in 1866) in England notable?, see Township (England). For example Chapel Sucken[1]. Some like Brunstock are also settlements and have other coverage and thus would probably be considered notable anyway and some like Hugill became parishes and would be notable. Are those like Chapel Sucken that aren't settlements and never became parishes notable? See a list in Cumbria here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Townships in the US vary widely regarding this. All the way from being what is widely recognized as a distinct area with a government that provides a "medium scope" range of services down to ones that are just an abstract set of lines on a map where none of the above is the case. North8000 (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This speaks to my concern about such an authoritative-sounding whitelist of terms that even in English are so ambiguous, let alone in translation to other languages. I'm just glad that the two or three Wikipedians who grok paper townships would probably be disinclined to mass-create stubs about them based on U.S. Census Bureau data. Minh Nguyễn 💬 03:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Rfc on Wikipedia:Notability (geographical features)

Latest comment: 1 year ago30 comments12 people in discussion

Hi. Should we add a section to add Administrative division t Districts / Areas to the notability SNG for geographical features WP:GEOLAND? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The geographic features SNG states that Settlements and administrative regions, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. The question was what is a legal recognised place? If you type place into Wikipedia search, you get Human settlement which the lead reads: In geography, statistics and archaeology, a settlement, locality or populated place is a community of people living in a particular place. The complexity of a settlement can range from a minuscule number of dwellings grouped together to the largest of cities with surrounding urbanized areas. Settlements may include hamlets, villages, towns and cities. A settlement may have known historical properties such as the date or era in which it was first settled, or first settled by particular people. The process of settlement envolves human migration. This does not mention formal Administrative Districts/Areas, just cities, towns, villages and hamlets. A discussion was started on the Notability (geographical features) talk page where user:North8000 stated Administrative Districts/Areas came in under the "unspoken" rule that they count as legal places.

This seems like madness. I believe we should in some way confirm what formal Administrative Districts/Areas (also know as subdivisions) are legally recognised places. However the arguement is that there is so many different levels of these across the world that you cannot have a this in this SNG. However I have pointed out, this SNG is just over 9600 bytes, with SNG Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), has much greater detail and is over 41,000 bytes on size, and gives greater clarification on what is notable, so size should not be an issue. Why can't we have a rule on formal Administrative Districts/Areas?

I therefore have put forward the following:

1. Status quo. Dont change anything and keep the existing unspoken rule.

2. Add in formal Administrative districts/ areas, with hatnote leading to a guideline on what is allowed and what isn't?

3. Add a section for formal Administrative districts/ areas, which lists what will be accepted as formal, with a new category set up and linked to each of the Administrative districts / areas / subdivision pages for each country (or state in terms of the US). Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Davidstewartharvey I suggest you provide summary or synopsis of your discussion to avoid WP:TLDR. Bookku (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

As an example, I'm currently working through titles which might need a disambiguation page. These cover diverse topics, in geography and elsewhere, but many are sets of similarly named small settlements. The second item on that list is six places called Davydkovo, with populations of (unstated), 2, 4, 5, 4 and 10. Do I continue to create a dab (after possibly moving the article currently at the base name to a qualified title), or is it possible that a settlement consisting of two people is not in fact notable? Certes (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The above description of what I said isn't really right. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Here is what I meant plus some expansions:
The defacto standard/clarification is that if an area meets all of these criteria:
  • Is a legally defined area
  • Has / had a government
  • That that government is the primary government at that level (I.E. it's not things like a irrigation district, library district etc)
That it is presumed notable. And "Presumed notable" means that at least initially does not have to establish GNG notability.
If an area does not meet all of the above criteria it is usually not presumed to be notable. There are uncommon exceptions where the very nature of the inhabited or previously inhabited area gives it a very strong separate identity. For example, a settlement in a rural area. Again, IMO this is a defacto standard that just "fills in the blanks" where the guideline doesn't clearly provide an answer.
Sincerely North8000 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. But that's the point it's not in the notability guideline, just the term legal place. Adding administrative division / district / area with the breakdown you have given as the defacto would make more sense to the guideline.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that some evolution / clarification would be good. My my thought sort of fills in the blanks in a lot of areas. I'm not understanding what you specifically mean by "administrative division / district / area" in your initiative. Do you mean it to include cities, towns, states etc., or did you mean types of districts that are not any of those such things? North8000 (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Thats a good question, for example sewer and water districts are formal administrative districts/areas but are almost never notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I am talking about local government that provides services, I.e. cities, towns, county's , boroughs, parishes etc not like water and sewage boards, development boards. Maybe the wording needs to include that. I know on Administrative divisions of China they state that there is formal and informal districts, what is regarded as local government and what isn't. Looking at Administrative divisions of India, the lower level called Blocks is a bit woolly, either being villages or just development planning districts!. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Topical example, Districts of Israel, includes two areas as districts that are occupied territory. It is clear in this case that these are merely bureaucratic divisions (or POV). Unless there is lots of independent sourcing, such things should not be considered notable imo. Selfstudier (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Davidstewartharvey, I'm with you in spirit on your initiative, but I think that there is no way that this particular RFC is going to move that forward. It doesn't provide an answer and IMHO isn't even clear on what the question is. IMO we should analyze the current text in that area and develop proposed new text. And then either boldly try putting it in or else have an RFC to put it in. My thought is that the hard job will be coming up with good specific wording and if it just follows current practice maybe getting it in after that would be easy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
North8000, I think you really gave what we should work with:
Administrative divisions (also known as districts or sub divisions) are notable if they meet the following:
  • Is a legally defined area
  • Has or has previously had a government
  • and that government is/was the primary government at that level
This must be primary government at this level and not organisations like irrigation districts, library districts, development districts.
Then we give examples of what is acceptable and what isnt, much like we have in WP:SIRS in the WP:Notability (organizations and companies) policy guideline.
Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I did my best. But it still needs to be reconciled with what is already in there. I'd be happy to work on that but am buried in real life for the next few hours. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support yes we do probably need more clarify on this, what is a "populated legally recognized place"? Is it a settlement even if uninhabited like Imber[2] or Tottington, Norfolk[3] (which is also an administrative unit) or does it refer to administrative divisions like Nedging-with-Naughton or Vermont which are administrative units with their own local government but not settlements? Consider Island of Stroma being in Category:Former populated places in Scotland even though its never been a settlement and the fact GeoNames sometimes also has an entry for a supposed populated places in terms of settlement (like Gighaisland and supposed settlement probably because people live on the island[4] As I said above we may need country specific guidelines and Wikipedia:Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements already deals with situations settlements have the same name as them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have no idea what I'm commenting on. Is a specific change to the guideline actually being proposed, and if so what is it and how does it differ from the status quo? -- Visviva (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    It is adding a clarification to the current SNG. Administrative Divisions/districts/areas that are managed by primary government are not defined in the SNG. This means Counties/parishes/provinces/states etc which are artificial geographical areas are not covered in the SNG.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose, probably. It is not clear to me what is being proposed, but I believe that what is being proposed is to expand the scope of this SNG and in general I believe it is preferable to refer to the GNG; we need sources to write an article rather than a database entry, and until those sources are identified it is better and more policy-compliant to have a list entry rather than a database entry. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    The problem we have currently is that the SNG says Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Administrative divisions controlled by primary government have been so far accepted under this rule (regularly quoted by WikiProject Geography) but as per the discussions in this talk page, what actually counts as a legally recognised place? Place is identified in a search in Wikipedia as a human settlement, and Administrative Divisions can cover various settlements so are they a place (counties/parishes)? I would like to add in what counts as an administrative division, and what isn't.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    Though if you think they should come under GNG, propose that we word that in the discussion: I.e. Administrative Divisions are not notable under this SNG and defer to the General Notability Guideline.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose the idea of explicitly declaring administrative subdivisions as inherently notable (which seems to be what's being suggested). This has been discussed here a few times in the past, but it is very likely to lead to large numbers of procedurally generated permanent stubs being created out of some database. While the conventional first level subdivisions of countries (states/counties/provinces etc) are very likely to be notable, and second level subdivisions might be depending on circumstances, below that level it's a lot less likely unless they correspond to settlements. To take a concrete example is an administrative subdivision of, say, 1000 people in Kazakhstan inherently notable? Kazakhstan has a population of about 19 million, so if they are than that's 19,000 articles, and I'm sure somebody will try to create them. And if this applies to all subdivisions used by government in some capacity we could be talking about a division of a country used for providing water supply, sewage, postal services or whatever. The "populated places" part should only refer to settlements and not administrative regions. Hut 8.5 12:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5: (and others with a similar concern) I'm with you in spirit but (probably due to the unclear wording of the RFC) you might be posting counter to your own goals. The potential problem that you describe already exists and this is an attempt to solve it. Right now every administrative district (including those in your example) is (arguably) a populated legally recognized place and so the current guideline (arguably) already says that those are presumed notable. The intent of the potential change is to tighten that up. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
You beat me too it. The current issue is legally recognised place for artificial geographical features is woolly. Users like User:Crouch, Swale state administrative districts are artificial created features and are legally recognised. I raised it to try and get the discussion going to rectify this as both he and I have clashed and co-operated on several of these in the past. Unfortunately I was a bit ham fisted with my listing, though I apologies it was my first attempt at RFC!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I think we do need this guidance since we're not trying to get all to be treated as inherently notable but at least those like states, districts, municipalities and formal regions. We also should have greater clarity on those that aren't inherently notable like census tracts and irrigation districts. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree that the term "populated place" includes all administrative regions, and I'm not sure it includes any administrative reasons at all - the term is usually understood to mean settlements or parts of settlements. I'd be happy to change the guideline to state that more explicitly. Although I'd agree that some types of administrative regions are very likely to be notable, I don't think it's a good idea to write anything like this into the guideline as it will likely open the door to lots of new database-generated geostubs. In cases of high level regions which are clearly notable there isn't likely to be much questioning of that status anyway. Hut 8.5 17:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
We both have the same concerns and want the same thing but see nearly everything else about achieving it differently. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
but if you look at WP:GEOLAND, the section is called Settlements and and administrative regions, so administrative divisions do come under this. That's why it really needs clearing up. If you look in the next chat we are trying to come up with something tgat is palatable and clearer. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To begin with, there does not seem to be an actual problem to be solved here. And now that the proponents are discussing their intentions more frankly, this doesn't look like it's going anywhere good. A proposal to lower barriers to the inclusion of administrative divisions without disturbing any other aspects of the guideline would certainly be welcome, but that does not seem to be at all what is being entertained here. It is shocking that we would even be considering further restrictions of notability at the very same time that there is general agreement that our notability criteria -- whatever arguable value they may once have appeared to possess -- have walled off Wikipedia to such an extent that we have failed catastrophically at our fundamental task of being open to the contributions of all good-faith contributors. The only reasonable thing to do in this situation would be to lower the barriers to inclusion, not raise them. If we can't manage actual reform, let's at least restrain ourselves from making things even worse. -- Visviva (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I know where you are coming from. I started this process to tidy up and get proper wording for this. However as the discussions are showing what is legally recognised? At this rate a chunk of villages, hamlets and administrative divisions will be sent to AFD as they don't meet GNG, and will end up a complete messy argument.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  • No - GEOLAND needs to be restricted/removed, not expanded. It has provided the basis for very large numbers of extremely low-quality, database-based, single-or-no-reference, one-sentence, written-in-seconds articles.
The Iranian "village" articles referenced to the 2006 Iranian census, thousands of which have now been deleted but thousands of which still remain to be addressed, are a classic example of this. The (now retired under a cloud) author of these articles failed to realise that the Iranian census includes petrol stations, factories, bridges, farms, pumps, springs (etc.) in the locations that it lists, and is not in fact a list of villages. The articles created in many tens of thousands by another author who failed to realise that GeoNET Names Server includes a lot of places labelled "populated place" that don't actually exist is another example of this. The thousands of articles written about "ghost towns" - places that actually may not have ever really existed - based on GNIS data are a third example. All of these tens of thousands of fake locations then spawned corresponding locations on Google Maps and other websites which mirror Wikipedia content, resulting in the trashing of the information space and actual harm being done to human knowledge.
GEOLAND should just be scrapped and replaced with the GNG. It's as simple as that. If you can't find significant coverage in a couple of sources, then just don't write the article. This is not a high bar, it's just the bare minimum needed to actually ensure the place really exists as described and that we have something to write about. I'm sorry if this leads to some red links and people having lower article-creation stats than they might otherwise have. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)/Archive_8&oldid=1182759338"