Is AARoads notable enough for a Wikipedia article?

[vdeane]

Wow.  Between this, the Reddit blackout, and shows being removed from Paramount+, content removal and fragmentation seems to be a theme of this month.

[rschen7754]

I probably should note that some of the DOTs are equally making preservation difficult given how much of their content has been removed.  ADOT in particular purged a crap load of information from easily accessible places on the internet.  I've been encountering this problem as of late given I had a back log of Arizona blogs to write up.  I always tend to worry the same thing will eventually happen to the AASHTO database.  At least I have physical copies of the CHPWs and California Highway Bulletin if those disappear online.

Separate from the wiki, at times I have thought that there should be some sort of online vault that stores this material indefinitely. Given that not every state is a PD state though, I am not sure that it could be accessible publicly.

[thspfc]

the Reddit blackout

The most pathetic "protest"  of all time. What a joke lol

[Max Rockatansky]

the Reddit blackout

The most pathetic "protest"  of all time. What a joke lol

I still don't even have a firm understanding of what Reddit even is.  As an outside observer it just seems to be a place where misery comes to congregate.

[vdeane]

the Reddit blackout

The most pathetic "protest"  of all time. What a joke lol

I still don't even have a firm understanding of what Reddit even is.  As an outside observer it just seems to be a place where misery comes to congregate.

It's basically what replaced internet forums for most discussion topics (at least for those of us who don't want to migrate to proper social media like Facebook/Instagram/Tik Tok or chat like Discord).  Especially since Google now de-emphasizes forums and other user-based internet things, so if you want to search something on Google and not get news or product results, pretty much to get regular people discussing things reliably is to append "site:reddit.com" to the search query.

[Max Rockatansky]

the Reddit blackout

The most pathetic "protest"  of all time. What a joke lol

I still don't even have a firm understanding of what Reddit even is.  As an outside observer it just seems to be a place where misery comes to congregate.

It's basically what replaced internet forums for most discussion topics (at least for those of us who don't want to migrate to proper social media like Facebook/Instagram/Tik Tok or chat like Discord).  Especially since Google now de-emphasizes forums and other user-based internet things, so if you want to search something on Google and not get news or product results, pretty much to get real people discussing things reliably is to append "site:reddit.com" to the search query.

So basically it is just a new age message bulletin board?

Edit:  It just dawned on me how much I dated myself with "bulletin board."   That was a total DOS graphics interface Prodigy Online thing.

[J N Winkler]

I still don't even have a firm understanding of what Reddit even is.  As an outside observer it just seems to be a place where misery comes to congregate.

It is essentially an ad-supported successor to text-based Usenet, but with the ability to share images--it breaks down into discussion groups ("subreddits") by topic area, and in each there are threads consisting of posts with zero or more attached comments.  It also has an approval mechanism ("karma") whereby both posts and comments can be upvoted or downvoted.

Because it is very easy to create subreddits (they are a bit like Facebook groups in that regard) and for the creator of each to customize moderation arrangements, the quality of discussion can be quite high in some (e.g., r/AskHistorians) and quite low in others:  for example, there are tons of NSFW subreddits dedicated to porn and sharing nudes.  Some subreddits, like r/The_Donald and several that became involved in the Gamergate controversy, have had to be taken out of sight when they embarrassed the otherwise difficult-to-shame Reddit company.

Karma is considered problematic in and of itself since it introduces an element of variable-interval reinforcement, which drives addiction behaviors.  It also opens the door to abuses like brigading and karma farming.

Because Reddit has invested very little in UI development (including accessibility) and moderator tools, there are numerous third-party apps that rely on an API Reddit provides to work around these limitations.  The current controversy concerns Reddit's decision, with very little notice as to price, to start charging for API calls.  The company is readying itself for an IPO and it is widely believed that the charging regime is designed to shut down the third-party apps altogether and thereby reassure investors that users won't be able to escape the ad pipeline.

[Rothman]

the Reddit blackout

The most pathetic "protest"  of all time. What a joke lol

I still don't even have a firm understanding of what Reddit even is.  As an outside observer it just seems to be a place where misery comes to congregate.

Your description wins the Internet for the Day.

Reddit hasn't managed to captivate me like other forms of social media.  I've dabbled with a few /rs on there, even those related to ongoing interests, but none have stuck.

[formulanone]

Just got an email that AARoads was starting a gazetteer of road-related material since Wikipedia is no longer reliably accepting articles that are notable as part of a series. What a travesty. It's just becoming an elitist cesspool where casual editing isn't appreciated if the goal is anything less than creating a terribly bloated featured article. I never thought it would get to this point.

I noticed last week that a lot of Alabama State Routes are suddenly labeled:

"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographic features."

Alabama Route 5 isn't some stub article; it's backed by at least 3-4 different sources. It's also a 198-mile route. Either you want a ridiculous amount of information (read: tedious) or you want it to be relatively simple, yet backed up by some facts. So what is it supposed to be if information from a state-created source is not acceptable?

Claiming reading map is "original research" is akin to saying reading a book is original research. Full stop.

I'm not the most prolific editor, but I'm going to withdraw my support if this keeps up. I will personally now reduce the amount of Creative Commons photos I'll grant to them, since the subject matter is apparently "not notable". They obviously still have access to about 25,000 images; though I will reconsider if the photos themselves assist in the notability of articles (though this seems...not likely).

(yeah, this is the weakest and most pathetic threat I've ever made in my life)

[Dough4872]

Just got an email that AARoads was starting a gazetteer of road-related material since Wikipedia is no longer reliably accepting articles that are notable as part of a series. What a travesty. It's just becoming an elitist cesspool where casual editing isn't appreciated if the goal is anything less than creating a terribly bloated featured article. I never thought it would get to this point.

I noticed last week that a lot of Alabama State Routes are suddenly labeled:

"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographic features."

Alabama Route 5 isn't some stub article; it's backed by at least 3-4 different sources. It's also a 198-mile route. Either you want a ridiculous amount of information (read: tedious) or you want it to be relatively simple, yet backed up by some facts. So what is it supposed to be if information from a state-created source is not acceptable?

Claiming reading map is "original research" is akin to saying reading a book is original research. Full stop.

I'm not the most prolific editor, but I'm going to withdraw my support if this keeps up. I will personally now reduce the amount of Creative Commons photos I'll grant to them, since the subject matter is apparently "not notable". They obviously still have access to about 25,000 images; though I will reconsider if the photos themselves assist in the notability of articles (though this seems...not likely).

(yeah, this is the weakest and most pathetic threat I've ever made in my life)

Yeah, there has been a particular user who has been adding a lot of notability tags to state route articles, although there is a subject-specific notability guideline that says state highways and above are notable.

[Scott5114]

I'm not the most prolific editor, but I'm going to withdraw my support if this keeps up. I will personally now reduce the amount of Creative Commons photos I'll grant to them, since the subject matter is apparently "not notable". They obviously still have access to about 25,000 images; though I will reconsider if the photos themselves assist in the notability of articles (though this seems...not likely).

(yeah, this is the weakest and most pathetic threat I've ever made in my life)

I'd ask you to reconsider–the people on Wikimedia Commons have nothing to do with this (they simply like hoarding images–think of Commons as being run by a dragon who breathes JPEG artifacts instead of fire), and Commons is still going to be hosting the images that will be used to illustrate the AARoads wiki. Pretty much all of the regular roadgeek editors are migrating to AARoads, we're just still working on the foundation and framing at the moment so the house isn't livable yet.

What I predict will happen is that, since all of the road-topic regulars are moving over to AARoads to continue maintaining articles here, the copies on Wikipedia will degrade until someone eventually deletes them. Meanwhile the AARoads versions will continue to improve.

[Molandfreak]

I noticed last week that a lot of Alabama State Routes are suddenly labeled:

"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographic features."

Alabama Route 5 isn't some stub article; it's backed by at least 3-4 different sources. It's also a 198-mile route. Either you want a ridiculous amount of information (read: tedious) or you want it to be relatively simple, yet backed up by some facts. So what is it supposed to be if information from a state-created source is not acceptable?

FWIW, I just deleted the notability tag from the AL-5 article. I can understand why someone would think a random state-maintained spur to an oil field in Wyoming isn't a notable topic (numerous Wyoming highways are also tagged), but this is a 200-mile-long highway serving the second-largest city in Alabama and a boatload of other population centers. It's completely unreasonable to say that isn't notable.

[KCRoadFan]

Well, while you were talking about a potential article...I actually went and created it! Here it is, if you all want to contribute something to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARoads

[formulanone]

I noticed last week that a lot of Alabama State Routes are suddenly labeled:

"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographic features."

Alabama Route 5 isn't some stub article; it's backed by at least 3-4 different sources. It's also a 198-mile route. Either you want a ridiculous amount of information (read: tedious) or you want it to be relatively simple, yet backed up by some facts. So what is it supposed to be if information from a state-created source is not acceptable?

FWIW, I just deleted the notability tag from the AL-5 article. I can understand why someone would think a random state-maintained spur to an oil field in Wyoming isn't a notable topic (numerous Wyoming highways are also tagged), but this is a 200-mile-long highway serving the second-largest city in Alabama and a boatload of other population centers. It's completely unreasonable to say that isn't notable.

I get that AL 5 is not exactly a route in the wider public's consciousness (say...Interstate 5, Route 1, Ohio/Indiana Toll Roads) but I think the fact that the bulk of the sources for creating the article is based on an array of maps seems to be the biggest stumbling block for a handful of editors who do not want them included as sources. (And yet, a sentence of two about a section of the route being haunted is left in because it has a one-off internet source...?)

Weird how this all works out. I waded through the arguments for/against the inclusion of maps and there were some good arguments for (and admittedly, against) I think the overall concept of "assuming good faith" and "don't be a dick" has been forgotten because someone has a chip on their shoulder about road articles. You know, after you tackle all the petty vandalism, finding sources of information, improvement of articles, and reducing sockpuppetry...maybe then one can find articles that need adjustment; or maybe just contribute in a meaningful manner to the subjects one is knowledgeable. It seems there was some annoyance by the Againsts because they felt they were being drowned out by those who actually care to maintain them properly.

[Rothman]

All I'm getting from this is that Wikipedia is broken.

If you're going to say some article isn't "notable," then from where else are people going to get the information from?  Even if it is an insignificant route in boondocky Wyoming, that insignificance shouldn't determine notability, but how the unique and reliable the information provided should, which is a pretty low threshold even if maps are what provide the information (and that's said as someone who doesn't consider maps totally reliable historical documents).

[hotdogPi]

All I'm getting from this is that Wikipedia is broken.

If you're going to say some article isn't "notable," then from where else are people going to get the information from?  Even if it is an insignificant route in boondocky Wyoming, that insignificance shouldn't determine notability, but how the unique and reliable the information provided should, which is a pretty low threshold even if maps are what provide the information (and that's said as someone who doesn't consider maps totally reliable historical documents).

County routes (except NJ's 500 routes) were already deemed not notable even under the old system; the same is true with the UK's B routes. Wikipedia can't include absolutely everything. I believe SABRE has a wiki with the UK's B routes, and US county routes are generally on a "list of county routes in X County, Y State" page on Wikipedia rather than having one page per county route.

[Molandfreak]

To be clear, I'm not against lesser-known spur highways having articles, I'm just saying I understand the argument that they shouldn't have articles better than the same argument for highways that are hundreds of miles long.

[formulanone]

All I'm getting from this is that Wikipedia is broken.

If you're going to say some article isn't "notable," then from where else are people going to get the information from?  Even if it is an insignificant route in boondocky Wyoming, that insignificance shouldn't determine notability, but how the unique and reliable the information provided should, which is a pretty low threshold even if maps are what provide the information (and that's said as someone who doesn't consider maps totally reliable historical documents).

County routes (except NJ's 500 routes) were already deemed not notable even under the old system; the same is true with the UK's B routes. Wikipedia can't include absolutely everything. I believe SABRE has a wiki with the UK's B routes, and US county routes are generally on a "list of county routes in X County, Y State" page on Wikipedia rather than having one page per county route.

And I'm fine with that; there's a lot more uneven information from place to place and trying to arrange a method consistency for 3000+ counties is almost impossible. Some places sign every little gravel road, so that's even a great starting criterion for pages containing county roads.

There's also good reasons to also allow several state routes to be folded into the same page (for example: SRs 101 through 110 from the same state) if they're not incredibly notable with several different references. I think there's a bit of an imbalance because one state system might have much more documentation and editors than another, but wiki can't really "rank" one state above another for that sort of inclusion.

[bulldog1979]

Well, while you were talking about a potential article...I actually went and created it! Here it is, if you all want to contribute something to it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARoads

And as could be predicted:

13:41, June 25, 2023 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) deleted page AARoads (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

[hotdogPi]

I was expecting a quick AFD, but not a speedy deletion.

[rschen7754]

All I'm getting from this is that Wikipedia is broken.

If you're going to say some article isn't "notable," then from where else are people going to get the information from?  Even if it is an insignificant route in boondocky Wyoming, that insignificance shouldn't determine notability, but how the unique and reliable the information provided should, which is a pretty low threshold even if maps are what provide the information (and that's said as someone who doesn't consider maps totally reliable historical documents).

It's not just roads, a lot of "fringe" topics such as US area codes, Olympians, train stations, etc. have come under fire lately. Without thought as to proper content curation, or even editor curation (i.e. treating volunteers properly).

We are discussing what levels of roads to include on the new wiki, so if you want to participate, let me or Scott know and we can get you into the wiki.

[bulldog1979]

I was expecting a quick AFD, but not a speedy deletion.

I got a look at what the article contained, and since it lacked any citations, a speedy deletion doesn't surprise me. If there were some sources listed, then the New Page Patrollers may have "draftified" the article (moved it to Draft:AARoads) to give the creator a chance to improve it. The NPPers see a lot of new content come through the pipeline and have to perform triage on that. No sources made that task easy for them.

[Rothman]

All I'm getting from this is that Wikipedia is broken.

If you're going to say some article isn't "notable," then from where else are people going to get the information from?  Even if it is an insignificant route in boondocky Wyoming, that insignificance shouldn't determine notability, but how the unique and reliable the information provided should, which is a pretty low threshold even if maps are what provide the information (and that's said as someone who doesn't consider maps totally reliable historical documents).

County routes (except NJ's 500 routes) were already deemed not notable even under the old system; the same is true with the UK's B routes. Wikipedia can't include absolutely everything. I believe SABRE has a wiki with the UK's B routes, and US county routes are generally on a "list of county routes in X County, Y State" page on Wikipedia rather than having one page per county route.

I don't see why Wikipedia couldn't have everything.

[Rothman]

All I'm getting from this is that Wikipedia is broken.

If you're going to say some article isn't "notable," then from where else are people going to get the information from?  Even if it is an insignificant route in boondocky Wyoming, that insignificance shouldn't determine notability, but how the unique and reliable the information provided should, which is a pretty low threshold even if maps are what provide the information (and that's said as someone who doesn't consider maps totally reliable historical documents).

It's not just roads, a lot of "fringe" topics such as US area codes, Olympians, train stations, etc. have come under fire lately. Without thought as to proper content curation, or even editor curation (i.e. treating volunteers properly).

We are discussing what levels of roads to include on the new wiki, so if you want to participate, let me or Scott know and we can get you into the wiki.

Thanks for the invite, but I am a consumer of information rather than a creator.

[Molandfreak]

All I'm getting from this is that Wikipedia is broken.

If you're going to say some article isn't "notable," then from where else are people going to get the information from?  Even if it is an insignificant route in boondocky Wyoming, that insignificance shouldn't determine notability, but how the unique and reliable the information provided should, which is a pretty low threshold even if maps are what provide the information (and that's said as someone who doesn't consider maps totally reliable historical documents).

County routes (except NJ's 500 routes) were already deemed not notable even under the old system; the same is true with the UK's B routes. Wikipedia can't include absolutely everything. I believe SABRE has a wiki with the UK's B routes, and US county routes are generally on a "list of county routes in X County, Y State" page on Wikipedia rather than having one page per county route.

I don't see why Wikipedia couldn't have everything.

I think the upside of starting over is that new rules can be put in place so that the new wiki is able to include a lot more information.