Wikipedia talk:Places of local interest/Archive 1

message: I have been looking at several examples to try and understand what might apply. I presume the guideline would apply to many types of public facilities not just the ones named. Here are four that I have found:
* Airport - Morristown Municipal Airport
* Cemetery/Memorials - Centennial Park Cemetery
* Hospital - Sudbury Regional Hospital
* School - Edgewater Elementary School
* Sports Facility - Pete Beiden Field
These are intended as examples for discussion, my hope is the guideline would be applicable in any cases like these. Wakemp 19:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, I would have thought that these places being included here would at least get them well referenced....Garrie 03:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of Local Facilities

message: Having thought about this one a bit, I don't think that there's enough support for this to be a guideline in terms of editors either practising this behaviour or editing/discussing this page.  So, I've tagged this as an essay (I noticed that , which seems to fit better, also puts pages in :Category:Wikipedia essays, so I used that one instead) and if support grows for these ideas later we can look at turning this into a guideline then.  JYolkowski // talk 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging this as an essay 

message: Given the proliferation of geographically-based WikiProjects, I believe that they should have a role to play in determining what is notable in their respective regions.  Community standards may vary. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including applicable Wikiprojects in policy 

message: Do villages -- that is, small, unincorporated communities -- fall under this proposed guideline? Especially villages in Latin America, Africa, & Asia? I've been thinking about this problem, & can see arguments for & against including them. -- llywrch 16:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My answer would be "maybe".  My idea behind this guideline is to encourage higher overall article quality by encouraging people to not create stubs and to merge them into location articles.  So, in cases where there really isn't a lot to say about the communities, it probably makes sense to merge them into a parent article.  On the other hand, if there is a fair bit to say and these villages contain places of local interest of their own, then it probably makes sense that they stand on their own, and can be used as a merge target for those places of local interest.   This could probably also apply to subdivisions in North America and Europe as well. JYolkowski // talk 23:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Villages 

message: For the past two months, the text of this proposal has been fairly static and there haven't been any serious problems raised here.  I'd previously assumed that that was because no-one really cared one way or another about the proposal. (-:  Lately, however, I've noticed multiple people citing it in guideline or AFD discussions or otherwise applying it.  So, maybe it's useful after all.  With that in mind, I'd like to get a feeling for what other people are feeling about the proposal.  Should it be a guideline?  Should any changes be made?  Are there any serious problems?  TIA, JYolkowski // talk 21:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what do you think? (-: 

message: Some time ago - and I'm quite unsure of where I did so - I commented on the use of the word "place" in Wikipedia. There are a great many articles with the title something like "Places in xxxxx" which then go on to list cities, towns and villages: see, for example List of places in Herefordshire. To my geographical understanding, they should be much better called settlements. The article on Place shows how broad it can be: and somewhat too vague a term.  Now there is this suggestion, which actually brings in the lower end of the spectrum of the word "place". It might cause some confusion, though, given that the previous usage is as I have pointed out. Peter Shearan 06:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've intentionally used the word "place" to be vague—the intention is that this guideline could apply not only to unincorporated settlements but to things found in them like airports, railway stations, schools, and things like that.  If you can think of another word that might better describe this entire class of things, feel free to suggest it.  JYolkowski // talk 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Places"

message: Good policy - perhaps this should apply to neighborhoods as well? Take, for example, East Calhoun, Minneapolis -- a stub about a neighborhood that shows little notability. Underneath, we see the Neighborhoods of Minneapolis box. Shouldn't all neighborhoods simply be included in a "Neighborhoods of (Metro Area)..." article and only be broken out if there's substantial notability to warrant a separate article for that neighborhood (e.g. Chinatown, Hyde Park, or Buckhead)? I would imagine that distinct communities (i.e. a distinct city government) will always warrant an article, but neighborhoods should be the exception, not the rule. So I would propose this: a) neighborhoods should be listed within the main city's article; b) if there are a substantial number of neighborhoods and/or content about these neighborhoods, this information would split to a "Neighborhoods of (City)" article; c) if, and only if, a neighborhood has notability on its own merits (e.g. historical events, major identifiable regional / national name recognition, etc.), then it would warrant its own article. Thoughts? SkerHawx 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I think that it makes sense for neighbourhoods to be treated as you mentioned above, and since this is similar to the strategy described in this proposal I think it makes sense for these to be covered by this guideline.  Since I see a fair bit of neighbourhood articles I've added that to the list of "places" in the intro.  JYolkowski // talk 21:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I likewise agree. >Radiant< 09:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neighborhoods

message: One other thought ... While surfing random articles, I've also run across subdivision articles ("subdivision" as used in the U.S. and Canada to identify a group of homes with a common homeowner's association and often the same builder. (See some examples ... Encantada_Subdivision, Confederation Heights, Thorold...) I'd like to include a proposed addition to this policy that subdivisions are (by default) not notable. Again, if an article's editors can establish notability through events that occurred within the subdivision, so be it. But generally even if notability can be established, such notability probably belongs to the city, not the subdivision. Thoughts? SkerHawx 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subdivisions

message: This guideline discusses how to break off an article into subarticles, but doesn't provide clear guidance on when a neighborhood, street, or building, etc. is or is not encyclopedic. Suggest providing clearer guidance. Should every neighborhood get an article? Best, --Shirahadasha 04:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between "encyclopedic" and "should get its own article".  Individual streets, buildings, neighbourhoods, etc. are encyclopedic if they meet our core content policies WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.  Even if they do meet these criteria, they likely don't need their own article; however, the solution is not to delete the content, but to merge it into the parent community's article.  The purpose of this guideline is more to help editors create quality articles, and not so much to define specific inclusion criteria.  So, the criterion used in this guideline is if "enough verifiable information is available" for its own article.  So, if you can create a high-quality article about a neighbourhood (e.g. longer than a stub, contains useful, verifiable information, etc.), go ahead.  If not, add the information to the community article instead of creating a new one.  JYolkowski // talk 00:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In many cases, adding information to an existing article and then breaking it out when it grows seems to avoid many problems.  You are less likely to create a stub, and the fact that the material has existed makes it easier to defend as being notable.  In the worst case, the AfD should be to merge it back to the article it was in to begin with, not a big problem.  The only problem I recall having in doing this was an editor who felt that the material should have remained in the main article, it was about 32K in size.  This approach also allows an editor to see several items of a like nature that may not justify an article on their own, but if combined could justify another article.  Again it is a subjective decision and editors have to use their judgement as to what is 'right'. Vegaswikian 00:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I pretty much agree with Vegaswikian and JYolkowski.  What is recommended is a prudent way to write about places of local interest, including neighborhoods.  Unfortunately, there is no magical dividing line on when neighborhood, or an school, or almost any other local interest item, for that matter, deserves its own article.-- danntm T C 02:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that this should be intended more as a recommendation than a list of criteria. Accordingly, I've changed the guideline template (it still says it's a guideline, but does not mention notability criteria).  --Nehwyn 16:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion Criteria