1933:
this isn't good enough for notability, so other investigations have to be undertaken. Having census numbers is, I think we all agree, sufficient proof of some level of actual populated locale with a name. What I've found in many areas, though, is that the place in question is a ranch or especially a point on the railroad, most often the location of a passing siding or junction. These all were given names by the railroad because they needed to be referred to by name, but it's common enough that the spot is isolated and had nothing else around it. What we have found, however, is that a number of these isolated stations contained post offices. There also was apparently a period in the late 1880s where the postal service would have a "post office" apparently at some farmer's house (see
703:: I would like to address this repeated concern some have regarding "to declare half a million Grade II listed buildings to merit an article". 1)- This does not neutrally start a discussion on fact finding, 2)- This is an encyclopedia that as I have read does not have limited space, 3)- while "other stuff" is not a good argument, if there was a project started to record the nationally listed historical buildings in the UK it would not be a bad thing, certainly as noble and with as much historical significance as ships or lighthouses, and from my point of view far more encyclopedic than listing all Playboy bunny's. However, I am not advocating this as I would like to find more sourcing than one list and this has been evident in my discussions like at
1003:
articles for the thousands of unremarkable lakes in
Minnesota alone, much less millions of separate articles for each of these troughs of water in the world. This example could easily fit in a statewide list of lakes, or that could be split by region or county. What makes a lake notable? The same thing as what makes other things notable: people have published significant content about the subject in reliable sources. I'm all for preserving content, but short of significant coverage that content should not be on individual articles, especially in cases like this where there are multiple obvious places that is can be or already is provided.
762:
areas do not need separate mention. A discussion would need to be how we can "not" end up with "a half million" listings that might only have one source. Using the sourcing guidelines to try to find sourcing for the protected areas and then the allowable inclusion (from a national listing) would be a solution not trying to argue that, 1)- the guideline does not specifically mean "buildings", that UK protection is really just a zoning tool, or that OMG! we might have too many articles on
Knowledge (XXG). You guys figure it out as I am going to try to work on the sourcing aspect that is not related to this discussion. ---and now work calls.
1960:
Sunshine, Arizona; the post office was located at a railroad siding called
Sunshine but the post office was named Meteor; by postal regulation, the name of the post office should generally indicate the primary community being served. In this case however there was no town/village/hamlet named Meteor and it was likely set up to serve an entirely rural population. This sort of thing probably happened a lot back in the days when most mail was transported by rail. A post office would be placed at a railway stop to conveniently send/receive the mail but the customers served could be entirely rural or located in communities some distance away.
310:"This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject," people are saying that because government maps are "legal", and presence on the map and database is "recognition", there is "inherent notability" of the neighborhood, and this guideline's and the GNG's requirement for non-trivial coverage in multiple sources ā or at least the exclusion of maps ā does not apply. This creates a contradiction in the guideline for which bullet point does apply.
1135:-satisfying sources, yes. There are published, independent, accurate records documenting my pool's location, size, elevation, how many gallons of water it holds, what materials it's constructed from, when it was installed, who supplied the materials and performed the labor, who owns it, when it was inspected and by whom, and so forth. You'll even find it mentioned in some newspaper reportsāwhich, of course, aren't about the pool itself but about things that happened at the pool, but that would be a classic example of a non-GNG RS. To put a finer point on it, there is also a
727:
It is not a "straw cottage" and I am still looking for sources but it seems to me that an argument against recording these buildings somewhere, especially if they were designed or built by a notable architect or builder, would be one a developer wanting to build a new mall would make. The conservation areas, used as zoning tools or not, are nationally listed and they carry the weight of statues ensuring protection, seems strange. The same could be said for individual buildings but scarce sourcing would likely end up with perennial discussions which I do not like.
723:
found the historical writing on the buildings (or areas) like in the U.S. on the NRHP buildings. There may not be any secondary sourcing (geeze that seems dubious and I have found some) that is important. The end result is still the preservation of history and recording historically significant buildings. If sourcing is scarce then a central location like "Chiselhurst
Conservation Area" (in the case that led to this) is not advocating for a half a million articles that is more like 350,000 but I haven't looked just used some calculations on shown percentages.
1244:
secondary sources in order to be deemed notable. I have many times argued at AfD for the deletion of e.g., BLPs of athletes where the only sources available were statistics websites or game reports, and the articles are nevertheless kept. I'd be in favor of explicitly requiring secondary sourcing for GEOLAND (and everything else). Though I think V and NOR are already pretty clear about this, I'm not sure that there would be consensus for revising GEOLAND's language to require secondary sourcing if that were put to an RfC. Perhaps we'll see.
1561:
language should be changed (yet), but I think workshopping some language might be fruitful. I'm not really seeing the reason to separate, e.g., lakes from rivers. I think if we looked at GEOLAND#4 (and btw one of the changes I would suggest is changing the bullets to a numbered list), we could probably come up with some language that is clearer than "enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article" but that would also apply equally to any named natural feature.
1675:
clues that point the way to RS coverage. "Nothing in the satellite view" shows that the editor looked and didn't find anything like a railroad, mine, landing strip or townsite that could be useful in the search for sources. I would also echo
Bkonrad's point that the burden to verify the existence of a place should be on the editors wishing to include it; "maybe there used to be something there and now it's gone" is a common-but fallacious "keep" argument. ā
31:
1401:. There was no consensus for further fragmentation in the case of rivers above and so it makes no sense to now propose one for another type of body of water. The fine distinctions between lakes, ponds, meres, lochs, tarns, &c. are many and varied. Trying to make precise formal rules for everything is not our business and tends not to work because the world just isn't that simple and so there always complications and corner cases. See
291:). Yet people are claiming that this guideline's line "Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. ā any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources." does not apply because it is not a "Populated place without legal recognition".
1312:
discussion as well, which is consensus - there's information on
Bachelor Lake beyond mere statistics, but there's not heaps of information on Bachelor Lake, and whether the lake should have a stand-alone article is based on whether there's consensus there's enough information for an article. I sort of like the "can fit in a list cell" rule but still think the process is generally working.
1856:
a minimal degree of acknowledgement that there is or was enough of a population for recognition. You're right to note that the source for
Blaisdell just says it was a station ā a lot of these POs are from the time before cars so they were spread a lot more widely in sparsely populated areas! I wonder if anyone has info about how the USPO decided where to open new offices. I did find
189:. These are routine subdivisions of homes (sometimes neighborhoods within an incorporated city), small unincorporated places, or perhaps not even a place at all. Can we establish that listing in the GNIS or an atlas of place names does not establish notability? They could be mentioned in the township or county articles but there is no evidence of notability for their own articles.
1465:
1641:? A secondary issue is that while I agree that a satellite image that shows nothing today means that there probably was no populated place or traces of a populated place at the time the image was taken. However, a satellite image that shows nothing today does not mean that there never was a populated place. Comments?
1147:, and my local state's environmental authorities. I can source the bog's location, size, elevation, wildlife, vegetation, and more; I can say it's listed as a threatened wetland and is legally protected by national and regional authorities. If the bog had a name, it'd be the exact same level of sourcing for
283:) is a clearly a neighborhood, a subdivision, a housing development ā whatever you call it, it's a dozen or so homes on a Brentwood Drive that has given itself a name; I cannot find any source of substance providing further information about it. Contrary to the mass-created article it is within incorporated
314:
defined to exclude neighborhoods, subdivisions, or streets mentioned in "Populated places without legal recognition". I certainly welcome articles about unincorporated communities, but I an wary of the use of using only names on a map or in a database without context or substance to establish notability.
1910:
My feeling is the presence of a USPO might strongly indicate a place is likely to be a "populated, legally recognized place", but it is obviously not a catch-all - it's conceivable that a PO might be set up somewhere where people work or travel through but don't live. On the other hand the absence of
1860:
that says a handful of people lived there better than the names book though. I do wish people wouldn't so haphazardly create microstubs of "Smallsville is a place in a state. It was named after Bill Small." They'd get a lot more eyes than one every other day if mentioned as part of the history of the
1636:
In the discussion of whether a geographic location is notable, I've seen a few editors state that they used Google Maps to look at a satellite image of the location and because there is nothing there, then the page should be deleted, perhaps because there never was a populated place there. Does this
1077:
information beyond stats and coordinates? Why "known to exist" (as opposed to "available for us to use" or something like that)? And who is to judge whether "a
Knowledge (XXG) article can be developed"? I can develop a Knowledge (XXG) article about the pool in my backyard; it doesn't make it notable.
1959:
Sometimes a post office can provide a clue about population and legal recognition of a place but it's not always clear cut, especially in rural areas. The site of a post office and the community it serves are not always the same thing. An example of this came up in the recent deletion discussion for
1942:
is that post offices had to be thick enough on the ground for people to be able to go to them to pick up their mail, so there were post offices in a lot of places where there were no towns, and before zip codes, each of these offices had to have a "town" name. If we want to say that every place that
1937:
for an example). It's really the same problem as with railroad names: it establishes a placename, but it doesn't say what that place isā unless we want to say that post offices themselves are notable, just as some have argued that every point on the railroad is notable, which at least for the USA we
1855:
says "cities and villages...are generally kept", and this has tended to override the vague "legally recognized." The interpretation has typically been though that if the US Post Office has a location with that name or any national census counts it as a separate place for counting inhabitants, it has
1820:
In looking at the archives, it seems like there are many different opinions about the definition of "Populated, legally recognized places". I've been using the presence/absence of a Post Office to help me determine whether a location in the United States is a legally recognized place. My rationale
1699:
if the situation was there was a populated area that just seemed sort of small, so it was a judgement call whether or not it was not notable and you were using the satellite to count houses and roads. But, really I think people are using it for all these articles for Old West railroad junctions that
1306:
is our main proxy for notability - if something appears in approximately three independent secondary sources, it's generally notable. One of the five pillars of
Knowledge (XXG) is that we function like a gazetteer, though we're not a true gazetteer in the sense that every feature gets an article, or
1081:
Do all lakes have to meet GNG, or does GEOLAND create an exception? This seems like a big open question, and likely controversial. My suggestion would be to just say, "named natural features must meet GNG to be notable", and leave it at that. In other words, I kind of don't see a need for GEOLAND to
1016:
I agree with you on this Reywas92, there are millions. However the ones I consider notable fit into some criteria. As i pointed out in the
Bachelor Lake AfD: Minnesota has criteria, whereby Levivich's fictional pool described below would not be considered a notable lake. Minnesota requires a lake be
912:
Knowledge (XXG) article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river.
722:
brought up valid points on "grade II buildings" in the UK. The national listing is locally run and more or less is a type of zoning ordinance and Knowledge (XXG) has not typically listed grade II buildings. At this point I can see why but I am "across the pond" and have concerns that I have just not
346:
on the original question, different national governments afford legal recognition in different ways. In Canada, for example, Statistics Canada maintains a standard of "designated places" that is more detailed than the set of places with local governments, or local administrative areas, or even areas
313:
Therefore I would suggest clarifying that "Populated, legally recognized places" have status such as a local government or council, accepted boundaries or statistics, or other civil record. "Legally recognized places" that may have a lower threshold than GNG for when notability is presumed should be
1713:
a town there at some point, then it should be a ghost town, and structures would still be there, and it would probably be notable as a ghost town. But it's hard to find notability in a town that was completely razed, when there is nothing written about it giving it notability (such as if it were an
1656:
Yeah, to some extent it is original research. But then again, the burden for verifiable content is on those who want to include it. There are *widely* disparate definitions of "populated place" and not all of them are necessarily encyclopedic. The US geographic survey may well have labelled a small
726:
Does there need to be clarification on two points that would lead to consistency on the criterion? The Derwent House was built in 1899 and things like the bay windows are still used in buildings to this day so it is among those that has contributed to our architectural history in the United States.
380:
but, being uninhabited, it may fall foul of the inherent notability deemed to apply to populated places. I'm guessing that at some point it must have been inhabited, otherwise it would not be considered a village. These uninhabited places have defined boundaries and remain administrative units. Any
1932:
The presenting problem in all of this is that we have many places recorded where essentially all the article says is that is a "populated" place, and where the article says little if anything other than the location and elevation as recorded in GNIS or GEONames. And we have taken the position that
911:
Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a
649:
My take on this is that we should use discretion. The average normal-sized house, cottage or shop is probably not notable even if it's listed. However, large houses and stores, public buildings, clubs, churches, schools, pubs, farms, etc, should be considered notable even if they are only Grade II
1674:
and couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. This type of super-thorough WP:BEFORE search often involves a certain amount of original research; although satellite views, personal websites and online forums can't be used as references or to establish notability, they can provide
1311:
proxy - as long as there's more written about a feature than just statistics which could be derived from maps or gazetteers (see small streams or lakes in northern Quebec) there's a good chance the feature is notable enough for an article. I think the Bachelor Lake AfD shows the other half of the
1176:
sources. And yet another guideline: sources of local production usually do not count towards notability. And many more. We had this discussions during "establishment days", because this applies not only to your pool, but to Pizza Hut next door, your uncle Bob being local church choirmaster, your
761:
If a building is considered an artificial geographic feature then any argument that the above twice mentioned protection status might somehow not apply to buildings is comical at best and might even be considered silly. If that is true then there is no confusion and UK buildings and conservation
1560:
My two cents is that yes, there should be an RfC, specifically to change the language of GEOLAND to something clearer that will help article creators and AfD !voters determine notability. A better yardstick, or a better rule of thumb, than what is currently written. I'm not sure exactly how the
1002:
There are millions and millions of lakes in the world, many of which are named, many of which have etymology for that name or routine statistical (and often non-site-specific) content about the local geography, local watershed, elevation, and size ranking. Knowledge (XXG) does not need separate
567:
I agree, Scope covers (or more accurately, eliminates) historical buildings that are implied by NRHP or the like that they don't fall under thing. But I would think that obvious mega-structures like the Hoover Dam or Panama Canal, specifically engineered to alter geography, would be "artificial
1243:
Yes I agree, I couldn't do it without relying too much on primary sources. Of course, GEOLAND doesn't require secondary sources.Ā :-) In my admittedly-anecdotal experience, articles are not actually required to have secondary sources, nor are article topics required to be supported by available
733:
should revolve around the apparently unclear criterion, should there be something directly related to the UK, or can the wording be tweaked to be more clear and this would likely involve a RFC. To me it would seem that "Buildings and objects" as well as "Roadways" should be a sub-heading under
405:
Without looking into the related discussion, I would simply note that, on the one hand, formerly inhabited places don't cease to be Notable when they become uninhabited. On the other hand, though, there is no presumptive notability for officially-recognized unpopulated places unless it can be
1369:. The guidelines worked in the case of the lake mentioned (although I tend to believe two good sources is enough if they are solid). But I also see no need to condense everything into cells and redirect everything. As SportingFlyer has stated, the process is working. What you saw at the
1782:
In the latter case, there is plenty enough documentary evidence; if there is an issue it is where the coordinates given in the article come from. We have also had cases where there were errors in the coordinates given in GNIS or Geonames which were revealed by looking at aerial photos.
1078:
And if you say, "Well, only a Knowledge (XXG) article that is policy-compliant", that's circular, because we're trying to decide in this guideline what type of sourcing is policy-compliant. (GEOLAND is just as vague as GNG's "in depth" requirement. How in depth is in depth enough?)
1911:
one is obviously not grounds to suggest we shouldn't have an article on a place. Many ghost towns for example had their heyday before the railroad and telegraph arrived, and there may be all sorts of other reasons why relatively large populated places lacked a PO. For example
115:. These places are not "legally recognized", being unincorporated, and the lack of any search results indicates they do not exist. They apparently existed at some point in the past which got the name in a database, but the negligent writing of the articles as "Midway Corners
430:"Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available, are presumed to be notable"
1821:
in part is that to have a Post Office requires U.S. federal government recognition that the place is sufficiently important enough to pay to have a Post Office and staff. The Post Office question has been coming up recently in our cleanup of Arizona places, see
758:. I declare that there is not one single hint in our policies and guidelines or our practice that there is intrinsic or inherent "automatic" notability allowing inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). All other factors aside consensus still is a main determining factor.
1708:
And you can check the date on the bottom as to when the image was taken (2020 in this case). So unless they've built an entire town in the last five minutes or it's populated by troglodytes, the satellite data is a tool to confirm it doesn't exist. It there
1943:
has a post office is notable, well then, we need to say what sort of place that is, and if we think that place would not be notable otherwise by virtue of what it is, then I would tend to say that a psot office doesn't push it over the line to notability.
1976:
Thank you everyone who commented. It seems like there is no hard and fast rule concerning Post Offices and that there are many exceptions. It seems that it is probably not sufficient if the only evidence of notability is that there was a Post Office.
1065:
sources there are, it matters how much information is in those sources. A lake that is the subject of two books all about the lake will be "more notable" than another lake that is the subject of 1,000 statistical databases that only briefly mention
981:
I've got a personal rough rule for this sort of thing, and it's not just for geographical features: if an article could be put into a few cells of an excel spreadsheet, it's better presented as a row in a table. That's the case for this article.
1373:
AfD is many long time adversaries clashing. There were two BADNAC of the AfD, one ANI, and walls of text. There was also edit warring that even carried over to this morning and now more hand wringing here. I think this lake was an aberration.
1816:
are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable."
305:
is one other neighborhood/subdivision/housing development on it. Many other resources such as Google Maps and weather and real estate websites use the coordinates from that database to generate search results. Although this would fall under
303:
1017:
at least ten acres, so that excludes pools and ponds. The neighboring state of Wisconsin has zero criteria for lakes, so any pond can be called a lake. We have room to make an article for any notable lake, and include it in a cell. JMHO
624:
you think it covers exactly? What it's saying is that even if these structures and buildings are not listed as cultural heritage then they may still be notable for other reasons. And that's the way AfDs have always interpreted it. --
294:
So what is the recognition here? The US Geological Society has a database of place names; anything that has appeared on a map has an entry in the database: towns, neighborhoods, subdivisions, parks, buildings, natural features etc.
251:
I guess this is in response to my thread above. It ought to be pretty obvious that "significant coverage" in GNG does not include database entries but apparently not to the people who believe in "inherent notability", and I would
880:
288:
256:
this change. But this article's "legally recognized" line should also be clarified since people think appearing in a database of names or in a government document is legal recognition, resulting in automatic notability.
1759:
defines a Barren Site as "*Site is no longer in existence, *Site has been destroyed, covered with water, or has reverted to empty land, *May have at most a few difficult-to-find foundations/footings" For example,
478:
Also to the above, I would assume "artificial geographic features" would be things like the Panama Canal, Hoover Dam, and other things that actually affect geography, rather historically important buildings?
1705:
347:
with available statistics. I would assume that, because they are legally designated under the Ststistics Act, all such locations would, if currently populated, fall under the category of "Populated places
1035:, 10 acres is just an arbitrary cut-off so they can give a precise number close to their 10,000 lakes nickname. Crossing a state border should hardly affect notability, nor should size, big or small, nor
280:
1344:
to move this forward. So, if that makes sense generally, I will be preparing a draft for review based upon the input here. In the meantime, I will wait a bit to see if there's additional input on this.ā
376:. Among the problems was that the list stated there were 181 villages but the 2011 census records 187. Some of the 187 were uninhabited at that time and the census shows them as such.I've just created
108:
1307:
even a mention in a list, as gazetteers typically function more like dictionaries than encyclopaedias. What this means in practice though is that notability for geographic features is lower than our
258:
186:
216:
This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.
94:
86:
81:
69:
64:
59:
178:
1833:
for their efforts here in identifying a number of clearly non-notable locations. Mainly, I'd like get a sense of what the consensus is (if any) about whether having a Post Office satisfies
1701:
174:
123:
so even if this name was once used in the past it is clearly not a notable place. There are scores of articles like this one and comment on moving forward regarding these is appreciated.
1272:- Y'all miss the major point of GEOLAND. The point is that for geofeatures, formally here is a HUGE number of reliable sources: maps, stats databases, etc. Hence the clause is added:
1431:
Thanks everyone for your comments. I hear the points that the guidelines don't need to be changed, but I think at the very least it would help to have an essay. For instance, should
367:
182:
1826:
388:
1882:
with nice templates listing all their stations. I was surprised that even major railroad article in the US don't seem amenable to accommodating redirects from minor stations.----
1670:
Since it's nearly impossible to prove that a place has never been populated, editors who nominate a "populated place" for deletion have to demonstrate that they've looked
47:
17:
1822:
1477:. I think this could apply to rivers or other geographic features. It's much similar than the attempt to write notability guidelines for rivers earlier, for instance.ā
432:
to declare half a million Grade II listed buildings to merit an article, even if there are few or no details in reliable sources other than the fact of such listing?
1861:
railroad or region ā write an article when it's demonstrated there is coverage for an independent page, not simply existence (or not) = notability = article mandate.
715:
1737:(in absence of WP:GNG which discuss the subject in depth). It dos not qualify as original research because these images are not used as references in the article.
391:
has become messy because I didn't explain myself very well. I don't want to forum shop this but it affects a lot of potential articles, probably in the thousands. -
1144:
1536:
904:
307:
469:
has only 80,000 individually listed sites for a much larger (albeit younger) country. (Please don't tell me someone has been mass-creating stubs of these...)
1085:
If we do have to come up with "a rule" for lakes and other geographical features, I like the "if it fits on a table, don't have a stand-alone article" rule.
107:
There are many mass-created stubs of non-existent or very small non-notable places based only on a context-free listing in a geographic names database.
1893:
Agreed, maybe the wikiproject has guidance on that, but unfortunately I'm not interested enough in railroad stations to do it myself, short of a basic
1365:
I respect SportingFlyer's thoughts here: we often get to the right result through consensus and notability for geographic features is lower than our
829:(which has much more refs. Therefore I would suggest to accept the draft and let the normal editing proceed from this. (I will certainly chirp in).
826:
754:
does give the presumption of notability. I get a twinge of pain every time I see an editor use the word "automatic" or try to equate it to meaning
1217:
1148:
876:
1071:... information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist ... If a Knowledge (XXG) article cannot be developed using known sources ...
809:
While the article may be improved, it certainly meets GEOLAND, having 600+ persons and two minor books published about it (may be found in the
465:
Goodness no. That would be an absurdly broad interpretation to include 500,000 buildings by default regardless of independent coverage. The US
1878:, but historic US railroad articles seem to be in rather poor shape. In the UK all new and disused rail routes seem to have articles such as
120:
245:
686:
Of course, but we're only talking here about notability deriving from historical listing. Anything can be notable if it satisfies GNG. --
510:
No it doesn't, given the Historic England listing usually gives fairly substantial information. This is more than "simple statistics". --
650:
listed. If a street contains a lot of listed houses or shops then we should have an article on the street. It's all about discretion. --
1326:
1205:
232:
from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject.
1657:
grouping of buildings in a remote area as a populated place and given it a name. That doesn't necessarily mean the place is notable.
1879:
1700:
were created as "populated places" even though there is not a single structure anywhere and no evidence it existed. For example,
1109:=- No you cannot: you ignored and important rule " developed using known sources" (a sloppy wording but in wp we understand that
954:
373:
1139:
behind my house. The bog has legal protection status (it is a protected wetland). There are environmental reports published by
599:
The fact that the guideline lists "Artificial geographical features" separately from "private buildings", means that buildings
1986:
1969:
1952:
1925:
1901:
1888:
1865:
1846:
1792:
1777:
1756:
1746:
1728:
1682:
1665:
1650:
1611:
1594:
1573:
1548:
1507:
1486:
1448:
1422:
1383:
1353:
1331:
1293:
1256:
1236:
1210:
1186:
1167:
1122:
1097:
1043:
1026:
1007:
995:
969:
936:
862:
838:
803:
771:
695:
681:
659:
634:
615:
594:
580:
562:
537:
519:
505:
491:
473:
460:
441:
415:
400:
360:
337:
318:
265:
193:
168:
146:
127:
1585:: the current GEOLAND language and a section to start working on the new language for GEOLAND. Any input is appreciated.ā
1059:
The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article
261:
is the example of this misunderstanding despite the complete lack of any substance to any of the "sources" thrown at it.
1894:
1539:, it could be an essay. What do you think? And, do you think it could apply to other geographic features, like rivers?ā
1340:
Thanks so much. There has been a lot of great input here. It has been suggested that the next step could be creating a
1531:
I am kind of hoping to have input on that. Some say that there's enough already in the guidelines. But, I think if it
1472:
with the draft, which I purposefully kept brief. If I have missed an important point, though, in the process --: -->
738:
and this might even be uncontested. I would like to point out that the guideline appears to be clear in two places,
943:
38:
1852:
1599:
Awesome! I see we already have a couple draft sections to digest. Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts.
710:
I always advocate for sourcing, am not a fan of stubby stubs or dictionary entries, and my discussion, as well as
620:
It also lists "Artificial features related to infrastructure (for example, bridges and dams)" separately. So what
1418:
927:
Do you have guidance regarding what makes a lake notable, or specific comments about Bachelor Lake's notability?ā
324:
Is this āclarificationā or a proposed rule change? Can you show established consensus for that interpretation?
1582:
1474:
1436:
886:
It's been a contentious discussion, which basically revolves around whether this article is notable, such as:
112:
1318:
1284:, but somehow this advise was lost from the guideline body since last time I took part in discussions here.
1197:
947:
300:
1590:
1544:
1482:
1444:
1349:
965:
932:
669:
411:
356:
276:
1965:
1742:
1289:
1182:
1140:
1118:
834:
677:
558:
533:
501:
456:
241:
164:
142:
796:. Let alone figure out which of the many possible transliterations of the name to use as a title. --
1738:
1285:
1178:
1114:
830:
673:
554:
529:
497:
452:
237:
160:
138:
111:
didn't get much attention but closed as redirect, and I have also started a discussion of the similar
1414:
1379:
1022:
691:
655:
630:
590:
515:
284:
1809:
1398:
1282:
It is advised to include identifiable minor geographic features within articles for larger features.
1221:
1173:
1152:
917:
793:
296:
134:
1939:
1920:
1883:
1679:
899:
It has basic statistical information, but a few additional points, too, like how it was named, etc.
719:
437:
1406:
1191:
This is also an absolute straw man, as neither the pool nor the bog are "named natural features."
1039:ā just whether we have substantive coverage on it. Inclusion in tables is wholeheartedly welcome!
1714:
old fort that was destroyed in a skirmish or a gold rush town that was once a major junction, or
1606:
1568:
1502:
1313:
1251:
1231:
1192:
1162:
1092:
859:
848:
814:
800:
704:
1912:
1402:
1172:
No you cannot. You forgot about one more requirement: you cannot base an article exclusively on
1061:
should be rewritten to remove the reference to "the number of known sources". It doesn't matter
1897:
or something to consolidate these historical sidings with the sources we've found previously.
1662:
1586:
1555:
1540:
1495:. It looks like a good summary of the discussion so far. Where do you see us going from here?
1492:
1478:
1440:
1345:
961:
928:
407:
352:
332:
1857:
496:
Why are y'all in panic? The guideline says "NO", see the colored quote above (grammo fixed).
152:
1961:
1948:
1788:
1765:
1764:
is now the location of a large open pit mine. Today's satellite imagery for locations like
767:
396:
1432:
1410:
1394:
1366:
1341:
1308:
1303:
1128:
921:
852:
822:
665:
525:
1982:
1842:
1773:
1761:
1719:
1646:
1375:
1018:
687:
651:
626:
611:
586:
576:
511:
487:
377:
1752:
1696:
1638:
1132:
1110:
159:(I copied the ref from the killed page, of course, after checking if it is still valid).
847:. If somebody ever writes an article about the mountain range, they can rename this to
1934:
1916:
1676:
989:
789:
433:
389:
Knowledge (XXG):Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_21#Category:Uninhabited_villages
1898:
1873:
1862:
1602:
1578:
1564:
1528:
1498:
1370:
1247:
1227:
1158:
1088:
1040:
1004:
856:
810:
797:
470:
315:
262:
190:
124:
1718:). It just doesn't meet the qualifications. PS Thanks for starting this discussion.
1658:
711:
326:
813:
fans' blog listed. The title should be based on our standard uk: translit, i.e.:
1944:
1915:
list shows several places designated in the census lacking a PO in 1940 such as
1830:
1784:
1695:
there is nothing there or something there. IMO using satellite imagery would be
763:
392:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1069:
The guideline is really useless because of it boils down to these two phrases:
1978:
1838:
1805:
Is the presence of Post Office sufficient to fulfill legally recognized place?
1769:
1642:
1032:
604:
569:
548:
528:, kicks in which, per our policies, trumps all topical notability guidelines.
480:
451:. I guess not. Otherwise you would have fixed this outrageous grammo. (Fixed)
1302:
The two most basic concepts of Knowledge (XXG) are notability and consensus.
672:
was born there and every year it is a center of Zamunda National Pilgrimage.
1435:
take precedence over lakes being protected. I am going to summarize this at
983:
946:
page, which has a row for Bachelor Lake. And, there are lakes listed in the
1535:
clear there wouldn't have been so much debate. If it's not to tweak to the
792:. I'm having a hard time deciding if the sources are good enough to meet
449:
and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available
844:
818:
718:
is that lacking such sources that a suitable place be found for merging.
585:
This section has always been taken to cover buildings of all sorts. --
553:
Buildings affect geography big time. In any case, see "Scope" section.
119:
an unincorporated community..." has no basis. The coordinates point to
851:
at that time, and provide the appropriate navigation aids (hatnote or
1107:
I can develop a Knowledge (XXG) article about the pool in my backyard
924:, etc. come up in discussions. Also with different interpretations.
272:
GEOLAND is self-contradictory ā what is a "legally recognized place"?
1216:
If the bog had a name, it'd be the exact same level of sourcing for
137:, I bellieve) an article cannot be based solely on primary sources.
1938:
have tended to reject. What seems have happened in the days before
1270:
Do all lakes have to meet GNG, or does GEOLAND create an exception?
1127:
I can develop an article about my pool using reliable sources. Not
821:
about the mountain range, which is vastly more notable, includeing
109:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Willowbrook Estates, Indiana
748:
protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites
664:
Not exactly so. Even a straw cottage is notable, if it satisfies
259:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana
187:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hildebrand Village, Indiana
1036:
466:
1751:
Thanks all. I was just curious if this crossed the line in to
1274:
information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist
1136:
372::I've been fixing problems relating to the articles listed at
179:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Southeast Manor, Indiana
25:
1706:
The satellite shows there's not a damn thing anywhere around.
1702:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Rocky Junction, Arizona
1870:
Merging such stubs to railway articles would be a good idea
1768:
give no indication that there was a populated place there.
387:
I have had no response and a somewhat related discussion at
175:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sleepy Hollow, Indiana
368:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes
183:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Brent Woods, Indiana
1827:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Chiricahua, Arizona
1278:"if it fits on a table, don't have a stand-alone article"
524:
Yes it does. If there is substantial information, then
406:
demonstrated that they were formerly populated, AFAIK.
156:
942:
A relevant part of this discussion is that there is a
893:
Protected status - it's a protected lake in Minnesota
18:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (geographic features)
1823:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Araby, Arizona
428:Is it really the intention of the policy statement
366:I'm struggling with a similar issue, as I noted at
1280:. In fact, the guideline says in its "Nutshell":
1733:I agree that satellite images are valid tool to
209:to address modern technologies for data storage
133:Database is a primary source. Per our policies (
909:
1276:. And you are right: it may be rephrased as
875:There has been an ongoing issue about whether
1031:Minnesota does not define a lake by its size
883:(and other places, like ANI and user pages).
8:
817:notice the dab- the main article should be
224:This guideline specifically excludes maps,
1155:(sure to become a blue link any day now).
916:This is being interpreted differently and
843:OK, I'm going to accept this, and call it
603:under "artificial geographic features". --
230:, and other aggregate information sources
1691:Satellite is useful tool when you need
1218:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)
1149:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)
877:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1215:
1106:
1070:
1058:
448:
371:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1581:Ok. I have added two sections to the
7:
1835:Populated, legally recognized places
1814:Populated, legally recognized places
1131:-satisfying sources, of course, but
370:recently. What I queried there was:
1537:WP:Notability (geographic features)
905:WP:Notability (geographic features)
1919:which had a population of 500.----
1895:Southern Pacific Railroad stations
1491:Thanks for putting this together,
855:page). Thanks for your help. --
103:Non-existent unincorporated places
24:
1880:Mangotsfield and Bath branch line
1463:
736:Artificial geographical features
374:List of villages in Mawal taluka
29:
1837:. Comments are most welcome.
1177:garage band, and what's not.
825:. BTW, it must be linked with
788:Could somebody take a look at
752:officially assigned the status
716:closer that allowed a reprieve
201:
1:
1953:17:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
1926:07:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
1902:07:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
1889:07:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
1866:06:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
1847:04:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
1793:16:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
1778:03:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
1757:List of ghost towns in Nevada
1747:23:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
1729:22:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
1683:22:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
1666:22:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
1651:22:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
1473:please feel free to edit the
1054:A few off-the-cuff thoughts:
863:19:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
839:02:27, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
804:01:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
447:Did you read what you cited?
1858:another source for Blaisdell
1612:04:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1595:04:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1574:04:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1549:03:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1508:03:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1487:01:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1449:00:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1423:09:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
1395:general notability guideline
1384:01:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
1044:20:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
1027:01:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
424:UK Grade II Listed buildings
1704:which spawned this thread.
1354:04:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1332:01:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1294:00:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1257:04:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1237:04:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1211:04:41, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1187:00:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1168:23:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1123:23:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1098:22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1008:19:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
996:19:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
970:19:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
937:19:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
756:a presumption of notability
202:Change to 'Sources' section
2003:
944:List of lakes in Minnesota
568:geographical features". --
1987:17:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
1970:16:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
772:15:27, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
740:"This page in a nutshell"
696:13:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
682:19:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
660:13:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
635:14:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
616:14:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
595:13:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
581:00:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
563:22:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
538:19:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
520:13:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
506:22:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
492:22:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
474:21:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
461:21:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
442:15:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
121:about a dozen rural homes
1735:challenge the notability
1475:Draft:Notability (lakes)
1437:Draft:Notability (lakes)
1111:sources must be reliable
879:should be deleted at an
416:13:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
401:11:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
361:19:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
338:01:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
319:23:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
266:22:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
246:20:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
194:18:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
169:17:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
147:16:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
128:00:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
955:Brown County, Minnesota
948:Brown County, Minnesota
744:"Buildings and objects"
299:that map in this case.
173:I have also brought up
113:Midway Corners, Indiana
914:
903:This is what I see at
301:Rolling Ridge, Indiana
1037:technical definitions
896:The number of sources
823:natural monument site
668:, e.g., if the first
42:of past discussions.
890:Size (it's 92 acres)
871:Notability for lakes
670:President of Zamunda
351:legal recognition".
285:Shelbyville, Indiana
277:Brent Woods, Indiana
151:I would suggest you
1940:Rural Free Delivery
1829:. I'm grateful to
720:User:Pontificalibus
155:and for the likes
1923:
1886:
1393:We already have a
849:Holohory (village)
827:uk:ŠŠ¾Š»Š¾Š³Š¾ŃŠø (ŃŠµŠ»Š¾)
815:Holohory (village)
705:Talk:Derwent House
1921:
1884:
731:A discussion here
100:
99:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1994:
1877:
1853:WP:PLACEOUTCOMES
1766:Johntown, Nevada
1755:or not. FWIW -
1632:Satellite images
1610:
1609:
1572:
1571:
1559:
1506:
1505:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1329:
1321:
1255:
1254:
1235:
1234:
1208:
1200:
1166:
1165:
1096:
1095:
959:
953:
750:, especially if
608:
573:
552:
484:
78:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2002:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1871:
1807:
1762:Rawhide, Nevada
1634:
1605:
1600:
1567:
1562:
1553:
1501:
1496:
1464:
1462:
1325:
1317:
1250:
1245:
1230:
1225:
1204:
1196:
1161:
1156:
1091:
1086:
994:
957:
951:
873:
786:
606:
571:
546:
482:
426:
378:Nandgaon, Mawal
274:
228:, census tables
204:
105:
74:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2000:
1998:
1990:
1989:
1973:
1972:
1956:
1955:
1935:Monroe, Kansas
1929:
1928:
1922:Pontificalibus
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1885:Pontificalibus
1806:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1633:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1426:
1425:
1387:
1386:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1335:
1334:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1222:Levivich's bog
1153:Levivich's bog
1101:
1100:
1083:
1079:
1067:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1011:
1010:
999:
998:
988:
973:
972:
901:
900:
897:
894:
891:
881:AfD discussion
872:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
790:Draft:Gologory
785:
784:Draft:Gologory
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
759:
728:
724:
708:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
476:
463:
425:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
384:
383:
341:
340:
273:
270:
269:
268:
234:
233:
218:
217:
203:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
149:
104:
101:
98:
97:
92:
89:
84:
79:
72:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1999:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1975:
1974:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1958:
1957:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1941:
1936:
1931:
1930:
1927:
1924:
1918:
1914:
1909:
1903:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1887:
1881:
1875:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1864:
1859:
1854:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1818:
1815:
1811:
1804:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1763:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1717:
1712:
1707:
1703:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1684:
1681:
1678:
1673:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1664:
1660:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1631:
1613:
1608:
1604:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1570:
1566:
1557:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1509:
1504:
1500:
1494:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1470:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1389:
1388:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1371:Bachelor Lake
1368:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1333:
1330:
1328:
1322:
1320:
1315:
1314:SportingFlyer
1310:
1305:
1301:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1258:
1253:
1249:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1229:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1201:
1199:
1194:
1193:SportingFlyer
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1164:
1160:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1094:
1090:
1084:
1082:exist at all.
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1057:The sentence
1056:
1055:
1053:
1052:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1009:
1006:
1001:
1000:
997:
993:
992:
987:
986:
980:
979:
978:
977:
971:
967:
963:
956:
949:
945:
941:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
925:
923:
919:
913:
908:
906:
898:
895:
892:
889:
888:
887:
884:
882:
878:
870:
864:
861:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:local history
808:
807:
806:
805:
802:
799:
795:
791:
783:
773:
769:
765:
760:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
732:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
706:
702:
699:
698:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
648:
636:
632:
628:
623:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
602:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
550:
545:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
477:
475:
472:
468:
464:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
445:
444:
443:
439:
435:
431:
423:
417:
413:
409:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:
382:
379:
375:
369:
365:
364:
363:
362:
358:
354:
350:
345:
339:
335:
334:
329:
328:
323:
322:
321:
320:
317:
311:
309:
304:
302:
298:
292:
290:
286:
282:
278:
271:
267:
264:
260:
255:
250:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
231:
227:
223:
222:
221:
215:
214:
213:
210:
208:
195:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
171:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
150:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
131:
130:
129:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
102:
96:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
77:
73:
71:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1834:
1819:
1813:
1808:
1734:
1722:
1720:
1715:
1710:
1693:confirmation
1692:
1671:
1635:
1587:CaroleHenson
1556:CaroleHenson
1541:CaroleHenson
1532:
1479:CaroleHenson
1468:
1441:CaroleHenson
1399:specific one
1390:
1362:
1346:CaroleHenson
1324:
1316:
1203:
1195:
1074:
1062:
990:
984:
975:
974:
962:CaroleHenson
950:article and
929:CaroleHenson
926:
915:
910:
902:
885:
874:
787:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
730:
712:User:Doncram
700:
621:
600:
429:
427:
408:Newimpartial
353:Newimpartial
348:
343:
342:
331:
325:
312:
293:
275:
253:
235:
229:
225:
219:
211:
206:
205:
157:do like this
116:
106:
75:
43:
37:
1962:Glendoremus
1739:Staszek Lem
1637:qualify as
1286:Staszek Lem
1179:Staszek Lem
1115:Staszek Lem
1033:per its DNR
831:Staszek Lem
674:Staszek Lem
601:do not fall
555:Staszek Lem
530:Staszek Lem
498:Staszek Lem
453:Staszek Lem
238:Staszek Lem
161:Staszek Lem
153:to go ahead
139:Staszek Lem
36:This is an
1810:WP:GEOLAND
1672:everywhere
1413:, &c.
1376:Lightburst
1174:WP:PRIMARY
1019:Lightburst
918:WP:GEOLAND
794:WP:GEOLAND
688:Necrothesp
652:Necrothesp
627:Necrothesp
587:Necrothesp
512:Necrothesp
236:Comments?
135:WP:PRIMARY
95:ArchiveĀ 10
1716:something
1677:dlthewave
1407:WP:NOTLAW
976:Responses
434:Kevin McE
381:thoughts?
226:databases
87:ArchiveĀ 6
82:ArchiveĀ 5
76:ArchiveĀ 4
70:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
1899:Reywas92
1874:Reywas92
1863:Reywas92
1723:ŠŠ°Š½Š“ŠøŃŠŗŠ°
1579:Levivich
1529:Levivich
1403:WP:CREEP
1075:how much
1063:how many
1041:Reywas92
1005:Reywas92
857:RoySmith
845:Holohory
819:Holohory
798:RoySmith
714:and the
701:Comments
471:Reywas92
316:Reywas92
263:Reywas92
207:Purpose:
191:Reywas92
125:Reywas92
1812:says: "
1363:Comment
1220:as for
1151:as for
344:Comment
327:postdlf
308:Sources
297:This is
281:see map
254:support
39:archive
1945:Mangoe
1831:Mangoe
1785:Mangoe
1493:Carole
1433:WP:GNG
1415:Andrew
1411:WP:IAR
1397:and a
1391:Oppose
1367:WP:GNG
1342:WP:RFC
1309:WP:GNG
1304:WP:GNG
1073:Well,
922:WP:GNG
860:(talk)
853:WP:DAB
801:(talk)
764:Otr500
666:WP:GNG
526:WP:GNG
393:Sitush
212:From:
185:, and
1979:Cxbrx
1917:Tubac
1839:Cxbrx
1770:Cxbrx
1753:WP:OR
1697:WP:OR
1663:wiser
1659:older
1643:Cxbrx
1639:WP:OR
1603:Leviv
1583:draft
1565:Leviv
1499:Leviv
1461:I am
1248:Leviv
1228:Leviv
1159:Leviv
1089:Leviv
746:that
549:Masem
16:<
1983:talk
1966:talk
1949:talk
1913:this
1843:talk
1789:talk
1774:talk
1743:talk
1647:talk
1591:talk
1545:talk
1483:talk
1469:Done
1445:talk
1419:talk
1380:talk
1350:talk
1290:talk
1183:talk
1119:talk
1023:talk
985:Reyk
966:talk
933:talk
835:talk
768:talk
742:and
692:talk
678:talk
656:talk
631:talk
607:asem
591:talk
572:asem
559:talk
534:talk
516:talk
502:talk
483:asem
467:NRHP
457:talk
438:talk
412:talk
397:talk
357:talk
349:with
333:talk
242:talk
220:to:
165:talk
143:talk
1727:š
1711:was
1607:ich
1569:ich
1533:was
1503:ich
1417:š(
1252:ich
1232:ich
1163:ich
1145:EPA
1141:NPS
1137:bog
1129:GNG
1093:ich
1066:it.
991:YO!
289:map
1985:)
1968:)
1951:)
1845:)
1825:,
1791:)
1776:)
1745:)
1661:ā
1649:)
1601:ā
1593:)
1563:ā
1547:)
1497:ā
1485:)
1447:)
1439:.ā
1421:)
1409:,
1405:,
1382:)
1352:)
1292:)
1246:ā
1226:ā
1185:)
1157:ā
1143:,
1133:RS
1121:)
1113:)
1087:ā
1025:)
968:)
958:}}
952:{{
935:)
920:,
907::
837:)
770:)
694:)
680:)
658:)
633:)
622:do
614:)
593:)
579:)
561:)
536:)
518:)
504:)
490:)
479:--
459:)
440:)
414:)
399:)
359:)
336:)
244:)
181:,
177:,
167:)
145:)
117:is
91:ā
1981:(
1964:(
1947:(
1876::
1872:@
1841:(
1787:(
1772:(
1741:(
1721:ā
1680:ā
1645:(
1589:(
1558::
1554:@
1543:(
1481:(
1443:(
1378:(
1348:(
1327:C
1323:Ā·
1319:T
1288:(
1206:C
1202:Ā·
1198:T
1181:(
1117:(
1021:(
964:(
960:ā
931:(
833:(
766:(
707:.
690:(
676:(
654:(
629:(
612:t
610:(
605:M
589:(
577:t
575:(
570:M
557:(
551::
547:@
532:(
514:(
500:(
488:t
486:(
481:M
455:(
436:(
410:(
395:(
355:(
330:(
287:(
279:(
240:(
163:(
141:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.