Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 |
Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot II when more than 5 sections are present. |
Notability of television episodes
Recently I went through redirecting a bunch of Heroes (American TV series) episodes because they were composed almost entirely of fancruft. Dream Focus (talk · contribs) undid most of the redirects, saying that reviews from IGN and AV Club made the episodes notable.
My read of WP:NEPISODE is that just a review or two isn't enough. Dream Focus says it is. Is this down to just personal opinion, or is an episode not notable unless there is coverage beyond just a couple of reviews? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- As I pointed out, if multiple independent reliable sources give it significant coverage, it passes the notability guidelines. We follow the notability guidelines, not an essay. Dream Focus 06:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It has multiple, independent RS'es covering the topic in depth. WP:NEPISODEs attempt to set a higher bar is out of step with the GNG. The fact that this is an essay, not an SNG, demonstrates that it should be adjusted to align with the GNG, rather than the opinions of those who favor a higher bar to notability not supported in policy or guideline. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have repaired WP:NEPISODE to remove inapplicable references, statements at odds with the GNG, and statements which simply repeat what is true of notability in general. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- A common problem with post 21st century television is that each episode of a series gets routine reviews and viewership but nothing that can readily expand the article beyond the plot summary and a couple of reviews. That's not helpful to Wikipedia, so it is fair that NEPISODE can demand more required coverage than what the GNG would allow knowing the situation around television show coverage. --Masem (t) 16:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- How is something helpful to Wikipedia? Its not a living entity. Its helpful to the readers to have content they want to read, not other things most will simply ignore, they only here to read the plot summary. Trying to get around the general notability guidelines because you don't like something, is wrong no matter how you try to justify it. Dream Focus 16:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Post 21st century television"? What else can you tell us about life after the 21st century? 🤣🤣🤣
- Ahem. Anyway: I agree. I was thinking about this in the same way as bands. If a traveling band is written up in coming attractions lists or reviews in local entertainment websites and columns in connection with their upcoming or just-finished performances at a local venue, and only in such reviews; if, beyond those reviews, it's out of sight, out of mind as far as reliable sources are concerned; then those reviews are really about current events in the local entertainment scene or at the particular venue, they aren't an indication that any special note is being given to the band. It's WP:ROUTINE coverage. So a band that is written up only in such places, and only in connection with their immediate local appearance, isn't going to meet WP:GNG.
- Likewise, if an episode is written up only in listings that cover every episode the same way, then it only shows that the show is notable. For WP:GNG to be met, episodes themselves would have to be selected on a case-by-case basis for coverage. There's have to be episodes that have no coverage by particular sources for us to conclude that others are being given more than perfunctory attention by those same sources. Largoplazo (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- The coverage may not be significant relative to other episodes, but it is significant relative to other episodes. For instance, there could easily be dozens of new television episodes broadcast/released on a given day, and only a few of those will receive reviews from The A.V. Club, IGN, etc., so those episodes are significant relative to episodes in general. This seems to be the interpretation that has been used for a long time; plenty of shows have episode-by-episode coverage based on reviews alone. Our policies should reflect general standards on the wiki, and given that there is no consensus to change those standards (see last year's failed RfC to make WP:NEPISODE an SNG), we should follow the status quo. As to the band analogy, there's a difference between local and national coverage that should contribute to notability (national coverage is more significant). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- It also might be worth comparing this to WP:BOOKCRIT #1, which is an SNG and clearly allows articles on books to exist based solely on reviews. I don't see any reason why episodes should be treated differently. Yes, it is preferable for episode articles to discuss production or have more significant reviews, just as it would be preferable for book articles to discuss the writing and publication history, but that doesn't mean articles missing those sections shouldn't be allowed to exist. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- If an episode has 10 million viewers, then those who review episodes will take the time to review it. They know enough people are interested enough to read their review to make it worth doing. If a show has low ratings, no one will bother reviewing every episode, there no point to it. Dream Focus 17:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Television critics are far more interested in covering the more serious dramas which get very low viewership, while the highly popular shows like many sitcoms and reality TV shows go unreviewed. So no, viewership is not a metric if notabiloty. --Masem (t) 17:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Right, exactly. Critics can have very eclectic tastes and can ignore other series, probably because they have certain "beats" in a sense. However, some are broader in their reviews, like when it comes to anime, with Anime News Network reviewing all new anime series that come up, and often doing episode-by-episode reviews. But, when it comes to shows outside of that, I can't think of any sites which regularly do episode-by-episode reviews on a regular basis. Historyday01 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Television critics are far more interested in covering the more serious dramas which get very low viewership, while the highly popular shows like many sitcoms and reality TV shows go unreviewed. So no, viewership is not a metric if notabiloty. --Masem (t) 17:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's a systemic bias in our episode articles, probably owing to the paucity of RS producing episode reviews. For instance, while Miami Vice is far better known and has had an incomparably bigger cultural impact than Gotham (TV series), the latter gets episode articles -- one could say, because that is what The A.V. Club has got around to. I don't think the solution is to have fewer articles than we have now, but this is clearly a problem. Daß Wölf 22:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- I can agree. This tends to be a problem, for sure. I watch shows like The Owl House and even though it is a relatively popular show from what I am aware, there aren't as many who review specific episodes in depth, and only rarely do so. Historyday01 (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- In current AFDs for popular television episodes that get reviews, such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Months Later... some mention WP:NOTPLOT as a reason to delete these articles. So even if the general notability guidelines are met, some use this as an excuse to delete something. Dream Focus 00:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Restating what I just said at WT:TV: : The quality of reviews matters – this is why WP:NFILM includes
"The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."
The "nationally known critics" is to weed out using minor internet-only reviews to try to qualify a minor film for an article. WP:NTV should mirror that, to keep out using garbage like AV Club (which has internet randos reviewing everything). IOW, if it's not getting reviewed in Variety/Entertainment Weekly/LA Times/etc, the review is likely minor and doesn't meaningfully contribute to the "significant coverage in reliable sources" benchmark. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)- For what it's worth, Metacritic (which limits reviews much more than Rotten Tomatoes to focus on quality reviews) uses "garbage" like The A.V. Club in TV reviews all of the time (link), and WP:RSP considers it a reliable source for TV reviews. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- So the standard is the same for everything: the GNG. You're just arguing that, for example, the AV Club is not an RS. Whoops, sorry, WP:RSP happens to disagree with you. If you want to challenge that longstanding consensus, it looks like it's been a while since someone did. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm arguing that AV Club is a lesser source, for all of the reasons outlined above, certainly in comparison to something like Variety. Are we seriously pretending that all sources have the same weight?! If so, we might as well not even bothering having this conversation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's essentially independent reliable sources, and everything else. The former satisfy V and N (if 2+), the latter may count for V but certainly not for N. If you're trying to argue that there's a quality gradient among independent reliable secondary sources, where some count for notability while others don't or only do so to a lesser extent, then you would need to propose alterations to policy for that to be normative. I mean, sure, aesthetically, there are better sources and not quite so good sources. But two that nose over the line make something notable for Wikipedia purposes; that expectation's been unchanged in well over a decade and a half. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm arguing that AV Club is a lesser source, for all of the reasons outlined above, certainly in comparison to something like Variety. Are we seriously pretending that all sources have the same weight?! If so, we might as well not even bothering having this conversation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some reliable sources review every movie that gets to the theater. Some review every video game that comes out from a major studio, or that has high enough sales to get noticed. Some review every episode from a popular television show that has millions of people watching it. Some review every bestselling book of a genre they normally review. Age of the internet means no limits as it was done in olden days, when they could only have so much stuff fit on their newspaper or magazine, or limited time to talk about things on their television or radio show. The rules of Wikipedia are clear. Multiple- which the the dictionary defines is more than one- reliable sources -as determined by discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard- give something significant coverage. Can't claim a reliable source doesn't count because someone doesn't like them, or sees them as inferior to something else, or they publish on the internet so can review more of something than others can. Dream Focus 04:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think I agree with Masem and Largoplazo et al here. What makes an episode encyclopedic? The fact that a couple places that contemporaneously review every episode of every primetime series can provide a plot summary and perhaps their personal opinion on it? How is that any different than the hundreds of independent recaps that get written for every routine pro or college sports event? If we can recognize the latter as run-of-the-mill coverage and so reserve articles on individual games only for those that receive extraordinary media attention, it seems reasonable to treat unremarkable responses to other scheduled entertainment similarly. JoelleJay (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- You are welcome to try and change the GNG, but I don't think it's advisable. I mean, this whole line of reasoning runs counter to WP:NOTPAPER and smacks a bit of elitism. Wikipedia is supposed to be anti-elitist: we cover what others cover, with no firm storage limit. Absent images, Wikipedia's entire corpus is trivial in size compared to modern storage capacities. "Run of the mill" becomes simply a dog whistle for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nice thing about the GNG is that it expands as Internet sourcing does: more sources on more topics, means more things covered in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I also agree with Masem and Largoplazo et al here. I think this is partially covered by WP:NOTPLOT already but additional clarification through an SNG is a good idea. There are also two current AFD's that are relevant to this discussion; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Months Later... and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dying of the Light (Heroes) BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Encyclopedic" and "not encyclopedic" are entirely subjective categories, which is precisely why we have notability guidelines. If an episode has been reviewed enough times for us to write an article about it, it's notable. Maybe if all those articles are short you could argue for them being merged into a list (per WP:NOPAGE), but otherwise this is a fundamental principle that you can't just cast aside because... actually, I don't understand the objection here? You don't like having having lots of articles on one TV series? – Joe (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- That was a great point my friend. Huggums537 (talk) 11:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some degree of selectivity is an inherent (unwritten) objective of the wp:notability/wp:not ecosystem. And with dispersal of the "TV show" selectivity/concept into zillions of web venues including many obscure ones, this will become more important here. As others have noted, many different wiki-places sort of say to be selective here and you could say that what's reflected is trying to push the envelope towards inclusion into every possible "gray area" on those. There are several ways to look at existing guidelines and wp:not that weigh in towards keep the bar a bit higher in gray areas. To say that something that is primarily a plot summary is excluded by wp:not. Another is that having merely a plot summary and a couple of factoids in a place that does so for every episode is basically/ more akin to a database or directory entry rather than GNG coverage. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just to add more, what I do tend to see are episode articles that are all plot summary, then a reception section that is: the RT or MC score if there is one, one or two reviews which tend to exhause the reliable pool of reviews, and then viewership numbers, and that's it. Is that an article that passes the GNG? Sure, but remember that the GNG itself is a presumption of notability and that itself can be challenged. If that article cannot be expanded further - and a BEFORE when talking modern television is easily done through online searching - then deletion of an article of that little coverage is a step that can be made. We desire to have television episode articles that get into the details of production and far more in depth reception, or otherwise amass that into season and/or series coverage. There's no issue with the GNG here keeping in mind that it is not a guarentee that the article will not be challenged later. --Masem (t) 12:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Who is this "we?" You desire that, not everyone. Some desire a lot more, others don't read those parts anyway and only desire the plot summaries. Saying you can ignore an article that passes the general notability guidelines and delete it anyway if the small number of random people that notice and show up to vote don't like it, means a large number of articles will be destroyed. Is Wikipedia somehow better off without these articles in it? Dream Focus 12:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia collectively. WP:NOTPLOT requires us to treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner,
discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works.
An article consisting only of a summary of the plot and a brief reception section clearly fails that, and is a summary-only description of the work. - Unless you believe there is no longer a consensus for WP:NOTPLOT - in which case an RFC proposing its removal is required - then we should ensure that our notability guidelines are worded to prevent WP:NOT violations. BilledMammal (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing there that says an article has to have all these sections, or that the reception section has to be more than "brief". If an article on a TV episode contains a reception section at all it's, by definition, not a "summary-only description". I'm pretty sure WP:NOTPLOT dates to the pre-Wikia days when we'd have people trying to write articles that were purely plot summaries sourced to the work itself. That's not what we're talking about here. – Joe (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- For example, we have an article consisting of 900 words of plot summary and thirty words saying
On the episode's original airdate, Heroes attracted 16.97 million viewers. Sean O'Neal of The A.V. Club gave the episode a B. Robert Canning of IGN scored the episode 7.8 out of 10.
- This is a summary-only description of the work, and it is clearly not treating it in an
encyclopedic manner
as required by WP:NOTPLOT. - Further, WP:NOTPLOT uses the word "and", not "or". BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- If your concern is that the plot summary is too long and the reception section is too short, that's a problem with article quality, not notability. The plot summary should be shortened to under 400 words per MOS:TVPLOT, and the reception should be expanded with a few sentences to summarize the key talking points of each review, not just the review grade. As to "and" instead of "or", I think that's a bit of a stretch – as has been noted elsewhere, NFILM allows reviews alone to cover notability and does not require additional sections. In my interpretation, an article needs to have at least one of the sections noted in NOTPLOT, but not necessarily every section. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes,but... a lot of how tv episode articles were built extend from before we had notability in place, and there is a perception that a simple reception section is sufficient. Remember that notability is not about the number of sources but the significant coverage, and since we know that this can't go into production details or serious analysis, a barely passing reception section section (if that is all that can ve written if a topic).won't cut it. --Masem (t) 13:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, I get that you don't like and/or don't think such articles are "encyclopaedic", but so far all that's been said in this thread is just that: an expression of opinion. Clearly others do like and do consider those sort of articles encyclopaedic, because they keep writing, reading, and keeping them at AfD. – Joe (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then we need a broader discussion, to determine what the consensus of the community is. I think we should work out a proposal with three options; one to modify WP:NOTPLOT to make it clear that such articles are acceptable, one to modify WP:RPRGM to make it clear that such articles are not acceptable, and one to leave the status quo. Once we work out the proposal, I think WP:VPP would be the appropriate location to discuss it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- NEPISODE already has consensus from the WP:TV project, and captures what we are saying here. It falls well in line with the GNG looking for significant coverage, not just two or so sources. Ergo, the consensus is already there and nothing needs to be done save to act on it like the OP had started. --Masem (t) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the assertion that NEPISODE has consensus. The RfC to adopt the essay as a guideline explicitly failed because there was no consensus; see Wikipedia talk:Notability (television)#Request for comment to establish this notability guideline as an SNG. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- It may not be an SNG (Nor framed as one), but it gives guidance of what the TV project is looking for in episode articles and thus is a reasonable basis that "simple" episode articles aren't sufficient. The RFC didn't seem to have an issue of that aspect but more how the page was set up as an SNG. --Masem (t) 14:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just because a few people hang out on a Wikiproject and write out what they want things to be in an essay, doesn't mean they can ignore the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 14:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- It may not be an SNG (Nor framed as one), but it gives guidance of what the TV project is looking for in episode articles and thus is a reasonable basis that "simple" episode articles aren't sufficient. The RFC didn't seem to have an issue of that aspect but more how the page was set up as an SNG. --Masem (t) 14:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with the assertion that NEPISODE has consensus. The RfC to adopt the essay as a guideline explicitly failed because there was no consensus; see Wikipedia talk:Notability (television)#Request for comment to establish this notability guideline as an SNG. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- NEPISODE already has consensus from the WP:TV project, and captures what we are saying here. It falls well in line with the GNG looking for significant coverage, not just two or so sources. Ergo, the consensus is already there and nothing needs to be done save to act on it like the OP had started. --Masem (t) 14:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then we need a broader discussion, to determine what the consensus of the community is. I think we should work out a proposal with three options; one to modify WP:NOTPLOT to make it clear that such articles are acceptable, one to modify WP:RPRGM to make it clear that such articles are not acceptable, and one to leave the status quo. Once we work out the proposal, I think WP:VPP would be the appropriate location to discuss it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, I get that you don't like and/or don't think such articles are "encyclopaedic", but so far all that's been said in this thread is just that: an expression of opinion. Clearly others do like and do consider those sort of articles encyclopaedic, because they keep writing, reading, and keeping them at AfD. – Joe (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- For example, we have an article consisting of 900 words of plot summary and thirty words saying
- There is nothing there that says an article has to have all these sections, or that the reception section has to be more than "brief". If an article on a TV episode contains a reception section at all it's, by definition, not a "summary-only description". I'm pretty sure WP:NOTPLOT dates to the pre-Wikia days when we'd have people trying to write articles that were purely plot summaries sourced to the work itself. That's not what we're talking about here. – Joe (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia collectively. WP:NOTPLOT requires us to treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner,
- Who is this "we?" You desire that, not everyone. Some desire a lot more, others don't read those parts anyway and only desire the plot summaries. Saying you can ignore an article that passes the general notability guidelines and delete it anyway if the small number of random people that notice and show up to vote don't like it, means a large number of articles will be destroyed. Is Wikipedia somehow better off without these articles in it? Dream Focus 12:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just for context, since NEPISODE has come up a lot and not everyone may be familiar with it, here's a direct quote from that essay as it pertains to reviews and notability (emphasis mine):
Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode. […] The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps and simple review aggregator coverage, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)- I'll also note that the above quote is relatively recent; earlier versions of the essay used different language, such as:
Having a significant number of reviews or other independently published commentary contributes to considering a television episode notable.
RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'll also note that the above quote is relatively recent; earlier versions of the essay used different language, such as:
- Multiple substantive reviews that go beyond rehashing the plot has always been the standard applied to books/films; I'm not sure why television episodes should be subjected to a higher bar? Despite the "and" I don't read "Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works" as requiring all those elements, merely at least one (usually met by reviews), in addition to the (concise) plot summary. I think the list was intended as a set of examples of content that an ideal article would contain, rather than a minimum requirement for an acceptable standalone article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- In the AV and IGN reviews I've read (which is not many), much of the "analysis" of or "commentary" on an episode is restricted to in-universe musings (like "I'm glad [character A] finally stood up to [character B], he was such a jerk") and other personal, contemporaneous thoughts of the author ("I ate a whole bag of popcorn during [scene]"), rather than the type of distanced critical treatment I would expect from a quality book or film review. IMO there is a significant difference in encyclopedic value between discussing the themes of a creative work in the context of the real world and just...blogging about your feelings while you watched a show. If all we can add from a review is the author's grade of the episode, I don't think it's accurate to call it SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- An article about a TV episode is a WP:SPINOUT/WP:SPINOFF of the article about the TV show. If it's all or almost all plot summary, it runs afoul of the policy WP:NOTPLOT, regardless of whether it meets the guideline WP:GNG. Thus, in order to have a policy- and guideline-complaint article about a TV episode, there must be reliable secondary independent sources that provide significant coverage of aspects of the TV show other than the plot, such as production and reception. Some TV show episodes will have such sourcing (like the series finale of The Sopranos), but episode recaps are not such sources (regardless of whether they're called "recaps" or "reviews"). Levivich 04:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, how do you distinguish between a recap that doesn't contribute to notability and a proper review that does contribute? I think the general consensus is that a recap only covers plot details while a review includes analysis and commentary, but your last line seems to imply that isn't how you distinguish between the two, and I just want to understand what you meant. RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- A review should talk about aspects of the show other than the plot. Commentary and analysis of the plot isn't enough in my view; a proper review talks about the acting, directing, writing, cinematography, music, lighting, casting (that's casting, not just who the cast is), makeup, wardrobe, set design, etc. Sometimes recaps are labeled "reviews" but they're not proper reviews. The bottom line is that the Wikipedia article, and it's sources, have to talk about something other than just the plot. It should be a review of a TV show, not a retelling of the TV show. I think this is basically what WP:NEPISODE says more or less:
It is preferred to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot.
I think it's consensus in fact; I would change "preferred" in that sentence to "required". Levivich 13:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)- I certainly don't agree with changing "preferred" to "required". Fundamentally television episodes are works of art/literature. They are generally notable because of what they are, not because of how they were made. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- A television series is generally notable for this. But a series and moreso an episode are less so individually notable as artistic works separate from the main show itself, and more frequently subject to routine coverage, including for lack of a better way to describe it, "routine reviews" that really don't get into any real deep coverage of the episode that how it separates itself from all other episodes of that show or other television works. I know that seems a bit harsh but thats very true and why there is a problem with low-hanging fruit televisin episodes that only have sourcing to a couple of these types of reviews. It doesn't help us encyclopedically to explain why the episode is revelant to the rest of the world and only exists to satisfy those interested in the series itself, in that manner. --Masem (t) 23:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly don't agree with changing "preferred" to "required". Fundamentally television episodes are works of art/literature. They are generally notable because of what they are, not because of how they were made. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- That's simply not true; grading RS'es as acceptable or not based on what they cover violates NPOV. We should really look at NOT and consider revising it appropriately: If RSes only cover plot and have GNG-appropriate coverage, then why does NOT#PLOT govern? Obviously, we don't want to see articles dominated by non-RS'ed plot coverage, but NOT#PLOT is being used here as a weapon to prohibit our typical deference to the proportion and emphasis of coverage seen in RS'es. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many of the "routine" reviews of TV episodes today only are recaps with maybe a paragraph or two of actual review. That is not much "significant coverage" considering we're looking for secondary material (the recap being primary content). And simple reporting of RT's and rating is key data but not really significant coverage. So that's usually the end problem is that we're missing the deep significant coverage of many episodes that is beyond routine. This is not true of highlight priased shows like Better Call Saul where while there are recap coverage, there's deep analysis of the events each episode plus details of production etc. --Masem (t) 17:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's actually a substantial amount of coverage of a wide range of modern television in media studies academic sources, if one goes digging in the right (generally paywalled) sources. Not all episodes will be covered, of course, but significant character and plot developments are likely to be readily sourceable. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Many of the "routine" reviews of TV episodes today only are recaps with maybe a paragraph or two of actual review. That is not much "significant coverage" considering we're looking for secondary material (the recap being primary content). And simple reporting of RT's and rating is key data but not really significant coverage. So that's usually the end problem is that we're missing the deep significant coverage of many episodes that is beyond routine. This is not true of highlight priased shows like Better Call Saul where while there are recap coverage, there's deep analysis of the events each episode plus details of production etc. --Masem (t) 17:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- A review should talk about aspects of the show other than the plot. Commentary and analysis of the plot isn't enough in my view; a proper review talks about the acting, directing, writing, cinematography, music, lighting, casting (that's casting, not just who the cast is), makeup, wardrobe, set design, etc. Sometimes recaps are labeled "reviews" but they're not proper reviews. The bottom line is that the Wikipedia article, and it's sources, have to talk about something other than just the plot. It should be a review of a TV show, not a retelling of the TV show. I think this is basically what WP:NEPISODE says more or less:
- Just to clarify, how do you distinguish between a recap that doesn't contribute to notability and a proper review that does contribute? I think the general consensus is that a recap only covers plot details while a review includes analysis and commentary, but your last line seems to imply that isn't how you distinguish between the two, and I just want to understand what you meant. RunningTiger123 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are a few related things here. Personally, I'd like to see three things:
- A concerted effort from WikiProject Television (and anyone interested) to cultivate a list of sources which are ideal for TV episodes, with the various limitations and other considerations. We have several listings in RSP
- A concerted effort from WikiProject Television (and anyone interested) to articulate what is expected in terms of the content of a review. I know this kind of thing already exists in a few places, but one specific to television might be good.
- For our default, when individual episodes of a program regularly get some press attention, to be covering them as part of a season or list article. Most season articles are just plot summaries plus a few data points (writers, viewership, etc.), but it doesn't have to be that way. Two-four paragraphs per episode combining plot, production, and reception sounds manageable. Then, at some point (perhaps one week after the end of the season), assess which should be developed as stand-alone articles, if any. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- There has been quite a lot of discussion here that I am finding difficult to parse, but I wanted to bring up the recent edits at WP:NEPISODE that were made as part of this discussion to remove "statements at odds with the GNG". I don't believe this is true for the main information that was removed, which is basically an explanation that run-of-the-mill content is not enough to justify an episode article, and significant information does not necessarily need an episode article if it can be covered fine in a season or series article. These do not contradict WP:GNG, they provide episode-specific content to the vague guidelines at GNG. They have also been discussed multiple times before and are good guidelines to discourage unnecessary episode articles from being created. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Correct, but the changes you mention have been left in place for several days and several major contributors to that page haven't sought to revert the edits, as discussed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I started that discussion you linked to, and there has been no progress there because this discussion was already underway which is why I have now brought my concerns here. No one reverting a change for several days during the week when there is already a discussion ongoing doesn't indicate anything. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Correct, but the changes you mention have been left in place for several days and several major contributors to that page haven't sought to revert the edits, as discussed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- They do contradict the general notability guidelines, as many people have stated. You can't decide to just go through and delete thousands of episode articles because you don't like them, because you believe they should have more sections in them, or because you don't like what others have already verified are reliable sources that cover them. If an episode has millions of viewers, then anywhere that reviews episodes is going to write a review for it, provided it is the type of show they write reviews for. It is not Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, that not a valid argument here. This isn't some local newspaper that reviews every single restaurant in town. They do not review every single show that exist, nor do they review every episode of a show that has its ratings go down so much that no one cares anymore. If something passes the GNG, then it gets an article. The rules of WP:NOTABILITY clearly state a subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article if it passes the general notability guidelines OR any of the subject specific guidelines, it has never had to pass both. Dream Focus 04:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- If something passes the GNG, it is presumed to merit a standalone article, but that can still be challenged. The GNG is not an absolute assurance, its only an indicator that notability may be there. And as WP matures, how we have approached what is deemed notable has changed too. --Masem (t) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- People who never liked certain things, have from the beginning argued relentless for the right to ignore the agreed upon rules and delete things they want to destroy. If the handful of people that show up to comment at any AFD can decide to ignore the GNG and delete something they don't like anyway, then the notability guidelines become useless. Dream Focus 05:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The opposite - people deciding to keep an article that fails WP:GNG - has always been more of a problem. Further, editors shouldn't be ignoring WP:NOT to !vote "keep" at AFD. However, I don't think this discussion is progressing; I think an RFC is needed, in line with what I proposed above. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Editors aren't ignoring WP:NOT (and you ought to be more specific about which part of NOT you're referring to). Presuming you're referring to WP:NOTPLOT, the presence of a "Critical Reception" section in the AfDs you cited above mean NOTPLOT isn't violated. NemesisAT (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The opposite - people deciding to keep an article that fails WP:GNG - has always been more of a problem. Further, editors shouldn't be ignoring WP:NOT to !vote "keep" at AFD. However, I don't think this discussion is progressing; I think an RFC is needed, in line with what I proposed above. BilledMammal (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. If something passes WP:GNG, and there is enough information available to write an article on it, I see no reason why there shouldn't be a standalone article. Especially in the case of episodes where the result of merging them into one would be a very long unwieldy series article. NemesisAT (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- People who never liked certain things, have from the beginning argued relentless for the right to ignore the agreed upon rules and delete things they want to destroy. If the handful of people that show up to comment at any AFD can decide to ignore the GNG and delete something they don't like anyway, then the notability guidelines become useless. Dream Focus 05:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- If something passes the GNG, it is presumed to merit a standalone article, but that can still be challenged. The GNG is not an absolute assurance, its only an indicator that notability may be there. And as WP matures, how we have approached what is deemed notable has changed too. --Masem (t) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not every episode of television series warrant articles, especially if all the article has is plot, a few reviews, and ratings info. Plot is covered at the season/list of episodes article in the table, as are ratings info. And in a 22-24 episode season (thinking more to television series up to the past decade, not so much current programming), is the reviews of the 8th episode, when most larger publications have ceased covering the series, notable? I'd strongly argue they aren't nor do they help bring it to pass GNG. That's why the various discussions that were held at WT:TV and then WT:NTV for what became WP:NTV were in consensus that there should be some other material in the article (ie episode-specific production material) to help support the "run of the mill" content and help those episodes meet GNG. This discussion started regarding episodes of Heroes. Looking at one that was redirect, [Line], as this was before redirection, all this article was was a way too long plot, ratings info that wasn't even source, and two reviews that gave the bare minimum. So again, for this episode, not only was GNG very much not met, plot and ratings was covered in the episode table, and the reviews, if anything "monumental" occurred, could have been discussed at the season article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Episodes should also be thought of in the same context as songs on an album, and WP:NSONG. Not all songs are going to meet notability requirements to warrant articles, and in the case of some series, not all episodes will either. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- There certainty is a problem with television episode articles. One group of articles (as an example) which I found very bad were Desperate Housewives episodes (such as You Could Drive a Person Crazy) which are all plot and semi-trivial information with zero sources. On the other hand, the recent MCU episode articles are a good example of articles which are worked on as drafts and only published when there really is enough information. Another point I'd like to make sure gets added to any future guideline or AfC discussion - if a page gets deleted, a redirect should be left behind which redirects to the table entry of the season or list of episodes table. This is a pain to manually fix each time. Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh wow, You Could Drive a Person Crazy is a perfect example of what WP:NEPISODE is trying to avoid. And I'm sure basically virtually every other one of those episode articles are just like that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- What "You Could Drive a Person Crazy" looked like before redirection can be seen here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- That article (now redirect) is an extreme example – it literally had zero reviews. I don't think anyone here has argued that such an article should exist, assuming there are no better sources to add. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh wow, You Could Drive a Person Crazy is a perfect example of what WP:NEPISODE is trying to avoid. And I'm sure basically virtually every other one of those episode articles are just like that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
RFC draft
I propose the following options to allow us to resolve this disagreement. We need to work out which guideline option A would fit in, and we need an introductory statement to explain the disagreement to uninvolved editors. I believe the best location to hold this discussion is WP:VPP, as this will affect multiple guidelines.
- A: In ?, add the line
Episodes of a TV show are presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Reviews that are primarily recaps of the episode are not considered to be significant coverage.
- B: In WP:NOTPLOT, add the line
This criteria does not apply if there is any coverage beyond information about the plot in reliable and independent sources.
- C: No change.
BilledMammal (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- "Reviews that are primarily recaps of the episode are not considered to be significant coverage." That is too vague. They never just do a recap, they give details, post a review of how they feel about various parts of it. Since they do recap the entire story, some might say these reviews are "primarily recaps". Also list exactly which guidelines would be changed and where. Dream Focus 12:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you referring to reviews like this? If you are, then the intent is to exclude those as primarily recaps that provide little information that can be included to expand the article beyond a plot summary.
- I don't know which guideline this would fit into yet; do you have a suggestion? BilledMammal (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any reviews for anything are like this. The general notability guidelines exist to show that reliable sources believe something is notable enough to talk about, so Wikipedia should have an article for it. And having articles people might want to actually read, is always better than having nothing there at all. There is no limit to space. Dream Focus 13:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The GNG says that there needs to be significant coverage to presume that an article can be made, not just because something was written about. And we can always redirect to a list of episodes when a standalone episode article doesn't work. --Masem (t) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- All rules are useless if the small number of people that show up to an AFD can say "I don't like it" and delete it anyway. Dream Focus 08:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- The GNG says that there needs to be significant coverage to presume that an article can be made, not just because something was written about. And we can always redirect to a list of episodes when a standalone episode article doesn't work. --Masem (t) 13:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any reviews for anything are like this. The general notability guidelines exist to show that reliable sources believe something is notable enough to talk about, so Wikipedia should have an article for it. And having articles people might want to actually read, is always better than having nothing there at all. There is no limit to space. Dream Focus 13:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Dream Focus. The way these choices are worded seems more like an ultimatum than true options to choose from. Huggums537 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think Masem is hitting on the right language. I can understand how "we don't want primarily a recap" would be confusing for some editors. More clear would be to say "we do want significant coverage outside of a plot recap" (e.g.: analysis, criticism, comparison, etc.) That mimics the language at WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SIGCOV and WP:WAF. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think the agreement is that there needs to be significant coverage outside of plot summaries, as established at the links you provided; the issue at hand is what specifically constitutes significant coverage. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think editors will use that language to argue that reviews like this still count towards notability (
They never just do a recap, they give details, post a review of how they feel about various parts of it.
) something that the goal of that option is to prevent. BilledMammal (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree with Dream Focus's concern that the current wording is very vague; what exactly distinguishes a review from "primarily" a recap? I could argue that any review that includes personal analysis and commentary is no longer a recap, while other people may demand much more extensive commentary; both views could be reasonably supported by that wording, and we'll end up right back where we started. I also think we're getting too hung up on terminology; for instance, this review of "Janet(s)" brands itself as a recap, but since it includes analysis, is from a nationally known critic, and is from a well-known magazine that does relatively few episode reviews, I don't think it's the type of source we're trying to eliminate. I would suggest amending option A to say
Reviews must provide commentary beyond a simple plot summary to be considered significant coverage.
Other amendments to that line are welcome, I just don't think the existing wording is clear enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)- There is a style of review based on the defunct website Television Without Pity that introduced this idea of snark into recaps; the AV Club recaps then to be that. Snark can be opinionated, but its meant to be more sarcastic rather than intended as serious criticism. We shouldn't be using that type of snark as part of our critical review. That said, you then get Rolling Stone's Alan Sepinwall who's recaps have a smattering of snark but tend to be more serious at times and are appropriate forms of criticms. There's a type of line that we want to try to use. --Masem (t) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think we're hitting on similar points — "recap" is a term with varying definition depending on the website, so I don't think we should base the proposed changes off of that terminology, and we should be more explicit about what reviews would have to contain to be notable. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is a style of review based on the defunct website Television Without Pity that introduced this idea of snark into recaps; the AV Club recaps then to be that. Snark can be opinionated, but its meant to be more sarcastic rather than intended as serious criticism. We shouldn't be using that type of snark as part of our critical review. That said, you then get Rolling Stone's Alan Sepinwall who's recaps have a smattering of snark but tend to be more serious at times and are appropriate forms of criticms. There's a type of line that we want to try to use. --Masem (t) 03:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think we can find some useful terminology from related policies that represent a consensus of best practices, the same way we import some of the language of WP:V and WP:RS in this guideline. On this topic, WP:NOT is a policy that says "Wikipedia treats creative works ... in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works."" Without completely duplicating WP:NOT, maybe some of this terminology is useful. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- As an alternative proposal for the text of the RFC, since there doesn't appear to be an appropriate location for A:
- A In WP:NOTPLOT, add the bolded line:
Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Articles that consist of summary-only descriptions of the work and biased statements of opinion also fail this requirement.
- B In WP:NOTPLOT, add the bolded line:
Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. This criteria does not apply if there is any coverage beyond information about the plot in reliable and independent sources.
- C: No change.
- I believe A should address this issue; if all we can say about an creative work is that John Doe liked it, or John Doe gave it 2/10, then we cannot treat the work in an encyclopedic manner, and we shouldn't have an article on it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- A problem with option "A" is that it does not specify exclusively that articles solely based on summary-only descriptions of the work fail the requirement. Rather, the wording "articles that consist of" is being used, which could easily be interpreted as simply meaning "articles that contain". Also, the way it is combined with the "and" conjunction makes it appear both X and Y must be present for Z to fail.
- Option B is just a restatement of the unbolded text right before it since it is already obvious from that text that this criteria does not apply to articles that discuss the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works. Also, the way it is worded makes it appear like it is requiring that plot sections must have coverage beyond the plot in secondary sources, but this goes against both MOS:PLOT where it says
Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source.
and Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed where it saysIf the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details.
- Furthermore, the first draft looks more like subject specific guidance that probably belongs somewhere else besides here like make TV or Plot guidance, and these new options now have problems of their own. Huggums537 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Option A presents some massive issues. The note that
biased statements of opinion
fail to demonstrate notability is intended to prevent reviews from establishing notability, but this is clearly out of line with existing guidelines for other forms of media. By making this change at NOTPLOT, we would be forcing all works of fiction to change notability guidelines. For instance, WP:NBOOKS clearly allows reviews to establish notability, as does WP:NFILM. WP:NVG is less explicit, but I think a reasonable reading of that SNG would allow reviews as well. However, this proposed new guideline would directly contradict those well-established criteria. I think this change is far too sweeping for the issues being discussed here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Local coverage
An editor has initiated a deletion discussion that hinges on the premise that local coverage is insufficient to prove notability. Specifically, the editor appears to apply a standard of "three articles...two need to be outside his local area AND outside industry niche publication." Is that correct? I am involved here as a COI editor and I am fully committed to adhering to the rules; really trying to understand what they are. I value the input of the wider editing community and would appreciate the involvement of veteran editors in the deletion discussion there as well. Sheena 2022 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, in general, we DO want more than just local coverage or industry niche sourcing. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also, as a business related article, WP:NCORP also needs to be taken into account. --Masem (t) 01:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also, as a further matter of principle, I tend to automatically discount objections to an AfD raised by a paid editor defending his or her own work; that's the very definition of COI. Ravenswing 04:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- The general GNG notability standards do not explicitly depend on locality, but this is a business-related article where the stricter standards of NCORP, and particularly WP:AUD, are relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NCORP doesn't apply here; it applies to companies, corporations, organizations, groups, products, and services, but not individuals. However, I would agree that the restrictions on local coverage should be applied to biographies generally, particularly for BLP's. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is definitely an overlap on NCORP's AUD section related to people that are primarily business leaders, because there is a lot of promotional fluff out there. (eg trade magazines that you can pay to get an article about yourself into). And particular at local figures, if the coverage is strictly only local, that's not really appropriate for a global encyclopedia. Local coverage can augment one or two broader sources, but should not be the only type of sources present. --Masem (t) 05:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing that application of WP:AUD - although we don't need WP:NCORP to prevent the trade magazines counting towards notability, as they are not independent, and promotional fluff isn't only an issue with business leaders, but with everyone who benefits from increased coverage. I agree with everything else you said though. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm with BilledMammal on two counts: 1.) "WP:NCORP doesn't apply here; it applies to companies, corporations, organizations, groups, products, and services, but not individuals." and 2.) "we don't need WP:NCORP to prevent the trade magazines counting towards notability, as they are not independent, and promotional fluff isn't only an issue with business leaders, but with everyone who benefits from increased coverage.", but I vehemently disagree with any restrictions on local coverage to biographies. Huggums537 (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing that application of WP:AUD - although we don't need WP:NCORP to prevent the trade magazines counting towards notability, as they are not independent, and promotional fluff isn't only an issue with business leaders, but with everyone who benefits from increased coverage. I agree with everything else you said though. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is definitely an overlap on NCORP's AUD section related to people that are primarily business leaders, because there is a lot of promotional fluff out there. (eg trade magazines that you can pay to get an article about yourself into). And particular at local figures, if the coverage is strictly only local, that's not really appropriate for a global encyclopedia. Local coverage can augment one or two broader sources, but should not be the only type of sources present. --Masem (t) 05:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is no guideline limiting use of local coverage to establish notability in a biography article. There have been multiple proposals over the years to impose such a rule, but those proposals have failed to gain consensus -- with limited exceptions such as NCORP where special concerns over commercial promotion led to the addition of WP:AUD. That said, my view has always been that there is local coverage and there is "hyper" local coverage. Respected metropolitan newspapers are reliable, independent sources. However, small-town newspapers are less-so. There is a wide spectrum between the Dallas Morning News or The Seattle Times, on one end, and the Podunk News, on the other hand. My view is that, if the only available coverage is in the Podunk News about a local person from Podunk, I'm skeptical about the notability. Of course, the "multiple" source rule addresses this, such that coverage only in one's home-town newspaper (and in no other reliable sources) won't push the subject over the GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Ultimately, this kind of thing depends on consensus opinions, and not on some objective standard. Every wikipedian has their own lines they draw based on GNG, and so the "height" of the GNG bar varies some from one Wikipedian to another, even though all are working from the same set of standards; it's a matter of how much and what kinds of coverage qualifies as "significant". There is not (nor should there be) a rigid measure that one must qualify for to pass that bar; it depends (rightly) on a disparate group of people looking over the source text and deciding if there is enough of high quality and reliable sources to justify having a stand-alone article on a topic, where "enough" and "high quality" are deliberately vague. It is an "I know it when I see it" situation. --Jayron32 14:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Coverage should be non-promotional. Local and industry periodicals often provide promotional coverage based on the desires of their audience. (Local restaurant reviews is a typical example.) Thus when evaluating the suitability of coverage, this factor has to be taken into consideration. isaacl (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would also suggest that coverage should not consist primarily of reprints of press releases. - Enos733 (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Except, almost all sources invariably provide some form of coverage based on the desires of their audience. (Either your local high school, or national sports news is a typical example). Thus, if they aren't promoting the material they are covering, then they are promoting themselves or their audience instead. Huggums537 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with local news is that it is far too easy to claim they are promoting the material if they are covering the local high school sports because they have a closer connection to it, but that doesn't mean that national news can't also be promoting themselves, their audience, or even the material they are covering for that matter. Let us remember they earn hefty amounts of advertising for this coverage. Almost nobody is in the business of providing unpromoted coverage for their audience without benefit to themselves. Huggums537 (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, all sources are providing coverage based on what benefits them and the audience they target. This does not mean that all coverage from all sources is promotional, as the business model can be to provide neutral coverage. This can differ within one publication. (The New York Times has plenty of local coverage which is tuned for its local market and is promotional in nature. Its travel section is often highly promotional.) The intent of the coverage is one factor to consider when weighing the suitability of a source. isaacl (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad you brought that point up. It is very interesting to take note The New York Times is listed as a reliable source at WP:RSP, and I highly doubt anyone would have a problem with it being used based on being too promotional. My whole point for even mentioning this about all sources is that most experienced Wikipedians have become so Wikipedified with this Law of the instrument type of thinking that if they have the hammer of WP:CoI guidance, then suddenly every paid editor and article appears to be a nail that needs to be pounded. My hope about mentioning that all sources are promotional is to try to get these law of the instrument Wikipedified editors to see that perhaps they do all look like nails, but maybe they really aren't. Huggums537 (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's been a while since I read the New York Times on paper, but as I recall, it covers outstanding local high school students. Like many newspapers, it has local restaurant reviews. The New York Times is a reliable source, but that doesn't mean all of its coverage is suitable for meeting English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. isaacl (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad you brought that point up. It is very interesting to take note The New York Times is listed as a reliable source at WP:RSP, and I highly doubt anyone would have a problem with it being used based on being too promotional. My whole point for even mentioning this about all sources is that most experienced Wikipedians have become so Wikipedified with this Law of the instrument type of thinking that if they have the hammer of WP:CoI guidance, then suddenly every paid editor and article appears to be a nail that needs to be pounded. My hope about mentioning that all sources are promotional is to try to get these law of the instrument Wikipedified editors to see that perhaps they do all look like nails, but maybe they really aren't. Huggums537 (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, all sources are providing coverage based on what benefits them and the audience they target. This does not mean that all coverage from all sources is promotional, as the business model can be to provide neutral coverage. This can differ within one publication. (The New York Times has plenty of local coverage which is tuned for its local market and is promotional in nature. Its travel section is often highly promotional.) The intent of the coverage is one factor to consider when weighing the suitability of a source. isaacl (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
The best thing and also the norm isn't explicitly defined in policies/guidelines which is weighing multiple factors. If it's about a living person or business that is likely to benefit financially from the existence of the article, and thus also likely that the sourcing as been searched, maxed out and wiki-optimized by a wiki-expert, then the bar gets raised, including discounting local coverage. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- I like the above point about bar-raising, because it centers the question on the health and purpose of the project. Wikipedia should aspire to a high level of local (encyclopedic) coverage, but only if it can do so without jeopardizing its encyclopedic mission. And at their best, the notability guidelines are a bulwark against forms of manipulation that can damage the encyclopedia. From that standpoint it does make sense to be disproportionately skeptical of local news (even where the local news outlet has reasonable editorial controls and oversight), to the extent that such coverage is disproportionately likely to be manipulated and used in turn to manipulate Wikipedia. But it also follows from this that the skepticism should be situational: there should be heightened skepticism only to the extent that such manipulation can be reasonably suspected (a reasonable default suspicion for companies and BLPs, but not necessarily for other topics). -- Visviva (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I want to thank OP User:Sheena 2022 for a posting which raised this entertaining and enlightening discussion on this very worthy topic. As the pedia gets bigger, wikipedians do need to consider the value of listening to and accepting the specialized knowledge and views of connected or conflicted editors like the OP, especially when they choose to demonstrate their willingness to accept the five pillars and work inside our policies and guidelines. BusterD (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- I really think we need to evaluate carefully all news coverage. The starting point is WP:NOT#NEWS, which eliminates all mentions of an article subject in the news, but previous attempts to enforce it properly have failed. There are differences between local and national news coverage in different countries. There is a very clear distinction between them in the market with which I am most familiar, the UK, but I realise that the equivalents of our national press are mostly regional in the US. Here, and in my understanding in the US, the local news is very easily manipulated. For example many of the football matches that my son was involved in in the junior age groups were covered by the local paper, which had a catchment area of about 200,000 population, simply because the coach of his team sent in match reports. My daughter had a picture of the back of her head (while she was playing the double bass) covering almost the whole of the same newspaper's front page because it was the best picture that the photographer got at a concert in the Albert Hall by the local youth orchestra. There are a few other instances of such coverage of them, and my parents when they were alive (I even featured myself in the main story on the front page once because of a letter I wrote), but it would be laughable to say that any of them are suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles because of that. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- As others have noted, there is no general hard-and-fast rule about local coverage. Nor is there agreement about what counts as "local". If a newspaper covers one city, is it local? What if that city has a population in the millions? Or is any coverage by newspaper in a given nation "local"? Local coverage is often discounted by some amount when determining notability. And to some extent that's fine--especially with hyper-local coverage. But then we get to questions like "what about publications that are specialized in something other than a geographic area?" Should we only be using general/mainstream publications and ignore/discount coverage because it's coming from a niche source? And the answer is, "it depends". When it comes to inclusion, we tend to give more weight to sources that have less focus (geographic or otherwise). A paragraph in "USA today" about a video game is probably as helpful (IMO) when determining notability as a half-page article in a gaming magazine. So, as others have noted "it depends". But anyone claiming there is a general consensus, let alone a hard-and-fast rule like "three articles...two need to be outside his local area AND outside industry niche publication" is just making stuff up... Hobit (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Notability in Singapore
How do we assess notability in Singapore, where all media is basically "national" media? I'm struggling with restaurant and chef notability at several articles right now. Normally for a NYC restaurant or chef to be notable, coverage in the NYT isn't good enough, even though it's a "national" paper. I want to see coverage in the Chicago Tribune or WaPo or the LA Times or something. But Singapore is unusual both in that it's tiny and the level of gastronationalism in the general geographic area is very high, which means a Malaysian or Indonesian media might just ignore the culinary scene in Singapore. valereee (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- WikiProject Singapore notified. valereee (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- WP:GNG doesn't exclude local coverage so any reliable publication in Singapore is okay for counting towards notability. As long as there are reliable, independent sources covering a particular restaurant or chef and you're able to write more than just "XXX is a restaurant in Singapore" I see no problem covering it in Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't exclude local coverage, but in general what I look for is ALSO coverage outside the local area. If we allowed only local coverage to support notability, we'd have tons of locally-notable bios and organizations that aren't known outside their local area. valereee (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not necessarily true. When it comes to anything related to businesses and corporations, WP:AUD still applies. That's not to say that the larger Singapore sources can't be used to support notability for a restaurant, for example, but we do need to consider how broad that paper's coverage is. --Masem (t) 16:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would invite you to consider several things about your interpretation that
When it comes to anything related to businesses and corporations, WP:AUD still applies.
The first thing I would like you to consider is that chefs are not things, organizations, or companies. They are individual people who may be a part of an organization or a company, but that does not make them an organization or company so applying AUD (NCORP) to chefs is an incorrect and disingenuous interpretation of AUD (NCORP). Especially since it specifically saysSimply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose.
right in the lede of WP:NCORP. It even goes on to say thatThis guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people).
I think a chef would fall under the category of "people", and even a restaurant might fall under the category of small groups of closely related people such as entertainment groups since meals and entertainment are very frequently combined together so often it isn't even funny. This doesn't even begin to mention the fact that our main notability guidance on this very article we are discussing gives us the discretion to decide ifIt meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)...
which means that GNG could apply just as equally as AUD to a restaurant, therefore it is impossible, improper, and immoral for anyone to be attempting any strict application of solely the AUD SNG when GNG is also an equal option. Huggums537 (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)- There are elements of AUD that apply to people in a corporate position, of which a head chef of a restaurant can be. This is not to say AUD applies 100%, but we do have to watch out for highly-promotion, local press that do not have the appropriate independance for notability. We just need to be aware of the source and how it works, if its one of those that you can pay to get coverage, we can't use it. --Masem (t) 06:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that if you have to pay for coverage you can't use a source, and we have to watch out for promotional stuff, but there is nothing whatsoever in AUD saying or even implying it applies to corporate heads or individuals of any kind, and if it has been applied as such in the past, it has been misapplied as a rather disgusting application of NCORP. My biggest problem with the way I have seen people using NCORP is that almost anything or anyone can be said to have some kind of connection to a business, company, or an organization. That is why I think it is of the utmost importance we draw the bright line in the sand to make the distinction between actually being an organization or company, and simply having some kind of connection to one. Being a CEO or a head chef does not make you an organization, company or "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose" as defined in the lede of NCORP. Huggums537 (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way, a key part of AUD is the need of source independence, which is a requirement of the GNG. A chef only covered by works that we know are "pay to publish" would fail the GNG for this reason (AUD moreso). It should not be because they are tied to a business, though there are definitely specific professions and industries that promotional media easily exists and we need to evaluate independence. --Masem (t) 21:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's an interesting theory. I for sure agree with you
It should not be because they are tied to a business, though there are definitely specific professions and industries that promotional media easily exists and we need to evaluate independence
and I also agree chef only covered by works that we know are "pay to publish" would fail the GNG for lack of independence, but I vehemently disagree about the (AUD moreso) part since I really think it is the independence moreso, and the AUD isn't even needed or applicable. Huggums537 (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's an interesting theory. I for sure agree with you
- Let's put it this way, a key part of AUD is the need of source independence, which is a requirement of the GNG. A chef only covered by works that we know are "pay to publish" would fail the GNG for this reason (AUD moreso). It should not be because they are tied to a business, though there are definitely specific professions and industries that promotional media easily exists and we need to evaluate independence. --Masem (t) 21:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that if you have to pay for coverage you can't use a source, and we have to watch out for promotional stuff, but there is nothing whatsoever in AUD saying or even implying it applies to corporate heads or individuals of any kind, and if it has been applied as such in the past, it has been misapplied as a rather disgusting application of NCORP. My biggest problem with the way I have seen people using NCORP is that almost anything or anyone can be said to have some kind of connection to a business, company, or an organization. That is why I think it is of the utmost importance we draw the bright line in the sand to make the distinction between actually being an organization or company, and simply having some kind of connection to one. Being a CEO or a head chef does not make you an organization, company or "a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose" as defined in the lede of NCORP. Huggums537 (talk) 06:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- There are elements of AUD that apply to people in a corporate position, of which a head chef of a restaurant can be. This is not to say AUD applies 100%, but we do have to watch out for highly-promotion, local press that do not have the appropriate independance for notability. We just need to be aware of the source and how it works, if its one of those that you can pay to get coverage, we can't use it. --Masem (t) 06:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would invite you to consider several things about your interpretation that
- What about Japanese media? Do they cover Singapore restaurants? Levivich 13:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- One would think so, since Japan is as food-obsessed as the US, and as Draft:Shoukouwa is a sushi restaurant, one would think if it were truly notable it might have at least been mentioned in Japanese press. Even if only to sneer at the Singaporean idea of excellent sushi. Transliteration searches are difficult, and especially with proper names.
- I believe that when we're supporting notability of someone who is only getting coverage in the location/industry he has a business in, we should consider AUD. I do not believe we should be drawing a bright line in the sand. I think we need to consider each case. I could probably come up with a list of thousands of chefs and restaurants if local coverage is good enough. Every city newspaper and magazine does restaurant reviews, and even small town newspapers are RS. valereee (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- No. Not at all. Not even for a second. Plenty of people are notable solely for the industry they are in. That has nothing to do with AUD. AUD has to do with location specifically related to organizations. So, we should ignore AUD when it comes to industry, and when it comes to location AUD applies to businesses, not the individual who owns the business. There is nothing in all of NCORP, NBIO, or BLP preventing individuals from being notable on coverage based on location. It only exists at AUD and it should be expelled from there as well since at appears to contradict with all the rest of Wikipedia guidance as nothing exists anywhere else in policy supporting it that I am aware of. Huggums537 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure we should completely ignore AUD when it comes to people. If the editor/reporter of the Smallville Daily Bugle writes a glowing review of the new cook at the local diner… it really does not indicate that the cook is notable. If the NYT does so (say as part of a series on “the best small town restaurants in the North East”) well, that is a different kettle of fish. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm getting your point, and I really do see the difference in notability there, but the glaringly big problem is that the new cook at the local diner in Smallville just isn't an organization or a company and I think reasonable people can see the difference in notability without the ham-handed use of NCORP, and its little brother AUD. Besides, what's next, using NCORP for products, and then moving on from people and products to more ambitious things? No thanks. Having NCORP applied across the whole of Wikipedia is my idea of a kind of living hell. Huggums537 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Calling this 'immoral' and 'my idea of a kind of living in hell' is a bit dramatic. You have an opinion. Others are disagreeing with you. You've been here long enough to know that's how it works here. valereee (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe so. Maybe not. You're right I've been here long enough to know things have been working that way here, but my hope is to change minds about that so they can see another viewpoint. I think when editors have misapplied guidance to one thing that was actually meant for another thing, it causes needless conflict among editors, and these drastic times call for drastic measures. Conflict causes needless suffering, and misapplied guidance is a perpetual perversion of trust, reasoning, and truth. I would say "immoral" and "living hell" are really more accurate descriptions of these perversions than they are a bit dramatic, and even if they are a bit dramatic, then I hope it is enough to wake people up. Huggums537 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Calling this 'immoral' and 'my idea of a kind of living in hell' is a bit dramatic. You have an opinion. Others are disagreeing with you. You've been here long enough to know that's how it works here. valereee (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm getting your point, and I really do see the difference in notability there, but the glaringly big problem is that the new cook at the local diner in Smallville just isn't an organization or a company and I think reasonable people can see the difference in notability without the ham-handed use of NCORP, and its little brother AUD. Besides, what's next, using NCORP for products, and then moving on from people and products to more ambitious things? No thanks. Having NCORP applied across the whole of Wikipedia is my idea of a kind of living hell. Huggums537 (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure we should completely ignore AUD when it comes to people. If the editor/reporter of the Smallville Daily Bugle writes a glowing review of the new cook at the local diner… it really does not indicate that the cook is notable. If the NYT does so (say as part of a series on “the best small town restaurants in the North East”) well, that is a different kettle of fish. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- My yardsticks when dealing with Singaporean sources, coming from a Singapore-based editor: in-depth coverage (like North8000's comment) and the impact of news item on national level. I am not using audience as a yardstick for the mainstream media as Singapore is a captive market for the print media, and there aren't much alternatives in that space anyway. Like it or not, government, authoritative news/announcements are usually from the mainstream media. For online/new media, audience may be a factor, but than again the smaller 'news' websites are typically lacking either in editorial control or experienced/profesisonal journalists/writers. The yardsticks evolve over time as I participate in more afds. – robertsky (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of articles on small businesses in Singapore including food stalls in the NPP que. I think that an important distinction is that there is some in-depth coverage of the business, not just "review" type coverage (e.g. talking about how the food and service is). North8000 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:NEXIST
Is WP:NEXIST the best way to improve verifiability and reliability of an article? Quite often at AfD there are claims that NEXIST is sufficient without giving the actual sources. People go at great length to find sources to prove notability but then refuse to add them. Thus undermining the notability straight away. I know AfD is not a way to improve articles, but this looks rather inefficient to me. The article should prove its notability, not an AfD. The Banner talk 12:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- As long as sources have been identified and noted on the AFD page or article talk page, then that is sufficient fir nitability. They really should be added but we can't force that. Of course the sources still need to be vetted for reliability and for significant coverage.--Masem (t) 13:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Masem, but as a matter of general behavior, we need to build the general consciousness and expectation that putting in sources where needed for wp:notability is a main part of creating an article. And that there's nothing wrong with pointing this out to people who say that the sources exist but can't be bothered with putting them into the article. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Individual local elections
During NPP work I took an example of a routine local election with a "stats only" type article, went into extra detail at the AFD nomination and asked for a thorough review with the thought that the result might help provide guidance on these. Input is requested. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election North8000 (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wrote this in the discussion (slightly edited): Elections for executives, upper chambers in a national bicameral legislature are notable. Election to a lower chambers in a national bicameral legislature or for state/provincial legislatures may be grouped together (such as in France, Idaho, or Virginia). Other elections, including local elections, may be notable when there are secondary and retrospective sources that illustrate how the election as noteworthy or is the first election for a president, prime minister, or similar political figure, where the election article is a spinoff. In any case, the article about the election should consist of significant prose that describes the context and outcome(s) of the election. --Enos733 (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Sources exist nominated for deletion
Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 June 28#Template:Sources exist. – Joe (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Notability of train stations
There has been heated debate recently over the claim by some editors that all train stations are inherently notable. Proponents of this idea say there is a long-term consensus establishing inherent notability of train stations. Opponents state that there is not a specific policy or guideline establishing any inherent notability. An RfC was held in 2019 [1] on this question, and closed with no consensus to find all train stations inherently notable, while also identifying several aspects of the question to be further considered. I am starting this RfC to follow up on the previous one in 2019, and attempt to come to an answer on the question of inherent notability for train stations.
I foresee the following possible outcomes of this discussion:
- All train stations are inherently notable.
- Some subset of train stations are inherently notable (for instance, excluding flag stops).
- Train stations are inherently notable, but may still be merged into other articles, a la WP:NOPAGE.
- Train stations do not have any inherent notability, and must be evaluated individually against WP:GNG and/or subject-specific notability guidelines. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 - all stations are inherently notable I support this option because
- I think it is highly likely that the construction, opening, and closing if applicable of a station would have been covered in the press but it is also likely that this information is offline, in another language, or both. Therefore I think it is likely that most stations would pass WP:GNG
- I do think separate articles are beneficial for navigation using the adjacent stations and Special:Nearby. I was mocked for saying this but I stand by it. These features, as well as the improved categorisation (readers using categories to navigate may not find station information if it is all on the line article rather than in individual station articles) improve the reader experience in my opinion. There is also the question of where to merge content for stations on multiple lines.
- Keeping all railway stations is consistent and easy. I think arguing over the notability of thousands of station articles would be a drain on volunteer resources. Railway stations are generally an uncontroversial topic and require little maintenance so I see no harm in keeping these articles.
- NemesisAT (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't
the construction, opening, and closing if applicable of a station would have been covered in the press
basically the definition of WP:ROUTINE? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)- I don't know that it fits into the examples given for WP:ROUTINE. I think the point being made here is that a new-build station, in the west anyway, is a multi-million dollar/euro/pound/CHF/whatever project that generates plenty of non-routine coverage. Mackensen (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- ROUTINE applies to event articles, not articles about infrastructure. NemesisAT (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The construction of a station is an event. If there's a lot of news about the construction of a station but, once it's built, it gains no significant attention because it's just one more place where people get onto and get off of trains, then perhaps it's sort of like saying a celebrity's child is notable for having been born because of plentiful write-ups about the celebrity's pregnancy, even if the child never got coverage in their own right thereafter. Largoplazo (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- We have stricter rules for biographies like WP:ONEEVENT, but this doesn't apply to railway station articles. I don't think your analogy is fair. NemesisAT (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The construction of a station is an event. If there's a lot of news about the construction of a station but, once it's built, it gains no significant attention because it's just one more place where people get onto and get off of trains, then perhaps it's sort of like saying a celebrity's child is notable for having been born because of plentiful write-ups about the celebrity's pregnancy, even if the child never got coverage in their own right thereafter. Largoplazo (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't
My concern is that there are apparently 7,000,000 train stations in the world and am concerned about anything that would "green light" 7,000,000 articles on train stations. BTW, I think that reasonable folks (including NemesisAT) mostly just want to get this sorted out, and I asked for their thoughts on their talk page. This is a separate issue from some considerable drama at some train station AFD's about a sidebar issue about unsupported claims on the sidebar issue. North8000 (talk) 23:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe create an SNG for stations on multi-track heavy rail lines, with all others reliant on the GNG way in?
- Option 2 - Some subset are inherently notable
- Option 3 - Inherently notable, but may be merged
- Option 4 - No inherent notability - follow GNG
- 7,000,000 sounds high. Great Britain has about 2,500 stations and 1% of world population, so my guess is 250,000. That increases if we include closed stations but decreases if we take into account GB's prominent role in railway history; the two effects may cancel. Certes (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I will expand my thoughts later but this is closest to what I'd support with the caveat of I don't think that train stations are inherently going to meet GNG but I think the standard should be somewhere around/between "GNG -- major metropolitan area" and most train lines, especially passenger can probably be integrated into line articles - I say this not as a train aficionado, but as someone who spent 5+ years commuting in the DC metro area from Baltimore. Not every train station is notable, by any standard. They're basically the equivalent of bus stops on commuter lines (in fact, I can point out three on my old line that outside of existing, are definitely not notable and service less pax than a bus stop in the boonies) and they're not really stops on most freight lines (in the US, particularly) as they have end to end destination points. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I think before going further we need to discuss what we mean by a "train station." That encompasses the following (at least):
- Physical stops on heavy rail routes that receive scheduled service from passenger trains
- Physical stops on rapid transit routes (metro services, subways)
- Physical stops on light rail routes with actual physical infrastructure (buildings, platforms)
- Physical stops on light rail/streetcar services with little or no infrastructure
- Flag stops on heavy rail routes served by the above, but potentially with limited or no infrastructure
I would assert that under current deletion outcomes the following of the above are always or almost always kept: 1, 2, 3. 4 and 5 are often merged into lists. The principle here is the physical footprint. Subway stations, for example, given the invasive nature of their construction, inevitability generate enough coverage and documentation to pass the GNG, as do new build heavy rail stations. Mackensen (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, the definition of what we consider a "train station" for the purposes of this RfC is important. I would definitely say that flag stops with minimal physical infrastructure do not merit articles unless they somehow meet GNG. I could live with us having coverage of every train station, but I would want many to be in dedicated list articles rather than standalone 2 sentence permastubs. So I guess you could put me down under option 3, or option 4. Attempting to discuss this in individual AfDs has failed, so I am hoping the wider audience of an RfC will allow the community writ large to come to some sort of consensus on how we handle train stations which may not meet GNG. The issue of "what is a train station" almost merits another RfC. Xingke Avenue station, a permastub, was recently merged following an AfD. I support that as the model for how we handle stations about which almost nothing can be said besides "it exists". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Without objecting to the Xingke Avenue outcome per se, it's really awkward to have a section for one station in the line article when all the other station articles (I spot-checked one, it's stubby) have individual articles. To some extent articles like this should be treated as a group. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- (EC) Option 4. I really, really do not see why GNG should be bypassed for this particular topic. We are not a directory, but that seems to be the only argument for inherent notability ("navigational ease"). If we can't definitively establish sufficient coverage exists for a subject, we should not have an article on it, even if it means there are red links in some list somewhere. This should be true across the board, not just for whichever topics don't have a large enough community of enthusiasts to lobby against requiring SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 - There's a reason "trainspotting" is a real thing, but that doesn't necessarily translate to presumptions of notability on WP. If a station is notable (and for purposes here, GNG and NCORP may both have to be considered) then it can stand on its own rather than the claims of notability from editors. --Masem (t) 01:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think train stations should be considered under NCORP, they're infrastructure, and should be considered under solely GNG and/or NGEO. If we started requiring NCORP requirements in infrastructure then it would be a significant determent to Wikipedia's goal as a gazetteer. Jumpytoo Talk 18:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 On one level, there's no reason for a special case of bypassing GNG or bypassing the wording in SNG which always says that it is a mere predictor of GNG. On another level the main intent of GNG is to see if there is real content of the type to build an encyclopedia article. If such is demonstrated, then you both pass via GNG and have an article. If not, you don't have either. In that case, all of the useful info from a typical one of those articles would fit nicely in (and is best covered as) a line in a table or list. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- If we get to where someone wants to start articles on all 7,000,000 then we might do something about it. I suspect for some time, they will be limited to the ones that are more notable. For example, I suspect King's Cross in London is notable, and was even before Harry Potter went there. Some might have notable architecture, or other historical interest. For some rail lines, one article with a section for each station might be about right. Gah4 (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that you are describing is articles with GNG sources. On another note, from my NPP work, I can tell you that the typical isn't picking ones that look more notable. It more like picking a rail line and making an article for each station on that rail line. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yup… King’s Cross has ton’s written about it. Clearly notable. But we can’t say the same for every small town station. Consider Ticonderoga station. I really would not consider this station notable. Everything in that article could easily be presented in a chart within an article about the Amtrak “Adirondack” line. Blueboar (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Even Ticonderoga has more material and sourcing than a typical one. A nice row in a table or a section in an article on the train line would be nice, including incorporating the image. North8000 (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That may be problematic if you have more than one line/route serving a station or if the routes change frequently. For example, the Ticonderoga station is actually on the Canadian Subdivision line of Canadian Pacific Railway, rather than the Adirondack line; if CP decides to revoke Amtrak's trackage rights, it wouldn't be served by the Adirondack anymore. (As an aside, that particular station is almost definitely notable, having first been built by the Delaware and Hudson Railroad in the early 20th century; there's probably plenty to write about its history.)I'd agree with the general gist of your statement though. For example, seasonal/flag stops such as the Manitou station probably don't merit articles in many cases, as they are not covered by reliable sources. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yup… King’s Cross has ton’s written about it. Clearly notable. But we can’t say the same for every small town station. Consider Ticonderoga station. I really would not consider this station notable. Everything in that article could easily be presented in a chart within an article about the Amtrak “Adirondack” line. Blueboar (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that you are describing is articles with GNG sources. On another note, from my NPP work, I can tell you that the typical isn't picking ones that look more notable. It more like picking a rail line and making an article for each station on that rail line. North8000 (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. The days of inherent notability are behind us. Cbl62 (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. Trains stations with significant coverage in reliable and independent sources are notable; train stations without it are not. Notable train stations may or may not justify a standalone article. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3/4 As per WP:5P1, Wikipedia is partially a gazetteer. Train stations fit into this section, and thus we should be collecting information about every train station somewhere. But, that does not mean we should be making train station articles willy-nilly even when we can only say trivial stuff about them (ex. location, services, number of platforms/exits...), where a valid merge target exists. I think the best way forward is to make articles in the following cases:
- WP:GNG is met (with a fairly soft source evaluation)
- Enough information is available to create a Start-class article & there is some non-trivial content as defined above (though this usually infers WP:GNG)
- As a rule of thumb, transfer stations have murkier merge possibilities and generally making articles instead might be easier. This would more be on a case-by-case basis, for examples situations where 2+ lines share several stations (interlining) could be merged together.
- To complete a set if most of the other stations on the line meet one of the above points (I value consistency over a hard application of the guidelines; it looks weird if every station on some route has an article except one/two of them)
- In cases where none of the above is met, then articles should be listified, either to the line article or more preferably to a "List of station on the X route/line" article. I prefer creating new list articles as it provides more freedom than shoving it into the line article and prevents WP:PAGESIZE issues. A format for such a list article could be similar to List of state routes in Nevada shorter than one mile. Jumpytoo Talk 04:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 per WP:GAZETTEER and existing consensus at AfD. Assuming we can substitute "inherently" for "presumed to be", the latter allowing room for occasional exceptions where someone can show that no, we can't actually say anything verifiable about this particular train station. Probably also finessing the definition of "train station" to discuss whether light rail stops count too. But having an article on every train station should be an uncontroversial, encyclopaedic goal for Wikipedia as a general-purpose reference work. Sadly we seem to have entered a phase of our history where notability is treated as some sort of prescriptive theology (are the GNG and SNGs different guidelines with the one substance or different guidelines with similar substances?) rather than a pragmatic guide to what is likely to survive AfD, so we'll probably have to keep doing the silly exercise of dredging up press coverage for each station one-by-one, but thanks for trying NemesisAT. – Joe (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4, especially in light the debate in this discussion about what a train station actually is. If the topic can't be easily defined, then it seems a poor candidate for inherent notability. There is no conflict with WP:GAZETTEER here, as there are other ways to incorporate relevant information. CMD (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 GNG shouldn’t really be bypassed unless there is a SNG, and even then, GNG is still a good advisory. | Zippybonzo | Talk | 07:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 given the shaky definition of a train station, I don't think giving a blanket pass on notability is the way to go here. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 08:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4- there is no such thing as inherent notability. For actual train stations this will almost always turn out to be a moot point, because for those the required sourcing will almost always exist. Then it will be an editorial decision as to whether the information is best handled as a stand-alone article or as part of a list of stations on its train line. What this will stop is people claiming automatic notability for all train stations and then using that to shovel in a bunch of stubs about disused sidings, flag stops, and branch points. Reyk YO! 08:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm not sure what to make of all the folks saying "Option 4" without engaging with the question of what a train station is. What exactly are you voting for? What outcome do you expect? If you're saying that you don't think streetcar stops are presumptively notable then I agree with you and so does existing consensus. If you're proposing a wave of deletions or merges of heavy rail stations then that might require some more thought and it's going to be disruptive. @Trainsandotherthings: I think you had good intentions, but drafting this RfC without explaining what a train station is will cause significant problems now and going forward. Mackensen (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Malformed RfC. The RfC, as written, doesn't distinguish between types of stations, though WP:RAILOUTCOMES does. Read literally, Option 1 would suggest that flag stops and streetcar stops are inherently notable, and that's a minority view at best. I don't know if anyone would argue that. I suspect people arguing Option 1 above mean heavy rail and rapid transit stations--e.g., the existing practice documented at WP:RAILOUTCOMES. As NemesisAT notes, this RfC suffers from the exact problem mentioned in the close of the 2019 RfC:
RFC recommended to more clearly define what constitutes a train station under this essay in order to better justify presumed notability in a future discussion
. This wasn't done, and here we are again. Mackensen (talk) 09:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The RFC has an option which clearly covers that which is #2: "Some subset of train stations are inherently notable" North8000 (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with option 2 is it excludes request stops like Achnashellach railway station which I reckon most people would lump in with heavy rail stations. Does anyone here really want to delete Achnashellach railway station? NemesisAT (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The question here is whether any are inherently notable. "None" means that they are treated like all other subjects, including Achnashellach railway station which would be kept without relying on inherent notability. Option 2 says that some subset could be defined as inherently notable. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Playing devils advocate, you could form a pretty good deletion argument for Achnashellac. All the sources appear to be directories apart from one on an accident. Option 4 opens the door to time wasting deletion discussions on stations like Achnashellac. NemesisAT (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- My own opinion is that if someone, over the years, wanted to carefully move 100% of the content from a majority of articles like that over to a section or substantial table row in an article on the train line, that would be cool. Anything more "deletiony" than that I would actively oppose.North8000 (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Playing devils advocate, you could form a pretty good deletion argument for Achnashellac. All the sources appear to be directories apart from one on an accident. Option 4 opens the door to time wasting deletion discussions on stations like Achnashellac. NemesisAT (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- The question here is whether any are inherently notable. "None" means that they are treated like all other subjects, including Achnashellach railway station which would be kept without relying on inherent notability. Option 2 says that some subset could be defined as inherently notable. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think it's fair to call this a "malformed RfC". It certainly could have been worded better, I don't dispute that, but I specifically linked to the 2019 RfC and mentioned the unresolved issues to bring them to the attention of all participants. Proposed option 2 also specifically addresses this, allowing for perhaps saying heavy rail stations are presumed notable, but tram stops that are little more than a sign and a tiny shelter are not. If a follow up RfC is necessary to clarify the precise definition of a train station, I would have no problem with that. And I'd be fine letting someone else start that RfC who has more experience writing them. But something had to be done to figure out this issue, because the status quo of endless arguments at every AfD wasn't working and was only breeding resentment. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4, as there are a lot of them, many little more than halts. Most serve towns, and thus are only really notable for that reason. And GNG covers ones that are notable, they will have received extensive press coverage over an extended period. What we are talking about is not major (or historical) rail terminals (for example) but local stations. Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. I'll grant that any passenger-carrying railway line should be notable, but the individual stations may only be worth a listing within the line's article. At a stretch, you might justify creating a redirect for some stations, so they can be individually categorized and {{stnlnk}}ed to. But if every station were notable, you could end up with ten separate articles, one for each of the upper and lower stations of the five cliff railways in the Isle of Man - which would be ridiculous.-- Verbarson talkedits 12:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you therefore suggesting that some are inherently notable? If so wouldn't other choices (there are more than 4 than those offered) be better. Bt for the sake of this RfC: 2.Some subset of train stations are inherently notable (for instance, excluding flag stops). Djflem (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Some stations are notable. Paddington merits an article because it has been recorded and described and detailed in numerous secondary reliable sources. But no station is inherently notable. If all you can record about a station is 'line, station name, coordinates, adjacent stations, date opened (and closed, if it is)' then that's not an article, it's an entry on a list of stations in the article about the line. -- Verbarson talkedits 20:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you therefore suggesting that some are inherently notable? If so wouldn't other choices (there are more than 4 than those offered) be better. Bt for the sake of this RfC: 2.Some subset of train stations are inherently notable (for instance, excluding flag stops). Djflem (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. To quote myself responding to comments above about coverage of the construction, opening, and closing of possibly every station conferring notability,
The construction of a station is an event. If there's a lot of news about the construction of a station but, once it's built, it gains no significant attention because it's just one more place where people get onto and get off of trains, then perhaps it's sort of like saying a celebrity's child is notable for having been born because of plentiful write-ups about the celebrity's pregnancy, even if the child never got coverage in their own right thereafter.
I might have gone with Option 2, proposing, for example, that train stations in major cities are inherently notable, but then that might devolve into a debate over what a "major city" is, whether minor cities or suburbs of major cities should be included, what places are or aren't genuinely suburbs, etc., so I've opted for 4. Largoplazo (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)- That's stretching WP:ROUTINE rather far, don't you think? WP:ROUTINE is meant to handle the routine reporting of sports matches and the like, which occur every week or even every day. Railway stations are not built at that frequency, nor on a regular schedule. Would you apply that logic to elections? How about highways? Do highways really generate coverage beyond that they were built, and that there are occasionally accidents and jams? Accidents are arguably routine. What's the limiting principle here? Mackensen (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. I'm not seeing any valid reasoning for bypassing GNG. "Stations" is far too broad a scope and option 2 doesn't come close to addressing that. Those that fail GNG can be included elsewhere, generally in the article about the place where they are located, with a redirect (similar to option 3, but claiming inherent, or even presumed, notability is a non-starter). wjematherplease leave a message... 13:46, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2, sort of, with caveats. I think that heavy rail and rapid transit stations with scheduled service are presumptively notable, in that they are fixed geographic features of long standing, and that their construction and operation are well attested in reliable sources and the subject of ongoing coverage. I think light rail/streetcar stops can be notable, depending on the character of the operation. Streetcar/tram stops and flag stops should probably be merged and often are. Mackensen (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. Just kind of silly that a structure simply by existing would be notable and skip past things like WP:GNG. 50.201.228.202 (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakers, Kentucky and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herrin, Nevada. There are large classes of historic stations that cannot be written about in any significant form, and I imagine that carries over to today. Hog Farm Talk 15:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sometimes there is enough for more than one sentence, but not a lengthy article, but if all that is known is the location and when it opened and closed that could be included in a list of stations on the line. 82.132.186.147 (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Options 1-3 There is a backlog of more important tasks such as ensuring content is verifiable and NPOV; option 4 would divert resources away from that. 82.132.186.147 (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Your comment
- option 1 yes always train stations There are some things that are necessary to include to have a functional, general interest encyclopedia, and not all of those things pass WP:GNG. We make special inclusion criteria for that reason. Train stations 1) are highly verifiable with primary data 2) always have important information relevant to multiple GNG-passing Wikipedia articles about locations and infrastructure 3) will typically not pass GNG because that criteria has a bias for journalism and research, which train stations do not get. I support having some criteria, like confirming published primary data about the station. If stations do not have their own articles, then this content will too often be merged into city articles where it will be WP:UNDUE. This is a topic worthy of an exception to GNG and having special inclusion criteria. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
There are some things that are necessary to include to have a functional, general interest encyclopedia
. Can you name a single general interest encyclopedia that has any articles on train stations that aren't massively historically notable? Or even one that mentions all relevant train stations within other articles? Wikipedia is not a directory or road map or navigational tool, so there is zero reason for us to ignore GNG in this case. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- comment: the future is Wikidata d:Wikidata:WikiProject Railways Not so far in the distant future all train stations will be indexed in Wikidata, that data will be automatically translated into 100 languages, then that content will be ported out to every language Wikipedia version. For anyone really interested in this issue, Wikidata is the least effort highest impact way to getting this content sorted and stable for the long term. The Wikimedia Foundation is putting 10+ million dollars into this kind of thing every year and will do so perpetually - there will come a point when all that investment makes changes here in English Wikipedia. I am not sure how community should respond to this but things will not always be as they are now. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Our community here at WP.en has repeatedly rejected porting info from Wikidata into Wikipedia. I don’t see that changing soon. Both projects are worthwhile, but they are separate projects with separate goals… and should stay that way. Blueboar (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- A better place for all rail stations to be documented while still tied to Wikidata would be Wikivoyage. Those that are still notable via the GNG/NCORP can still exist on Wikipedia. Masem (t) 17:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is not what Wikivoyage is for, and NCORP is not relevant here, as stations are infrastructure, not organisations or products. 82.132.186.147 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- While they are often paid for via public funds, the management and construction is typically by a company - whether that's a private company or a gov't backed one, so we do have to watch for the self-promotion that happens with the corporate-type entity. The infrastructure as a whole (eg the whole of the NYC Subway or London Underground) is certainly notable within both GNG and NCORP, but individual parts like stations are likely not. Masem (t) 18:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm re-reading your comment and trying to parse whether or not you're saying that London Underground and New York Subway stations are non-notable. Before I engage, I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify your position. Mackensen (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm saying that its very likely the overall infrastructure piece that is rail system is likely notable, but individual elements are not automatically notable, so they have to show notability through the GNG with considerations of NCORP. There are certainly stations that clear that bar like NYC Grand Central and probably most of the Underground ones, but taking a smaller system like, say, the light rail system in Seattle, stations there are going to be tougher to show, though the overall system is notable. Masem (t) 18:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's an aggressive position and I'm not sure that it's well-founded. Roughly half the Link light rail articles have reached GA status and two are FA. Mackensen (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm saying that its very likely the overall infrastructure piece that is rail system is likely notable, but individual elements are not automatically notable, so they have to show notability through the GNG with considerations of NCORP. There are certainly stations that clear that bar like NYC Grand Central and probably most of the Underground ones, but taking a smaller system like, say, the light rail system in Seattle, stations there are going to be tougher to show, though the overall system is notable. Masem (t) 18:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm re-reading your comment and trying to parse whether or not you're saying that London Underground and New York Subway stations are non-notable. Before I engage, I'd appreciate it if you'd clarify your position. Mackensen (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- While they are often paid for via public funds, the management and construction is typically by a company - whether that's a private company or a gov't backed one, so we do have to watch for the self-promotion that happens with the corporate-type entity. The infrastructure as a whole (eg the whole of the NYC Subway or London Underground) is certainly notable within both GNG and NCORP, but individual parts like stations are likely not. Masem (t) 18:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That is not what Wikivoyage is for, and NCORP is not relevant here, as stations are infrastructure, not organisations or products. 82.132.186.147 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- A better place for all rail stations to be documented while still tied to Wikidata would be Wikivoyage. Those that are still notable via the GNG/NCORP can still exist on Wikipedia. Masem (t) 17:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I'm of the position that we should not be giving stations presumptive notability, that does not at all mean they can't be notable. Most are. But that shouldn't preclude merging stations into other articles where appropriate. Exporting them to WikiVoyage doesn't make sense at all to me. It might be wise to handle this per line or per system. If for instance the Seattle light rail stations have been shown to by and large easily meet GNG, then I don't see any harm in keeping them all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with that analysis. I think this all boils down to a misunderstanding between whether something can be notable and whether that thing should be notable. For example, there has been enough written about Grand Central Terminal that its Main Concourse easily meets GNG, even though almost no other station concourses are notable. If we are to say that station concourses can't be notable, that's likely going to disservice our readers, since the main GCT page only provides a summary of the Main Concourse.On the other hand, we shouldn't be saying that a certain thing should be notable, either. There are systems in which all or nearly all stations are notable - such as the NYC Subway, the London Underground, or even Seattle's Link light rail - but that's because the stations in these systems are amply covered by reliable secondary sources. But these systems are the exception. Reliable secondary sources just don't exist for stations in many systems. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I'm of the position that we should not be giving stations presumptive notability, that does not at all mean they can't be notable. Most are. But that shouldn't preclude merging stations into other articles where appropriate. Exporting them to WikiVoyage doesn't make sense at all to me. It might be wise to handle this per line or per system. If for instance the Seattle light rail stations have been shown to by and large easily meet GNG, then I don't see any harm in keeping them all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
individual parts like stations are likely not.
- Perhaps you meant to say that individual parts like stations may not be notable. Yes, in most cases the system would most likely be notable. But this comment quite drastically underestimates the depth to which some heavy rail systems are discussed. About 20% of London Underground stations are GAs (with one current station and one former station being an FA), whereas 15% of NYC Subway stations are GAs. It's likely that all currently operating stations in both systems are notable, and, as someone involved in updating pages about NYC Subway stations, I can confirm this with certainty for the NYC Subway. The fact that a significant number of stations have enough sources to be improved to GA status, and even to FA status, means that such a generalization can't be made. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- GA and FA assessments do not account for notability or encyclopedic merit for a standalone. Several FAs and numerous GAs have actually been deleted on notability grounds, with their content being covered in other articles. For example, a lot of GA/FAs go into significant detail on historical and background info using sources that don't mention the subject at all. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- In many cases, background information is necessary as articles do not exist in a walled garden. There certainly have been GAs and FAs that are not notable and have correctly been deleted. But if a topic really does meet the GA criteria or FA criteria, then it probably has enough coverage to be notable, in spite of the inclusion of background information. WP:GACR says that a good article
stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail
, while WP:FACR says that a featured articleneglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context ... it presents views fairly and without bias
. Both of these criteria do account for background info. An article that's mostly background would fail both the GA and FA criteria.If a GA or FA is about a non-notable topic, the page ought to be demoted because it doesn't meet either the GA criteria or the FA criteria. However, even then, these topics are almost certainly a subset of something which very well is notable. The Lewis (baseball) article is a flagrant example of this, as is Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, but in both cases they were merged into a parent article, not deleted. This is compatible with WP:NOPAGE, i.e. option 3 of this RFC. I'll quote what Thryduulf said below, since it's relevant to a discussion about railway station GAs/FAs: "There are literally only two reasons to delete rather than merge articles about non-notable stations: 1. a failure of WP:V, and 2. copyright violations." – Epicgenius (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- I didn't say context/background info doesn't belong in articles, just that a lot of what contributes to an assessment doesn't take notability criteria into consideration. There can be GAs/FAs where there is only one source going into SIGCOV on the subject, with the rest of the sources going into the context. I'm also not advocating for deletion necessarily; like @Levivich said somewhere, I am advocating for the option to not have a standalone article; claims of inherent notability essentially remove that option and anything producing that outcome, including merges and redirects. I also disagree that there are only two reasons not to merge. If the content of a station stub is so limited as to merely state its existence, there's nothing worth merging. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see what you mean now. In regards to merging articles where only a limited amount of SIGCOV is available, I agree with that point. As for train station stubs, I'm still in favor of merging them, if only because they may become notable on their own in the future. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't say context/background info doesn't belong in articles, just that a lot of what contributes to an assessment doesn't take notability criteria into consideration. There can be GAs/FAs where there is only one source going into SIGCOV on the subject, with the rest of the sources going into the context. I'm also not advocating for deletion necessarily; like @Levivich said somewhere, I am advocating for the option to not have a standalone article; claims of inherent notability essentially remove that option and anything producing that outcome, including merges and redirects. I also disagree that there are only two reasons not to merge. If the content of a station stub is so limited as to merely state its existence, there's nothing worth merging. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- In many cases, background information is necessary as articles do not exist in a walled garden. There certainly have been GAs and FAs that are not notable and have correctly been deleted. But if a topic really does meet the GA criteria or FA criteria, then it probably has enough coverage to be notable, in spite of the inclusion of background information. WP:GACR says that a good article
- GA and FA assessments do not account for notability or encyclopedic merit for a standalone. Several FAs and numerous GAs have actually been deleted on notability grounds, with their content being covered in other articles. For example, a lot of GA/FAs go into significant detail on historical and background info using sources that don't mention the subject at all. JoelleJay (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's a tough one. I think that the spirit of "WP=gazetteer" covering some elements of public transportation infrastructure has some merit. It's about some subjects being inherently useful to the general public such that we can include them based on primary/non-independent sources because the only people who stand to gain from that information are the public... and that's not a bad thing. The question is where to draw that line and how it fits into Wikipedia. Some people made the same argument about secondary schools, which I never quite found persuasive, for example. That said, I've supported school district articles that cover those schools to some degree, and I support having larger group articles related to train stations without the need for each one to have its own article (and more importantly, without the need for each one to meet the GNG independently). The thing is, there's no option for people like me to support in this RfC. Like many others, I'm loath to support granting anything "inherent notability". On enwp in 2022, that term is going to poison any option of any proposal that includes it, and makes option 4 the default option. So how about Option 3.5: Certain types of train stations (to be defined in a subsequent discussion) are presumed notable, but should be covered in a parent article unless sources have been found to meet the GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your comment illustrates why I called the RfC malformed earlier. I have no idea what a closer would make of this discussion. Hopefully nothing, beyond that there needs to be an actual drafting discussion next time before people start voting and calling up various parades of horribles. Honestly, you'd think a train station attacked someone's family. Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think at a minimum there's at present some level of consensus that train stations shouldn't be given automatic notability. With that being said, many will easily meet GNG, and any train station that meets GNG should be under no risk of deletion or merger. If a follow up RfC is necessary to nail this down, so be it. Our end goal here should be to get some sort of consistent treatment of train station articles in writing somewhere. It may be messy but it needs to be done somehow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your comment illustrates why I called the RfC malformed earlier. I have no idea what a closer would make of this discussion. Hopefully nothing, beyond that there needs to be an actual drafting discussion next time before people start voting and calling up various parades of horribles. Honestly, you'd think a train station attacked someone's family. Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3: All railway stations are guaranteed to have coverage, at the very least at the moment they are opened - not only in local media, but usually in national media and also in specialized railway / subway literature. This makes them notable. However, unfortunately, many articles are being created based only on the standard database information, which is not acceptable. These must be merged into lists.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- If they only received coverage when they were opened then they are not notable, per WP:SUSTAINED. BilledMammal (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:SUSTAINED is meant for events, not physical structures or geographic features, and you need to reconcile your position with WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Mackensen (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's not what WP:SUSTAINED says.
Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.
does not equal "then they are not notable". NemesisAT (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)- SUSTAINED is meant for topics generally, not just events. SUSTAINED is also compatible with NOTTEMPORARY; once a topic has received sustained coverage it is notable, even if it then stops receiving coverage.
- In the case of buildings that receive a brief burst of coverage for their opening event, it does equal not notable, particularly when considered in line with WP:NOTNEWS. BilledMammal (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Even if we say SUSTAINED does apply to buildings,
may not sufficiently demonstrate notability
is not the same as "not notable". "may" being the key word here. Generally as well there will coverage of planning and construction, as well as opening. This would most definitely satisfy SUSTAINED. NemesisAT (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Even if we say SUSTAINED does apply to buildings,
- If they only received coverage when they were opened then they are not notable, per WP:SUSTAINED. BilledMammal (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 If many stations will have received significant coverage, it shouldn't be difficult to produce actual sources proving the fact. Although presumptions of notability are usually justified on grounds that significant coverage is likely to exist, everybody knows that 90% of the time they're merely used as an excuse for mass-voting "keep" in AfDs without providing sources. If stations can be shown to have received SIGCOV, they're notable, otherwise they're not; it doesn't need to be more complicated than that. Avilich (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 There is nothing in Wikipedia policies and guidelines that justifies the notion of "inherent notability". Topics are notable when they have received significant coverage in reliable sources. It is incumbent on anyone who wants to keep any given article to provide evidence of that coverage in the form of references to such sources. There is nothing about train stations that makes them fundamentally different from any other topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 most train stations are notable in my view, particularly in the UK, but for the ones that aren't they can be merged into a line article Atlantic306 (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 per Ymb. We should have at least a redirect for every station. Fewer ways for redirects to disappear is a good thing. – SJ + 20:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 There is no automatic notability whatsoever. While it may not always be expected to have particularly in-depth sources about individual stations, this should be done on station-by-station or line-by-line basis. Merging or redirecting to a line should be the preference until there's a need for a separate page – tables and sections can provide many of the details without presuming the need for stubs. Reywas92Talk 21:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3. Every station that verifiably exists or existed is notable enough for, at least, a mention on the article about the system, line and/or route on which it is located and for a redirect to the most appropriate of those. While many, possible even most, stations are notable enough for a standalone article there are some that are not, but there is literally only two reasons to delete rather than merge articles about non-notable stations: 1. a failure of WP:V, and 2. copyright violations. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Editors considering the notability of individual stations should be aware that the majority of sources about small-medium sized and/or rural stations, especially those in non-English speaking countries and/or which opened before circa the early 2000s are not online and/or not in English. This does not mean that there are no sources about them, it just means that Google doesn't know about, and thus cannot show you, these sources. If the articles about these stations are short then nominate them for merging rather than deletion unless you cannot even verify the station's existence. Note also that it is rare for similarly sized stations on the same line/system to be significantly more or less notable than each other, and so it makes little sense to treat them individually - discuss them as a set or explicitly explain what makes the individual station different from the similar ones. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Editors considering the notability of individual stations should be aware that the majority of sources about small-medium sized and/or rural stations, especially those in non-English speaking countries and/or which opened before circa the early 2000s are not online and/or not in English.
If I point this out, I'll just get someone saying "WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES" as a response NemesisAT (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Editors considering the notability of individual stations should be aware that the majority of sources about small-medium sized and/or rural stations, especially those in non-English speaking countries and/or which opened before circa the early 2000s are not online and/or not in English. This does not mean that there are no sources about them, it just means that Google doesn't know about, and thus cannot show you, these sources. If the articles about these stations are short then nominate them for merging rather than deletion unless you cannot even verify the station's existence. Note also that it is rare for similarly sized stations on the same line/system to be significantly more or less notable than each other, and so it makes little sense to treat them individually - discuss them as a set or explicitly explain what makes the individual station different from the similar ones. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3. Definitely not option 1. Even with option 3 I'd say only a sub-set, not all. Ideally to be there should be a subject-specific guidance document on train stations/railways. WP:RAILOUTCOMES alone isn't sufficient. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3. My view of the matter is that it's important for us not to delete content about train stations without any good argument to do so - an argument which I haven't seen. However, if some enterprising editor finds it would be better for certain rail lines to have their station content merged partially or entirely onto the page for that line, and would do the work required, I think that would be quite nice. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3. I think nigh-all train stations are encyclopedic topics, and that for less important ones they are best viewed by comparison to similar ones. J947 † edits 03:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry but your rationale makes no sense to me. You don't think train stations need to meet GNG because they are encyclopedic topics? So GNG is for non-encyclopedic topics? Levivich[block] 06:14, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 for the same reasons others raised. There is no such thing as inherent notability. "Notability" is not some quality that things in the world possess (or don't possess). "Notable" means it meets the WP:N guideline. What hasn't been advanced is a reason why train stations should be an exception to that guideline such that they don't need to meet GNG. I can think of no reason why train stations shouldn't have to meet GNG like everything else. So option 4. Levivich[block] 06:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3 interpreted as inherently notable enough to have a few sentences describing the station in the article of the railway line it is on (of course complying with WP:V), including a redirect of the station's name to the respective section in the line article. Stand-alone articles are appropriate where WP:GNG is clearly met and there is enough encyclopedic stuff to write about a station. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: i have informed WikiProject Trains in Japan of this RfC. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 11:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4: I am thoroughly unimpressed by arguments about navigation -- Wikipedia is explicitly not a travel guide -- or how "consistent" or "easy" it is to keep an article, however threadbare its notability: by that standard, isn't it easier just to keep everything, like infinite substubs on soccer or cricket players? The premise that all train stations could pass the GNG is an airy argument free of the slightest degree of evidence, and indeed, Thryduulf's analysis refutes the notion. If a station can meet the GNG, prove it. If it can't, merge to the railroad or the line until such time as such evidence is presented. Ravenswing 12:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're misinterpreting "not a travel guide". WP:NOTGUIDE prohibits phone numbers, prices, and biased selections of restaurants, attractions, etc. It certainly does not exclude articles on railway stations. NemesisAT (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- We are none of us fools, and we are entirely capable of deciding that a policy doesn't need to explicitly set out the words "railway stations" to apply to railway stations. For pity's sake, it doesn't set out the words "ice cream stands," "sidewalk vendors," "walking tours" or "harbor cruises" either. Ravenswing 20:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Railway stations are hardly comparable to walking tours or harbour cruises. They are essential infrastructure that people rely upon to get about. Your suggestion that having articles on railway stations constitutes a "travel guide" is ridiculous. You are completely manipulating what WP:NOTGUIDE says to try to justify deleting railway station articles. NemesisAT (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- We are none of us fools, and we are entirely capable of deciding that a policy doesn't need to explicitly set out the words "railway stations" to apply to railway stations. For pity's sake, it doesn't set out the words "ice cream stands," "sidewalk vendors," "walking tours" or "harbor cruises" either. Ravenswing 20:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're misinterpreting "not a travel guide". WP:NOTGUIDE prohibits phone numbers, prices, and biased selections of restaurants, attractions, etc. It certainly does not exclude articles on railway stations. NemesisAT (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1. It is very clear that consensus is to keep railway stations. Not tram stops with no platforms. Not stations that were proposed but never built. But actual constructed heavy or light rail stations with platforms and infrastructure. There are very good reasons for this. They are major features of infrastructure and there are invariably sources to be found about them, although those sources may not be online or in English. Those who oppose this are very keen on pointing out that there is no written policy or guideline that specifically covers railway stations, but they omit to notice that WP:CONSENSUS is a policy and that consensus at AfD is clearly to keep railway stations and has been since the early years of Wikipedia. Yes, consensus may change, but there is no evidence that it has changed here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Really? I'm seeing twice as many editors advocating Option 4 than all other options combined. That suggests that consensus has very clearly changed. Ravenswing 20:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I meant, as I assumed would be obvious, in AfDs! Where consensus is frequently made. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Heh. I've been a frequent flyer at AfD. AfDs are commonly settled by four or five loudmouths -- often buzzing around a half dozen AfDs of the day in a minute or two -- kneejerk "Seems notable" or "No sources in the article" (devoid of actual examination) are common responses, and an AfD involving as many as a dozen editors is almost always the result of a clique or faction defending "their" turf. The concept that there would be any broad policy consensus from AfD -- let alone it being "obvious" -- is something of a gigglefit ... especially given that proposed deletions aren't supposed to determine notability standards, but whether or not the articles in question meet the standards already in place.
- With that being said, whatever "consensus" you believe to have been established at AfD are irrelevant in the face of a broad RfC, focused on the general question instead of the merits of individual articles, and with participation from over three dozen editors at this point. Ravenswing 11:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I meant, as I assumed would be obvious, in AfDs! Where consensus is frequently made. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Really? I'm seeing twice as many editors advocating Option 4 than all other options combined. That suggests that consensus has very clearly changed. Ravenswing 20:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. If we don't have the sources to write individually about a station, we shouldn't just make a database dump. It can be a line in an article about the train line, and a redirect to that article, but it shouldn't be an individual article unless there exists in-depth sourceable content that we can use for an article about that station, which is all that would be required for individual notability. "Because we've always done it that way" is a bad reason for other outcomes. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- PS just for the sake of example where I am somewhat familiar with the place: we do not currently have an article about the former train station ("Wendling") that existed at Navarro, California, and I strongly suspect that any relevant content about it can adequately be supported at the Navarro article without creating a new standalone article for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's deeply regrettable that the RfC, among other things, made no distinction between current stations and former stations. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- There appears to be disagreement over where to merge railway station articles to. Settlement pages, company pages, railway line pages have all been suggested. We risk making content harder to find by not having a consistent merge target. NemesisAT (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see why there should be a distinction between current stations and former stations. This is an encyclopedia, not this month's timetable. If it really was once notable, then it should continue to be notable. To say the same thing in another way, if it is not notable now, then maybe it never really was notable. Perhaps the advocates of all current stations being automatically notable should think whether some of those stations, if they closed next year for whatever reason, would really still be notable 100 years from now. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- There appears to be disagreement over where to merge railway station articles to. Settlement pages, company pages, railway line pages have all been suggested. We risk making content harder to find by not having a consistent merge target. NemesisAT (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's deeply regrettable that the RfC, among other things, made no distinction between current stations and former stations. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- PS just for the sake of example where I am somewhat familiar with the place: we do not currently have an article about the former train station ("Wendling") that existed at Navarro, California, and I strongly suspect that any relevant content about it can adequately be supported at the Navarro article without creating a new standalone article for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE - are we going to start creating more standalone articles for ferry transport locations, bus depots, trucking yards, and the like? We already have Lists of airports which is WP:NOTCATALOG, and probably falls under non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. We have Bus station, and lists for them. See Category:Public transport and tell me how the forked articles are notable.
much less encyclopedic, and not simply magnets for UPE. Would we have added this type of information in a buried time capsule? I doubt it, because if it's going to be buried, few will write about train stations, except for the few notable ones that made headlines because of a bombing, etc.j/s Atsme 💬 📧 15:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, goodness no, Mackensen, I am not proposing a vast deletion. I believe we should exercise good judgment in an effort to remain compliant with policy. I would think the bulk of those stations would pass per WP:NBUILD. Perhaps the time has come for us to replace some of the guideline terminology, and let "significant coverage" become "sufficient coverage". WP:Notability (geographic features) does not support inherent notability, but does support notability per the following:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.
Atsme 💬 📧 02:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, goodness no, Mackensen, I am not proposing a vast deletion. I believe we should exercise good judgment in an effort to remain compliant with policy. I would think the bulk of those stations would pass per WP:NBUILD. Perhaps the time has come for us to replace some of the guideline terminology, and let "significant coverage" become "sufficient coverage". WP:Notability (geographic features) does not support inherent notability, but does support notability per the following:
- Option 2 The point of inherent/presumptive notability guidelines is to avoid having the same arguments over and over about topics where the vast majority of articles in a certain category are or aren't notable. In theory, this means removing those guidelines and falling back to GNG won't change any outcomes. In practice, this means a lot of discussions where editors will try to argue for why an entire list of sources doesn't count for notability for one reason or another because they don't like having lots of articles on a given topic. (You can already see that happening up the thread, with the argument that because news sources typically write about new rail stations, that somehow makes that coverage routine.) As for whether certain categories of railway stations almost always meet GNG, I think it's instructive to look at Rail bridges, tunnels, and stations|the list of GAs about rail stations; it's a long list of stations, most of which aren't major transport hubs, across many different countries and networks. Unless you're going to make the argument that a large number of GAs aren't notable (which would be an argument for greatly diminishing Wikipedia in my book), you have to at least consider the possibility that there are a lot of stations on the same train systems with similar levels of coverage. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:01, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2/4. WP:GEOFEAT already provides sufficient clarity for the inherent notability of various sorts of articificial geographical features (including buildings, structures, transport hubs, artificial features related to infrastructure, etc.). The guideline currently provides a presumption of notability for articifial geographic features that meet national heritage or cultural heritage statuses, but aside from this,
buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability
(emphasis added). It also does not presume notability for artificial features related to infrastrcuture, instead saying thatcan be notable under Wikipedia's GNG
. The guidance in WP:GEOFEAT thatthe inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability
is wise and it already applies to train stations as they are artificial geographical features.
- It's likely that the vast majority of secondary schools have been written about significantly (and thus meet WP:GNG), but that fact does not create inherent per se notability among all secondary schools. Likewise, it is likely that the vast majority of heavy rail stations have been written about significantly (and thus meet WP:GNG), but that fact does not create inherent per se notability among all heavy rail stations. Much like WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, WP:RAILOUTCOMES is simply a descriptive note of what tends to happen at AfD; WP:RAILOUTCOMES is not a policy or guideline and votes at AfD that are "keep per WP:RAILOUTCOMES" or "delete per WP:RAILOUTCOMES" should be discarded much in the same manner that "keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" and "delete per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" is.
- In short, railroad stations should be treated exactly like other artificial geographical features. I do not believe that a structure or building is inherently notable (i.e.
worthy of notice
) merely because some vehicle that moves on rails happens to stop there—even if that vehicle is cool. The relevant subject-specific notability guidelines (i.e. WP:GEOFEAT) currently do not provide any sort of support for the claim that current policies and guidelines indicate that railroad stops are inherently notable. Much like is the case for secondary schools, the mere fact that a large proportion of heavy rail stations are notable does not create inherent notability for every heavy rail station. And I see no convincing reason that WP:RAILOUTCOMES should be treated any differently than WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES in deletion discussions. - — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 per WP:GAZETTEER Benjamin (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- 2/3 Without a clear defintion of of "train station" with which to conduct a proper appraisal (and which was not followed up in previous AfC cited): existing/many historical heavy rail: (mainline/intercity/commuter) and many mass transit (metro/subway) stations are justified in having own articles (thus inherently notable). Light rail (tram/trolly) less so and are perhaps better inlcuded (merged with pertinent info: opening date, etc) in lists in articles about the line or separate "List of stations of the X line". Djflem (talk) 08:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 In New Zealand (the only country whose rail history I know much of), the majority of rail routes are short-living mining and logging routes from the colonial era without obvious physical marker or debris surviving into this century. The notion that we should automatically have an article for each end of them seems preposterous. Possibly we should have an article for the mine or sawmill, but only if there are sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is arguing for automatic notability of closed freight only stations. NemesisAT (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- When someone claims "all stations are (inherently/presumed) notable" (or equivalent), as has happened frequently at AFD and here (e.g. any !vote for option 1, including your own, and Necrothesp's endless repetition of this sentiment), that is precisely what they are doing. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your comment demonstrates how the RfC set up an unreasonable strawman. Given that, I'm not sure how useful it is in the long run. Once you get past a general agreement that "all stations" (whatever that means, the RfC doesn't say) aren't inherently notable, opinion fragments considerably. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Those agreeing "that all stations aren't inherently notable" are not (or at least shouldn't be) supporting option 1. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The status quo generally sees heavy rail and metro stations kept but not tram stops and generally not unverifiable historic stations either. Some of the responses here (like Stuartyeates's) seem to assume that we have been keeping every single stop of any sort no matter the system. NemesisAT (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your comment demonstrates how the RfC set up an unreasonable strawman. Given that, I'm not sure how useful it is in the long run. Once you get past a general agreement that "all stations" (whatever that means, the RfC doesn't say) aren't inherently notable, opinion fragments considerably. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- When someone claims "all stations are (inherently/presumed) notable" (or equivalent), as has happened frequently at AFD and here (e.g. any !vote for option 1, including your own, and Necrothesp's endless repetition of this sentiment), that is precisely what they are doing. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't 2.Some subset of train stations are inherently notable (for instance, excluding flag stops) satisfy that concern? Djflem (talk) 13:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is arguing for automatic notability of closed freight only stations. NemesisAT (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 I don’t see why train stations should have a special carve out for the notability requirements we apply to everything else. Having more specific guidelines on these kind of things would be good as I know from the Railways Africa AfD that it is hard to apply policy when it comes to traincruft. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 2 or maybe 3. I believe the vast majority of train stations, with the exception of some flag stops and the like, are notable. I've seen some mentions above of WP:NOTGUIDE above (which isn't really applicable to train stations, but whatever) so I feel it is important to also point out WP:NOTPAPER -- "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover." While this isn't a free pass for inclusion, it certainly points that way in this case. -- Vaulter 14:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 Agree with above that everything in a category of functional structures don't get a pass to a stand-alone page, and the idea of such 'inherent notability' makes no sense (whether stations, office buildings, warehouses, or homes, etc). When the GNG is satisfied, consider a separate page but readers are regularly better served by in context SUMMARY, MERGE and PAGEDECIDE - the idea that you must have a separate page to write or find out about something in Wikipedia is just untrue, surely better articles is the real aim of this work, not more articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- This phrase "some subset are inherently notable" seems quite confused: the stations that are "inherently" notable are the ones that pass the GNG. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 Articles are written with sources. An article made up of a single paragraph with two citations proving the station exists doesn't do much for an encyclopedia; such a stub exists only for the rail fans. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- 2/3. Some subset of train stations are inherently notable, but may still be merged into other articles, a la WP:NOPAGE. Fictional train stations are not inherently notable and closed stations probably aren't either. I suppose a followup RfC may be needed to establish the criteria for the subset of inherently notable stations. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 3. As a railfan myself, I don't necessarily think railway stations should be exempt from GNG, especially for light rail modes and flag stops. On the other hand, many heavy rail stations (at least those with physical infrastructure), including subway stations, have enough sources to meet GNG because their construction and development is covered by local media. I'm not saying that all such stations meet this criterion; indeed, some short station pages can be merged into the articles about the lines per NOPAGE.However, and this is a big consideration, many stations are constructed as part of a longer segment of a line, particularly in rapid transit systems. For example, all 23 stations of Line 9 (Chongqing Rail Transit) opened at the same time. If we only used GNG as a consideration, some topics might be swept under the rug when we do a typical search of sources. When talking about the construction of a line segment, some sources may only talk about the endpoints of that segment. For instance, this source talking about the opening of Chongqing Rail Transit's line 9 mentions that the line has opened between Gaotanyan Station and Xingke Avenue Station, but it does not mention intermediate stations which opened at the same time. Even though these stations clearly opened at the same time, someone might only be able to use this reference to support the notability of the termini, rather than those intermediate stations. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4. That being said, I would hazard a guess that 99.99% of train stations are within
legally recognized, populated places
, which are notable per WP:GEOLAND. Therefore, if a station is not notable per GNG, the article can (per WP:NNC) and should be merged into the relevant GEOLAND article (or another more suitable destination, such as an article on the train line itself). HouseBlastertalk 23:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC) - Option 4 makes most sense to me. Wikidata should be the repository, not here. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
AfD stats
Since 31 March 2019 there have been 30 AfDs about 68 individual rail transport stations recorded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts and archives 4-7 (there were bulk nominations of 13 and 27 articles). There were an additional 15 AfDs about individual rail transport stations recorded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Transportation/archive but not in the article alerts archives (no bulk nominations, but 1 station was later included in the larger of the two bulk nominations). Where it was clear from the nomination, all were about heavy rail or metro stations. The outcomes were as follows:
Outcome | Number | Notes |
---|---|---|
Keep or Speedy keep | 24 | |
Withdrawn | 3 | |
Merge | 4 | Includes 1 where it was unclear if it was actually a station or just a goods platform, and 1 proposed station on a planned line |
Redirect | 14 | 13 were a single nomination of closed stops "only marked by yellow bands on a pole"; the other had verifiability issues |
Delete for notability reasons | 1 | This would almost certainly have been a merge if an article about the line existed |
Delete for other reasons | 29 | 2 were deleted for lack of verifiability, 27 were deleted in a single nomination of proposed stations on a planned/proposed system. |
No consensus between keep and merge | 1 | |
Other no consensus closes | 3 | Includes 1 station later deleted as part of the bulk nomination of proposed stations. |
Additionally I found one nomination of an individual tram stop, this was merged to the article about the railway station of the same name 200 metres away. So in the last 3¼ years only 1 article about a railway station that verifiably exists or existed has been deleted at AfD and that lacked a suitable merge target. There is no other equivalent log I found. I tried searching the AfD log for "railway station" and "tram stop" but the first four and three pages of results respectively didn't find any additional AfDs from the relevant time period. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is circular reasoning to argue that train stations are automatically notable because of a history of AfDs in which it was argued that they are automatically notable. The history would be a valid argument in an AfD, where we would like to maintain consistent WP:OUTCOMES, but I think it is invalid in an RFC in which we are trying to determine whether they really should be considered automatically notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- There appears to be a longer table of train stations brought to AFD here. Looking through the early discussions, the idea of "precedent suggests keeping all train stations" emerged quickly. But in those early discussions, (such as WP:Articles for deletion/Route 128 Station [overturned] and WP:Articles for deletion/Yeouinaru Station [later recreated]), the discussion was similar to the discussions here, with keep comments like "By having the stub, it also encourages others to add information about the station (someone who lives in the area may be inclined to take pictures, etc)." (by Neier) and "Railway station are accepted as notable because they have commonality of information across other articles, plus they also get additional information" (by Gnangarra). For me, precedent does not equate to inherent notability, and the global community can certainly override local perspectives. The question in my mind is whether this RFC actually will make much of a difference (except that authors are expected to do more [as they should] than "this station exists." The stations themselves are verifiable, many stations, at least where I am familiar, receive reliable sourced coverage. And, in the event that the sourcing of a station is less than ideal, the station will probably be merged. (This is what is happening with Olympians, as very few Olympic athletes are actually deleted). Enos733 (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
This is what is happening with Olympians, as very few Olympic athletes are actually deleted)
That's not true at all. I'd say the majority are deleted or redirected. JoelleJay (talk) 22:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)- I think a merge/redirect is quite distinct from deletion, as redirects are preferred to deletion per WP:ATD. I believe the stations that do not pass GNG would end up as part of a list of the main rail line. At the risk of going off-topic, the archive of discussions of Olympians is primarily redirects to the sport they participated in (unless the athlete is known only by their initials). - Enos733 (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- How many of those keeps were based on editors actually finding enough sources to meet GNG? And how many were clearly BADNACs? JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's a heavy lift and I'm reluctant to undertake it; I'd rather develop a guideline. The few AfDs I spot-checked led to the adding of sources, if not significant expansion. Debate was cursory. There was also a pretty clear lack of WP:BEFORE; which isn't required but might have been helpful. That's especially true for articles for stations in foreign countries, where the foreign language wiki has more information. Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think if a non-trivial number of these keeps are due to the subject actually meeting GNG, or even arguments that advance a presumption of GNG sourcing, then the claim of a consensus that such stations are inherently notable is inaccurate. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know that one precludes the other given the lack of a written policy (besides the GNG). To the extent that some editors hold a belief in "inherent notability" (not a phrase I encountered with railway stations prior to this RfC), then it's grounded in the belief that for any given station sources will exist, although they might not be present. To an extent, someone arguing that the subject passes the GNG and someone saying all train stations are notable are advancing roughly the same argument, with the exception that the former probably conducted a more individual assessment of the station as an article as opposed to the station as a member of a class. To know for certain what people thought, it wouldn't be enough to look at the close, you'd have to evaluate each debate, and then make an individual assessment of whether (a) the closer got it right and (b) which rationales were valid. I'm not sure that's possible or desirable. Reasonable minds can and do differ at AfD. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- If the editors claiming inherent notability actually meant "SIGCOV likely exists" then why wouldn't they say that instead of repeating
Very longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable
at every single AfD? Why would they be insisting stations areinherently notable
for reasons other than presumed receipt of SIGCOV, like that we need every station so that the "adjacent stations" feature(?) isn't "incomplete", or that for an encyclopedia to be "functional" it must contain standalones on each one? JoelleJay (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- If the editors claiming inherent notability actually meant "SIGCOV likely exists" then why wouldn't they say that instead of repeating
- I don't know that one precludes the other given the lack of a written policy (besides the GNG). To the extent that some editors hold a belief in "inherent notability" (not a phrase I encountered with railway stations prior to this RfC), then it's grounded in the belief that for any given station sources will exist, although they might not be present. To an extent, someone arguing that the subject passes the GNG and someone saying all train stations are notable are advancing roughly the same argument, with the exception that the former probably conducted a more individual assessment of the station as an article as opposed to the station as a member of a class. To know for certain what people thought, it wouldn't be enough to look at the close, you'd have to evaluate each debate, and then make an individual assessment of whether (a) the closer got it right and (b) which rationales were valid. I'm not sure that's possible or desirable. Reasonable minds can and do differ at AfD. Mackensen (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think if a non-trivial number of these keeps are due to the subject actually meeting GNG, or even arguments that advance a presumption of GNG sourcing, then the claim of a consensus that such stations are inherently notable is inaccurate. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's a heavy lift and I'm reluctant to undertake it; I'd rather develop a guideline. The few AfDs I spot-checked led to the adding of sources, if not significant expansion. Debate was cursory. There was also a pretty clear lack of WP:BEFORE; which isn't required but might have been helpful. That's especially true for articles for stations in foreign countries, where the foreign language wiki has more information. Mackensen (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I understand why the analysis above was conducted that way, though I think it's not actually capturing the true extent to which railway stations have come to AfD (and it greatly underestimates deletion). I recall when people were going through GNIS stubs there were quite a few instances in which an alleged municipality wound up appearing to be a former railway station about which basically nothing other than their name/a timetable containing their name is written (and for some, it's not even clear what the true name of the station was). Quite a few have been deleted on this basis since the summer of 2020, including: White Stick, West Virginia; Delaney, Washington; Tiflis, Washington; Pyles Marsh, Georgia; Farmers, Virginia; Wilson, Ohio County, West Virginia; Kevet, California; Oakley, Missouri; Goltra, Missouri, Horrock, West Virginia; Tatu, California; Sonora Junction, California; and Pinnio, California. I'm also seeing Harney, Nevada (which now exists as a redirect to 1939 City of San Francisco derailment). I don't think that these sorts of apparent railroad stations are actually notable, either by passing WP:GNG or by a common sense of the word. Nobody seems to have suggested that the articles should have been kept and their name+content modified to reflect that the entities were former railroad stations, but that's what WP:DEL-CONTENT would command if the editors thought the topic was notable and the article could be fixed by ordinary editing (which... is very easy for geostubs). I don't immediately have a clear way to do a systematic review of GNIS-related geostub deletion discussions in which editors discovered that a location was actually an abandoned railroad station, but going through search results manually it looks like they almost entirely got deleted if WP:SIGCOV wasn't found. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10 nobody is arguing that stations that are not verifiable should be kept, and in many of the cases you cite verifiability of basic facts like the name was weak at best, so they aren't relevant to this discussion. I would argue though that were we can verify that $railroad had a stopping point at $place (from at least xxxx to at least yyyy) that should be included in a list associated with that railroad, but again lists of railway stations are not relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: I agree that it's fair to say that articles that wholly fail WP:V should generally be deleted after thorough attempts to verify them have been made and were unsuccessful. But that leaves discussions like Horrock (which we could verify was a flag stop), Pyles Marsh (which was clearly a train stop), and that Harney (was a train station). And, in any case, your table still excludes these sorts of articles that were actually railroad stations, which skews the data towards keep. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10 nobody is arguing that stations that are not verifiable should be kept, and in many of the cases you cite verifiability of basic facts like the name was weak at best, so they aren't relevant to this discussion. I would argue though that were we can verify that $railroad had a stopping point at $place (from at least xxxx to at least yyyy) that should be included in a list associated with that railroad, but again lists of railway stations are not relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Proposed roadmap for the train station topic
The catalysis for this RFC was probably from some recent heated discussions at several AFD's by someone making numerous related claims including that all train stations are inherently notable and berating anyone who didn't agree. Also (contrary to what the essay itself says) saying that the outcomes essay in essence says this and overrides the guidelines. But it also relates to an underlying question which I think needs sorting out. We should probably let this RFC conclude just on that narrow question which I think would be a snow "there's no such thing as inherent notability" and that NO topic is granted that status, and a part of the close would be that there will be a next phase of the discussion so that nothing broader is implied from this narrow finding.
Then I think we should have a second 2 stage conversation about whether we should officially tilt the balance on train stations a bit (or at least towards the types that currently have articles on) towards inclusion, similarly to how we do that for geographic places. It should include persons knowledgeable on current types and coverage and also folks a bit more distanced from the topic. Probably the first phase of the conversation should be how best to cover a typical train station article in question....a extant train station with a real building on an active rail line, with no included GNG type sources. (We'd probably want to firm up that stations that are e.g just a sign and a sidewalk or a flag stop along the tracks are not candidates for some special treatment.) I think that the realistic possibilities for the main type of article in question would be a separate article, or a section/substantial table row in a broader article such as on the rail line. If the answer leans towards "separate article" or if there is at least substantial support for that, then we would propose a SNG provision (probably within wp:Geo) that would tilt things towards inclusion of those intended types. Like all SNG's it would give those intended types of stations a defacto (ostensibly temporary) GNG bypass while acknowledging that GNG is the ultimate standard. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Fully support any easing of inclusion criteria for railway stations and I still believe a separate article for each station is the way to go. A reasonably simple criteria for defining a railway station would be an existing or defunct stop with raised platform(s) on a national rail system (ie, not a heritage line). This excludes tram and bus stops. NemesisAT (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the debates we had over whether schools were inherently notable, and the status of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES whenever an article on a school was nominated for deletion. Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- That essay is useful if only used in the intended limited way but is easily and often misused and so has done a lot of harm. It has also done harm in another way because it has become a poor-substitute enabler for not cleaning up the big vague confusing situation at the notability guidelines. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would oppose tilting the balance, simply because it will waste a lot of time if we do so; regardless of how we word it it will result in editors creating articles on stations that should have been included as an entry in a list and other editors will need to go around after them cleaning up. BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Either way we need to discuss it and settle it. My post was a proposed roadmap and not intended to be the start of the discussion. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The catalysis for this RFC was probably from some recent heated discussions at several AFD's by someone making numerous related claims including that all train stations are inherently notable and berating anyone who didn't agree.
For the record, I would like to point out the blatant inaccuracy of this statement. The argument was that consensus has long been that all stations are notable. There was no "berating". There was merely a statement of fact that the delete voters chose not to acknowledge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)- I disagree with several aspects of your post but what matters most is resolving the overall issue. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. However, I would direct you to this discussion and ask you to spot which editor on which side of the argument was accusing the other side of "tired, worn out, and mindless" arguments, of posting "spam", of being "disruptive" and, most recently, that "your argument is full of shit", and then maybe reassess your comment! Unpleasantness and deliberately inflammatory language is pointless and gets us nowhere. This is an encyclopaedia, for crying out loud, not a battlefield! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- A perfect example of what I am talking about below, a stub that could easily fit (and expand, and that parent article is one line, it could do with expanding) into another article, with no loss of information. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Consider which editor continues to obstinately trot out the exact same talking point endlessly without any real evidence. I started an RfC to attempt to resolve the issue. It turns out there is broad consensus against your argument that "all train stations are inherently notable" but I'm sure you will find a reason to disregard this RfC and carry on exactly as before. You may object to my language if you'd like, but the community input here has not been in support of your argument, agreeing with the substance of "your argument is full of shit" though not using the same language. Perhaps I'm frustrated that you refuse to even for a second consider there might be valid arguments in opposition to yours. I have attacked your argument with that statement, not you personally. If you choose to interpret that as unpleasantness and deliberately inflammatory language, that's your choice. How about your incorrect interpretation of consensus as something which cannot ever change? Is that not disruptive? You would have it that if something has been done a certain way for a while, it can never ever be changed again. Would you say we shouldn't have abolished Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, because "we've been doing it this way for years and consensus clearly supports keeping it"? By starting an RfC, I have gone about the proper route for evaluating what consensus, if any, exists amongst the broader community on the subject. You don't have to like it, but as you love to tell others, not liking a consensus doesn't mean it doesn't govern just the same. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Trainsandotherthings:
You may object to my language if you'd like
- I've looked at several of your comments here and at that AfD, you should WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- The contributor in question copy-pasted the exact same (totally dubious) message to a large number of AfDs. Perhaps you can understand why one might find this frustrating. And further, why it is frustrating to be accused of wanting to delete everything. Contrary to what some seem to believe, I care a great deal about content. I've written dozens of articles. I want the encyclopedia to grow. But this absurd "no train station article can ever be merged, let alone deleted" has been inhibiting the normal functions of Wikipedia in this subject area. Criticize the messenger all you like, the message needed to be heard. We need an actual policy or guideline here, not just "we keep all train stations because we keep all train stations". I suggest that train stations that fail GNG should be merged into lists, and people come at me saying I have started "a discussion where trains editors are being castigated". Never mind that if it wasn't extremely obvious, I am a train editor and the one who started this RfC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you deny writing this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
"Do you deny writing this?
Why would I deny writing it? The editor in question has been disruptive and I was rightfully calling them out for it. This isn't the own that you seem to think it is. My contribution history is freely available for any editor to see. That diff does not in any way refute the argument that we need to come to an actual consensus on this issue, nor does it change the fact that this editor has been copy pasting the exact same nonsense into a large number of AfD discussions. I have explicitly cited evidence finding directly against the user's arguments (such as the 2019 RfC mentioned just below) and yet they ignore it in favor of their preferred POV. It is fundamentally wrong to operate with unwritten rules about notability. Everyone should be on the same playing field. And that is why I started this RfC. You can call it partisan if you want, but such concerns have not been echoed by the vast majority of participants. This RfC needed to happen. You should be more concerned about one editor attempting to rewrite the very definition of consensus and shut down any discussion on an entire subject area. Yet you focus on my getting frustrated at their obstruction instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you deny writing this? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The contributor in question copy-pasted the exact same (totally dubious) message to a large number of AfDs. Perhaps you can understand why one might find this frustrating. And further, why it is frustrating to be accused of wanting to delete everything. Contrary to what some seem to believe, I care a great deal about content. I've written dozens of articles. I want the encyclopedia to grow. But this absurd "no train station article can ever be merged, let alone deleted" has been inhibiting the normal functions of Wikipedia in this subject area. Criticize the messenger all you like, the message needed to be heard. We need an actual policy or guideline here, not just "we keep all train stations because we keep all train stations". I suggest that train stations that fail GNG should be merged into lists, and people come at me saying I have started "a discussion where trains editors are being castigated". Never mind that if it wasn't extremely obvious, I am a train editor and the one who started this RfC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Trainsandotherthings:
- What I'm seeing there is understandable frustration at a someone (who frankly should know better) persistently and repeatedly claiming a consensus that plainly does not exist, i.e. that "all railway stations are notable" when it's quite obvious (even from the linked guidelines/essays they presented, never mind elsewhere, e.g. the 2019 RFC) that the opposite is true. To me, this kind of behaviour is more problematic. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. However, I would direct you to this discussion and ask you to spot which editor on which side of the argument was accusing the other side of "tired, worn out, and mindless" arguments, of posting "spam", of being "disruptive" and, most recently, that "your argument is full of shit", and then maybe reassess your comment! Unpleasantness and deliberately inflammatory language is pointless and gets us nowhere. This is an encyclopaedia, for crying out loud, not a battlefield! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with several aspects of your post but what matters most is resolving the overall issue. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with this ""road map" is that most railway stations will be associated with a place that already is notable. As such we will have Southend-on-Sea, Southend Central Southend Victoria. Often little more than stubs. The reader would thus be best served by not having to wade through tons of links, but to read a concise article. Only when (and if) a station is truly notable would they actually need a separate article?. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Slater - public/private transport belongs in the city article, not as a standalone. The global transport is standalone notable including international airports. A specific national route may be notable. Anything beyond that gets into NOTGUIDE territory. Atsme 💬 📧 16:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can't reconcile your comments with the present state of coverage with railroad topics.
A specific national route may be notable
Are you suggesting that commuter rail routes are not notable? Because we have articles on all of them, and the stations they serve. We have articles on the roughly 500 stations that Amtrak serves, and their routes; are you favoring a mass merge? Mackensen (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC) - Can you please explain how an article on a minor railway line or station falls foul of WP:NOTGUIDE? NemesisAT (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, Mackensen! Happy 4th if you celebrate it. 🎆🧨 Amtrak is certainly notable, but should we have 500 different articles for each train station in the continental US, not to mention every other means of public/private transportation around the globe? Generally speaking, I think not, but yes for those that can pass GNG. Can admins mass merge like they do mass delete? I think it's better for the project if we do, especially when considering size on a global scale, not to mention the ongoing maintenance of those articles. If Amtrak is allowed to have standalone articles on its individual stations, then what about the List of railway stations in Canada, List of railway stations in India, List of railway stations in Indonesia, List of railway stations in Pakistan, and on and on and on? And that's just the tip of the iceberg on a global scale. The lists are fine, but I'm of the mind that individual standalone articles for each station, just because they exist, pushes us deep into WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE territory, not to mention failure to comply with WP:N. We need to remind ourselves of the 5 pillars starting with #1. Leave the listings for real online directories, city tourism brochures & directories, and merge the standalone articles into their respective city articles where they will be most beneficial to our readers. Atsme 💬 📧 18:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- None of the six bullets in WP:NOTDIRECTORY appear to be applicable to railway station articles. The irony is that merging station articles into a list of stations as suggested by some would actually be more at risk of falling foul of point #1.
- As I wrote above, WP:NOTGUIDE prohibits phone numbers, prices, and biased selections of restaurants, attractions, etc. It certainly does not exclude articles on railway stations. I don't think it is applicable here. NemesisAT (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Online directories don't cover things that an encyclopedia does. Amtrak's listing of stations will not, in general, give you the history of the station, or the physical line, or non-Amtrak services (for example). It would point to a policy violation if our articles could be replaced by an online directory listing. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- NemesisAT, for clarity of my position, WP:NOT states (my bold underline for emphasis):
Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Wikipedia is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive.
I'm of the mind, perhaps arguably so, that my use of NotDirectory & NotGuide falls within the original intention of what WP is not. Examples are not the final word, they're simply examples. hth Atsme 💬 📧 02:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- NemesisAT, for clarity of my position, WP:NOT states (my bold underline for emphasis):
- Hi, Mackensen! Happy 4th if you celebrate it. 🎆🧨 Amtrak is certainly notable, but should we have 500 different articles for each train station in the continental US, not to mention every other means of public/private transportation around the globe? Generally speaking, I think not, but yes for those that can pass GNG. Can admins mass merge like they do mass delete? I think it's better for the project if we do, especially when considering size on a global scale, not to mention the ongoing maintenance of those articles. If Amtrak is allowed to have standalone articles on its individual stations, then what about the List of railway stations in Canada, List of railway stations in India, List of railway stations in Indonesia, List of railway stations in Pakistan, and on and on and on? And that's just the tip of the iceberg on a global scale. The lists are fine, but I'm of the mind that individual standalone articles for each station, just because they exist, pushes us deep into WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE territory, not to mention failure to comply with WP:N. We need to remind ourselves of the 5 pillars starting with #1. Leave the listings for real online directories, city tourism brochures & directories, and merge the standalone articles into their respective city articles where they will be most beneficial to our readers. Atsme 💬 📧 18:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can't reconcile your comments with the present state of coverage with railroad topics.
- I agree with Slater - public/private transport belongs in the city article, not as a standalone. The global transport is standalone notable including international airports. A specific national route may be notable. Anything beyond that gets into NOTGUIDE territory. Atsme 💬 📧 16:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
My "roadmap" was intended to just consider the question, and after a finding that "train stations aren't inherently notable". Maybe it sounded too much like "let's propose an SNG provision" which was not my intention. But a proposed SNG provision can be rejected and either way would probably mostly settle this. North8000 (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think a SNG is probably the way forward. I was idly wondering if given that WP:NSCHOLAR explicitly says it's an alternative to WP:GNG, and criteria #1 is basically with enough scholarly citations they are notable, something similar could be applied to passenger counts per year at it's peak for train stations (i.e. not just currently, to allow for historically busy stations)? Then assess the smaller ones more like WP:GNG. Disclaimer: I have not thought this through very carefully. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- NSCHOLAR predated the GNG and other SNGs, and so it is not recommended to follow its pattern. And notability is not based on popularity so using a metric like passenger counts would not be appropriate as a presumption of notability. --Masem (t) 19:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- NSCHOLAR predated the GNG and other SNGs, and so it is not recommended to follow its pattern. And notability is not based on popularity so using a metric like passenger counts would not be appropriate as a presumption of notability. --Masem (t) 19:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
If I were trying my hand at a guideline, I would want to recognize that while many stations truly stand on their own as independent topic (Pennsylvania Station (New York City) and Grand Central Terminal are obvious examples), in many cases we're dealing with content that is effectively "broken out" or split from one or more parent articles. The thing about a station is that there are multiple parents (or merge targets, if you prefer): the company the owns it or built it, the physical line or lines that it is located on, the service(s) that stop there, and the locality. This is a many-to-many relationship: localities may have one station or many, and by definition lines, services, and companies have multiple stations. Can these stations be grouped in a list article? Yes, of course, but how best to do this so that (a) it makes sense to current and future editors and (b) is useful and obvious to readers. Editors have until this point treated many (not all) station articles as a group, and any guideline coming out of this discussion should take that into consideration. Mackensen (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this take. "Notability" isn't real anyway. Editors should just arrange the information in whatever way makes the most sense for the particular content. Sometimes that means a train station gets its own article, sometimes it should be combined with other articles, etc. These are all WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:SPINOFF issues. The question isn't "keep" or "delete", it's "merge" or "split". Levivich[block] 00:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Regardless of exactly how the community proceeds with station notability, I would make the (fairly obvious) point that the project would benefit from maintaining appropriate redirects for less notable stations, to populate the category system in instances where the best textual treatment of the station is in a broader article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the best solution is to have combined list-articles on the train lines with redirects. Certain individually-notable station would still get their own articles, incorporated into the train line articles by way of transclusion so that when you edit the station article, the line article updates itself automatically.—S Marshall T/C 07:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- IIRC there's a strong consensus against creating composite pages in the article namespace. Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- And yet templates exist.—S Marshall T/C 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @S Marshall Yes, templates exist. That isn't the same thing as re-using article content to create list articles. Last I checked, consensus was strongly against that. In a discussion where trains editors are being castigated for special pleading and ignoring/inventing consensus, I think it's a bad idea to propose evading consensus in a totally different way. Mackensen (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- God, seriously? OK. I would like to be crystal clear that I do not propose, and never have proposed, anything that would evade consensus. I shared a thought here because I understood that this was a place to discuss alternatives to the failing proposal made above. Any such alternative would clearly need to gain consensus at RfC before being implemented. I do not castigate, and never have castigated, any trains editors.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @S Marshall Yes, templates exist. That isn't the same thing as re-using article content to create list articles. Last I checked, consensus was strongly against that. In a discussion where trains editors are being castigated for special pleading and ignoring/inventing consensus, I think it's a bad idea to propose evading consensus in a totally different way. Mackensen (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- And yet templates exist.—S Marshall T/C 16:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- IIRC there's a strong consensus against creating composite pages in the article namespace. Mackensen (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- You could also have articles on the train companies etc., in those countries where that's relevant, again using the magic of transclusion to populate them.—S Marshall T/C 07:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- That would be a complete non-starter for any company that owned more than a few stations. You could summarize architectural features (where they were written about and where there was a house style), but it would be undue to list out stations in that way in that article. Mackensen (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Suggest closing this RfC with no action
I withdraw the suggestion. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As multiple editors have noted above, this RfC was malformed from the outset. It failed to define what a train station even was for the purposes of a discussion. Many people who commented afterward are apparently unaware of the existing scope of coverage of rail-based topics on Wikipedia. Put another way, if this RfC was reframed as "should we consider merging or deleting tens of thousands of articles", that would rightly be considered disruptive and requiring more thought and nuance, yet that's the effective outcome some people are for, though I suspect they don't realize it. There is also the unsettling possibility that this RfC was opened bad faith in order to win a content dispute. I would draw everyone's attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan'an South railway station, and Trainsandotherthings foul-mouthed rant directed at Necrothesp [2]: Having grown sick of your constant berating and attacking anyone who rightfully points out the inherent lack of any real argument you're making, I started an RfC on the question. The overwhelming consensus there already is that your argument is full of shit, to put it mildly.
Yes, that comment comes two days after the RfC was opened, but it speaks to state of mind. By Trainsandotherthings own admission (see User_talk:Trainsandotherthings#Notability of train stations), they should have asked for help at WT:TRAINS about drafting the RfC before making it live
, but they didn't, and here we are. Do we need better guidance on the notability of train stations? Yes. Will this RfC provide it? No. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- It wasn't about "winning". If the overwhelming consensus here was "yes, train stations are notable" I would have respected that. But at this point it seems my involvement is generating more heat than light. Close this if you want, but in that case someone else needs to pick up the issue instead of me. I don't care who does it. But this issue needs to be resolved. And I am a believer that if you want something to be done, you have to do it yourself. So I started this RfC, because it was clear nobody else was going to do it at the time. Did I get upset about this issue? Yes, I did. It's been profoundly frustrating to see my and other editors' attempts to follow policy and guidelines ignored by certain editors. If this is really to be closed with no action, then this needs to be followed up at WT:TRAINS rather than being left as determining nothing. I'm going to remove this page from my watchlist now as it's clearly not healthy for me to continue this argument right now considering I'm swearing at people. Ping me if you need me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Trainsandotherthings also threatened to take me to ANI on a seperate railway station AfD, without bothering to let me know. That was a bit off, IMO. NemesisAT (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - This is obviously an issue that engenders a lot of emotion… but halting discussion isn’t the right response to that. Sooner or later, we are going to have to discuss it. We do need clearer consensus on which train station articles to keep, which to delete, which to merge into other articles, etc. If this was initiated with a “malformed” question, then reframe the question so the conversation can continue more productively. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- This RfC didn't seem malformed to me when I voted in it. I understand there are different kinds of train stations. I am aware of our coverage of rail. Nothing here would require the merging of anything. It's just about whether train stations are or are not inherently notable. It's a simple proposition and question. It's not bad faith to open an RfC to settle a content dispute; that's what they're for. I don't presume that people disagree with me because they don't understand the issues as well as I do. Levivich[block] 18:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think there is a point here about the RfC, even if a little weakened by aspersions/doom-and-gloom. The RfC does present a false choice between three flavors of "inherent notability of all train stations" and "all train stations must meet the GNG". With that framing, obviously most people are going to support the latter. The question should be something like "which types of train stations are presumed to be notable" with an option for "none" and/or "how should we cover train stations that do not meet the GNG". I'm still not entirely clear that types of train station this is even intended to apply to. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Grrr… I absolutely despise the phrasing “presumed to be notable”… It has always caused confusion. In some situations we use it to mean “likely to have sources, and thus pass GNG” but in other situations we use it to mean “we consider it inherently notable”. Which meaning are you thinking of? Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can see the utility in an RFC proposing an WP:NTRAIN that explains what kinds of lines, stations, locomotives, etc., are likely to receive significant coverage. But I also think this RfC that's basically about whether they are inherently notable is also useful, since that issue seems to be causing some problems. Levivich[block] 19:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Grrr… I absolutely despise the phrasing “presumed to be notable”… It has always caused confusion. In some situations we use it to mean “likely to have sources, and thus pass GNG” but in other situations we use it to mean “we consider it inherently notable”. Which meaning are you thinking of? Blueboar (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose closing with no action. Why does it even matter whether people are aware of the distinction between types of stations, or merge options, or whatever, when the vast majority of !votes here (currently at 4:1:10:23, with two of the option 3 !votes being in between 3 and 4) have been specifically against any inherent notability? Since when is asking whether a topic is inherently notable--a status that is literally rejected in our policies and guidelines--akin to agitating for deleting/merging tens of thousands of articles?? Does that mean any discussion aiming to tighten notability guidelines is a disruptive attempt at deletionism?
- And so what if the OP started this discussion due to an AfD dispute -- are the editors most involved in notability standards on a certain topic not allowed to initiate RfCs on it? Also, you're literally the only one calling this RfC "malformed". Everyone else has been able to address any perceived nuance with the content of their !vote, which is what the closer is supposed to look at anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, the current guideline for determining train station notability is the GNG, no matter what editors citing "consensus" claim. Trains do not have a community-approved SNG, so there is no basis other than a vague appeal to consensus/AfD outcomes to support inherent notability. How many of those AfDs were closed as keep solely on the premise that any subset of train stations is always notable, versus kept because editors actually engaged with GNG and found SIGCOV (or strong indications thereof)? You can't point to a bare outcome as evidence that a particular argument has consensus, otherwise we could just prohibit footballer articles with the reasoning that most of the ones brought to AfD in the last year got deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Where should articles be merged to?
Editors have suggested merging railway station articles. My concern is this will create in inconsistency not only in some stations having articles and others not, but also in where to find railway station articles and this will make reading and editing Wikipedia worse. Editors have proposed merging to settlement articles, rail company articles, railway line articles, or even creating new articles for listing stations.
- Can we decide on a consistent merge target?
- For stations on multiple lines, how do you select which line article to merge to or do we duplicate the content across multiple articles?
- How do we categorise these articles? Currently, I can find a station using opening and closing year categories. How do we retain this functionality when merging?
Just some thoughts NemesisAT (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
An old-timer is concerned
Hello talkpage. I've been seen editor for some time and have tried to be a good editor down all the years. But I'm worried by what I have seen recently, what I might call "notability idealism". I see it with the railway station discussion above and last week with local council election articles.
Part of me wonders if we're going down too "pure" a path. I created dozens of railway station articles very early on in Wikipedia's history, working with other editors to effectively create the template for all UK railway station articles. We're exceptionally proud of the work we did, very early on, to create a corner of Wikipedia that has proven of great use and interest.
I'm wary of WP:OWN concerns, because I'm aware that feeling sad about losing years of work can create feelings that cross into that territory. But my overriding concern is that we're about to delete, even purge, articles about facts and physical objects with only rules and regulations to defend that action, ignoring that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Anyway, just a few thoughts. Let's try and not use so many rules and procedures that we end up destroying what we love. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- It really is disappointing. We have stricter rules on biographies of living people due to the risk of harm to these people. We have stricter policies on business articles due to the risk of using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. There is no need to be strict on inclusion of railway station articles. They require minimal maintenance. How does arguing over the notability of thousands of station articles benefit Wikipedia's readers? All it does is waste volunteer time. NemesisAT (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Debates between “inclusionists” and “deletionists” are as old as Wikipedia itself. They are nothing new… It’s just that, this time, the debate involves your little corner of WP. To play “devils advocate” (and present the “deletionist” view): we are not suddenly inventing stricter rules for your project, we are finally realizing that your project hasn’t been applying the existing rules (that we have had in place for years) and calling you to task for that. Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- That reply just demonstrates one of the problems that we have. There are many editors here (and they seem to hang out in Wikipedia space most of the time) who seem to think that the point of this project is to catch out people who don't dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s contained in the all-important rules, rather than to produce an encyclopedia. Notability guidelines are just that, guides for how to write good encyclopedic content for our readers, not some god-given rules that must always be obeyed without thought. And an old-timer at 42? Whippersnapper! Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not really about how to write good content, but a fuzzy line to say what content is appropriate for WP as an extension of WP:NOT. Yes, we are not paper, but we've clearly come to a place that we aren't going to cover every possible topic under the sun, and are using sourced-based metrics for the most part to make the first-pass cut of when a topic should be included. Masem (t) 12:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well that puts me in my place. I hope we can be closer in attitude and stance than your response suggests. I'll say this: I've always had an issue with WP:PLOT, for as long as I've been here. Entire shot-by-shot, page-by-page descriptions of every last minor detail written out in longform against all guidance and rules. But they remain. Pick a show, pick a film, pick a comic, PLOT is regularly ignored. I'd suggest we're better off as a community asking ourselves why Wikipedia is happy to delete entire articles on strict adherence to the rules, while ignoring pop culture and movie articles which consistently breech the rules. One point on deletionism, and this is perhaps ironic, is that I'm often accused of being a deletionist because of the significant number of political party AfDs I've created and led to successful conclusions. I do understand your concerns over notability (in general). I just happen to believe that railway stations are significant parts of local communities and national transport models and have a greater claim to remaining as articles than your stance would initially suggest. Maybe a compromise can be found in time. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- We definitely have problems with pages on characters or similar articles where the essence of PLOT is ignored, but I do know that the film, TV, and video game areas at least work to make sure the main film/etc. pages meet smaller word counts. The articles beyond those are generally more difficult to clean up to meet PLOT due to one needing knowledge of the work as to know what should be scrubbed and what should be left, but we know that this is a problem and one that doesn't have an easy solution. Masem (t) 12:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- That reply just demonstrates one of the problems that we have. There are many editors here (and they seem to hang out in Wikipedia space most of the time) who seem to think that the point of this project is to catch out people who don't dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s contained in the all-important rules, rather than to produce an encyclopedia. Notability guidelines are just that, guides for how to write good encyclopedic content for our readers, not some god-given rules that must always be obeyed without thought. And an old-timer at 42? Whippersnapper! Phil Bridger (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Doktorbuk, I don't think that this is as bad as you think it is. The specific RFC is on a very narrow "inherent notability" question triggered by some contentious discussions triggered by such a claim. That aside, probably the main open mainstream question is whether it is best to handle the the bulk of these via a separate article for each vs a section in an article or a row in a table in an article with some of them covered also by separate articles. There also some (myself included, especially when trying to figure out what to do with them in NPP) who would like to get this area with widely varying views on what the guidance given by Wikipedia is clarified. That pretty well sums it up and I see very little of the things that you described/ are concerned about. North8000 (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- See, you call this "narrow" and then immediately say this
...probably the main open mainstream question is whether it is best to handle the the bulk of these via a separate article for each vs a section in an article or a row in a table in an article.
(emphasis added). That doesn't sound narrow. Mackensen (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)- Two different things. My "narrow" was referring to the question in the RFC which is whether "inherent notability of train stations" exists. The point I made after that is not the subject of the RFC. And that my main point after that was that the other question that came up is where the info goes, not whether or not to include it in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- If this was supposed to be a reassuring reply it failed in that objective. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that it was reassuring in every possible way, just on the specific concerns raised by Doktorbuk. For anybody who is 100% dug in one way or the other, just opening a discussion that might find some middle ground might be considered to be un-assuring. North8000 (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- If this was supposed to be a reassuring reply it failed in that objective. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Two different things. My "narrow" was referring to the question in the RFC which is whether "inherent notability of train stations" exists. The point I made after that is not the subject of the RFC. And that my main point after that was that the other question that came up is where the info goes, not whether or not to include it in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Doktorbuk, as another "old timer", I completely agree with you. It is frustrating to me, as someone who has helped to build this encyclopaedia from its fairly early days, that there seems to be an increasing number of editors who obsess over applying "rules" to the notability of articles and cannot conceive of why something might be notable just because it is clearly notable. They seem to lose sight of the concept of an encyclopaedia in favour of their desire to police and enforce notability guidelines as though they were strict rules that must be adhered to or else. We even have a policy to cover this, WP:IAR, but any mention of that is mocked and denigrated by these editors, as such a lack of rules appears to makes them uncomfortable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe review WP:WHYN? Further, the inclusion/deletion argument is generally a misnomer. Some think anything other having than a standalone article means deletion, but inclusion can mean merge/redirect. Invoking IAR needs good reason, and a desire to keep every one sentence/short paragraph stub related to your hobby topic is not one. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- My take is I would rather we have one good article that gives an overview than have to wade through 15 articles to get the same overview. An encyclopedia should be a repository of all knowledge, but it has to be navigatable as well. I want it to replace having to look through 15 books, not to have it duplicate it.
- That is the problem with stubs "And XYZ is an ABC" is not really useful, it is not enclopedic, it is a directory entry. I have no issue with that, but then let's have it in a list of ABC's so I can see them all in one place. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think one article about fifteen railway stations, located on the same line but in different localities with different histories, will get you over fifteen articles about fifteen stations? What problem would be solved here? Who does the work? Who benefits? Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that this is a general question, as we are discussing railway stations above in the RFC, we do not need to discuss that specific case. I think we have way too many one-line stubs because a subject passes an SNG. I use Wikipedia for quick easy research where detail and 100% accuracy are not issues. I do not want to have to spend over much time wading through tons of stubs when one list will do the same job. Nor did I say "we should have fifteen articles on 15 subjects", in fact I said the opposite. We should not have 15 stubs when one list will do the same job. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- As to “who benefits?”… the reader benefits, by having the information located on one page rather than spread over 15. Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Such also plainly shows the relationship between them (e.g. on the rail line), which is always useful for train stations North8000 (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- And as I've explained above, that question is thorny when there are multiple possible groupings--different lines, different services. Editors came to a different conclusion about how to best organize that information for reasons that seemed good to them. In the absence of reader feedback, you're just speculating that they'd prefer it to be done a different way. Given that the names of railroad lines are often unknown to the general public, I suspect organizing information in that way would decrease rather than increase usability, no matter how many redirects are used. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- No I am saying as a reader what I would prefer given what I use Wikipedia for. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- And as I've explained above, that question is thorny when there are multiple possible groupings--different lines, different services. Editors came to a different conclusion about how to best organize that information for reasons that seemed good to them. In the absence of reader feedback, you're just speculating that they'd prefer it to be done a different way. Given that the names of railroad lines are often unknown to the general public, I suspect organizing information in that way would decrease rather than increase usability, no matter how many redirects are used. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think that this is a general question, as we are discussing railway stations above in the RFC, we do not need to discuss that specific case. I think we have way too many one-line stubs because a subject passes an SNG. I use Wikipedia for quick easy research where detail and 100% accuracy are not issues. I do not want to have to spend over much time wading through tons of stubs when one list will do the same job. Nor did I say "we should have fifteen articles on 15 subjects", in fact I said the opposite. We should not have 15 stubs when one list will do the same job. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think one article about fifteen railway stations, located on the same line but in different localities with different histories, will get you over fifteen articles about fifteen stations? What problem would be solved here? Who does the work? Who benefits? Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let me give a perspective as a relative new-timer (3.5yrs): a long time ago, in Wikipedia's early days, before people really knew what they were doing here or how to do it, many early adopters used Wikipedia to write up coverage of their favorite topics: trains, yes, but also athletes, movie stars, video games, Pokémon, and a million other things. At that point, everyone was so focused on just growing the number of pages, that people didn't really care what you wrote about. They didn't even care about citations or references. Two decades later, we have over 6 million standalone articles, and a huge quantity of them--millions--are under sourced and never read. What's also changed is that Wikipedia is now at the top of Google search results and is pretty much the entire internet-connected, English-speaking world's first stop for information. The world relies on Wikipedia now, so things like citations and references are of paramount importance. But while the number of articles has doubled and tripled, the number of active editors has not. We no longer have enough people to maintain all these articles, and haven't for a long time. As a result, today's editors put more importance on accuracy than quantity. We don't care if there is an article about every train station; we care that every article about a train station be reliable. That means if it doesn't meet GNG, we don't waste space on a standalone article about it. Even if it's somebody's love or favorite hobby or whatever. The big change over the last 20 years is that 20 years ago, editors cared more about other editors, whereas today, we just care about the reader. It literally doesn't matter how much work an editor put in to something, or how much an editor loves the topic, if we can't sunmarize reliable, independent, in-depth secondary sourcing about the topic for the reader, then we don't have a standalone article about it. Period. This is not backsliding, this is progress. Levivich[block] 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- You see, this is exactly what I think is missing from current discussions about notability. In the least five or so years we've gone from being relatively pragmatic and sensitive to context (i.e., giving primacy to SNGs) to relying exclusively on the 350-word GNG to categorise literally all of human knowledge into "worthy" and "unworthy" of inclusion. It's crazy. And it stops us from considering things like reliability, quality, maintainability, and impact when we're setting the bar for inclusion on individual topics. We could—and in the good old days often did—decide that something like train station articles (or athletes, TV episodes, etc.) are generally easily written, easily verified, and generally low-risk, so we'll set the bar a little lower. Or, conversely, that something like BLPs or corporations are harder to write, more open to abuse, and have more real-world consequences, so we'll set the bar a little higher. Now we have to treat everything with the same universal yardstick, and it makes it harder to ensure quality and reliability, not easier. – Joe (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- The problem with that view is that it treats SNGs as inclusion guidelines, but that is explicitly not what we use. The SNGs are generally there to say that if a topic met certain criteria then it would likely have sourcing for a sufficient article. That criteria should be merit or accomplished-based rather than mere existence. (Eg NSPORT recently removed the criteria that was based on playing a single pro game). Masem (t) 17:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
categorise literally all of human knowledge into "worthy" and "unworthy" of inclusion.
That's coming from the perspective that standalone articles are the only ways information can be "included" in an encyclopedia. Relying on what a few editors happen to think is a reasonable notability threshold for their particular interest is exactly why we have hundreds of thousands of stubs on non-notable athletes, TV episodes, etc. that clog up available pagenames, make categories so expansive as to be unusable for readers wanting to learn about a handful of the most important subjects, and massively increase bias. It also actively interferes with any attempt to enforce higher standards for BLPs, companies, etc. since readers will be exposed to way more articles on the less-strict topics, assume they reflect the benchmarks for inclusion, and create BLPs on local HS football coaches or whatever that we now have to delete.- Setting a universal threshold that demands something approaching objective criteria -- or at least requires multiple layers of subjective criteria -- is the best thing we can do to make WP resemble an encyclopedia rather than an uneven and inconsistent compendium of whichever niche interests are best represented among editors. JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think all people saying that the reader will benefit from a bunch of listicles should be obliged to show their work. Mackensen (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- As both an "old-timer" and someone who also almost exclusively interacted with Wikipedia as a reader from ~2011/2014 to 2020, I can say I most definitely found zero utility in stub articles and in fact was immensely frustrated with them. I was using author categories to find the most preeminent writers within a group, which I would determine by how much was said in their bios and how many of their works were bluelinked (with the reasoning that the most important people would've been covered in depth by now, and I didn't want to waste time doing my own research to figure out whether bios that weren't comprehensive were actually on truly impactful people). It was so irritating having to wade through like 10 stubs for every genuinely-notable-seeming article (I didn't have or know about the various tools one could use to generate previews) I eventually switched over to Brittanica and encyclopedia.com. A list where only the people with fleshed-out biographies were bluelinked would've been so much more useful. Do with that anecdatum what you will. JoelleJay (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can show you this: we will get nowhere near consensus if people who disagree with other people characterize those other people's arguments as "the reader will benefit from a bunch of listicles". Dismissing arguments we disagree with does not help us arrive at agreement, whereas understanding the arguments we disagree with will help us arrive at agreement. Levivich[block] 18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Dismissing arguments we disagree with does not help us arrive at agreement, whereas understanding the arguments we disagree with will help us arrive at agreement.
Forgive me for being blunt, but you first. I've spent several frustrating days trying to explain the perspective of trains editors. Why a list article has challenges, why individual articles are preferable, why stubs are not necessarily a problem, why different types of station articles can and should be treated differently. I have been met with varying degrees of silence and outright hostility, right up to claims that train stations are somehow tantamount to unreferenced BLPs and so forth. It's a bit wearying to suddenly find that I'm considered actively harmful.- @JoelleJay
It was so irritating having to wade through like 10 stubs for every genuinely-notable-seeming article (I didn't have or know about the various tools one could use to generate previews) I eventually switched over to Brittanica and encyclopedia.com
This was no doubt a very frustrating experience for you and I'm sorry for that, but do you think your experience is applicable to train station articles? Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)...why different types of station articles can and should be treated differently.
But somehow you're not perceiving that, like, everyone agrees with you about that. That's what "Option 4" is. You're misinterpreting Option 4 as "delete all train articles" or "merge all train articles", but nobody is actually advocating for that. Nobody. Similar is your focus on lists. Yes, some people suggested that some train stations should be included on lists... but that doesn't support your characterization that what we want to do is merge all train articles into lists (or, your word, "listicles" -- by the way, "I think all people saying that the reader will benefit from a bunch of listicles should be obliged to show their work" is confrontational and hostile, in my opinion, mildly so, but still).- "Inherently notable" means "every train station should have a stand-alone". "Not inherently notable" means "not every train station should have a stand-alone", it does not mean "no train station should have a stand-alone".
- We're all in a place of agreement here: different types of station articles can and should be treated differently. Some in stand-alone articles, yes some in lists, some in articles about lines, some in articles about municipalities, etc. It all depends.
- People disagree with you that
individual articles are preferable
overall. The consensus is -- and it's always shown that this is the case -- that individual articles are sometimes preferable and sometimes not preferable. Similarly,stubs are not necessarily a problem
. No one says stubs are necessarily a problem. The consensus is -- and always has been and always will be -- that stubs are sometimes a problem, and sometimes not a problem. It's always "it depends". It's never "one rule for all". - But the topic being discussed here is about inherent notability, and the clear consensus is that they're not inherently notable. That doesn't answer the question of whether they should or shouldn't be on a stand-alone page (or when they should be stand-alone and when merged); what it does answer is that it's not the case that they should always be stand-alone. That's the consensus: not always stand-alone. And that's what I mean about understanding or engaging the opposing argument. If you think they should always be stand-alone, you should recognize that the vast majority of your colleagues does not agree. That does not mean everyone wants to merge everything into a list. It just means not always stand-alone. Levivich[block] 19:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't realize your statement applied only to train stations, but I do think my experience is broadly transferable to that of the general reader, including someone looking at a subcategory or list of train stations who might want to learn about the ones that are in the encyclopedia for being historically notable rather than just existing. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- You see, this is exactly what I think is missing from current discussions about notability. In the least five or so years we've gone from being relatively pragmatic and sensitive to context (i.e., giving primacy to SNGs) to relying exclusively on the 350-word GNG to categorise literally all of human knowledge into "worthy" and "unworthy" of inclusion. It's crazy. And it stops us from considering things like reliability, quality, maintainability, and impact when we're setting the bar for inclusion on individual topics. We could—and in the good old days often did—decide that something like train station articles (or athletes, TV episodes, etc.) are generally easily written, easily verified, and generally low-risk, so we'll set the bar a little lower. Or, conversely, that something like BLPs or corporations are harder to write, more open to abuse, and have more real-world consequences, so we'll set the bar a little higher. Now we have to treat everything with the same universal yardstick, and it makes it harder to ensure quality and reliability, not easier. – Joe (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I want to encourage people towards the "merge" position. Leaving policy out of it for a second, I personally believe there is a lot of merit to documenting entire railway systems around the world. Bringing policy back into it, it's really hard to know if any of it is reliable when there are no sources, or when we transcribe information found on press releases and self-published material. We also run into massive problems with WP:WEIGHT where we have no idea if editors are cherrypicking details that are irrelevant, let alone pushing an agenda. The reason that we have the WP:GNG (and its sources -- WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT) isn't to punish anyone, but to guarantee that Wikipedia articles have a minimum level of quality and reliability. We'll find that the sources are a lot more generous when you aggregate subtopics together into a broader main topic, and the guidelines are accordingly easier to meet. There is a way to WP:PRESERVE genuinely good work. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. We focus so much on should this page be deleted?, but what we all should be focusing on instead is what is the best page for this content?. Levivich[block] 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree, and have seen this attempted middle way referred to as 'mergeist,' while I prefer 'curationist.' Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there are evidently some who still view this eventuality as deletion. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've proposed this (merger) in the past for train stations and been told "It's still deletion because the page won't be there anymore" which makes no sense but people are entitled to their opinions. And that's why we are here. Because every attempt to merge a train station will be hotly contested until we get a consensus such an action isn't committing some sort of sin against Wikipedia. I've been accused of being partisan in bringing this RfC, but I've been far more open to compromise and hearing others' points of view than those who refuse to entertain the idea of ever merging a single train station article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is definitely wrong to equate mergers to deletions. Mergers should leave behind redirects, and barring WP:TNT scenarios, the original content can stY behind the redirect and expanded later without admin intervention if new material appears. This is otherwise a poor "chicken little" situation to try to keep content at AFD. Masem (t) 21:09, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've proposed this (merger) in the past for train stations and been told "It's still deletion because the page won't be there anymore" which makes no sense but people are entitled to their opinions. And that's why we are here. Because every attempt to merge a train station will be hotly contested until we get a consensus such an action isn't committing some sort of sin against Wikipedia. I've been accused of being partisan in bringing this RfC, but I've been far more open to compromise and hearing others' points of view than those who refuse to entertain the idea of ever merging a single train station article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there are evidently some who still view this eventuality as deletion. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree, and have seen this attempted middle way referred to as 'mergeist,' while I prefer 'curationist.' Jclemens (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. In this area I think that process questions tend to overshadow this. I don't think that anybody here advocates leaving out or deleting the content that is in these type of articles.North8000 (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- If I agreed with you I'd feel a lot better. The frankly hostile and confrontational attitude taken by many users above leaves me in real doubt of that. Mackensen (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Why, then, do so many people nominate such articles for deletion, and get support for their position? Deletion means deletion, not merging, which is incompatible. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that anybody here advocates leaving out or deleting the content that is in these type of articles
I've long argued that the content should be merged not deleted, and my analysis of AfDs shows that complete deletion is almost never the consensus position, but there are people above (e.g. Atsme) who are (or seem to be) arguing for large-scale deletion of content. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- I personally think we should encourage "merge" as an option at AFD. But I see a fair bit of WikiLawyering on this -- people who look to procedurally close a deletion discussion if merger is suggested, or who will refuse to build a consensus with other editors in hopes that we can just revert to the status quo. In my experience, the more discussions that end with a lack of improvement, the more likely that the next discussion will hit a breaking point and say "no improvement is coming, just delete it".
- I am not familiar with the topic area the OP is suggesting, but I have seen the same pattern often enough to guess what is happening. If the only two options are to preserve a broken article in its current state, or delete it, then it will eventually be deleted. I'm actually optimistic that you could take a questionable category of articles to RFC, and it would produce some kind of consensus to re-organize / curate / merge it into a better form. But that only works if people can start from the premise that the articles are untenable in their current state, instead of an all-or-nothing winner-take-all WP:BATTLEGROUND. That's been my observation. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
people who look to procedurally close a deletion discussion if merger is suggested
The issue is that AfD is explicitly not for proposing mergers, it is only for nominating articles for deletion - if you do not want the article deleted completely (i.e. not merged, not redirected) then you should not be at AfD. If you believe an article should be merged then you should propose a merger. Merge and redirect are valid outcomes at AfD but only as alternatives to deletion, nominations at AfD seeking something other than deletion should be speedily kept. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2022 (UTC)- I don't disagree, and you won't find me in the practice of taking a merger discussion to AFD. But I'm pointing something else out here. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request". We can't technically stop someone from making procedural objections to stop things they don't like. But I'm pointing out that it's contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and this obstinate approach eventually backfires. The overriding principle for everything on Wikipedia is to look for common ground and build a consensus. A wide consensus will always endure better than trying to eek out a procedural victory in the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Speedily keeping a requested merge made at AfD is not rejecting the request, it is moving it to the correct process - which is exactly the sort of fixing others' mistakes that wikis are about, and while you might not use AfD in this way North8000 below explicitly notes that they do it intentionally. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, and you won't find me in the practice of taking a merger discussion to AFD. But I'm pointing something else out here. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and "a procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request". We can't technically stop someone from making procedural objections to stop things they don't like. But I'm pointing out that it's contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and this obstinate approach eventually backfires. The overriding principle for everything on Wikipedia is to look for common ground and build a consensus. A wide consensus will always endure better than trying to eek out a procedural victory in the WP:BATTLEGROUND. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this. We focus so much on should this page be deleted?, but what we all should be focusing on instead is what is the best page for this content?. Levivich[block] 18:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Combining two responses into one, I think that a review of this page results in a wp:snow conclusion that there is zero or near zero sentiment for deletion of the type of material and that just ain't going to happen. Now, of the "process obscuring things" and "why AFD's". Here's a real world example. The active NPP's each need complete on average 50 reviews per day in their available wiki-minutes to keep NPP from collapsing. I looked at a clearly non-notable train station stub article and also noted that it would make great content in a section on the train line article. So I carefully did that merge, moving 100% of the material over plus the image into a nice section on the train line article. I get reverted with the "all train stations are inherently wp:notable" claim. So I take it to AFD, and suggest that outcome knowing that a common outcome there would be merge, and to make a finding on the wp:notability claim. Any other option (including tagging or leaving it with a proposed merge) would be defacto putting an non wp:notable article permanently into Wikipedia, violating the job that I'm supposed to be doing. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Putting a proposed merge tag on an article is not
putting an non wp:notable article permanently into Wikipedia
, it's following WP:BRD - your bold edit was reverted (whether for a good reason or not is irrelevant) so you should discuss that content. If consensus agrees with you it will be merged, if consensus disagrees with you it will remain. This is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You might not like that someone disagrees with you that a station is "clearly non-notable" or that AfD is quicker than PAM but not liking something is not a reason to ignore it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)