776:
features (may only be notable if more than statistical data exists). While this much stricter treatment of geographical features may make sense for some of them it does however even contradict conventional (print) encyclopedias with regard to some of the most important geographical features such as rivers and mountain ranges. For many of the world's rivers or mountain ranges (aside from the best known ones) traditional encyclopedias often just offer statistical information (location, length or max elevation, etc.). Such entries would not to be notable anymore under the suggested guideline, which in my experience contradicts the current practice in WP and is imho an unjustified restriction. It makes little sense to me, why we should consider a small town of a few hundred people notable for its own sake, but not a river with a length of a few hundred kilometers or a mountain range for which we just have some statistical data available (at the moment).--
31:
1569:
geographic features listed on this proposed guideline. While some
Knowledge (XXG) essays use the term "inherent notability" to describe such categories, there is a long-standing practice of using the term "presumed notable" or some similar phrase rather than "inherent notability," at least in guidelines. The danger of using a term like "inherent notability" in a guideline like this, where it might actually fit, is that it opens the door to
1716:
category of articles. Of course I have no intention to argue that the final guideline is "predicated on discussion"; that's how wikipedia works, right? And yes precisely because AFDs usually closed a certain way. Statistics of thousands of AfD discussions trumps any consensus of a
Committee of Seven, who happen to frequent a particular essay, unless someone has a solid argument to argue that previous AfD closures were all wrong.
511:
during its development), where was it advertized to assure a large number of editors saw it? I'm pretty confident that if it was advertized in the right places you would have had more than 5 responses (I myself might have missed that but again, this is a pretty clear lack of announcement about this). It is best to re-run the RFC with announcements posted to WT:N, WP:VPP, WP:CENT, at minimum. --
1715:
That's pretty much very wrongly skewed interpretation of what I wrote. Let me rephrase: A specific notability guideline is not being born by a troika who decided let's have a notability guideline for pizza nuts. In majority of cases it is based on a preexisting consensus of arguments for a particular
1568:
There are a few classes of things which even poorly-sourced entries will be considered "notable" if taken to AFD. Conventional/comprehensive/general-purpose diploma-granting secondary schools, astronomical bodies with generally-recognized names, species whose existence is generally accepted, and the
1197:
Could someone involved with project please clarify the sentence, "Reliable sources that document and verify governmental recognition of a place, such as a national census, are usually adequate to establish notability?" I'm assuming this means that a reliable secondary source is needed to document or
969:
What if "Yonder Hill" is claimed to be a village in India? The USPS's opinion would be irrelevant. What are WP's minimum standards for what constitutes "legal recognition"? I'd suggest that any of the following would be acceptable: a named dot on an official map, a post office, a government school or
510:
But you do need more than 5 people out of a thousand editors to agree. SNG like this can become walled gardens without appropriate input, and need better universal support to be promoted as such. The question that is being asked now is when you were preparing the RFC to specifically promote it (not
152:
The community was invited here freaking many times by me personally in several forums and by other people. Do you want billboards om major US freeways? The way I see it, if nobody gives suggstions that can be discussed, then it is ready. Yes it is "common outcomes", but it is not a drawback: we don't
1526:
point out that there is not inherent notability within those topics. As Masem pointed out, "presumed notable" is a better term for classes of things that are so rarely non-notable that the burden of proof is on the person that claims it is not notable to say "I tried to find significant coverage of
358:
During past year of work on the policy I advertized it twice in three places: willage pump, WP:notability and wikiprojectGeorgaphy. And I also canvassed several former prticipants of this work. What else you want me to do? Canvass all admins? Post on Jimbo's talk page everybody watches? Work is done
197:
I'm sorry, but I concur with
Staszek here. Frankly, you had a long time in which you could have participated in the development of this guideline, and you missed the boat. The RfC was sufficiently advertised. If there were pressing reasons not to go forward with it, they would have emerged before an
174:
relationship with the other notability guidelines not yet answered. That it was closed to implement the guideline is bizarre and needs a second look. I'm ready to seek a greater community consensus if the guideline status isn't removed shortly. I already asked the closing admin to clarify his close.
494:
Themfromspace, your concern is justified, but colleague, really, there is no way in wikipedia to drag people to vote here by their collars. Whoever was interested in the issue, they took part in the discussion. Knowledge (XXG) is not democracy. We don't need 51% (or 5.1%) poll for approval. What is
201:
I assessed the proposed guideline before doing the close. In my opinion, having not encountered it or the surrounding debate before, this guideline is an entirely uncontroversial enshrinement of existing practice. As
Staszek says, we put past experiences into policies. I take particular interest in
1636:
leaves open the theoretical (or actual) possibility of an exception as part of the guideline itself. Using the term "inherently" would force those who wanted to call out an exception to point to the fact that "a guideline is just a guideline, not a policy." It's far better to explicitly allow for
775:
I'm unfortunately a bit late to the discussion, but I have to say from my perspective the guideline is highly problematic and possibly in contradiction to current practice/consensus. The problem is the (new) rather different treatment of populated places (basically always notable) and geographical
1286:
or of any other protected status are inherently notable." For the most important heritage sites that's probably correct, but there are lower levels of protection which don't meet notability, making this misleading. The sentence about excluding micronations also seems unnecessary (as in most cases
872:
The problem with travel guides is the same as with "popular science" publications: information there is difficult to verify. If a travel guide is for a specific narrow geographic region, then I can believe the authors were thorough and dedicated. But I have little faith that "USA Travel Guide For
590:
I'm not saying the guideline is "wrong", just that getting just 5 people to agree to it is not enough. Because this is an inclusion guideline and affects what articles are present, it involves all editors as it shapes the entire work, even if only 5 editors actually work on the articles directly
1100:
It depends a bit on what exactly is concerned statistical data here. If that includes a rough geographic/location description, which you could do for any mountain anyhow, then indeed I'd suspect that many mountains may become subject to deletion. Also note that while in theory for most mountains
608:
Yes, I saw the MMA page and voted there. Here the story is totally different. All efforts were put in nailing down the existing consensus; no traces of "page ownership"; only cooperation of people with different backgrounds and ideas (and there were more than 5 of them over time). So no need to
1014:
all the discussion that took place during the initial development of this guideline, including the RFC for guideline status, in order to keep this talk page usable. If you're arriving here freshly in light of the new guideline status, please consult the archive if you want to see how it was put
173:
Woah, calm down. This needs more input before it can become a guideline. In 2012 five editors is not enough of a consensus to bring in a new notability guideline. The close was handled wrongly, in that it came to a definite conclusion one way or another, especially with valid concerns about its
887:
I frequently use travel guides as sources for articles on
Central American villages. It's virtually impossible to find English language sources to use for them otherwise. I won't create an article on a place, however, unless it is shown on a physical map and gets at least a few paragraphs in a
127:
I think the guideline status on this page is premature. The RfC was very small and poorly advertised, and the page itself has contradictions and clarity issues. Furthermore, it reads like a "common outcomes" essay more than an authoritative guideline. This needs much more work and a stronger
1675:. Now, when we say here that something is "inherently notable", it basically means we strongly want a wikipedia article on the subject, even it is poorly referenced at a given moment, however scarce information is available. Nevertheless if someone convincingly proves that e.g., there are
1573:
and in a few years, things like "bands that played multi-national tours" will be considered "inherently notable" even if the "tour" consisted of all-sub-100-person venues and neither the tour nor the band has ever received any non-routine, non-promotional coverage (but it has received
1223:
In that sentence, "a national census" is an example of a reliable source that documents and verifies governmental recognition of a place. No other source is necessary to prove governmental recognition. If you have any suggestion for how to reword it to make it more clear, let me know.
1101:
additional information is available, it might be hard to access in practice, so articles with statistical information only might not get easily expanded to avoid a possible deletion. For some concrete examples of "statistical information only" mountan or mountain range entries see:
700:
I agree, the claim of any (significant) consensus is due small participation at the RfC and objections raised elsewhere definitely premature. In addition the guideline seems to contradict current practice and has the potential of triggering a large number of (unwanted?) AfDs (see
429:. The people who worked here were not trying to be closeted or cleaquish, and made reasonable efforts to attract attention. If you know "more reasonable alternatives", then you are very welcome to invoke them to continue the work on policy improvement with broader participation.
591:
affected by the guidelines. (This is the problem we're having with MMA-related articles as there's a core group of editors that want to give this topic area "special" privileges over others.) Thus we do need more input to assure that the wide community agrees these are fine. --
836:, etc. - is certainly enough to confer notability. That is to say, multiple facets of the feature being discussed in a modicum of detail. Anything less than a section would open us up to having to cover virtually everything ever. Web-only travel sources would have to be
532:
this guideline. Knowledge (XXG) is not democracy. I disagree with the attitude "it is done by 5 people so there must be something wrong with it". The policy was crafted starting from some serious disagreements among the initial authors, which were gradually moved to an
377:
or an edit within {{Template:Notability guide}} would have brought in more people "who care". These are certainly more reasonable alternatives than canvassing editors or posting on Jimbo's talk page, and much more in line with what has been done in the past for SNGs.
277:
The fact that a consensus was made with five users participating in an RfC does not mean that the greater community supports this guideline. I for one don't. No offense to you personally, but I see what you did as a great injustice towards our consensus-driven model.
1697:
That's pretty much a very wrongly skewed version of notability guidelines. They may bore out from AFD discussions, but they are generally created predicated on discussion on whether a class of articles are worthy for inclusion, not because AFDs closed a certain way.
1059:
populated places are notable. 2. There has always been strong consensus on
Knowledge (XXG) that this is the case. In my opinion this should be the least controversial statement in the guidelines, as it is merely stating what has always been the consensus at AfD.
804:
There are zillions of travel guides around, both on web and in print. They have 1-2- sentences for every visible feature on the trail from Apopka to
Winnebaga. The question is whether they qualify as reliable sources of significant coverage to satisfy
1671:: Most "notability" guidelines are basically shortcuts to arguments commonly used in AfD discussions, rather than something invented on the fly. A time-saver, I would say. All "notability" guidelines are trumped by major policies, in particular, by
101:, this discussion is closed. The consensus of those participating was that the initial discussion(s) were insufficient for this page to be elevated to a guideline. Pursuant to this discussion, I have changed this page from a guideline to an essay. -
158:
If you see contradictions, please list them here. Yor opinon is just ..er.. opinion, duly noted, but useless for the purposes of this draft guideline. We don't need to discuss wikipedian's opinions, it is waste of time. We discuss page content.
1164:
Both of the examples from
Germany would be better classified as hills (judging by the topological maps), and yet they both appear to have non-statistical information available. I can only read German through Google Translate, but it looks like
923:
and having a post office puts it as being legally recognized". Isn't it a bit overstretched? Anyway, since people are using this argument, IMO the guideline must clarify what amounts to legal recognition and how it can be verified. - Altenmann
1455:
Sorry, reverted. The "inherently" stayed during years of discussion. To tilt the consensus you will need arguments stronger than "not a phrase we want". Every wikipedia policy has "rare counter-examples", and there is nothing wrong with this.
1741:
In light of the discussion above, I have made a 2nd edit, this time replacing the term "inherently notable" with "presumed notable" or something equivalent. In the context of the overall document, the phrase "considered notable," when used
1605:
that the term "inherently notable" may be safely replaced with "presumed notable". Now I see that the only difference being is that the class of "inherently notable" topics in this guideline is the topics which are "presumed notable"
1275:
I'd support promoting parts of this to guideline status, but I'm not sure that it's ready. In the "Buildings and objects" section there's the sentence: "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of
1487:
You mean "inherent notability". Well, I don't see why this guideline is not allowed to have something special. Please see my next comment and please provide a convincing argument why the concept of "inherent notability" is bad.
688:
and here, and five people are just not enough to put something in place that could affect millions of articles. I agree with re-running the RfC with much wider advertisement, and I'm certainly one who would have opposed.
623:
No, that still is of concern. I would expect that the primary editors that build up the guideline woudl be the ones most involved with the editing, but all that work must meet the larger global consensus for inclusion.
1177:, as neither seems to have significant coverage in reliable sources (just brief mentions). I actually think that it would be easier for most mountain articles to survive AfD with these guidelines in place.
935:
Having a post office certainly doesn't qualify as making something "legally recognized". There may be a post office on Yonder Hill, but that doesn't mean that Yonder Hill is a legally recognized hill.
1624:
Thanks for understanding. Just to provide further clarification as to why I am against the use of the term "inherent notability" in
Knowledge (XXG): The English-language term "inherently" means "
726:
81:
76:
71:
59:
540:. If you cannot point a finger drawbacks of WP:GNG which pose threat to wikipedia works, then there is no reason to keep it in limbo simply because that someone might dislike something in it.
916:
572:
This seems to be a useful collection of guidelines to me, and we've certainly been refining it for a while. FWIW, people have been citing it since well before it was declared "official". Per
1079:
From my experience, even large hills and tiny streams generally have non-statistical information available in local sources. I think this requirement is effectively just a clarification of
651:
If it has to meet the
General notability guideline anyway, then its pointless. If it met the GNG, then it wouldn't need to meet anything else. Despite what some misread at times,
1076:
The requirement that geographical features are only notable if more than statistical information is available is too stringent and will result in numerous articles being deleted.
213:. Don't just vaguely allude to the existence of unspecified problems and make threats of what will happen if you don't get your way. That is not a productive approach to take. —
1511:
47:
17:
495:
even more important to remember is that policies are not cast in stone. If somebody raises a valid concern, it will be dicussed and incorporated into the policy.
1519:
332:. While the work done here looks good, I'm not convinced that the vote was sufficiently advertised and I can understand the call for more discussion. Given that
1011:
1432:
edited the page to say that some things are almost always considered notable if their existence can be verified, leaving room for the rare counter-example.
457:
Sorry for confusion. I checked my contribution history and indeed it seems I forgot to post at WP:N. I did post a numerous geographical wikiprojects.
1746:
like "usually" means the same thing as "presumed notable." I would have no objection to a purely clerical harmonizing of the document, replacing
1683:: I think this consideration fairly covers your expected "rare counter-examples". If not, please explain what other situations you have in mind.
1359:
Possibly mention that this list of protections is subject to expansion basing on consensus (or not; since it is actually how wikipedia works)
1149:. If you traverse the categories for mountains you are likely to find plenty of these and quite a number of them seems even bot generated.-
1198:
verify the census (a public record, and therefore a primary source), but I'm not entirely sure. Is the "national census" in the sentence
317:
290:
186:
140:
422:
1392:
359:
by people who care. Now; you say the work looks good. Thank you. So the consensus is decided by 6 people instead of 5 now. Who else?
1083:
as it relates to geographical features. Can anyone provide an example of a currently existing article that would fail this test?
655:
is quite clear, something is notable if it meets the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines, it not having to meet both.
1395:
outcomes no longer reflect consensus. Natural features with protected status may need mentioning somewhere, as they are in the
122:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1790:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1776:
1770:
1725:
1710:
1692:
1655:
1649:
1619:
1596:
1590:
1563:
1545:
1539:
1497:
1482:
1465:
1450:
1444:
1414:
1385:
1336:
1318:
1296:
1233:
1217:
1186:
1158:
1092:
1069:
1038:
993:
979:
964:
944:
929:
897:
882:
867:
818:
795:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
785:
768:
738:
714:
695:
678:
636:
618:
603:
585:
567:
549:
523:
504:
466:
452:
438:
416:
402:
387:
368:
353:
323:
296:
268:
236:
192:
168:
146:
110:
1551:
1515:
1470:
We do not have the concept of inherited notability, anywhere; this is where "presumed notable" would be used instead. --
702:
374:
337:
329:
302:
949:
It would if the United States Postal Service had an official post office for the named community of "Yonder Hill". --
573:
1212:
984:"Legally recognized" means there is a law that recognizes it. Post offices, maps, etc. have nothing to do with it.
38:
1672:
809:. While some of them do come from serious publishers, what amount of coverage for a travel guide is "significant?
106:
1173:
is part of a nature park. So both of those would pass our criteria. However, I'm not sure they would pass the
558:, at several geographical wikiprojects, and somewhere else. And again, I apologize, I did forget about WT:N.
312:
285:
181:
135:
652:
333:
537:
202:
the comments of SMcCandlish, above, whose judgment I trust as an extremely experienced and knowledgeable
1721:
1688:
1628:
is true and it always will be." The English-language term "presumed" means "we can presume/assume that
1615:
1559:
1493:
1461:
1410:
1381:
1332:
1314:
1292:
878:
814:
733:
614:
563:
545:
500:
462:
434:
398:
364:
164:
1207:
1736:
1717:
1684:
1611:
1555:
1506:
1489:
1457:
1377:
1368:, rather than because of simply being a representative of historical panorama or "age or rarity", etc.
1310:
874:
810:
610:
559:
541:
496:
458:
430:
394:
360:
160:
920:
925:
824:
I would say that having a section (i.e. not a stub) in any big, long-established guide operation -
102:
1575:
1306:
1114:
685:
98:
975:
957:
690:
448:
412:
383:
349:
307:
280:
176:
130:
1570:
888:
well-known travel guide. But of course those are my personal criteria, not Knowledge (XXG)'s :)
1052:
This guideline changes our treatment of populated places, effectively making them all notable.
970:
clinic, evidence of a municipal structure or elections, listing as a place in a census report.
873:
Dummies in RV" is anything more than a random cut-and-paste collection with little fact check.
745:
I'm taking the liberty of copying Kmhkmh's comment from WT:N here as it's directly relevant. —
1766:
1645:
1586:
1535:
1440:
1399:
1282:
1278:
1229:
1182:
1088:
1065:
989:
940:
893:
581:
1429:
1271:
Singled out of the RFC section. Here is the start of the discussion, copied for convenience:
1406:
1373:
1328:
1288:
1170:
1154:
1142:
1102:
1048:
Some concerns were brought up during the recent un-RfC. I would like to us to discuss them:
781:
710:
656:
336:
is the parent article, it makes sense that a "heads-up" on a vote should have been given in
1174:
1080:
806:
1750:
used of "considered notable" with "presumed notable" or vice-versa. Any replacement of a
1706:
1478:
1324:
1122:
632:
599:
519:
837:
1428:
inherently notable, this is not a phrase we want to use as a notability criteria. I've
1610:, without any further conditions (other than satisfaction of the WP content policies).
1550:
Well, only 3 guidelines explicitly forbid inherent notability. This argumernt is kinda
1138:
1130:
1637:
such exceptions such we know that sooner or later one will almost certainly crop up.
576:, I'd rather see us move forward on improving it, rather than go through another RfC.
1601:
Now I understand your point better, thank you. If I understand you correctly, I will
1126:
1110:
1023:
971:
950:
852:
825:
753:
444:
408:
379:
345:
253:
221:
1055:
This objection seems to be incorrect on two counts: 1. The guideline only says that
1759:
1680:
1638:
1579:
1528:
1433:
1225:
1178:
1134:
1084:
1061:
985:
936:
889:
829:
577:
684:
To get back to the original subject, I've seen significant concern raised both at
340:. It wasn't that long ago that SNG proposals were made a bit more prominent. (See
536:
We have plenty of ways to ensure it will not become walled garden, starting with
1574:
routine/mere-mention-level coverage from reliable, independent sources, meeting
1287:
they are populated places without legal recognition); is there a reason for it?
1150:
777:
706:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1754:
use of either term should be done with care, so the meanings aren't changed.
1699:
1471:
841:
833:
625:
592:
512:
1391:
By country may be the only option, apart from removing this entirely, unless
1166:
1146:
1106:
443:
I've responded on your talk page since I think we're going in circles here.
1016:
845:
746:
528:
You got you numbers wrong, colleague. We need agreement among people who
246:
214:
1520:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability (astronomical objects)#No inherent notability
1353:
Clarify the level of protected status that decides inherent notability,
1679:, then of course the article will be deleted regardless guidelines. @
1118:
912:
re: "legally recognized, populated places" being inherently notable.
1578:). We can use a term like "presumed notable" to avoid this CREEP.
421:
Then why is your advice to do what I've done twice already? And my "
426:
1758:
to see if anyone has any objections or any better suggestions.
917:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lupton City, Chattanooga
25:
703:
Wikipedia_talk:Notability#We_have_a_new_notability_guideline!
730:, where significant input from additional editors occurred.
393:
Did you read the first sentence of what I've just written?
1309:; easily fixed: I added clarification "of national level".
1512:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability (organizations and companies)
1516:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web)#No inherent notability
555:
341:
153:
invent policies. We put past experiences into policies.
209:
If you think there are changes that need to be made,
18:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (geographic features)
1554:. Why 1 or more policies cannnot explicitly allow?
1262:
Issue resolved: No inherent notability for anything.
1254:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
245:
Weird, I totally thought he was! Correction made. —
1364:Clarify that an item protection was based on its
1756:Please wait 24 hours before making such changes
554:P.S. I did advertise the work on the policy at
128:community backing before becoming a guideline.
1669:Further clarification for newly arrived people
373:As I noted, a mention of an impending vote in
1327:or similar status, and most are not notable.
1257:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
8:
1323:National level could still include Grade II
840:as well. (Which certainly rules out our own
723:: Please be sure to also view and read the
1522:are 3 existing notability guidelines that
328:I am replying due to the above notice in
1350:Remove the phrasing "or of any other..."
1305:re: "protected status". Good catch of a
1240:Inherent notability of protected objects
1169:includes the ruins of an old castle and
301:I went ahead an started a discussion at
1422:Object to the term "inherently" notable
1024:
919:, where some of the voters wrote: "See
853:
754:
254:
222:
1346:I see at least the following options:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1632:is true until proven otherwise." It
7:
1248:The following discussion is closed.
118:The following discussion is closed.
800:Travel guides as acceptable sources
1677:no reliable sources on the subject
24:
1405:but not in the text of the page.
1786:The discussion above is closed.
791:The discussion above is closed.
727:Initial development of guideline
29:
609:panic without actual reason.
375:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability
338:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability
330:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability
303:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability
1356:Likely, on a per-country basis
1:
1039:10:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
945:20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
930:19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
898:02:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
883:19:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
868:10:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
819:00:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
679:16:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
637:03:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
619:03:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
604:17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
586:03:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
568:19:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
550:19:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
524:14:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
505:21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
467:19:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
453:07:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
439:02:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
417:01:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
403:00:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
388:21:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
369:20:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
354:20:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
324:19:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
297:19:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
237:09:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
198:RfC closure had to be sought.
193:03:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
169:02:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
147:23:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
1527:this thing, and couldn't."
1187:04:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
1159:00:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
1093:23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
1070:23:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
1006:Archiving talk for usability
269:10:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
111:17:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
965:04:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
786:04:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
769:11:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
739:03:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
715:04:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
696:02:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
1805:
1234:20:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
1218:09:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
1204:the government recognition
334:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
1744:without any qualification
1788:Please do not modify it.
1777:17:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1726:01:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1711:00:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1693:00:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1656:17:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1620:01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1597:00:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1564:00:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1546:00:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1498:00:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1483:00:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1466:00:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1451:21:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
1415:23:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1386:21:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1337:09:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1319:23:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1297:22:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1251:Please do not modify it.
994:02:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
980:07:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
793:Please do not modify it.
530:use, read and understand
120:Please do not modify it.
1015:together. Thank you. —
1424:- While things may be
42:of past discussions.
1552:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1200:the reliable source
1044:Addressing concerns
90:Premature guideline
1057:legally recognized
121:
1775:
1774:
1654:
1653:
1595:
1594:
1544:
1543:
1449:
1448:
1366:individual merits
1283:national heritage
1209:Fowler&fowler
1206:? Best regards,
915:I came here from
908:Legal recognition
737:
694:
574:WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY
119:
97:Per a request at
87:
86:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1796:
1764:
1763:
1740:
1703:
1673:WP:VERIFIABILITY
1643:
1642:
1584:
1583:
1533:
1532:
1510:
1475:
1438:
1437:
1404:
1398:
1374:user:Peter James
1325:Listed buildings
1253:
1215:
1210:
1143:Phu Xai Lai Leng
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1021:
972:Roger (Dodger67)
960:
953:
865:
864:
860:
856:
850:
771:
766:
765:
761:
757:
751:
736:
734:Northamerica1000
731:
693:
675:
672:
669:
666:
663:
660:
629:
596:
516:
320:
315:
310:
305:regarding this.
293:
288:
283:
266:
265:
261:
257:
251:
234:
233:
229:
225:
219:
189:
184:
179:
143:
138:
133:
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1804:
1803:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1734:
1701:
1504:
1473:
1402:
1396:
1269:
1249:
1242:
1213:
1208:
1195:
1123:Mount Ashibetsu
1046:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1017:
1008:
958:
951:
910:
862:
858:
854:
846:
802:
797:
796:
763:
759:
755:
747:
744:
732:
705:for details).--
673:
670:
667:
664:
661:
658:
627:
594:
514:
318:
313:
308:
291:
286:
281:
263:
259:
255:
247:
231:
227:
223:
215:
187:
182:
177:
141:
136:
131:
124:
115:
114:
113:
92:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1802:
1800:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1418:
1417:
1370:
1369:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1357:
1351:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1300:
1299:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1244:
1243:
1241:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1194:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1139:Shiceng Dashan
1131:Mount Pisshiri
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1045:
1042:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
909:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
801:
798:
790:
789:
788:
742:
741:
725:archived page
682:
681:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
588:
552:
534:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
299:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
207:
199:
155:
154:
125:
116:
103:Nathan Johnson
96:
95:
94:
93:
91:
88:
85:
84:
79:
74:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1801:
1789:
1778:
1772:
1768:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1738:
1733:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1667:
1657:
1651:
1647:
1640:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1592:
1588:
1581:
1577:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1541:
1537:
1530:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1508:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1446:
1442:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1420:
1419:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1401:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1367:
1363:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1352:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1285:
1284:
1280:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1246:
1245:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1216:
1211:
1205:
1201:
1193:Clarification
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1171:Großer Nickus
1168:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1127:Pirika Nupuri
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1111:Mount Sikaram
1108:
1104:
1103:Großer Nickus
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1043:
1041:
1040:
1037:
1032:
1022:
1020:
1013:
1005:
995:
991:
987:
983:
982:
981:
977:
973:
968:
967:
966:
963:
962:
961:
954:
948:
947:
946:
942:
938:
934:
933:
932:
931:
928:
922:
918:
913:
907:
899:
895:
891:
886:
885:
884:
880:
876:
871:
870:
869:
866:
861:
851:
849:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:Lonely Planet
823:
822:
821:
820:
816:
812:
808:
799:
794:
787:
783:
779:
774:
773:
772:
770:
767:
762:
752:
750:
740:
735:
729:
728:
722:
719:
718:
717:
716:
712:
708:
704:
698:
697:
692:
691:Seraphimblade
687:
680:
677:
676:
654:
653:WP:Notability
650:
649:
638:
634:
630:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
607:
606:
605:
601:
597:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
509:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
468:
464:
460:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
406:
405:
404:
400:
396:
392:<sigh: -->
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
376:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
357:
356:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
326:
325:
322:
321:
316:
311:
304:
300:
298:
295:
294:
289:
284:
276:
270:
267:
262:
252:
250:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
235:
230:
220:
218:
212:
208:
205:
204:administrator
200:
196:
195:
194:
191:
190:
185:
180:
172:
171:
170:
166:
162:
157:
156:
151:
150:
149:
148:
145:
144:
139:
134:
123:
112:
108:
104:
100:
89:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1787:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1676:
1668:
1633:
1629:
1625:
1607:
1602:
1523:
1425:
1421:
1371:
1365:
1345:
1277:
1270:
1261:
1256:
1250:
1247:
1203:
1199:
1196:
1135:Mount Midori
1099:
1056:
1047:
1028:
1018:
1009:
956:
955:
914:
911:
857:
847:
830:Rough Guides
803:
792:
758:
748:
743:
724:
720:
699:
683:
657:
538:WP:CONSENSUS
529:
493:
306:
279:
258:
248:
226:
216:
211:set them out
210:
203:
175:
129:
126:
117:
65:
43:
37:
1748:unqualified
1737:Staszek Lem
1718:Staszek Lem
1685:Staszek Lem
1612:Staszek Lem
1556:Staszek Lem
1507:Staszek Lem
1490:Staszek Lem
1458:Staszek Lem
1426:practically
1407:Peter James
1378:Staszek Lem
1329:Peter James
1311:Staszek Lem
1289:Peter James
875:Staszek Lem
811:Staszek Lem
611:Staszek Lem
560:Staszek Lem
542:Staszek Lem
497:Staszek Lem
459:Staszek Lem
431:Staszek Lem
423:ad Jimbonem
395:Staszek Lem
361:Staszek Lem
161:Staszek Lem
36:This is an
1524:explicitly
1115:Aktaş Dağı
921:WP:GEOLAND
842:Wikivoyage
533:agreement.
1752:qualified
1576:WP:VERIFY
1307:WP:WEASEL
1167:Gudenberg
1147:Gudenberg
1107:Shah_Dhar
834:Frommer's
99:WP:AN/RFC
82:Archive 5
77:Archive 4
72:Archive 3
66:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
1771:contribs
1650:contribs
1591:contribs
1571:WP:CREEP
1540:contribs
1445:contribs
1400:nutshell
1279:cultural
1012:archived
445:Location
409:Location
380:Location
346:Location
1760:davidwr
1681:davidwr
1639:davidwr
1634:clearly
1580:davidwr
1529:davidwr
1434:davidwr
1226:Kaldari
1179:Kaldari
1085:Kaldari
1062:Kaldari
986:Kaldari
937:Kaldari
890:Kaldari
578:Kaldari
206:editor.
39:archive
1608:per se
1518:, and
1430:boldly
1214:«Talk»
1175:WP:GNG
1151:Kmhkmh
1119:Saipal
1081:WP:GNG
952:Jayron
807:WP:GNG
778:Kmhkmh
707:Kmhkmh
556:WP:VPP
425:" was
1630:xxxxx
1626:xxxxx
1603:agree
1372:Ping
1010:I've
926:: -->
844:!) —
838:WP:RS
674:Focus
427:irony
407:Yep.
319:Space
292:Space
188:Space
142:Space
16:<
1767:talk
1722:talk
1702:ASEM
1689:talk
1646:talk
1616:talk
1587:talk
1560:talk
1536:talk
1494:talk
1474:ASEM
1462:talk
1441:talk
1411:talk
1382:talk
1376:. -
1333:talk
1315:talk
1293:talk
1230:talk
1183:talk
1155:talk
1089:talk
1066:talk
990:talk
976:talk
941:talk
894:talk
879:talk
815:talk
782:talk
721:Note
711:talk
686:WT:N
628:ASEM
615:talk
595:ASEM
582:talk
564:talk
546:talk
515:ASEM
501:talk
463:talk
449:talk
435:talk
413:talk
399:talk
384:talk
365:talk
350:talk
342:diff
314:From
309:Them
287:From
282:Them
183:From
178:Them
165:talk
137:From
132:Them
107:talk
1769:)/(
1648:)/(
1589:)/(
1538:)/(
1443:)/(
1393:AFD
1281:or
1202:or
1019:Hex
848:Hex
749:Hex
344:.)
249:Hex
217:Hex
1724:)
1709:)
1698:--
1691:)
1618:)
1562:)
1514:,
1496:)
1481:)
1464:)
1413:)
1403:}}
1397:{{
1384:)
1335:)
1317:)
1295:)
1232:)
1185:)
1157:)
1145:,
1141:,
1137:,
1133:,
1129:,
1121:,
1117:,
1109:,
1105:,
1091:)
1068:)
1034:❞)
1030:?!
1026:(❝
992:)
978:)
959:32
943:)
896:)
881:)
863:❞)
859:?!
855:(❝
832:,
828:,
817:)
784:)
764:❞)
760:?!
756:(❝
713:)
635:)
624:--
617:)
602:)
584:)
566:)
548:)
522:)
503:)
465:)
451:)
437:)
415:)
401:)
386:)
367:)
352:)
264:❞)
260:?!
256:(❝
232:❞)
228:?!
224:(❝
167:)
109:)
1773:)
1765:(
1762:/
1739::
1735:@
1720:(
1707:t
1705:(
1700:M
1687:(
1652:)
1644:(
1641:/
1614:(
1593:)
1585:(
1582:/
1558:(
1542:)
1534:(
1531:/
1509::
1505:@
1492:(
1479:t
1477:(
1472:M
1460:(
1447:)
1439:(
1436:/
1409:(
1380:(
1331:(
1313:(
1291:(
1228:(
1181:(
1153:(
1125:,
1113:,
1087:(
1064:(
988:(
974:(
939:(
927:t
892:(
877:(
813:(
780:(
709:(
671:m
668:a
665:e
662:r
659:D
633:t
631:(
626:M
613:(
600:t
598:(
593:M
580:(
562:(
544:(
520:t
518:(
513:M
499:(
461:(
447:(
433:(
411:(
397:(
382:(
363:(
348:(
163:(
105:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.