Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features)#Addressing concerns

Confusing wording of NPLACE

[edit]

Currently WP:NPLACE says both

Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low.

and

if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law.

The way I read this is that there is a class of legally recognized places (e.g., townships) that are both presumed notable (because of the first quoted sentence) and not notable (because of the second quote sentence). While this is logically possible, I find it very confusing at this point: I can foresee strong AfD disagreements where two editors come to completely opposite conclusions about notability based on this wording.

The second sentence was added on 28 November 2024 by Mangoe, possibly as a result from the discussions here or here. There doesn't seem to be any discussion around this specific wording: I would like to revert the edit, unless the consensus is around keeping the sentence.

Let's think of an editor who is reading this guideline. He or she reads "if the class of division is not notable". Which classes are those? Where does one look to find out? If there is a consensus to keep the sentence, can we modify the first sentence to say something like "Unless the type of a place is in the exception list, below, populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable." and then make an explicit bulleted list of types of places that are not notable (e.g., abadi, census tracts, township in a specific list of U.S. states, etc.)

What do editors think? Is there a consensus to keep the edit? — hike395 (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely confusing because underlying premise is confusing. There really isn't a clear meaning to "legally recognized", so one has to figure out what it means and where to look for this anyway. The whole premise is trying to describe a fuzzy consensus that has emerged over decades of discussions and AfDs. The issue with a list is that it implies anything unlisted will be presumed notable, which is not a given. CMD (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with US townships in particular is that their significance varies from state to state, including those that don't have them. To take the two extreme cases, in New Jersey they are a major level in the hierarchy; in North Carolina they are legally defined but were in practice were abandoned almost immediately. Therefore, in the latter case it was decided through AfD that we weren't going to have articles on the individual townships in NC. The same thing applies to "hundreds". The thing is that there are so few cases I know where this exception is taken, that we could just as well list all the individual cases and point back to the discussion(s) for each.
The deeper issue is that people like to write articles for each legal/governmental/territorial entity even when a map of the lot and a listing with key data would serve as well and probably better, Mangoe (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We had a rather big discussion about this 2 years ago, which I started and went to RFC, but became just a slanging match and nothing eventually was changed. "Legally recognised" is impossible to really evidence except for the US, where census is only done in those areas, and i tried to put forward several different ways forward. The discussion was split between deletionists, the keep everything brigade and those who hate stubs, and nothing could be agreed. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And the bigger issue as User:Mangoe says, relates to government areas which don't really appear on any map and should not in my opinion come under nplace, but have its own wikipedia rule. At the moment, in the UK Geography group there is a discussion about changing convention on how you record government area and actual place, which as I pointed out is pointless at the moment as within the next two to three years, those areas will all change! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other editors:
  • The underlying premise is confusing.
  • We have tried in the past, but there is no consensus to change the underlying premise.
  • Editors should be making list article instead of individual place articles
even given all of that, I would claim that the new addition (as it stands today) makes things even more confusing. Contra Chipmunkdavis, the current underlying guideline says that all "legally recognized places" are presumed notable, even without a list of exceptions. Right now, the guideline says that there are some vaguely specified exceptions (townships in some unknown list of U.S. states, perhaps other exceptions too). It's a total mess, IMO.
I cannot tell from the discussion above: is there a consensus to keep Mangoe's edit? I think there was not a clear consensus to add it in November, so I think we need a consensus to keep it. What do editors think about this edit specifically? — hike395 (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how what was just said is contra Chipmunkdavis. CMD (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I believe you said The issue with a list is that it implies anything unlisted will be presumed notable, which is not a given. I was saying that the guideline indeed says that "legally recognized places" are presumed notable. IMO, not having a list doesn't make the guideline stronger: it's already strong (if deeply flawed). — hike395 (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We know that not everything legally named place is presumed notable, as we have past examples of consensus that show this. Whether there is a list on this page or not does not affect this. CMD (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For my own edification, can you tell me some of the past examples of consensus that shows that? I hope those are not WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, because if not, those consensus discussions can be used to support a rewrite of this guideline. — hike395 (talk) 17:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the township issue, where the difficulty is that they often lack any real notability and are vestigial, the US issue was that people were taking the names in GNIS as legally defined, which really they are not. And as you can see in WP:GNIS, its reliability about the nature of the places they were giving the names of has been sketchy, for a number of reasons. And even with the names, which was what they were tasked with, they made errors here and there. Just this week I came across a case where they have entries for "Broad Park" and "Board Park"; the latter came off the topos and is (based on other sources) wrong, whereas the other name came from a commercial atlas. The coordinates are so close that it's clear they were meant to be the name of the same place.
The only time in the US you can accurately claim a place to be legally named is if it is incorporated and therefore is chartered under law with a specific name. For other places, the task of GNIS was to determine a single accurate name for places, not to dictate what that name is. Mangoe (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would have removed the edit if I had noticed it. It doesn't clarify anything for someone coming to the topic for the first time. I'd replace it with something more descriptive, maybe something like For purposes of NPLACE, "populated place" is a settlement such as a city, town, village, hamlet, or dwelling, and does not include administrative divisions, including townships and census tracts. Anything not included by this section may still be notable for other reasons, such as passing the general notability guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this wording. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! 💡! The new sentence Mangoe added is about what is a place rather than what is notable. That wasn't obvious to me at all. I support this wording, also. — hike395 (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One possible problem with this is that it might exclude obvious things such as countries - is a country notable under NPLACE or GNG? SportingFlyer T·C 23:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under your proposal, no administrative area could qualify under NPLACE, but only under GNG. I would be shocked if any country failed GNG. Townships in less well-connected countries (e.g., Chong-Alay District) may fail.
In any event, I would still remove or fix the old sentence added in November — hike395 (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it matters if countries don't have an automatic notability requirement given they obviously pass GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC 2 years ago was on the topic of whether the guideline should explicitly state whether administrative areas should be considered notable (if information beyond statistics is known to exist). The RfC closed with no consensus. It's thus likely that we would have to have another RfC to make this change. — hike395 (talk)
I hated that RfC proposal because it tried to change notability (is this a settlement?) to apply to content in the article (is this a stub?) in order to solve for a problem that was more easily solved by other means (mass creation of articles). It did do a good job of specifying what exactly we think of WP:NPLACE applying to, though. The entire "legally populated" section reads like a bit of a mess at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 06:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complicated area and the wording isn't great. If we're talking about places (based on) that were or are populated, IMO actual practice (for using the NGEO "way in"-the GNG alternative is always another way in) is that it has to fulfill BOTH of these criteria:

  1. Is generally recognized by the populace as a PLACE. This rules out abstract entities such as irrigation districts, electoral districts, census tracts etc.
  2. If based on modern times it needs to be something higher level than a neighborhood, subdivision or development. In major populated areas, it needs to be at a level that has it's own somewhat full-spectrum government. If not(as in rural areas or historic times) having a strong (recognized by the populace) settlement or town like identity fulfills this.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW under the above, the situation varies regarding townships in the US. (again, this is only about using the NGEO "way in"). The variable is whether or not they are recognized by the populace as a place. Where I live (and in most of the US) the answer is "no" but in some parts of the US the answer is "yes". North8000 (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This perhaps starts to get at issue of what do we mean by "place". More densely populated townships and those with a robust home rule civil government tend to be recognizable places. Townships in rural areas often have a more rudimentary government and are more typically seen as administrative divisions rather than a single coherent "place". In terms of notability, I'd argue that a civil township with any sort of operational government is significant enough to warrant an article. That would exclude townships in the several states where there is no functional stand-alone government at the township level. Historical statuses would largely depend on whether there are enough reliable sources to discuss as distinct topic (rather than as part of a larger article or list). older ≠ wiser 21:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there areas the inhabitants would consider a "place" that would not meet GNG? It seems like it would be very difficult to prove such thoughts without more than enough sources to meet GNG. CMD (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Basically any subdivision trying to gentrify/distance itself from a poorer area? Traumnovelle (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Shoreditch? That would almost need to meet GNG, as that sort of organic separation seems likely to emerge when the demographic situation doesn't reflect formal administrative boundaries. CMD (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shoreditch has existed for a thousand years? I'm referring to names that were invented/adopted for the purpose of avoiding the stigma of poverty/crime of the area the development is based in. These are almost never notable, but over time they may become distinct areas and become notable. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an area with recent gentrification. I'm somewhat confused as to how this is a response to my point, which was determining if an area invented/adopted is regarded as a place will usually require sources. Such an area presumably wouldn't fall under NGEO as a legally recognized place anyway, being new and driven by non-government interests. CMD (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shoreditch would be considered a neighbourhood anyways and need to pass GNG, which it should do very easily. SportingFlyer T·C 06:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any firm consensus that neighbourhood's are required to meet GNG? Traumnovelle (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, User:MRSC reverted an edit I completed a while ago for Westborough Ward. A discussion had taken place at the UK Geography Wikiproject page where the consensus was that Wards are not notable under NPLACE. The ward itself does not meet WP:Notability, so was moved to the settlement of Westcliff-on-Sea, which as per the Southend-on-Sea City Council is where it is located. Even if we change this, we are going to have editors either ignore it as they did with the original discussion. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a problem, though - Wikipedia rules are as much guideposts as statutes. SportingFlyer T·C 07:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But a ward is just the same as a neighbourhood, it doesn't come under NPLACE, that is Westcliff-on-Sea. The same user has done the same for Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward). The ward is the same area as the settlement Chalkwell, holds just the electoral results for some but not all the voting, and is referenced to official documents i.e. not independent references. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this is a category error. An electoral ward is not a place. It is a political constituency. MRSC (talk) 11:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So therefore it needs to meet GNG, which it does not, so I have referred to AFD. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you combine these into a single nomination as they all have identical issues? MRSC (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents: remove the statement recently added as it causes unnecessary ambiguity and come up with a proper definition of what is notable. Populated, legally recognized places has been part of this policy since it was established 17 years ago. Unfortunately, the user who created it ceased editing a long time ago so we may never know what they meant by it. Legal recognition is a fairly simple concept - somewhere, on some statute book, the thing we are talking about (city, state, constituency, council, township, ward, village, parish, burgh, whatever it may be) is defined. If all of these things are not considered notable, then list what is considered as notable and leave the rest to WP:GNG.
My personal thoughts are that anything with legal recognition is notable. By that, I mean anything created by an act of Parliament or statutory instrument (or whatever the appropriate term is for other countries). That is basically what we have been operating on. I also see no reason that a hybrid solution can't exist in instances of small places/stub articles where lists cover things that we might not have the information for or there isn't someone to update individual articles or a group of editors feel they shouldn't have individual articles for whatever reason. Multiple solutions to the same problem can peacefully coexist on Wikipedia. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Legal recognition" would include abstract entities (with lines on the map and some type of board that oversees or runs what they do) ) which are not recognized as places. E.G electoral districts, library districts, park districts, fire protection districts, census tracts, sewer districts, water districts, precincts, irrigation districts, where I live they still even have old TB sanitarium districts. I live in about 6 of those and few know that they even exist much less recognize them as a place. Hence the wording I put in above. North8000 (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern with your wording was "generally recognized by the populace". Others above I think have similar thoughts as different people consider different things to be places so that would be equally difficult to define and open to interpretation. That's why I think just list what Wikipedia considers notable and leave the rest to WP:GNG Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I think Mangoe meant to add

[edit]

Instead of

if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law.

I think Mangoe actually meant

if a type of administrative division is not considered "a place" (e.g., townships in certain U.S. states), instances of that type are not considered "a place" either.

This may still lead to more arguments (because where does this consideration take place? in WP? out in the world?), but at least it's clear that the sentence is about the definition of "a place". What do editors think? — hike395 (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per the RFC a few years ago, "place" is was the one thing most agreed was wrong in the wording, it should read "settlement". "Place" meaning in the dictionary states:

an area, town, building, etc. Her garden was a cool pleasant place to sit. What was the name of that place we drove through on the way to New York? They decided to go to a pizza place. place of interest There are several places of interest to visit in the area. place of work It's important to feel comfortable in your place of work. (Cambridge University Dictionary)

This means nplace can be misconstrued by Editors to mean just a building! That's why it needs amending (along with the legally recognized bit!)

Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Legally recognised" is a bad standard and has always been bad

[edit]

We can't have standards for notability that depend entirely on local law. It's as simple as that. It means that for some countries we get articles about micro-hamlets, whilst in others the coverage is at a higher level, because the law differs between them - or even for different legal jurisdictions within the same country. It also means our coverage is completely independent of whether there's anything to write about. FOARP (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- but we've been down this road more than once, and we cannot get global consensus for this change. Can we make the current guideline incrementally better? — hike395 (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm fine with getting rid of the whole "legally-recognized passage as well as with that following it, but that's taking us in the direction of relying solely on GNG, which is going to put us on the path of deleting a lot more places, since the documentation on so many is so poor. The thing about "legally recognized" is that, as a rule, places in the US which are incorporated are well-documented and have an easily-accessed history, and the same is true for foreign places with local governance. Also, the typical deletion arguments that get places deleted— that they don't exist or aren't the sort of things that would fall under a geography standard in the first place— are not an issue for the "legally recognized" because what they are is clear, and where they are is clear, and that they are is clear. The only cases that have proven problematic have been where an entire class of legally-defined entities is questionably notable, which has been a persistent issue with townships in the US. Personally I think that in most states that have them, townships should just be listed within each county and a map provided, because there's really very little to say about them in their own rights, but mostly the sentiment has been to multiply the number of articles. We did manage to get rid of them entirely in NC because they are a legal fossil there and were never of any importance, but they are an exception. And the pattern elsewhere has been that any legally-defined division is notable, period. So I don't think doing away with this is going to do anything more than generate more arguments and get more articles deleted, because it raises and not lowers the standard. Mangoe (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a rule for the US, but "legally recognized" is not the same thing as "local governance", and the meaning of the term is vague. The assertion "the pattern elsewhere has been that any legally-defined division is notable, period" is wrong, see for example WP:Barangay. As for vagueness, the vast majority of UK addresses are registered under the Postal Services Act 2000, but despite this legal mandate we haven't established each address is notable. Presumably the community overall believes that individual houses aren't notable, but that's not because they lack legal recognition or population. CMD (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering whether it may work to split off the US entirely into its own guideline, which can keep "legally recognized", and start again without it for the rest of the world with wording that spells out the lowest unit of local government or administration that has been found to be useful for each country (i.e., a level or so above barangays or wards. I have a dim memory that that has been suggested before). That's surely not an impossible thing to achieve and would create some clarity. Ingratis (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a USian, the legally recognized standard is completely meaningless in the US. I don't think US usage was the primary impetus for including that line (nor the main source of resistance to removing it). older ≠ wiser 12:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That wont work either. Take the UK for instance - Southend-on-Sea has a unitary council, that covers Southend, Westcliff-on-Sea, Leigh-on-Sea, Eastwood, Essex, Prittlewell, Southchurch, Thorpe Bay and Shoeburyness. Only Leigh is a parish, so based upon the lowest level of local government, only Southend and Leigh would still exist? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They can be independently notable/meet GNG Traumnovelle (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the reason why the RFC two years ago failed! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eastwood, Essex, Prittlewell, Southchurch and Shoeburyness are covered as former civil parishes: NOTTEMPORARY. Westcliff-on-Sea passes GNG comfortably. Ingratis (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is already established that many "legally recognized" things are not covered. In the US, things such as Soil and Water Conservation districts, Improvement districts and Port districts do not get their own articles, even though they have legally defined boundaries and have governing boards elected by residents and property owners. What might make more sense is saying that any place which has a legally-defined local general government which has some combination of the powers of legislation, taxation, and/or law enforcement within just its defined jurisdiction is inherently notable. ("General government" to exclude home owner's and condo associations and those districts I mentioned above.) Is this worth discussing. Donald Albury 14:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat established in practice, but is not really clear in the guideline. Your definition feels more thorough. CMD (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Thus, no, not every page has to be a full-blown article from the start, especially because there's an inherent bias towards English-speaking countries (because there are disproportionately more editors of the English Wikipedia from those countries). You can't think of US subdivisions and apply them to the whole world. Each country or region of the world is different, and this has to be decided on the country level. Historically, settlements in Europe started off as little hamlets, and over the centuries they expanded from the core. In many European countries, they'll be the third or fourth level division of the country, legally recognised, and notable since ancient times. Please don't tell me we should go into the categories of Italian settlement stubs and delete them just because of some bad decisions made for other countries in the past. This has to be done per country, in a reasonable and well-informed way. 68.82.48.213 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P is not an official policy or guideline, nor is it a constitution either. It is essentially just an essay. Combining features of gazetteers does not mean Wikipedia is a gazetteer. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with the premise that this doesn't work. It is a relatively simple test to administer at AfD. The "any of the following" test is far more complicated. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding those "seeking" wp:notability based on being a populated place, IMO some standard that tries to implement this would be good: meet any of the following:

  1. For modern populated populated places, ones that have their own somewhat broad scope governments. So includes villages, towns, etc but not abstract specialized things like irrigation districts.
  2. If they are a clearly recognized settlement-type populated place, and not a subset of a locally governed area. For example, a settlement in a rural area. But not a subdivision, ward, neighborhood etc within a town or city.
  3. If in far-back times, was widely acknowledged as a settlement type populated place by that name.
  4. Meets GNG

Just to emphasize, exclusions in the first three criteria just means that can't use that "way in" and have to use a different criteria like GNG.

And no mass or "production line" type creation of stubs. There are over a million towns etc. that meet the above criteria that don't have an article. If someone is going to spend the time to write a real article on one of them, that's fine. If not, not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good standard and basically the status quo for the US. Subdivisions are still a grey area but at least they're factual 'places that exist where people live'. The must important thing is that we're able to address phantom "incorporated communities" that are actually just mislabeled railroad sidings etc that never had a population. One improvement would be to keep NPLACE as generic overall guidance and split out a separate page for country-specific places like 'abadi', GNIS, etc. –dlthewave ☎ 16:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not bad. We may want to mention post offices specifically. Re subdivisions, the issue with them has been that if newspaper coverage is readily available they have from time to time been kept on the strength of real estate section coverage of their construction. I think this is unjustified but that's the way things have gone. Mangoe (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this proposed standard. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000 proposal seems reasonable. If a place has been know for a century or two by that name, it definitely is notable. It may take time for someone to write that history, because that time is proportional to the number of people multiplied by time. Per Wikipedia:5P1, a gazeteer-style page is perfectly acceptable in that case. We don't need our readers to look elsewhere. 68.82.48.213 (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A place being known for a century or two by a given name does not make that place notable. Notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. As an example, the community of Santa Fe in Alachua County, Florida (see Historic communities of Alachua County) had a post office from 1900 until 1960, but after a lot of searching I found nothing about the community beyond a source giving dates for the post office opening and closing, a GNIS entry, and a website with six short sentences about the community. Note that having a post office or being listed in GNIS does not constitute legal recognition, whatever that means. I have also created articles about some places that, although they were mentioned in more than one WP article, were obscure enough that I had to wait years before I found enough material in independent, reliable sources to meet GNG. I will also note that the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is not policy, but rather descriptive, and saying that Wikipedia has aspects of a gazetteer does not guarantee that it will have articles about every place that might appear in a gazetteer. Donald Albury 18:30, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That hasn't been like that for geological fearures now for more than 20 years. Coverage is assumed, past or future. Also, in all these discussions, USA is confused for the World. There are churches built in many European villages that are older than the USA. There may not be enough English speakers in those villages, or people interested in writing for Wikipedia in general, but the places are notable, and will eventually be destubbed. All content policies describe, to some extent, our status quo, and status quo for Italian, German, French, Serbian, Ukrainian (etc) villages is to have separate pages for each. Otherwise there would be hundreds of thousands articles ready for deletion. I'm wondering why people push for the change of GEOLAND every so often when it's obvious, from the existence of those many articles, that GEOLAND actually works. And if some unnotable places sneak in - so what. No one will open up those pages, it will be as if they do not exist. 63.127.180.130 (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of this guideline, it says: Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's general notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question. NPLACE makes an exception to the requirement of meeting GNG: Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. This discussion was started to address perceived ambiguity of the phrase "legally recognized". (Populated places that are not "legally recognized" are subject to GNG.) The problem with "legally recognized" is that the term is not defined. Some editors have used a very broad interpretation of "legally recognized" to mass-create articles that are dubious or blatantly false. We have been trying in this discussion to find an interpretation of "legally recognized" that may be applied consistently across all political entities. Donald Albury 17:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't have a category for pages which are authoritative and definitive information it but which do not provide rules and guidance as policies and guidelines do. We need that category, and right now it has one page in it which is 5 Pillars. IMO it is as authoritative as the highest level policy. Between it and the reality of Wikipedia:How Wikipedia notability works, geographic articles, both by what 5P says and by receiving extra consideration for being highly enclyclopedic topics, geographic topics get a finger on the scale towards inclusion when they meet the criteria in the SNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think you can define one “legally recognized” to apply to all countries. You'll need some knowledgeable people to help you with that.
There are less than 200 countries in the world. Let’s make a page with 200 sections, invite relevant projects, and once for all define what country division level is acceptable. Is it counties, is it municipalities, is it villages, is it hamlets, is it census designated places?
Then please try to tell people from Suffolk County, New York#Census-designated places (unincorporated) that their Stony Brook, Shirley or Montauk articles should be redirected or deleted, as you'd say that to someone from a village in Poland, Italy, or China.
This is what I’ve learned: The German town law inspired similar laws throughout Central and Eastern Europe and was used in the founding of many cities, towns and villages beginning in the 13th century! By 1477, 132 towns and thousands of villages in Poland were granted Środa law.
That’s why the English Wikipedia has 50000 Polish village pages. It also has 52000+ Polish geo stubs. That's status quo, that's Wikipedia:IMPLICITCONSENSUS, that's why Wikipedia:5P says what it says, and that’s why GEOLAND is so special. 209.212.20.5 (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why we have "50000 Polish village pages" is because Kotbot mass-created a whole load of articles about what are mostly just entries about state farms, railway sidings, factories, warehouses and so-forth. You've just mentioned another area where we have a major problem due to mass-creation. For reference, there aren't 50,000 actual villages in Poland (UN stats say 43k) so the fact that we have that many "Polish village" articles demonstrates that we have a problem. FOARP (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One reason we require significant coverage is to ensure that "no original research is needed to extract the content." This comes up quite often in articles about places. USGS topo maps often show rural landmarks like "Bob's Corner" or "Richard's Mill", which are literally an intersection where Bob lived or a mill run by Richard. Often there will be sources that mention them indirectly, like "A tornado touched down near Richard's Mill" or "The county road will be repaved between Alice's Place and Bob's Corner", but none that actually decribe the place itself. We don't do gazeteer-style pages for these places because 'we don't have enough information to describe or categorize them accurately'. It's taken years to track down all of the places that were mislabeled as "unincorporated communities" because somebody didn't know what else to call them. –dlthewave ☎ 20:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GEOLAND never required significant coverage, that's why we have GEOLAND as a policy separate from the one you cited. We're here not to dump a whole encyclopedia (almanac, and gazeteer) in one day, we're here to build one in an infinite amount of time. Human settlements, current or past, have history, geography, climate, population, landmarks etc. written by their very existence. Thus even the smallest contribution here should count, a gazeteer-style information is still more information than none.63.127.180.130 (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N preceded GEOLAND, and requires articles to be about notable topics. WP:NOT also preceded GEOLAND, and WP:5P, and requires Wikipedia to be an encyclopaedia, and not just a random collection of statistics. GEOLAND is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for having anything to write about the location - there never has been an assumption of automatic notability on Wikipedia.
I'm sure it's morale-boosting to conceive of the creation of tens of thousands of articles about supposed "villages" that don't actually exist at a rate of hundreds or in some cases even thousands in one day, as in some way building an encyclopaedia. In reality it's just dumping a massive problem on to your fellow editors which they then have to spend years or even decades cleaning up because of wildly misguided guidelines such as GEOLAND. FOARP (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decades, for sure. — hike395 (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note (as I have before) that there is a difference between having information about something, and having a separate article on the thing. Even with the gazetteer portion of Wikipedia, we could do that with List of populated places in Example County, Somestate (in the US, and replacing "county" and "state" with appropriate administrative divisions elsewhere). For those places where there's really nothing more to say than "This place exists at X coordinates with Y population", the list entry would suffice to provide that information, and when there's substantially more to say about it than that from reliable and independent sources, an actual article can be written saying that. Even a gazetteer would not devote an entire page to just saying "X place exists at Y coordinates"; they'd put that information into a list or table. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 June 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved consensus is clearly against the move and there is a WP:SNOW chance that consensus will form to support the move. Any request to change how the notability pages are titled would best include all notability pages as well. (non-admin closure) Traumnovelle (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) → Wikipedia:Notability/Geographic features – Project Page titles containing specific information about what a user might be looking for should be a sub-page of the main Project Page. 2600:382:6061:E5B5:3E7F:E1AE:4CD9:D174 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block There is no reason to move the page. It follows the sane naming criteria of all the other Notability pages and the proposer has 1. Not asked for them to be moved and 2. Has not really explained why it should be moved? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible there's some logical difference, but not something very impactful, especially as redirects could exist if there was demand. CMD (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But he has not explained himself. He has just said it should be on project page, but it is already a sub page of notability and is linked from the top of the page in the infobox? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Why? I don't see any benefits from changing the page name, it just makes the naming convention for notability pages inconsistent. Thegoofhere (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No meaningful rationale offered. Newimpartial (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.