Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 5

470:

community name and a directional term (i.e., north, south, east, or west). Since a CDP is defined to provide data for a single, named locality, the Census Bureau generally will not accept combinations of places and hyphenated place names defined as a CDP. In the past, communities were often combined as a single CDP in order to comply with the Census Bureau's former minimum population requirements. The Census Bureau's elimination of population threshold criteria starting with Census 2000 made such combinations unnecessary. Other communities were combined because visible features were not available for use as boundaries for separate CDPs. The Census Bureau's policy to allow the use of some nonvisible boundaries so that participants can separate individual communities has dispensed with the need to have multi-place CDPs.

2327:

establish the attributes listed under #1? If so, it doesn't say that. It looks like what is causing the problem is that #2 is usable and used separately. Since it removes the "in-depth" requirement of wp:GNG, I think that the problem is that just getting lots of mentions is considered to be sufficient. I don't know what the big fix would be....it depends on the intent of the phrase. But I plan to do a little fix which is to add "in depth" (standard GNG wording) to the coverage requirement wording. With a RFC and ANI open on this this might be a bad time to do this or maybe a good time in order to help resolve it.

2287:

but if it's a small number of homes and lacks anything unifying other than a name then it probably does not. It's hard to have all-encompassing guidelines for globally inconsistent settlement patterns and legal terminology – not to mention development before and after car ownership arose, but people merely being from a place with a name doesn't make it notable. So many of these cases are just neighborhoods – which would be neither legally recognized nor considered a stand-alone village even if the name is used as a residence or place marker – and therefore require some coverage of greater depth.

2399:

also individual objects and buildings inside those settlements like that one-story building that went up in the 1990s with the Starbucks inside. Since NGEO includes none of the qualifying that other guidelines do (again, intended mainly for subjects in a very small class of inherent notability), we only have the one line to go by. It requires "in-depth" coverage, but nothing else, so as long as the local small town paper covered that building going up or getting demolished, we're basically good. I'd rather see buildings just removed from this guideline, since it inadequately covers them. —

236:

where most places that are obviously towns are nonetheless not incorporated and tend to be represented as CDPs. For instance, as you drive out Georgia Ave. from DC, you start out in Silver Spring and pass through Wheaton and then Glenmont, all of which the post office claims as Silver Spring, but which everyone else recognizes as three distinct towns/cities, even though there are no definite boundaries between them. Between Silver Spring and Wheaton is Forest Glen, which lacks the obvious commercial/urban concentration that marks the others. Is it a distinct place? Well, good question.

2238:

map once had a typeface claiming they did, and we digitised it" issue. In a non-US location, "legally recognised" clearly means cities, towns, hamlets, and does not mean neighbourhoods, subdevelopments, commercial regions, so for the US we need to use common sense to determine whether these stubs are considered or were once considered hamlets per GEOLAND #1 or if they're subdivisions per GEOLAND #2. There's no hard and fast rule here - we need to look to the spirit of GEOLAND, which is to be very inclusive about the geographic features we can include in the encyclopaedia.

2218:"Unincorporated community" is a euphemism we should be abjuring, but be that as it may, saying that they are, as a class, legally recognized is just flatly untrue. The presenting issue at the moment in the GNIS cleanup is that, considering the number of errors, hardly any of these places had some obvious "legal recognition". There's no rigid standard which definitively divides the notable from the non-notable among settlements in the USA, because the legal structures just aren't there, and to the degree they are, they vary wildly from place to place. 187:

outside cities and towns, are both large and dense enough that the census and state statistical authorities found worth counting the population of as a unit. At the end of the day though, they have some sort of defined borders, and we seem to already have comprehensive coverage of every CDP in the US. Therefore, regardless of the poor drafting of this guideline and "legally recognized", I would recommend not deleting CDPs and instead focusing on unincorporated communities without any such data available.

1944:

disregarded by outsiders, and that matters would then be fought out here anyway. The longer reality is that GEOLAND's not-much-of-a-standard has led to several cleanup projects because "officially recognized" has been interpreted to mean that anything that looks like a governmental (or even quasi-governmental) source is absolutely authoritative, resulting in swathes of spurious villages and towns which, upon closer examination, don't actually exist and never did.

666:: "Generally, a CDP shall not be defined within the boundaries of what the Census Bureau regards to be an incorporated city, village or borough. However, the Census Bureau considers some towns in New England states, New Jersey and New York as well as townships in some other states as MCDs, even though they are incorporated municipalities in those states. In such states, CDPs may be defined within such towns or spanning the boundaries of multiple towns." 31: 2277:

homes near each other would be neighbors who form a community (as we may see in this AFD), as would homes that are more spread out but are on the same road or all in a broad vicinity (some of the mass-productions in KY and WV come to mind). And then there are subdivisions/housing developments that are nothing more than homes but aren't immediately part of an incorporated place or larger community. The issue is that

1190:"Place or area with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (city, settlement, town, village). A populated place is usually not incorporated and by definition has no legal boundaries. However, a populated place may have a corresponding "civil" record, the legal boundaries of which may or may not coincide with the perceived populated place. Distinct from Census and Civil classes." 2281:, which says "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept" has been treated as a de facto guideline. But depending on the country/state a village is a vague term too. If they are kept "regardless of size" then what's to stop ten people in three homes from saying "we're a village, we're automatically notable"? Because that's what has absolutely been seen in many of these GNIS places. 1967:

as a landmark by a government agency, i.e. "the county announced that they will repave Road #30 from Chicken Corner to Pig Crossing, therefore Pig Crossing is a legally-recognized place." We should also put more emphasis on the Sources section since it already specifically excludes the sorts of passing mentions and table/database listings that lead to these poorly-sourced stubs. –

1832:

don't think that this would be a pursuit likely to end up with a change. The SNG on this is pretty widely accepted. Some experienced folks say that it is because it's been accepted that wikipedia is also a gazetteer. My own personal observation is that this "finger on the scale" is widely accepted because inhabited officially recognized places are very encyclopedic

2379:"Significant" can easily be interpreted to include lots of simple mentions. "In detail" would also cover that but is not in the subject sentence in the SNG. Regarding "in-depth" being in the GNG, I dunno. The core wording does acknowledge depth of coverage as a relevant metric. Then in the SNG section of GNG, where GNG paraphrases itself it says "in-depth". Sincerely, 760:

location, there need to be sources that discuss it in-depth, which happens by defaulting to GNG. Keeping articles that rely only on a few administrative statistics results in perma-stubs. As expressed in GEOLAND#2, such places should be discussed in an article on the higher-level place. To facilitate searching, there should always be a redirect to that article.

258:

station was also the post office, or where a farmhouse was a post office. All of these places needed town names (because that's the way addresses worked), which was easy enough for a place on the railroad (they all had names due to dispatching), but not so much for a farmhouse. But there has been a push to declare these all settlements.

1158: 2445:

Agree. I think that the was it was before my minor tweak was harmful and actually causing problems. After my tweak it basically says nothing (repeats GNG) so maybe complete removal is a minor change that we can just do. The alternative (and possible original intent) would be that it has sources (not

2297:

I don't see a need to change anything here. In practice it seems like incorporated places are generally presumed notable at AfD while unincorporated ones are considered case-by-case, although I agree with Sportingflyer that incorporation shouldn't be the determining factor. As a side note there are a

2237:

is met in the U.S. As we've seen with the GNIS, but that database has so many errors it doesn't accurately reflect whether people once lived in a place, or if the place is a subdivision, town, et cetera. That's less an incorporated/unincorporated issue than it is a "no one ever lived here, but a topo

2214:

CDPs are really not notable in themselves, but they can confer notability. Probably the majority of them do represent the census making some delineation of an unincorporated town. For example, there are a lot of these in Montgomery County, Maryland. But there are cases where they will for some reason

1831:

certainly does not tackle that topic nor is it used to resolve questions in that area. Also, even though SNG's may give lip service to the need for GNG they are in reality a way to bypass GNG. GNG says so itself , and so what is written in the SNG is very impactful. That said, LaundryPizza03, I

469:

A CDP constitutes a single, closely settled center of population that is named. To the extent possible, individual unincorporated communities should be identified as separate CDPs. Similarly, a single community should be defined as a single CDP rather than multiple CDPs with each part referencing the

274:

If a census designated place corresponds to an actual historical place, there's a good chance it's notable, but relying on the CDP designation by itself is a bit iffy. Basically, the census is the lowest possible bar for "legally recognized" and thus is a weak justification for keeping an article. If

257:

The zip code/post office situation we addressed, inconclusively, a short while ago. The problem here is that it appears that at various times the USPS put post offices in various places simply because people had to have some place to pick up their mail. So there seem to be cases where the local train

114:. I am of the opinion that they meet the criteria of legally recognized places since there is census info on them. They clearly are inhabited places, and villages are usually kept. This is a first for me - the only communities I saw deleted were trailer parks, developments, etc. Let's sort this out. ~ 2348:

doesn't have an "in-depth" requirement, that's covered by "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail" and this wording mirrors GNG. I would agree that one would need significant coverage to establish a building's importance. Going through the archives of this page, you'll see

2286:

When I look at Google Maps or topo maps, my thoughts have always been that if there's a focal point of the community which has perhaps a church, general store, or school bearing the name, or something else that is evident that this is a distinct population center as an entity, it might pass the bar,

1966:

Based on my experience with United States placenames, editors interpret this guideline in many different ways and it would be particularly helpful to clarify the definition of "legally recognized place". I've seen folks interpret this as anything from official incorporation status to being mentioned

1305:

I agree with the proposed re-ordering of the text. Focus should be on the positive--what does establish notability. The specific exclusion of maps and lists is also important: they can be used to confirm viability and specific facts can be gleaned from them but they should not be the starting point

1103:

There have been a number of Arizona geography stubs at AfD recently, all of which sourced only to the GNIS. Included in the GNIS were some old Phoenix subdivisions which are now incorporated and were never really distinct places to begin with which I agreed with deleting, but now a mass cull of GNIS

775:

As something of a meta-comment of this, the standards generally applied in practice have blatantly violated the requirement for in-depth discussion. Or should I say, the standard for "depth" has been sidewalk-puddle-shallow. When it is permissible to keep an article for which the only information is

336:

As for places that are consolidated into one CDP, I'd say to not have duplicate articles on places but also to use the most recent census as the basis for what the articles should be called. I say that because the Census Bureau made an effort before the 2010 census to eliminate a lot of the combined

186:

is a great resource for exploring every level of census population information), but it is still a statistical division without local government. Many represent fairly distinct, significant communities that simply aren't incorporated, while others are neighborhoods or super-neighborhoods that, while

2398:

I'm going to copy part of my comment from that RfC that's relevant here: NGEO is one of the loosy-goosiest guidelines we have as a result of it being built around "Knowledge (XXG) is a gazetteer". That's fine, but I've never been clear why we include not just rivers, mountains, and settlements, but

1943:

Andrew's characterization of this as being forum-shopped strikes me as inaccurate: from what I can tell there was near unanimity in the original discussion and the decision was made to bring things over here, I imagine because of the likelihood that a decision made in the Indonesia project would be

1286:

To establish notability, the subject must be described (not simply mentioned) by reliable sources. This guideline specifically excludes maps and tables from establishing notability because these show little except the existence of the subject. Still, maps and tables contribute to the requirement of

1214:

in Google Maps. There was public access to that location in the past, but there is no longer public access to the springs, and having Google maps show the area as a park caused people to trespass. Once I was able to get GNIS updated, perhaps it was easier to get Google to agree to remove the park

759:

notable (but not guaranteed). That statement emphasizes the importance of GNG. To say that a CDP is notable without meeting GNG is going in the other direction. As others have said, this is a grey area due to all the overlapping designations that can exist. But to have an encyclopedic article on a

330:

As far as I'm concerned, census-designated places are notable. In order for an area to become a census-designated place, it has to be recognized by the Census Bureau as a population center; you don't get into the problem of railroad sidings or decades-old mapping mistakes. Recognition by the Census

2276:

Unincorporated communities (with respect to the US here) are already excluded from Geoland#1: they are not, except for CDPs, legally recognized. The issue is that "community" is an incredibly vague term: a neighborhood and a subdivision are communities, but those can likewise be vague terms. A few

1401:

Finally the language "establish notability". The correct phrasing would be "contribute to notability", because a single source does not necessarily establishes notability. Example: "The guide told us than this low bald hill with only two trees on it is called "Kalb al Rai", or "Dog's Head". Surely

1133:

Articles that only have a single database source generally fail to meet our notability guidelines. The argument is often made that simply being listed as a "populated place" by GNIS means that a topic passes GNG, however GNIS uses quite different inclusion criteria and is a poor substitute for our

449:

Sorry but that is an misleading interpretation of "legally recognized". CDPs do not have any legal standing WHATSOEVER. A CDP cannot be party to a lawsuit in a court proceeding. A CDP cannot enact regulations. A CDP is NOTHING more than a statistical entity created for the convenience of comparing

245:

is a Census Designated Place", because I don't think that's what makes them notable; I think they get to be CDPs because the census recognizes them as in some sense notable and having a certain place-quality to them. When the census consolidates places together, I don't think a separate article on

235:

As a rule the issue is whether the CDP represents a place in its own right or should be subsumed in a larger area. This is not terribly cut-and-dried in the areas where this is even a question. For example, I live in suburban Montgomery Co., Md., where there are some incorporated cities/towns, but

2423:

that status was confirmed. The one about infrastructure may be possible to restate as a presumption if there's some solid criteria (like federal-level government owned infrastructure). The third one about buildings in general is just restating the GNG and its inclusion causes confusion and should

2326:

This is basically two different sentences with no relationship established between them.....what is it supposed to mean? The "but" on #1 means that such alone does not establish notability. #2 is a watered down / weakened version of wp:GNG. Was the intent that it needed the coverage under #2 to

2092:

This is a hard no. Most places in the US aren't incorporated, and most countries don't have unincorporated places anyways, so this would be an Amerocentric change. For the US, legal recognition is typically "census-designated," not "incorporated," which just implies the populated area wants to be

1858:

notability of an article if there are no sources? "I say so" argument does not work in wikipedia from day one I am here. Second, NGEO does not give "lip service" to GNG; it actually excludes a wide range of sources which were often used by inclusionists as argument in AfDs. What else you disagree

1538:

precinct would be notable on its own. A few sources do mention "the Forks Precinct" in a non-voting context, but no significant coverage or official recognition of any sort. Older topos mark it in a typeface that's used for geographic features or areas, not communities, and it shows every sign of

719:

I didn't miss them (I think I may have actually written portions of the articles you mention). The point is that such places are administrative subdivisions independent of being CDPs. The census bureau designation has no bearing WHATSOEVER on the legal status of such places. Whatever legal status

1043:

Of course company towns are company towns because they are remote and a full infrastructure of road, stores, etc is needed to support it as an independent entity. When one plantation is next door to the next plantation is next door to the next plantation, they are not separate towns. If "enough

682:

The census documentation is actually pretty clear. CDPs are not administrative subdivisions by any stretch of the imagination and none of what you cited above indicates otherwise. Yes, in certain states a CDP may be designated for all or a portion of a minor civil division in order to provide

486:

Reviewing the rest of the document and my experience with these places, they should generally not be considered for deletion (though perhaps in some cases merged). Since there is no minimum size threshold, there may be greater scrutiny on non-CDP unincorporated places that are not necessarily

1028:

If company towns are notable (and IMO they are), I don't see any reason why plantations shouldn't be. They are places where large groupings of people lived - the fact that those people were slaves doesn't change things. However, I'm still inclined against one-line permastubs. I expect enough

822:. CDPs are populated, legally recognised places. In certain instances, it won't be appropriate to have an article on the place for reasons explained by Reywas92, but if there's anyone living there, and the land isn't otherwise incorporated, it's still probably appropriate to have an article. 1949:

As far as Indonesia is concerned, eighty thousand villages is an awful lot, particularly if the information available on most of them is no more than their location and place in the political structures; even adding population to that doesn't advance things much. Personally, not knowing the

2215:

combine two towns into one CDP, and then later split them. My feeling is that a CDP for a town does confer notability on that town, because it does confer an official recognition as a place with a distinct population, but that a CDP encompassing two towns shouldn't have its own article.

1397:

Second, it changed the semantical logic: in the old version, sources establish notability of the subject, while the phrasing of the new version is sloppy: "to establish notability (of what?)" ... "the subject must be described", i.e. the subject establishes notability of something

331:

Bureau also does count as legal recognition in my mind, since an agency of the government is effectively certifying that the place is a named place with a distinct population as of the year in which the census was taken. "Legal recognition" doesn't necessarily mean incorporation.

220:). In these cases, I encourage consolidating information into a single main article and avoid having several pages either having little information of their own or only historical population data. Also I see info on some pages about ZIP codes and post offices: this gets into 706:. These are all CDPs but they are also incorporated municipalities (towns or cities) with governments. If you click on the links (to Census QuickFacts), you'll see one column for the town, one column for the CDP, but the numbers are the same. They're both incorporated towns 1084::-) And therefore we better follow the NGEO advice about merging smaller features into larger ones, if there is an insufficient number of RSes that cover the subject in depth. In any case, did you find reliable sources that say "plantation is a town"? If not, case closed. 2070:

legal recognition. I think it would help if this were clarified, particularly given how many articles we have dealing with unincorporated communities, at least in the US, and how often the question of whether or not they are legally recognised under the definition used in

630:

They are not the norm, but there are CDPs that are identical to incorporated communities, or that include parts of incorporated communities, or sometimes include multiple incorporated communities. This is explained, for example, in the introduction to our featured list,

1226:

is to be used. Perhaps as an output of the Arizona cleanup, some of this info should go over to the National Maps Corps. As a background task, I'll see about generating a list of all of the recent geographic deletions and see about getting some updates in the GNIS.

1152:

with the "populated place" classification still shows up on USGS topo quad maps, even if the place no longer exists at all or never should have had that GNIS classification in the first place (and other mapping services just import data from USGS). Per my comments at

1494:

is almost certainly a voting precinct. The three sources I've found call it a precinct, a voting precinct, and an "area" (as opposed to a locale or populated place). I'm leaning on non-notable, but if precincts are considered notable, then I don't want to AFD it.

2232:

I don't think incorporation/unincorporation has any place in the hierarchy. Incorporated municipalities are self-organised - that's different from the government saying "this is a place." Whether a town is incorporated or not is not the sole determinant of whether

1885:

challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced. IMO this does not affect what I said about wp:V. on my second point, when I said my "lip service" I meant ONLY lip service....that in practice the other SNG criteria bypass the sourcing requirements of wp:GNG.

1466:

Agree this needs to be changed. The low quality of GNIS database entries has long been established, but they're still being used as means to attempt to claim a nominal GEOLAND pass. It needs to be clearer simple database entries such as GNIS don't quite cut it.

882:, satisfies NGEO" is a weak !vote. In third words, NGEO judges the notability of a geothing basing purely on geographic/demographic info. While the geothing may be notable for other considerations making it interesting hence covered in sources hence encyclopedic.. 2416:

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 for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be

487:"closely settled" or "locally recognized," which is further explained in guideline 7. It will be interesting to see the resulting designated areas after this census is finalized, and there will certainly be a bot updating articles with the new populations. 1742:, -- well, thats's what the NGEO guideline says at the very top. (Since you are citing NASTRO, zillions of asteroids are handled in a similar way: they are collected/redirected in tables. And I do not think that asteroids are more notable than villages.) 1914:

elsewhere. This does not seem helpful because the original discussion is already quite vague, with no specific examples. Generalising the topic without hard facts and examples just leads to lots of loose talk and no useful conclusions. Please see

1724:

is a policy, and it beats guidelines. "Poorly sourced" is an unfortunate problem with any information from the 3rd World. The latter issue may be handled in the way explained right in this guideline: merge them into next best country subdivisions.

2491:

that editors at AFD state buildings don't count as artificial geographical features even when you actually quote what is classed as an artificial geographical feature! I agree the wording is not exactly helpful but what to replace it with I am not

873:

kicks in. The policy also says that GNG still can be overridden by other encyclopedic considerations. Conversely, if a thing satisfieds NGEO, it still has to squeeze through the needle eye of WP:GNG and further filters. In other words: the !vote

1402:

the subject "is described" and the description may be longer, saying that three camels died on this spot and birds do not shit on it, and so on. But while this makes it a recognizable landmark, I don't thing this "establishes notability" for WP.

1080:. (You have to read wikipedia before writing it :-) There were plantations with as few as 20 slaves. Therefore I don't think we can indiscriminately assign notability to individual plantations. Of course, some even small farms are notable (e.g., 365:

The problem with the "officially recognized" criteria is that these designations are often made for a specific purpose (delivering mail, counting people) that doesn't necessarily correlate with our concept of notability. The "Sources" section of

1322:

I support this change for clarification. Glendoremus is right that databases are often just tables that show one entry at a time. Perhaps the guideline should also mention that maps and tables often duplicate each other as their own sources.

360:) in the mix. I wasn't familiar with the specifics of the CDP designation, however when it comes to coverage and apparent notability they're sometimes indistinguishable from the type of subdivision, neighborhood, etc that's routinely deleted. 2424:

just be removed. Additionally, this guideline specifically could use the AUD from NCORP in dealing with local structures. Yes, the lamppost at 5th and main may be the talk of the local newspapers, but that doesn't make it notable for WP. --

1134:

standard requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, its "populated place" description is applied to everything from railroad sidings to small family ranches that would not be considered notable in any other case. –

1178:

Bad facts die hard on the internet. It would be great to get the GNIS updated for the locations that are clearly only railroad sidings. If this does not happen, then these pages will probably get recreated. One problem is that the

169:

I don't know, I'm really hesitant on this. There was an AFD on what was primarily a mobile home park in Montana that was kept recently, and I deliberately did not comment. First a CDP is technically not a tract (though it is odd that

1291:

This puts the section in a more logical order and doesn't significantly change the meaning. I would also suggest adding "Databases" to "Maps and Tables", since we've deleted large numbers of stubs sourced only to database entries.

999: 1853:

REspectfully disagree with your disagreement. First of all, I did not describe any "current status" I was merely contesting colleague's description. First, surely WP:V is the cornerstone one cannot bypass. Heck, how you can even

301:"communities that lack separate governments but otherwise resemble incorporated places. They are settled population centers with a definite residential core, a relatively high population density, and a degree of local identity." 1366:

Maybe a moot point now, but the old wording just excluded sources from an implied requirement ("establish notability"), aside from what Staszek Lem, your wording flat out states a requirement for establishing notability.

2512: 337:

CDPs, and the ones that are left are places that grew together to the point where they can't easily be separated. (The 2010 census also eliminated most of the few CDPs that didn't actually represent a community, like

293:

CDPs are sort of a gray area for me. They are administrative designations not legally defined places like incorporated areas, so we shouldn't "presume notability". However, the census bureau does try to define CDPs

652:

has some maps showing how the Massachusetts CDPs and incorporated places line up. In fact, New England is one of the places where we see CDPs that are incorporated communities. This is discussed in some detail at

693:

I'm not sure how you missed this in the links I just posted, but the whole gist is that some MCDs, like New England towns, are CDPs and also incorporated places (and thus administrative subdivisions). Examples:

434:

CDPs pass the bar for legally recognized places for GEOLAND. Additionally a encyclopedia such as Knowledge (XXG) should be comprehensive and leaving few out diminishes the quality of that encyclopedia being

1623: 1950:

political/geographical structure of the country that well, it might make a lot of sense to simply list villages below some threshold in an article on the district/province, or even omit mention entirely.

802:. There's no reason to give every CDP its own page. If all we have is one sentence, better to make it a redirect to the county or next-highest unit, and have a list of CDPs on that page. Any editor could 111: 2182:

You're still being very technical with the definition. CDPs are "legally recognised" in the sense that they are officially designated by the US Census Bureau. They are not legally incorporated, though

1108:

searches. In a lot of instances, these places are historical but still appear on maps, and so I'm trying to figure out if there's a proper way to analyse these considering we function as a gazetteer.

2063: 2446:

necessarily GNG-grade) that establish "notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" but I think that simple deletion would be better and not a real change.

454:

correspond to a recognizable populated place name, but such a place should be subject to general notability guidelines (i.e., have some verifiable notability independent of the demographic data).

97: 2315:

An RFC and ANI elsewhere regarding shopping malls made me take a look at the relevant sentence here which I think may be the root of the problem. It reads (separation and numbers are by me):

382:

Yes, but we can create a decent article based on government data. Are you aware that for several years, the vast majority of place articles in the US were based on nothing but government data? ~

89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 370:

specifically excludes "maps and various tables" from establishing notability; if the official recognition consists solely of this type of coverage, we shouldn't have an article on the topic. –

1759:-- if you look at the archives of this talk page, you will find that many of them and more were taken into an account during the extremely long discussion of the proposal of this guideline. 1605: 613:

It's a common misconception that CDPs do not include incorporated communities, but they do. The misconception is common because, in true government fashion, the Census says that one of the

1995:. Many AfDs are for random places misidentified as communities, from wells and ranches to railroad stations and road crossings. Most of these rules may be applicable to other countries. – 310:

from the 1990 census does a nice job of explaining incorporated areas and CDPs. In my mind a CDP isn't automatically notable but an indicator that we should look closer and apply basic

1154: 1833: 1593: 1053:

Larger plantation like Homochitto had a number of slaves living there, and there was infrastructure similar to non-slave settlements. Plantations are notable just as company towns.

138:: census tracts are usually not considered notable unless SIGCOV exists. I do not make such a major distinction between a census tract and a Census-designated place: nor does the 1661:

The entire page is too general and barebones compared to other notability guidelines, and therefore there is a need to establish specific criteria for each type of feature, like

776:

name, location, and (maybe) population, well, that's about as superficial as it comes. In that regard the difference between CDP and not is no more than that "maybe population".

1611: 1599: 428:

Census designated places (CDPs) are statistical geographic entities representing closely settled, unincorporated communities that are locally recognized and identified by name.

600:

No, CDPs do no include incorporated municipalities. The entire purpose of CDPs are to provide statistical comparisons between unincorporated places and incorporated places.

1007: 479:

Some CDPs, however, may be predominantly residential; such places should represent recognizably distinct, locally known communities, but not typical suburban subdivisions.

1637: 47: 17: 1201:, hence the confusion. However, I recall have seen some GNIS entries that state that the location was a railroad siding, or even better, a "railroad siding (historic)." 622: 2414:

In considering how other SNGs are written, this one definitely causes confusion and I would agree with this assessment. The only building criteria that should stay is

2319:"Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but 1287:

verifiability. Unreliable sources such as Facebook and most blogs or YouTube videos cannot be used to establish verifiability or notability of a geographical feature.

618: 1781:-- I fail to see its superiority to NGEO. In fact IMO it is way too verbose, regurgitating what was already said in more general relevant policies and guidelines. 414: 2462:

A couple of times recently I have seen it alleged in AfDs (by those that want articles on them deleted, naturally) that heritage-listed buildings do not count as

1654: 1333:

The addition of "to establish notability" makes it a bigger change than it sounds like. If followed, it establishes a GNG type criteria and voids out the SNG.

1279: 703: 695: 1306:

for proving notability. I would support the specific exclusion of databases on the basis that a database is nothing more than a glorified electronic table.

409:"settled concentrations of population that are identifiable by name but are not legally incorporated under the laws of the state in which they are located." 1394:

condition (hence my revert which have led to this discussion). I have nothing against this change, but y'all must consciously accept this change of logic.

755:

I agree with those above who have said not unless the CDP otherwise meets GNG. The first paragraph of GEOLAND clearly states that places that meet GNG are

798:. When it comes to people or books, or most other things, the question is notable/not-notable, but when it comes to life or land, I think the question is 699: 632: 2298:

vast number of stubs listed as "populated place" in GNIS that were changed to "unincorporated community" at some point with no sourcing whatsoever. –

1827:

respectfully, I do not agree with your description of the the current status. First, the question at hand is existence/non-existence of an article.

149:

The boundaries of a CDP have no legal status and may not always correspond with the local understanding of the area or community with the same name.

2362: 1907: 1643: 1617: 1386:

You probably didn't pay attention that the proposed change changed the formal logic. The old version states that "object to be described" is a

2013: 1705: 151:

So it seems clear there is not inherent notability in a Census-designated place. So my opinion is that the area would need to pass GNG or

2252: 2204: 2153: 2107: 1122: 1010:, a town because people lived on them, with automatic notability regardless of the presence of significant coverage? Does it fall under 836: 205: 193: 1517: 357: 1157:

and elsewhere of course it should not be assumed that being in the past and listed on maps is historic. Let the the surveyors

1015: 683:

statistical representation in the tables for populated places, but that does not make the CDPs an administrative subdivision.

179: 175: 2593: 2568: 2523: 2501: 2479: 2457: 2436: 2408: 2390: 2371: 2353: 2338: 2305: 2291: 2257: 2227: 2209: 2177: 2158: 2134: 2112: 2084: 2049: 2019: 1974: 1959: 1936: 1897: 1868: 1847: 1806: 1790: 1768: 1751: 1734: 1711: 1557: 1529: 1504: 1476: 1458: 1446: 1429: 1411: 1378: 1361: 1344: 1327: 1315: 1299: 1265: 1236: 1173: 1141: 1127: 1093: 1062: 1048: 1038: 1022: 988: 958: 927: 891: 841: 810: 785: 766: 728: 714: 670: 608: 588: 563: 549: 529: 507: 491: 462: 444: 393: 377: 353: 345: 323: 288: 267: 228: 164: 125: 1582:

countries, sometimes even with incorrect name and/or coordinates. For specific discussion on populated places, see also:

2497: 1420:(I omitted the word "reliable" because this goes without saying per our basic policy, so no need to be too legalistic.) 945:

is a policy. It turns out it is a guideline as well. Now I am at a loss of the relative priorities of notability rules:

2037: 2033: 1587: 795: 1418:"To contribute to the notability of the subject, sources must reasonably describe it (rather than simply mention it)." 1044:

information is available" and an article passes GNG that's fantastic, but none of this automatic notability nonsense.

720:

they might have is completely independent of any census designation, which is done to enable statistical comparisons.

581: 338: 2464:

Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage...

1638:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(geographic_features)#GEOLAND_is_self-contradictory_–_what_is_a_"legally_recognized_place"?

1676:

They should avoid quantitfiable cutoffs that are arbitrary, or where statistics may not always be readily available.

1104:

stubs from around the state has started, and by the rapid way in which these were nominated, without apparently any

472:" I think it would be fair to delete any former combined CDP if there are separate articles for current single CDPs. 241:

I have generally leaned towards assuming that CDPs are notable, within reason. I don't think articles should begin "

2183: 1980: 1797:

If you have specific suggestions, you are welcome. But first review the archives; may be it was already discussed.

649: 577: 515: 201: 38: 617:

for CDP is "A CDP may not be located, either partially or entirely, within an incorporated place or another CDP" (

1932: 1207: 641: 2516: 2190:

is to include all populated places, which is more difficult to define in the US than it is in other countries.

2008: 1700: 1081: 645: 2040:

on the relationship between SNGs and the GNG which might be of interest to editors who watch this page. Best,

921: 352:

I've been AFDing articles that were mass-created from GNIS data and apparently there were a few CDPs (such as

2055:

Add unincorporated communities to the list of examples of "Populated places without legal recognition" under

2559:"Knowledge (XXG) combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." 2493: 2244: 2196: 2163: 2145: 2099: 1252:

for what should be retained. If anything, using GNIS as a starting point has never seemed as a bad thing. –

1114: 828: 663: 144: 799: 573: 178:

of tracts in the Seattle area – why would anyone conceive of making articles for them in the first place?

1911: 498:

GEOLAND clearly acknowledges administrative subdivisions: a CDP is clearly an administrative subdivision.

1864: 1802: 1786: 1764: 1747: 1730: 1525: 1425: 1407: 1311: 1089: 1058: 954: 887: 559: 525: 319: 209: 1920: 976: 481:" I've seen a number that are groups of subdivisions combined, but they're usually not individual ones. 1876: 1860: 1822: 1798: 1782: 1760: 1743: 1726: 1521: 1421: 1403: 1085: 950: 883: 555: 521: 224:

and falsely conflates the way mail is organized and delivered and places being independently notable.

2475: 1928: 1578:. It leads to the creation of thousands of unsourced, poorly written stubs about villages in certain 541: 385: 197: 160: 117: 2234: 2187: 2122: 2072: 2056: 1487: 1198: 1011: 803: 367: 152: 135: 2565: 2466:, because it doesn't specifically mention buildings. I am at a loss to work out what these editors 2453: 2401: 2386: 2349:

concerns that it's not needed since it basically just defers to GNG, but I will look for this RFC.

2334: 2302: 2045: 1996: 1971: 1893: 1843: 1814: 1688: 1554: 1547: 1491: 1455: 1442: 1374: 1358: 1340: 1296: 1169:, apparently mass created without before searches either...but we are still putting eyes on these. 1138: 374: 2278: 1916: 1777: 1662: 1105: 914: 2239: 2191: 2140: 2094: 1500: 1472: 1259: 1248:

I've edited a bit on National Map Corps and they use USGS as a reference framework but they have

1109: 823: 342: 183: 975:

I've proposed a CSD criterion targeting the worst and least notable of the GNIS permastubs. See

1718:...thousands of unsourced, poorly written stubs about villages in certain Third World countries 1249: 1354:

and I kept it in place to avoid changing the meaning. Are you seeing something that I'm not? –

725: 688: 605: 584:; the unincorporated communities are not. Thus, not all CDPs are administrative subdivisions. 535: 459: 307: 284: 110:

There have been a few AfDs lately regarding whether census-designated places are notable, see

1540: 905: 2322:

they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."

2223: 1955: 1653:

Various attempts to establish notability guidelines for specific types of features, such as

1624:

Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_55#Indian_and_Pakistani_villages

1307: 1054: 781: 654: 503: 440: 315: 263: 217: 213: 2554: 2345: 1680: 1575: 1571: 933: 897: 867: 851: 819: 311: 276: 139: 2589: 2488: 2471: 2432: 2173: 2130: 2080: 1510:

the article calls it ]. is this verifiable? in nay cse, I've just voted in a similar page:

1232: 1211: 1034: 984: 156: 2186:

of them have legal status depending on the state (see slide 10.) Remember, the spirit of

1162: 1991:

and most neighborhoods, for which there is evidence of population and legal recognition

1644:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia#Random_non_notable_village_additions_to_the_project

1435:

Two birds with one stone. Your wording also avoids the problem that I described above.

399: 2562: 2299: 2041: 1968: 1551: 1452: 1355: 1293: 1135: 1029:

information is available for most if not all plantations to avoid one-line permastubs.

554:

Um, back, please read my question carefully again. I highlighter the key words for you.

371: 1828: 1721: 1720:-- This has nothing to do with this guideline. Any unsourced article must go, because 1570:

There is concern that the guideline for populated places is far too broad compared to

946: 941: 901: 250:

is counted by the census as part of the A-B-C-ville CDP, which in 2010 had a total of

2520: 2376: 2358: 2350: 2288: 1496: 1468: 1324: 1253: 1170: 1045: 1019: 807: 711: 677: 667: 595: 585: 488: 225: 171: 1490:. What about voting precincts? I'm not familiar with any guidelines for them, but 1219: 1988: 721: 684: 601: 455: 280: 275:

a place had no legal recognition other than as a CDP, I would suggest applying the

2066:

the claim is being made that unincorporated communities are an example of a place

2139:

I'm not talking about census tracts. I'm talking about census-designated places.

478: 468: 2419:

as I can accept that gaining this status usually means there's documentation to

2219: 1951: 1670: 1579: 777: 499: 436: 259: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1000:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Homochitto, Issaquena County, Mississippi

2585: 2425: 2169: 2126: 2076: 1984: 1243: 1228: 1073: 1030: 1003: 980: 1647: 1618:

Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_46#What_is_the_consensus_on_City_articles?

1669:

They should be country-agnostic where possible, since that avoids unwanted

1180: 806:

a CDP to its own page if they had the sources to expand it beyond a stub.

204:

in 2010) or are annexed, and when they contain multiple communities (e.g.

2513:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Dariush Baharvand Ahmadi

2125:(it explicitly excludes them from a presumption of automatic notability). 1631: 1223: 794:

I think every 1 square inch (6.5 cm) of the Earth is notable, just like

2366: 1546:

The "Unincorporated community" label fails verification since the sole

761: 2584:

does, for example. It merely has some of the features of a gazetteer.

1881:

Of course we know that wp:v is a core policy. It's a content policy;

1390:

condition, while the new version makes "object to be described" as a

415:"Census Designated Places (CDPs) for the 2020 Census-Final Criteria" 949:

vs. specific guidelines. Now I see where the confusion comes from.

142:

of GEOLAND. The following is from our own Knowledge (XXG) article:

112:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Muhlenberg Park, Pennsylvania

1979:

I believe the accepted standard for US places is incorporated and

1627: 2581: 1166: 1077: 655:

New England town#Census treatment of the New England town system

221: 1834:

Knowledge (XXG):How Knowledge (XXG) notability works right now

1590:

on inherent notability mention articles about populated places

625:), but, of course, the Census itself doesn't follow that rule. 25: 1606:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (populated places) (failed) 2

1655:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers/Archive_5#NRIVER_proposal

1350:

Hmm, the "establish notability" language is present in the

1155:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Nommel Place, Arizona

664:

Census-designated place#Effects of designation and examples

1165:" that have significant coverage. I'm happy to mass cull 866:

the criteria of NGEO, then it is up to deletion, unless

1612:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (populated places) (failed) 3

1600:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability (populated places) (failed) 1

341:, so those aren't even a problem like they used to be.) 2534: 1416:

Therefore IMO the statement must be phrased, .e.g., as

1351: 1018:

as if deletion of this would “wipe out their history.”

2539:"Per Knowledge (XXG)'s Five pillars, the encyclopedia 2547:

Per Knowledge (XXG)'s Five pillars, the encyclopedia

818:

have been held to be less restrictive than requiring

512:

Please Show us a document which says that CDP is an

192:

A main concern this brings is that CDPs change (e.g.

18:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (geographic features)

1594:

Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(proposals)/FritzpollBot

1486:I know townships seem to be considered notable per 896:Hmm, is GNG a policy? I don't see a policy tag on 2344:Doesn't "significant coverage" imply "in-depth"? 1520:, together with all other one-liners of this ilk. 850:Yes, is less restrictive, but it cannot override 246:the A-B-C-ville CDP is justified; better to say " 1215:and hopefully other maps will not show the park. 908:. Besides, it is called the "general notability 2553:. This more closely matches the actual text of 1284: 2167:"The boundaries of a CDP have no legal status" 1518:List of unincorporated areas of Estill County 862:to be notable. It works like this: if a thing 1206:FWIW, I was able to get the GNIS updated for 8: 538:, a subdivision created by the government. ~ 1776:...criteria for each type of feature, like 939:(WP:GNG=WP:N#GNG). Anyway, sorry I thought 2529:"Knowledge (XXG) functions as a gazetteer" 633:List of United States cities by population 2507:AFD regarding bulk-created places in Iran 1451:I agree, this wording makes more sense. – 2576:Agree with this. Wiki is not a gazeteer 1220:GNIS is no longer being updated directly 1159:make the actual indiscriminate gazetteer 1014:#1? This does not seem to be the way to 704:Burlington town & Burlington CDP, MA 2580:. It will not list everything that the 2517:User_talk:Carlossuarez46#Places_in_Iran 1197:This definition is not the same as the 1076:in the prewar US South was basically a 932:I didnt write GNG is a policy. I wrote 904:), only the same guideline tag used on 182:that includes Muhlenberg park, and the 2558: 2546: 2538: 2463: 2166: 1775: 1756: 1739: 1717: 1417: 1210:, which was showing up as a park near 1181:GNIS definition of a "Populated Place" 878:, fails NGEO" is a strong !vote, but " 696:Arlington town & Arlington CDP, MA 467:I think this section is interesting: " 417:. Federal Reigister. November 11, 2018 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2487:I have experienced the same issue as 2121:Census tracts are already covered in 1983:as well as municipalities, including 536:CDP is an officially recognized place 7: 1906:The actual issue here seems to be a 816:Populated, legally recognized places 174:had been explicitly called out, see 1819:Thank you for that thorough post. 1740:...no subject is inherently notable 580:. The incorporated communities are 206:Downieville-Lawson-Dumont, Colorado 194:Riverton-Boulevard Park, Washington 700:Belmont town & Belmont CDP, MA 24: 1602:(failed proposal from March 2009) 1596:(about a bot proposal, June 2008) 1574:; in particular, it ignores that 1278:I propose the following text for 1008:46,000 in the pre-Civil War South 1614:(failed proposal from July 2010) 1576:no subject is inherently notable 971:FYI - relevant WT:CSD discussion 358:Pocono Ranch Lands, Pennsylvania 29: 2038:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability 1679:They should be consistent with 1608:(failed proposal from May 2009) 1588:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability 400:"Geographic Terms and Concepts" 2311:Flaw in wording for buildings? 1477:00:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC) 1: 2569:16:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 2502:22:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC) 2480:09:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 2458:16:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 2437:16:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 2409:15:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 2391:16:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC) 2306:03:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 2292:01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC) 1975:15:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1960:14:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1937:12:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1898:16:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1869:04:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1848:02:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1807:20:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1791:20:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1769:20:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1752:20:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1735:20:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1712:16:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC) 1459:00:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC) 1447:21:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1430:20:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1412:20:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1379:21:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1362:19:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1345:18:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1328:18:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1316:17:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1300:16:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 1266:22:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC) 354:Muhlenberg Park, Pennsylvania 2537:a sentence in the lead from 2258:23:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2228:23:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2210:22:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2178:21:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2159:21:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2135:21:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2113:20:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2085:20:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC) 2050:21:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC) 1174:02:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC) 1142:02:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC) 1128:00:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC) 1006:, of which there were about 642:Arlington CDP, Massachusetts 576:(a.k.a. municipalities) and 2372:18:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 2354:18:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 2339:12:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC) 2093:managed as a municipality. 2020:14:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC) 1558:02:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC) 1530:18:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 1505:01:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC) 582:administrative subdivisions 405:. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 339:Greater Galesburg, Michigan 2612: 2524:07:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC) 2515:and related discussion at 1981:unincorporated communities 1908:discussion about Indonesia 1082:the one of old MacDonald's 959:01:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC) 928:23:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 892:05:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 842:00:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 811:02:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC) 786:23:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 767:17:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 729:00:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC) 715:23:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 671:23:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC) 609:23:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 589:19:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 578:unincorporated communities 564:18:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 550:16:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 516:administrative subdivision 378:03:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 346:01:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC) 324:05:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 289:03:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 268:00:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC) 229:22:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 202:Boulevard Park, Washington 165:22:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 126:21:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC) 2594:10:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC) 1550:uses "populated place". – 1237:17:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC) 1208:Great Boiling Spring Park 530:20:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 508:19:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC) 492:21:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 463:21:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 445:21:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 394:00:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC) 1218:The problem is that the 646:Arlington, Massachusetts 574:incorporated communities 450:populated areas. A CDP 1094:00:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC) 1063:21:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 1049:21:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 1039:02:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 1023:00:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC) 994:Is a plantation a town? 989:07:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC) 145:Census-designated place 106:Census designated place 2470:think it covers... -- 1289: 1910:. This is now being 1640:(see above, May 2019) 1016:WP:Right great wrongs 858:are to define things 854:. Various notability 210:Downieville, Colorado 42:of past discussions. 2549:includes features of 1757:Most discussions ... 1586:Most discussions at 1250:their own guidelines 1163:combine the features 640:One such example is 477:It also says later " 198:Riverton, Washington 1923:, which are actual 1492:The Forks, Kentucky 2494:Davidstewartharvey 1224:National Map Corps 710:CDPs. It happens. 572:CDPs include both 2541:also functions as 1650:, September 2020) 920: 650:This presentation 623:2020 CDP criteria 619:2010 CDP criteria 184:Statistical Atlas 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2603: 2429: 2418: 2406: 2404: 2255: 2247: 2207: 2199: 2156: 2148: 2110: 2102: 2016: 2011: 1880: 1826: 1818: 1708: 1703: 1634:, November 2013) 1566:Populated places 1539:being a classic 1534:I don't think a 1482:Voting precincts 1262: 1256: 1247: 1222:and instead the 1148:I've found that 1125: 1117: 924: 919: 917: 839: 831: 681: 599: 544: 480: 471: 431: 424: 422: 406: 404: 388: 218:Lawson, Colorado 214:Dumont, Colorado 120: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2611: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2531: 2509: 2427: 2415: 2402: 2400: 2313: 2251: 2243: 2203: 2195: 2152: 2144: 2106: 2098: 2060: 2030: 2014: 2009: 1874: 1820: 1812: 1706: 1701: 1657:(December 2018) 1568: 1503: 1484: 1475: 1352:current version 1276: 1274:Sources section 1260: 1254: 1241: 1212:Gerlach, Nevada 1121: 1113: 1101: 996: 973: 937:from the policy 922: 915: 871:from the policy 835: 827: 675: 593: 542: 420: 418: 413: 402: 398: 386: 196:was split into 118: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2609: 2607: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2530: 2527: 2508: 2505: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2460: 2440: 2439: 2403:Rhododendrites 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2374: 2324: 2323: 2320: 2312: 2309: 2295: 2294: 2284: 2282: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2216: 2116: 2115: 2059: 2053: 2029: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 1987:but excluding 1963: 1962: 1946: 1945: 1940: 1939: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1815:LaundryPizza03 1810: 1809: 1794: 1793: 1772: 1771: 1754: 1737: 1685: 1684: 1677: 1674: 1659: 1658: 1651: 1641: 1635: 1621: 1620:(October 2010) 1615: 1609: 1603: 1597: 1591: 1567: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1544: 1511: 1499: 1483: 1480: 1471: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1331: 1330: 1319: 1318: 1275: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1216: 1203: 1202: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1185: 1184: 1176: 1161:, and we can " 1145: 1144: 1100: 1097: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 995: 992: 972: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 845: 844: 813: 791: 790: 789: 788: 770: 769: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 717: 660: 658: 638: 636: 628: 626: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 484: 482: 475: 473: 465: 432: 411: 362: 361: 349: 348: 333: 332: 327: 326: 304: 303: 302: 296: 295: 291: 279:test instead. 271: 270: 255: 238: 237: 232: 231: 189: 188: 180:Here's the one 167: 134:My reading of 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2608: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2567: 2564: 2560: 2557:which states 2556: 2552: 2550: 2544: 2542: 2536: 2528: 2526: 2525: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2506: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2490: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2422: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2405: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2383: 2378: 2375: 2373: 2370: 2369: 2364: 2360: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2352: 2347: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2321: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2310: 2308: 2307: 2304: 2301: 2293: 2290: 2285: 2283: 2280: 2275: 2259: 2256: 2254: 2248: 2246: 2241: 2240:SportingFlyer 2236: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2208: 2206: 2200: 2198: 2193: 2192:SportingFlyer 2189: 2185: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2168: 2165: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2157: 2155: 2149: 2147: 2142: 2141:SportingFlyer 2138: 2137: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2109: 2103: 2101: 2096: 2095:SportingFlyer 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2069: 2065: 2058: 2054: 2052: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2027: 2021: 2017: 2012: 2006: 2005: 2002: 1999: 1994: 1990: 1989:census tracts 1986: 1982: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1973: 1970: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1948: 1947: 1942: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1913: 1912:forum-shopped 1909: 1905: 1904: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1890: 1884: 1878: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1857: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1840: 1835: 1830: 1824: 1816: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1774: 1773: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1755: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1738: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1723: 1719: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1709: 1704: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1691: 1682: 1678: 1675: 1672: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1664: 1656: 1652: 1649: 1645: 1642: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1622: 1619: 1616: 1613: 1610: 1607: 1604: 1601: 1598: 1595: 1592: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1565: 1559: 1556: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1542: 1537: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1512: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1493: 1489: 1481: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1460: 1457: 1454: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1419: 1414: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1399: 1395: 1393: 1389: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1360: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1337: 1329: 1326: 1321: 1320: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1298: 1295: 1288: 1283: 1281: 1273: 1267: 1263: 1257: 1251: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1175: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1143: 1140: 1137: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1126: 1124: 1118: 1116: 1111: 1110:SportingFlyer 1107: 1099:GNIS database 1098: 1096: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1047: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 993: 991: 990: 986: 982: 978: 970: 960: 956: 952: 948: 944: 943: 938: 935: 931: 930: 929: 926: 925: 918: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 894: 893: 889: 885: 881: 877: 872: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 848: 847: 846: 843: 840: 838: 832: 830: 825: 824:SportingFlyer 821: 817: 814: 812: 809: 805: 801: 800:WP:PAGEDECIDE 797: 796:every species 793: 792: 787: 783: 779: 774: 773: 772: 771: 768: 765: 764: 758: 754: 753: 730: 727: 723: 718: 716: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 692: 691: 690: 686: 679: 674: 673: 672: 669: 665: 661: 659: 656: 651: 647: 643: 639: 637: 634: 629: 627: 624: 620: 616: 612: 611: 610: 607: 603: 597: 592: 591: 590: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 565: 561: 557: 553: 552: 551: 547: 546: 545: 537: 533: 532: 531: 527: 523: 519: 518: 517: 511: 510: 509: 505: 501: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 490: 485: 483: 476: 474: 466: 464: 461: 457: 453: 448: 447: 446: 442: 438: 433: 430: 429: 416: 412: 410: 401: 397: 396: 395: 391: 390: 389: 381: 380: 379: 376: 373: 369: 364: 363: 359: 355: 351: 350: 347: 344: 343:TheCatalyst31 340: 335: 334: 329: 328: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 300: 299: 298: 297: 292: 290: 286: 282: 278: 273: 272: 269: 265: 261: 256: 253: 249: 244: 240: 239: 234: 233: 230: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 190: 185: 181: 177: 173: 172:census tracts 168: 166: 162: 158: 154: 150: 147: 146: 141: 137: 133: 130: 129: 128: 127: 123: 122: 121: 113: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2577: 2551:a gazetteer" 2548: 2543:a gazetteer" 2540: 2532: 2510: 2486: 2467: 2448: 2447: 2420: 2397: 2381: 2380: 2367: 2329: 2328: 2325: 2314: 2296: 2250: 2242: 2202: 2194: 2151: 2143: 2105: 2097: 2067: 2061: 2031: 2028:SNGs and GNG 2003: 2000: 1997: 1992: 1924: 1888: 1887: 1882: 1855: 1838: 1837: 1811: 1695: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1660: 1569: 1543:mislabeling. 1535: 1513: 1485: 1465: 1437: 1436: 1415: 1400: 1396: 1391: 1387: 1385: 1369: 1368: 1335: 1334: 1332: 1290: 1285: 1277: 1149: 1120: 1112: 1102: 1071: 997: 974: 940: 936: 913: 909: 879: 875: 870: 863: 859: 855: 834: 826: 815: 762: 756: 707: 614: 540: 539: 514: 513: 451: 427: 426: 419:. Retrieved 408: 384: 383: 251: 247: 242: 148: 143: 131: 116: 115: 109: 78: 43: 37: 2511:Please see 2032:There is a 1985:ghost towns 1921:WP:NOTFORUM 1877:Staszek Lem 1861:Staszek Lem 1836:Sincerely, 1823:Staszek Lem 1799:Staszek Lem 1783:Staszek Lem 1761:Staszek Lem 1744:Staszek Lem 1727:Staszek Lem 1671:nationalist 1580:Third World 1522:Staszek Lem 1422:Staszek Lem 1404:Staszek Lem 1308:Glendoremus 1086:Staszek Lem 1055:Magnolia677 998:Please see 951:Staszek Lem 884:Staszek Lem 556:Staszek Lem 522:Staszek Lem 435:incomplete. 316:Glendoremus 254:residents." 36:This is an 2489:Necrothesp 2472:Necrothesp 2235:WP:GEOLAND 2188:WP:GEOLAND 2164:Same story 2123:WP:GEOLAND 2075:comes up. 2073:WP:GEOLAND 2057:WP:GEOLAND 2034:discussion 1488:WP:GEOLAND 1388:sufficient 1199:WP:GEOLAND 1150:everything 1074:Plantation 1012:WP:GEOLAND 1004:plantation 856:guidelines 804:WP:SPINOUT 368:WP:GEOLAND 157:Lightburst 153:WP:GEOLAND 136:WP:GEOLAND 98:Archive 10 2563:dlthewave 2449:North8000 2382:North8000 2330:North8000 2300:dlthewave 2279:WP:NPLACE 2042:Barkeep49 1969:dlthewave 1917:WP:NOTLAW 1889:North8000 1839:North8000 1778:WP:NASTRO 1663:WP:NASTRO 1648:Indonesia 1552:dlthewave 1453:dlthewave 1438:North8000 1392:necessary 1370:North8000 1356:dlthewave 1336:North8000 1294:dlthewave 1136:dlthewave 1106:WP:BEFORE 910:guideline 372:dlthewave 90:Archive 7 85:Archive 6 79:Archive 5 73:Archive 4 68:Archive 3 60:Archive 1 2521:Reywas92 2417:notable. 2377:Reywas92 2359:Reywas92 2351:Reywas92 2289:Reywas92 2064:this AFD 1925:policies 1883:material 1859:with? 1632:Pakistan 1497:Hog Farm 1469:Hog Farm 1325:Reywas92 1255:The Grid 1171:Reywas92 1046:Reywas92 1020:Reywas92 860:presumed 808:Levivich 757:presumed 712:Levivich 678:Levivich 668:Levivich 662:Also at 596:Levivich 586:Levivich 489:Reywas92 421:March 8, 308:document 226:Reywas92 176:this map 2535:changed 1998:Laundry 1993:as such 1856:discuss 1690:Laundry 1541:WP:GNIS 1280:Sources 1002:. Is a 906:WP:NGEO 281:Kaldari 248:A-ville 132:Comment 39:archive 2578:per se 2555:WP:5P1 2361:, the 2346:WP:GNG 2220:Mangoe 1952:Mangoe 1929:Andrew 1873:Hello 1681:WP:GNG 1572:WP:GNG 1548:source 1536:voting 934:WP:GNG 898:WP:GNG 876:delete 868:WP:GNG 852:WP:GNG 820:WP:GNG 778:Mangoe 644:, and 534:Um, a 500:Djflem 437:Djflem 314:test. 312:WP:GNG 277:WP:GNG 260:Mangoe 216:, and 140:WP:SNG 2586:FOARP 2492:sure. 2170:FOARP 2127:FOARP 2077:FOARP 2001:Pizza 1693:Pizza 1673:bias. 1646:(for 1628:India 1626:(for 1516:into 1514:merge 1501:Bacon 1473:Bacon 1244:Cxbrx 1229:Cxbrx 1031:CJK09 981:CJK09 864:fails 726:wiser 722:older 689:wiser 685:older 615:rules 606:wiser 602:older 460:wiser 456:older 403:(PDF) 306:This 243:Place 222:ZCTAs 16:< 2590:talk 2582:GNIS 2498:talk 2476:talk 2454:talk 2428:asem 2387:talk 2335:talk 2224:talk 2184:some 2174:talk 2131:talk 2081:talk 2068:with 2046:talk 1956:talk 1933:talk 1919:and 1894:talk 1865:talk 1844:talk 1829:WP:V 1803:talk 1787:talk 1765:talk 1748:talk 1731:talk 1722:WP:V 1630:and 1526:talk 1443:talk 1426:talk 1408:talk 1375:talk 1341:talk 1312:talk 1261:talk 1233:talk 1167:GIGO 1090:talk 1078:farm 1072:No. 1059:talk 1035:talk 985:talk 977:here 955:talk 947:WP:N 942:WP:N 923:Wölf 902:WP:N 888:talk 880:keep 782:talk 560:talk 543:EDDY 526:talk 504:talk 441:talk 423:2020 387:EDDY 356:and 320:talk 285:talk 264:talk 208:has 200:and 161:talk 155:#2. 119:EDDY 2545:to 2421:why 2407:\\ 2363:RFC 2062:In 2036:at 1931:🐉( 1264:) 1183:is: 916:Daß 912:". 708:and 452:MAY 407:as 2592:) 2533:I 2519:. 2500:) 2478:) 2468:do 2456:) 2435:) 2389:) 2368:MB 2365:, 2337:) 2226:) 2176:) 2133:) 2083:) 2048:) 2018:) 2015:c̄ 2004:03 1958:) 1935:) 1927:. 1896:) 1867:) 1846:) 1805:) 1789:) 1767:) 1750:) 1733:) 1710:) 1707:c̄ 1696:03 1665:. 1528:) 1445:) 1428:) 1410:) 1377:) 1343:) 1314:) 1282:: 1235:) 1092:) 1061:) 1037:) 987:) 979:. 957:) 890:) 784:) 763:MB 724:≠ 702:; 698:; 687:≠ 648:. 621:, 604:≠ 562:) 548:~ 528:) 520:. 506:) 458:≠ 443:) 425:. 392:~ 322:) 294:as 287:) 266:) 252:nn 212:, 163:) 124:~ 94:→ 64:← 2588:( 2566:☎ 2561:– 2496:( 2474:( 2452:( 2433:t 2431:( 2426:M 2385:( 2333:( 2303:☎ 2253:C 2249:· 2245:T 2222:( 2205:C 2201:· 2197:T 2172:( 2154:C 2150:· 2146:T 2129:( 2108:C 2104:· 2100:T 2079:( 2044:( 2010:d 2007:( 1972:☎ 1954:( 1892:( 1879:: 1875:@ 1863:( 1842:( 1825:: 1821:@ 1817:: 1813:@ 1801:( 1785:( 1763:( 1746:( 1729:( 1702:d 1699:( 1687:– 1683:. 1555:☎ 1524:( 1456:☎ 1441:( 1424:( 1406:( 1373:( 1359:☎ 1339:( 1310:( 1297:☎ 1292:– 1258:( 1246:: 1242:@ 1231:( 1139:☎ 1123:C 1119:· 1115:T 1088:( 1057:( 1033:( 983:( 953:( 900:( 886:( 874:" 837:C 833:· 829:T 780:( 680:: 676:@ 657:. 635:. 598:: 594:@ 558:( 524:( 502:( 439:( 375:☎ 318:( 283:( 262:( 159:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 5 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index