Wikipedia talk:Notability (streets, roads, and highways)

For the earlier failed proposal, see Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways)/failed.

For its discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Notability (streets, roads, and highways)/failed.

New attempt

The following is another attempt to discuss a possible proposal regarding the notability of streets, roads, and highways:

I have tried to make the proposal as simple as possible, though there is a lot of room for modification.

Some of the topics to discuss, which I have organized into headings below, include:

Part of a highway system

The notability of a road that is part of a national or jurisdictional highway system (numbered or not): Are all that are included in the system presumed notable, or must other requirements be met?

Safety improvements

I already mentioned in the proposal that I wrote that a temporary construction project that does not alter the design does not help render a street/road notable. But does news coverage of construction projects that contribute to a safety improvement (e.g. adding traffic calming devices) contribute to notability?

Traffic improvements

Obviously, a temporary problem contributing to a high traffic volume does not render an artery notable. But if it is continually covered in the news that a street, road, or highway has bad traffic, and the government takes steps over an extended period of time to address that, should that coverage contribute to notability?

Communities

Already, I have proposed that just because one or more landmarks on a road when it is strictly the landmarks that are notable do not render the road notable. But should articles about one or more communities along a main road that are associated directly with the road render it notable?

Heritage

The concept of heritage, originality cannot be overlooked. In many communities the original road (often lost in hundreds or thousands of years of development) has significant heritage interest.AWHS (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what we can achieve from these discussions. Sebwite (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Given that this is listed as an "active proposal", you should probably mention it at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). I'm not certain why WP:GNG is insufficient for streets, roads, and highways. Have there been any issues in the Afds? Location (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made any discussions involving Afds in quite some time, but in previous years, I was involved in many. I feel this could do with a guideline beyond GNG for a number of reasons, including one that maps cannot be used as a RS and another that there is the tendency to assert inherent notability to certain types of streets, roads, and highways just because they are viewed as "major roads." Sebwite (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't consensus on this already reached?

Sebwite, I noticed that you moved the previous incarnation of this article to Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways)/failed and then recreated this one. I am not sure that that is the most appropriate move given that 1) the "no consensus" tag was placed on it just last month and 2) the current version isn't substantially different in that it only hides parts of the original guideline. Location (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change, and a lot of consensus on various related issues has changed since then that could affect the outcome of this. To reflect this, I have refined the earlier proposal, and made changes in it reflecting the consensus of other topics in hopes that a consensus could possibly be reached here. I have provided a link at the top to the earlier failed proposal as a reference. Sebwite (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sebwite you know that I am actually in favor of some kind of WP:MILL-like guidelines for notability, but I'm not sure that beating the dead horse in this way is accomplishing much. That's why I marked the old one as failed. To be honest it would have been better to revert me and hash that out than doing what you did, which effectively buries the old discussion. Gigs (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I'll try to merge the two discussions together. The basics behind the proposal are that a.) maps do not establish notability of a street or road, but are allowable for verifying information, and b.) Style of a street or road, or perception of its status do not render it notable. With these, run-of-the-mill streets will not end the end meet notability guidelines, but major ones probably will. Sebwite (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

My question is, then what does make the road notable? --Rschen7754 03:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Essay

This reads way too much like an essay. --Rschen7754 (T C) 18:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that you think it's too wordy/needs copyediting, or that you disagree with its contents/want it tagged as a minority position?

I think it does a good job of explaining the issues to people (like me) who don't know much about the subject area. I also think it does a good job of clearly identifying common errors and illogical arguments. I would support it as a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It reads as advice. The tone is not of the same style as that of a guideline. Common errors and illogical arguments should not be part of a guideline, unless it's used to back up a clear point of the guideline, which it doesn't. There is no unifying point of this guideline; it just says "well, these types of roads are notable, and these aren't, but there's no rule, this is the author's opinion." Hence essay. --Rschen7754 09:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This is where we need to discuss to improve it. Sebwite (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, guidelines are supposed to "read as advice". Giving advice is their primary purpose. Giving advice about common misunderstandings is a sign of a good guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at WP:ELG for example: it reads way more formally than this guideline, and is clear and instructive. This guideline is just one editor's random anecdotes. --Rschen7754 03:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is clear and instructive, that it contains non-random information, and that any style of writing that accomplishes its goal is good enough for this purpose. There's no advantage to dressing it up in legal-ese or policy wonk talk: the substance, not the appearance, is what matters. It doesn't sound to me like you actually have any complaints with the substance of the matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I do: this essay sets the bar way too low in terms of notability of roads. WP:USRD/NT is the current standard for roads in the U.S., and it is adequate for those purposes. --Rschen7754 08:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that there are roads outside of the US that Wikipedia might also want to address ;-) but could you give me an example of an important difference between the two? (Presumably the answer will show a road that would be permitted under this proposal and deleted under the US-specific page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Movement to accept the proposal as written

Reading through this page I find that I agree with everything in it. I propose that we accept this as a notability guideline as written and then handle any other revisions to it later. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'd support that. WP:POLICY has a suggested (not required) process for getting wider input, if wanted. It looks like some of those steps have been taken. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's a good notability guideline. -- Europe22 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. It is finally time this become a guideline, and everything in it makes sense based on what the Wikipedia community generally accepts. Nothing is in stone, so we can always revise it, guideline or not. Sebwite (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. What actually is the standard? Right now this "proposal" sort of beats around the bush but never comes out and says what the notability standard is. --Rschen7754 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Since it is possible to find a map or something on every suburban road and every little side street, but not every road is notable, this helps to draw the line. Sebwite (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• What? That blurs the line; it doesn't make it clearer. --Rschen7754 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. This doesn't make any sense. To me it reads, "Some roads are notable, some aren't. A, B, or C don't guarantee notability, but sometimes they do. Lists are also good, sometimes. YMMV." Notability guidelines should be clear. --Fredddie™ 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose — I agree with Freddie on this one. The language needs to be tightened up. Notability guidelines should set a bright line, and this doesn't. There will always be exceptions to guidelines, and common sense will be applied to those exceptions, but this proposal seems to include all the possible exceptions in the text. The basic premise of the text is sound, it needs adjustments though to be a good proposal. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why don't we discuss what changes we want to make? Sebwite (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd prefer something along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability. That project guideline has some more clear-cut statements on determining the notability of a particular roadway. This guideline here as written comes across more as a set of circumstances that don't establish notability, but maybe they do. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's import some of that and revise this in a way that combines them. I would accept this if it can be modified to fit internationally. Sebwite (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I think that having this guideline, even though it draws no bright lines (neither does WP:N, by the way), is better than not having this guideline. Approval now doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to improve it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, call me Amerocentric if you like, but in the past, WP:USRD has successfully been able to use its project guideline to defend articles at AfD, or request deletion at AfD. Now, I fully support an international standard, but unless that global standard is stricter than or conflicts with our project guideline, I don't much care on exact wording. The problem is that if the global standard is too inclusive, it could be used to defend articles that the project, and past consensus have called for deleting. That's why I'd prefer that they be harmonized. In a nutshell, the USRD guideline has more bright lines, this proposal is all a murky mess to me. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not call you personally Americentric. I'm just saying that in the process of importing elements of that page to this one, to write it in a manner that can be applied fairly to all parts of the world. It may be useful to look at Google Maps and Street View and other pictures of roads in urban, suburban, and rural areas from various parts of the world to get a perspective of what they are like in different places.

Here are some random samples of road in Australia, China, Czech Republic, Denmark, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, Thailand, and United Kingdom Sebwite (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of the images was. All of us are well aware that there are roads all around the world. The gist of WP:USRD/NT, expanded for a world view, is this: --Fredddie™ 05:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to show a comparison of the styles of roads in different parts of the world in urban, suburban, and rural areas. Sebwite (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

International, national, and state/provincial highways are generally notable. There are some roads classified below state/provinical level which are notable, but most are not. If a little information is available for a lot of routes, perhaps they're better suited for a list until more information is discovered. Everything needs to fall under WP:GNG.

(ec) Sadly, Google's StreetView is not working on my computer. I'm sure we can craft the guideline though to be geographically neutral. Inclusion in a major system is a good guideline. By major, I mean something like that corresponding to the highest subdivision of a country. Municipal systems would not be inherently notable, unless the street or roadway were associated intimately with an industry, landmark, etc. All articles should demonstrate notability if the roadway isn't associated with a high order system. Any guideline should include a opt-out provision for wikiprojects that have developed their own guidelines, like WP:USRD or WP:UKRD. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that roads that are a part of a numbered route system are notable, and that should be stated in the guideline. Not all places have numbered road systems, and have other systems in lieu of that, and where this is the case, those would be notable too. Sebwite (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would generally support the If it looks like a duck... method. --

Fredddie™ 06:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Having a number is not a good test. In the US, all roads are numbered are they not? In such a case, it is having a name which is better evidence of notability, e.g. the New Jersey Turnpike or Park Lane. In the UK, it seems similar where Old Kent Road or Great North Road seems more likely to be notable than B1234. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not all roads have numbers in the US, and names don't always work. The New Jersey Turnpike has the Route 700 designation on paper. That designation is used for inventory purposes, but even named roadways will have numbers, and numbered roadways will have names. Another example is the county roads in Michigan. If a roadway is not under the jurisdiction of the state as a state highway, or the jurisdiction of a city as a city street, it's a county road in Michigan. My home county is Marquette County, which has in excess of 1,000 county roads under county jurisdiction, inventoried with either a three-digit number or a two- or three-letter designation. Heritage Drive, is County Road JAD, but more commonly called by its name. Midway Drive is actually County Road 502, and has county road markers on the side of the road to that effect. Midway Drive connects to County Road 510, which has no other name. Some roads only have their lettered names, like County Road MB near Palmer, Michigan. The county roads with names like Heritage Drive have their lettered names appended to the end of the street signs so they look like "HERITAGE DRIVE / JAD", so they are signed, but that part of the sign is ignored.

Other counties use other systems which have varying degrees of visibility for their internal designations. No matter that though, names or numbers, county roads in general aren't notable, and don't get articles. There are articles about county roads in Michigan, but they are a special type that carry a number as part of a state-wide system assigned by the Michigan Department of Transportation. Even then, all but 4 of them are merged into a list article. A fifth county road in Michigan has an article, but it's a major tourist drive near Copper Harbor, and other features that make it notable.

The criteria that I use to judge notability in US articles is simple: if a state went through the trouble to mark and maintain a road as a part of the state-wide highway system, it's generally notable. If it's just a road maintained by a county, well, Marquette County has over a thousand of those, so it better be special to get an article. For other countries, I apply similar logic. States are the top-level division in the US, as are provinces in Canada, and state or provincial highways get a pass are presumed notable unless shown otherwise. If the jurisdiction that maintains a roadway is analogous to a city, township or county in the US, it needs some notoriety on its own for something other than existing. Otherwise those roads are presumed non-notable until shown otherwise. Imzadi 1979 → 09:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this is still too narrow. For example the whole concept of heritiage appears to have been largely overlooked. In many cases there are historically significant small streets which are short, local, often virtually unknown but eminently notable if you are a heritage architect.AWHS (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Time to mark dead and salt it? NVO (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. There is no deadline. I do believe that, even though this may take a while, it may pass. Sebwite (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sebwite. Furthermore, it looks like about the opposition is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of SNGs. It is pretty silly to demand a 'bright line' or any sort of hard-and-fast rules in a system governed ultimately by a policy that demands the opposite. If notability were easy, then some mindless script, rather than human editors, would be making the decisions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not convinced that anything more than WP:GNG is needed. Nothing here is substantially different than Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways)/failed. Location (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Just seems to be some personal opinions based upon unsupported assumptions. Per WP:NOTLAW, we do not make policy in a dictatorial and prescriptive way. It should be based upon observation of detailed outcomes which provide evidence of our customary practise. I have worked upon many such articles and my experience is each case must be considered on its merits. As a general rule, the older a street is, the more likely it is that there will be useful sources but you could say that about any topic and so we would add little value to say it for this specific case. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Splitting bus routes discussion off

• Support It would be good to add Bus routes, to help save their articles from deletion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you mean bus routes as in mass transit busses or bus. routes as in short for business route? If the former, this guideline doesn't attempt to deal with it. If the latter, the general consensus in the US has been to merge them into a parent route's article unless substantial history can be shown. Case in point, all three business loops for M-28 (Michigan highway) have separate articles, and of the three, the only one still signed is a featured article like its parent route, and the other two (1 & 2) have been rated as A-Class articles by WP:USRD. They are the exceptions, when business routes like Interstate 75 Business (St. Ignace, Michigan) redirect into a list with the other business routes of I-75. Imzadi 1979 → 09:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • FeydHuxtable's suggestion seems to be based on a desire to keep articles for which there is no evidence of notability per WP:GNG, which means keeping articles that either consist of piles of unreferenced stuff cobbled together from fan sites or collections of random trivia. Bad idea; keep the articles which meet GNG, and merge or delete the rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I support the bus routes idea also. I, myself have written articles on bus routes for which I have found reliable sources. My belief is that individual municipal bus routes can have articles if enough verifiable information from two or more separate sources can be found, and the amount of information written exceeds that can be written in a chart on a single page. Also, if the majority of bus routes in a system have articles, stubs can be written on the remainder. Sebwite (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't support adding bus routes to this guideline. This guideline is about streets, roads and highways. If you would like to craft a guideline on mass transit (bus routes, subway lines, train lines, etc) please feel free to start a separate guideline. Having said that, I await FedHuxtable's reply to my question, since "BUS" is used as an abbreviation for "BUSINESS" on some signs and road names, I would like him to clarify if he means "bus route" as in mass transit or "bus. route" as in the highway subtype, business route. I'm assuming it's the former, which leaves my opposition and suggestion stand. Imzadi 1979 → 19:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
      • BHG: there is an optimistic (yours) and pessimistic (yours truly's) take on any issue. I suspect that the purpose of this whole proposal (as well as scores of its failed predecessors) is to delete content that does not fit into a clear-cut scheme of U.S. roads. Right now it cannot be deleted because it meets GNG. But everything can change with more hurdles added. The proposed guideline is so vague that, with some administrative support, it can be used to delete Via Appia. In-depth books on the subject (and nothing else)? No? check. Connected to a particular industry? No anymore for the last 1500 years. Check and mate. NVO (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
        • I think this page is involved in a spill-over from contentious arguments over bus routes in the UK. I suggest that those editors who are not here to discuss a guideline about roads, streets and highways take their discussion elsewhere. If they would like a notability guideline on mass transit, start a discussion page on that. As for guidelines about roads in the US, the wikiproject already has a guideline based on several years of precedents at various VfD/AfD pages over the years, a guideline which isn't designed to extend outside of the US. I'd just as soon not have this proposal pass than have a poor guideline in place. Imzadi 1979 → 06:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes I meant the mass transit buses & was prompted by interest in UK bus routes. I have some interest in US roads to, per liking road movies and having reviewed a US route over at GA, and still support this guidline even if it doesnt include Bus routes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:FAILN

I think that this (and most specific notability guidelines) would benefit from a "What to do if the street doesn't qualify for a separate article entirely dedicated to the street". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)