Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 7

828:- as someone who has generally lived in domiciles represented by at least five levels of geography that directly elect representatives according to unique boundaries, in addition to historical and special-purpose units, I wouldn't expect for any of them to lose the presumption of Notability because they are not cities/towns/villages or because some wikilawyer doesn't consider them to be "communities". Where there is a layer of administrative geography that doesn't generate significant coverage for each constituent unit, that makes a great candidate for merging to the overall level of organization (and redirecting the components), but losing GEOLAND coverage for the units doesn't help to produce that outcome; instead it just encourages discussions to be held at AfD when they would be better handled in a proposed Merge format, IMO. 757:

district, a pipeline/ water district, a now-irrelevant but still extant tuberculosis/ sanitarium district, a fire protection district, park district, a school district plus others. Except in some highly specialized conversation, I'd never use any of these to communicate where I live. I'm not worried about the articles that we have; I'm worried that the world has (a good guess) 10's of millions of these abstract entities and nothing stopping mass creations of these sourced only to a database. Also trying to get / offer some guidance when running across geostubs at NPP whether or not these get an automatic SNG pass because they are legally recognized and inhabited. This is not to say that such an article should not exist if it has contents and sources. I might try boldly adding a tweak on this.

3130:- I don't mind at all! That is how it read to me when User:Valeree specifically asked you to propose a "GEOLAND fix", which is what I had in mind when I referred to it being "singled out for special attention". I'm sorry if I'm continuing to get hold of the wrong end of the stick, but you are surely saying that although GEOLAND is one of the few SNGs which operates on alternative notability criteria to those of the GNG it ought not to, and proposing that GEOLAND should instead be made to conform to GNG. If so, that would be a huge change, regardless of the background. 1029: 238:

sources, articles written by locals and used multiple online maps to verify the coordinates. In addition, my work focuses on the villages liberated or returned to Azerbaijan as a result of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. That is, these villages were announced both by the president of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Twitter and the mass media sources during and after the course of the war. These one are not random villages with non-notable localities. I am ready to cooperate if anything else is required not to mass delete them, thanks

1787:

when a train station is non-notable, provided that a suitable target exists. But also things like flag stops aren’t always “features” in the way that a boulder or bridge might be (there frankly might not be anything substantial there to signify it), so I’m not 100% sure that all train stations can get lumped in there. Your proposal would certainly make things more concise, but I do think that the “no inherent notability” phrase should be explicit in the text of the article guideline rather than reduced to a footnote. —

2377:, for example, haven't had any administrative function since 1975, and they have a typical population of about 1,000. If we divided the whole world into subdivisions at this level and said they are all inherently notable then we'd have more articles on administrative subdivisions than everything else combined, most of them auto-generated geostubs. First-level conventional subdivisions of countries, like counties in the UK, are very likely to be notable, but I don't think we should go down to this level. 1555:

sewage treatment district (run by elected officials) a sanitarium district that nobody even knows exists, a park district run by elected officials, a legally defined 3 digit zip code area, a precinct which get's redrawn every few years, electoral districts that only exist for 1 gerrymandering cycle, plus dozens more. And then dozens more that aren't set up by the government (e.g. telephone area code areas) Those aren't really places and don't and shouldn't get presumed notability under an SNG.

31: 3097:- I hope you will not mind if I state simply for full clarity that I have not singled GEOLAND out for special attention, not am I proposing any special rules or changes for GEOLAND. Instead, I have said that GEOLAND should not been exempted from general proposals since it was the main area for the problematic mass-creation highlighted in the Carlossuarez46 and Lugnuts ARBCOM cases which ultimately led to the present RFC. 919: 874: 534: 493: 1443:. This section only applies to "populated places", and it makes it clear that anything which isn't normally thought of as a place doesn't count. So while cities, towns, villages etc with some form of legal recognition count, and common subdivisions such as states, counties, provinces etc likely would as well, that doesn't extend to electoral divisions or other kinds of administrative units. Someone from 2963:. The main argument I saw for "inherently" keeping these articles in the AfD discussions I reviewed was that they provided a location for local schools with minimal coverage to be merged to. (For the record, I do agree that it's a bit weird to give geographic places a "free pass" when other topics don't, but I felt that if "place" is taken to include "school district" anyway, it should be clarified.) 2246:

municipal level. Setting the 4th level as the threshold (which is, please confirm if I am wrong, what is intended to be codified here) is capricious, and does not properly address the question of how to differentiate small settlements with "legal recognition" from the the casuistry of those ad-hoc administrative divisions for the provision of services mentioned above.--Asqueladd (

3021:

statistical information off databases to create thousands of content-less articles like the GNIS and Iranian census stubs that we have now spent years trying to clean up. Simply because it is some kind of district in which people live does not make it a "populated place", any more than, say, the North Lancashire Football League is a "populated place", or the

1379:

purposes (like a census tract) or is for something that would not likely qualify as a settlement such as an abadi we may not presume they are notable but if the place is something that is a settlement it should qualify and the 3 examples do have other sources and its highly likely for most such places there would be other coverage.

3075:) that articles created under GEOLAND have been singled out for special attention by the editor FOARP (inter alia, see above), who has been asked to present to the RfC his proposals for changes to GEOLAND as regards mass creation (and doubtless also mass deletion a bit later). This warrants close attention, I would think. 2567:) but it doesn't appear anything lower than that exists. So unless like Scotland that formerly functioned (and are still used for statistical purposes) or at least are notable in some other way such units might not satisfy this but again they probably wouldn't qualify as municipalities or equivalences. 1577:- I could go with insisting that the “place” at least has to exhibit some level of self-governance. The issue is that this too does not really clarify things that much (does a railway district govern itself? A television area?). Better just to say that all of them must eventually pass GNG to be frank. 3504:

this may well have been an example of the article creator simply assuming that the place in the Iranian census (which does not only list villages but instead simply counts people around a named feature that may not be a community in any real sense) was the same as the place named on GNS without there

3354:

a parish is formed within an unparished area but only covering a small part of it and such parishes can be though of as being urban though they have their own council so will be notable. In terms of pre-1974 parishes that didn't have a settlement of the same name and were never rural parishes and the

2983:

is exactly the sort of nonsense inclusionism I oppose. Some folks think Knowledge (XXG) needs a carve-out for schools because it attracts student editors (to vandalize). The problem with writing an encyclopedia is that you need sources to support content and anything short of GNG is an obvious appeal

1801:

Regarding flag stops, assuming we only look at active ones they would still be advertised as "the train can stop at this position", so I'd argue they are still artificial features. There are cases where it's advertised that a train can stop anywhere along a given area, but these cases generally don't

1786:

I can’t think of any SNG that would be lighter than GNG and apply to a train station except possibly the “cultural heritage” and “national heritage” parts of NGEO (the RfC didn’t really touch on these sorts of edge cases). Upmerging/redirecting non-notable articles makes sense to me as a standard ATD

341:

In addition, I just do not understand what you expect as a reliable source for more than 4,000 Azerbaijani villages in the future. Should CNN or BBC journalists travel each village and prepare a video report from there?! I indicated the official government data published recently as a source and even

256:

Perhaps a solution would be to merge these mini-stubs into a list article keeping all the infoboxes. If the list becomes too long it could be divided alphabetically or by district. If more reliable sourced information for a village appears in the future it can be spun out to a seperate article, in my

3308:

having similar boundaries. Rural parish generally had stable boundaries and corresponded to natural boundaries of places. Urban parishes on the other did not have their own councils and instead relied on the district council. The did however until 1930 have electoral roles and there did seem to be a

1156:

As far as I understand administrative units and electoral divisions are presumed to be notable and census tracts are generally not notable. What about settlements and similar that have census data? As far as I'm aware if the place is a settlement such as a city, town village or even hamlet or suburb

3366:

I don't think those exclusions would likely apply as census tracts are simply random areas for census which don't have any administrative function and don't have any physical existence. Similarly for abadi which are often small areas like farms etc rather than towns or villages but have census data

3010:

rather than geographic features, I'd think. They are often notable because they are government entities that oversee education and individual schools, not because they are populated places. There is not consensus to call districts automatically notable: there are over 16,000 in the US alone but far

2067:

We probably need to further clarify what settlements etc are presumed notable, generally I've understood this to be cities, towns and villages even without census data as long as there is a source to support that it is a settlement of that classification or if its a hamlet or suburb census data for

302:

I oppose the idea of the table. You have to be consistent across Knowledge (XXG), in this case, you have to apply the same approach to all Azerbaijani, Armenian, Georgian, Russian etc. settlements where they have very little information. We have stubs for this. This will leave you with a handful of

271:

A quick review of the articles would suggest a table with all the basic facts that would otherwise be in an infobox would be a better solution, which also allows 1) searchable redirects to this table 2) blue links for actual settlements that meet NGEO guidelines alongside the non-notable ones as to

2794:

The phraseology concerning merging non-notable features to some enclosing feature's article lacks consensus, in my observation. From what I see (and this is certainly my PoV) articles on classes of features held non-notable by default (such a subdivisions) have been deleted unless they pass GNG on

2245:

in which of course people happen to live, overlapping with other random administrative delimitations) may not necessarily warrant an article, the latter of which, I may lean to agree with. For that matter, that kind of examples arguably also spans to random "administrative" delimitations above the

2465:

I don't think we should be recognising very low-level divisions like that as inherently notable. It's one thing to say that for the UK, where we have plenty of documentation available, but this would apply to every country in the world. Are low level units like that in, say, Uzbekistan inherently

1602:

Sometimes if you can put into words what people already know by common sense it is helpful. In essence, no presumed notability for the more abstract areas. Beside meeting SNG criteria and suitable RS sourcing that they exist, they would need to be how somebody describes "this is where I live" to

1529:

It will vary depending on where you are, but I think it has to be a "place" in the usual sense of the term (somewhere people would use as a geographic indicator), people have to live there, and it has to have some kind of recognition from some government agency as an administrative subdivision or

237:

created these village articles based on the GEOnet Names Server back in 2008 which had numerous misspellings in the titles and outdated data such as old names. My creations/edits were primarily based on the official government directory published recently. I also verified this with other domestic

161:

case - even if people think this proves the existence/notability of these places, we really don't need to have an article for each place if there's no real information in them other than the name of the place and its population (which is really the only thing that the sources in the articles tell

3258:

which do not appear to show up in any maps or census data etc which again may not be notable. All or almost all of the civil parish groups articles in England appear to have been created in the mistaken belief there was a CP with that name and I've previusly argued they aren't notable but on 2nd

2731:

I appreciate efforts such as this to further define what should be presumed notable or non-notable and thus shrink the gray area in between where disputes inevitably o arise; however, I don't support this particular proposal. Presuming notability of "4th order divisions" would be problematic for

2399:

Yes civil parishes in Scotland haven't function administratively but their boundaries are generally based on "natural" boundaries and even if you assumed that if they were created in 1975 with no functions they weren't notable they did exist before 1975 with functions. With respect to England in

2122:

to be notable (which seems to be the intent of the proposal) appears to be a major departure from GEOLAND without any real justification. The Arondissements of Montreal, for example, are clearly notable, even though they could be interpreted as fifth-order divisions in the sense of the proposal.

2049:

This also clarifies that terms can differ in different parts of the world for example the term "county" (in the ceremonial counties sense) is similar to what would in the US be a "state" while the term "county" in the US is what Austria and England would describe as a "district" and what Denmark

2673:

which may well also qualify as legally-recognized. A village in England is generally distinguished from a hamlet as having a church. Most villages that weren't at least at some point an administrative unit (not many) would probably have coverage on the settlement or at least church. Hamlets and

1554:

I strongly disagree with any statement that merely being a "administrative units and electoral divisions" means presumed notability under the SNG. My place is a city in a county in a state in a country. I'm also in dozens of abstract government recognized geographic divisions. For example, a

1378:

these places don't have and administrative function but there is census data provided for these places and unlike Basildon 010A which is a census tract that doesn't match anything on the ground the 1st 3 examples do. So I agree with FOARP in that if the census unit exists purely for statistical

189:

first destroy the contents of my articles by throwing away everything inside, and then they report them for deletion. It is completely absurd to deny the existence of localities in the situation of credible sources, and such sources are in every article created by me. For these two users, mass

597:

Are train stations for heavy rail networks notable simply because we can verify that they exist? The closest thing we have in this guideline is guidance around "artificial features related to infrastructure", the examples for which are bridges and dams. Since railroads are a form of physical

2323:

and the following the common meaning of that term. While they are often defined by legal stuff and lines on a map, I think that those administrative aspects are secondary to the criteria. IMO opening up a whole new area (administrative units) for presumed notability would be at best very

756:

Generally this is taken to mean the main names commonly used to identify the location. For example, the name of the town that I live in and the name of the state that I live in. But I live in about 12 other legally recognized districts on the map, all with different boundaries. A library

3020:

Adding school districts (or anything else actually) into this guide as something that ends up being interpreted as automatically notable is not something that should be done full-stop. If anything the scope of this guide should be reduced due to its tendency to function as an excuse to copy

289:

I like the table idea. When you look at the amount of actual useful information in most of these articles (including the infobox) it really comes down to coordinates and population; there's a lot of extra stuff like time zone, postal code, telephone code, etc that we don't need to retain.

1346:

Yes I think if the place can be shown to be a city, town, village or even hamlet or suburb as opposed to something like an abadi its reasonable to count is as being notable. Most such places will tend to have other coverage anyway. Keep in mind that a settlement generally won't have any

222:, so you must STOP creating articles without approval. These are low-quality articles of questionable notability and styles inconsistent with other articles, and you will be reported at ANI if you do not cease immediately and seek approval for such semi-automated bulk article creation. 2937:

Poorly-attended AfDs with an eye to the circular reasoning of OUTCOMES is the sort of inclusionist foolishness that caused me to turn away from that ideology. This notability guideline is already overbroad. I do not care to opine why we seek to keep articles which do not pass GNG.

321:

settlements should also be condensed into a table. The settlements will still be searchable and the little information we have documented, and if they eventually can be expanded, then a standalone can be made. But this applies to all those settlements in those other countries too.

1451:, for example, so that's not a "place". The problem with that AfD is that there is no evidence that those places exist apart from the census, and merely appearing as designations in a census isn't enough to make them presumed to be notable - they might not be populated places. 3175:(a player who was apparently not known by that name) are both problematic for similar reasons, and as such there is no good reason to address one but not the other. To be honest I don't think there is any "fix" I can offer Valereee beyond that simple value-statement. 2881:, redirecting villages with hundreds of people and adding big tables with Kurds repeated in every column. Doesn't seem right to me, why shouldn't settlements with hundreds of people have their own articles, is he aware of our general guidelines on populated places? ♦ 2767:

I think a lot of the concerns raised here point to this guidance being needed its just that the precise wording etc may need to be more detailed namely explaining which types are not notable and which types may be NN as well as those that are presumed notable.

943:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

2372:

I wouldn't be opposed to having something about administrative units, at least the higher level ones, but this suggestion is rather generous and the parts designed to avoid including sewage treatment districts and the like come across as rather convoluted.

3508:

Since I also have to use other US government websites as part of my work (especially the USPTO website), US government websites basically not working for extended periods of time is something I am used to, but this is unusual even by that low standard.

2905:. Saying "Kurdish people live there" in a country with a substantial Kurdish population, repeatedly across multiple articles, is not obviously better than simply saying it in one article. You yourself have said you are OK with this kind of redirection. 1418:

The idea that self-governance is required for GEOLAND Notability would be absurdly ethnocentric - there are whole national units that lack meaningful self-governance at any level. Officially recognized administrative units are equally covered (e.g. the

2115:(1) not all jurisdictions have strictly rectangular systems producing "orders" of units; for example, cities in Ontario, Canada may be third-order or fourth-order divisions depending on whether or not they also participate in a regional municipality. 2660:

I can't speak for other countries as much but for English settlements generally the consensus seems to be. Cities, towns and villages are generally presumed notable as long as it can be shown that they are that class which seems to be supported by

843:

Just clarifying, this is about "legally recognized communities". The minor tweaks that I already did are consistent with your thought process. In essence, still grant presumed notability to all of those five levels of geography that you describe.

3362:

says "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable" but then says "Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable".

2618:

guidelines/policies, not predetermine them. The amendments to NSPORTS basically have negated the "Almanac" part of it in as much as they applied to sports almanacs and the community can do the same to the "gazetteer" part of it if we so choose.

2546:

Well in England was have around 96.4% of municipalities while most other countries in the world appear to have 100% though this may be partly due to the English ones having relatively little function compared to many other countries. Looking on

2033:

are also presumed to be notable, other divisions are subject to the "populated places without legal recognition". For guidance on if administrative units should have separate articles from the places with the same name they are named after, see

3493:, click on "Geographic Names Search Application", and then the page never loads properly. Am I the only one with this problem? I guess Geonames.com still works but the data there isn't the same as on GNS and the article-references are to GNS. 3432:

may be significant to local neighborhood, may be of curiosity to city level or at the most regional level audience so I felt may be good for local guide or regional encyclopedia. For WP as encyclopedic catering to international audience, IMO

3060: 2687:

are more controversial, sometimes they have standalone articles, sometimes they are redirected to their parish or (for suburbs) the town they are in. For those that aren't OS settlements they are generally merged like previous or deleted, see

128:) - Russian village articles based on population charts, heavily padded with sources that are either autogenerated cruft or don't even mention the villages in question. The creations have continued even after this was pointed out to them. 2275:

there isn't. The settlements within the 4th order unit are generally subject to the "Populated places" notability criteria. For countries that have lower level units still these may well be notable for example in England there was once

3248:

but in such cases of grouped civil parishes there is no such division as "Swilland and Witnesham" only a council covering the 2 separate parishes called "Swilland and Witnesham Grouped Parish Council". Similarly in Scotland there are

799:

I think generally GEOLAND#1 is either settlements that have census data (generally) or municipalities/districts or electoral divisions but not things like school districts though I would construed "legally recognized" quite broadly.

3441: 3333:

were small tracts of an ancient parish that ended up in the urban district and thus the parish being split. Often such parishes were later merged into 1 parish with the same name as the urban district such as the parish of the

2442: 2324:

complicated (given the large amount of non-notable, abstract, transient and obscure administration units e.g. sewage treatment districts). And at worst, problematic by removing the emphasis on it needing to be a recognized

2035: 414: 1603:

somebody who is not local. They might say that they live in the hamlet of Hooterville in Lake county, but they are never going to say "I live in the "Precinct #43 of Wentworth twonship" or "The Hooterville US Census tract".

425:

specifies that legally recognized places are generally inherently notable, usually when a low level municipality has the same name as a settlement it usually not given a separate article but 1 article deals with both such as

1530:

something that's more than just a statistical designation. I made that comment in the DRV because you'd suggested it was notable because the OS had designated it as a place, I don't think that constitutes legal recognition.

3253:

that are now largely defunct but are still used for statistical purposes and did previously have administrative roles and do still show up on some maps so would likely also be inherently notable on the other hand there are

3036:

On the point of whether AFDs can function as a precedent, really they would have to be a lot more well-attended and have to be much more explicit as to whether the subject is notable per this guide than what is seen here.

2171:

I don't agree with the proposal. I find the presumption that any level below the municipality "is subject to the populated places without legal recognition" by default to be poorly thought. I read in a thread above that

3310: 1929:

Agree but we should also specify that things like country subdivisions (states, districts and municipalities) and formal regions are notable but other things like sewage treatment district etc aren't generally notable.

1317:

I disagree strongly that pure census data should be enough to qualify anything as sufficiently notable for an article. Knowledge (XXG) is not a database - that’s a very basic rule that predates Geoland and has a higher

1003: 3505:

being any real reason to believe that because the GNS feature has multiple names and there are multiple other, different locations with the same name. But, without being able to load GNS at all I cannot check this.

1332:"Legally recognized, populated places are presumed to be notable" - census data is sufficient for villages, towns and larger providing the census is considered accurate in my view. More coverage is better of course 1399:

While the existence of census data for a place doesn't imply notability, administrative divisions that are officially recognized should be covered by GEOLAND whether or not they have self-governance institutions.

947:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

1130: 272:

be "complete" in all settlements, and 3) allows for future expansion of standalones for individual settlements if they can be proven notable. Condensing that many infoboxes into a list is a really bad idea. --

2436:

The reason for this is as well as clarifying things like districts are notable but also you're points about things like sewage districts not being notable otherwise people may well think they are. Aside from

1235:

These aren't "populated places" in the sense of settlements (apart from Brunstock) but they are administrative divisions, these places are quite obviously inherently notable even if they aren't settlements.

2349:

Honestly, I think the guideline works really badly and should be abandoned. The reason is the mass proliferation of geostubs based on pure statistical databases. The Abadi and GNIS cases show this in stark

625:

That's been a frequent outcome for extant stations with regular use, though nothing has automatic notability. Stations that no longer exist or are not regularly used are not considered as notable, and per

2693: 1312:

If it is to mean anything, “legal recognition” must mean recognition through a process of law, typically by conferring a level of self-governance. It cannot just be a purely statistical unit or division.

657:

a problem. Several times I've seen somebody take a train line with say 10 smallish stations on it and create 10 geostub articles on the 10 smallish stations. The outcomes page makes these hard to AFD.

1740:

Regarding the new guideline you made, I feel this would be better as added to the "Artificial features related to infrastructure" with a footnote noting the lack of inherit notability? Something like

434:

dealing with both the settlement and municipality however for higher level divisions with boundaries that are more recent and are more modern creations we usually do have separate articles such as

1108: 94: 3384:

I'm unsure but I'm wandering, perhaps we should see if there is a non-binding consensus here on this. If they aren't notable they could be covered in the urban district's town. See discussion at

3421: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1619:

Agree with North8000 in that the examples like sewage treatment districts wouldn't qualify but 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th order administrative units as well as formal regions would surely qualify.

2640:

I'm not arguing for the gazetteer function (or anything in 5P) specifically, but IMO what is currently structurally lacking is that Knowledge (XXG) needs some highly consensused pages that

2466:

notable? I'm sure if we say they are then somebody will try to create articles on them, even if it's only by copying some database of the kind that have caused so many problems in the past.

569: 2689: 774:

Perhaps "Populated, legally recognized places" could be renamed "Legally recognized communities", since that would include cities/towns/villages but not such districts or census tracts.

3168: 1274: 1085: 3462: 2854: 3007: 2138:

I wasn't able to see "The 2nd to last point also clarifies that things like sewage treatment districts would not be presumed to be notable." Could you point out and explain?

2188:". That consideration is clearly a very limited perspective, not conductive to having a holistic view on the matter. That cannot be the basis of any proposed change putatively 3437:

need to add a criteria some thing like ".. Catering objective of fulfillment of encyclopedic curiosity of international audience and just not limited to local audience.."

2575:

When I am talking about districts I'm referring to local government districts (or equivalences like American counties) not every unit that happens to be called a "district".

132:

I'm wondering what the best path forward is: Would it be best to get consensus for a mass deletion/redirect at Village Pump, or go straight to ANI to get this sorted out? –

3490:

Hi all, I've been trying for days to access the GNS system to check the existence or otherwise of some Iranian "villages" referenced to it. Every time I go to this link:

3172: 47: 17: 639:

That makes sense to me. Do you think it would be wise to explicitly mention railway stations in NGEO's examples of "artificial features related to infrastructure"? —

157:

to finish and, if it closes with delete, then report this to the Autopatrolled talk page and see what they say. For the Azeri articles, this looks like the Turkish

3311:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10#Proposed deletion of all articles on local government subdivisions wards, divisions etc.

1062: 1506: 884:

has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the

544:

has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the

3342:. Though the term "urban parish" no longer really has a legal meaning it does still kind of exist in that parishes that exist in former urban districts such as 2502: 1809:

should be enough, and the footnote just makes it extra clear. It seems people are also respecting the consensus from the recent train station AfD's and PROD's.

2959:

Thanks for initiating discussion. I hate blind inclusionism as much as the next guy, but I was informed of this on my talk page and it seemed odd but correct,

3338:

being merged in 1894. In 1974 the rural and urban distinction disappeared with most urban parishes being abolished and becoming unparished area but a few had

1084:

This has already been highlighted on the Iran and Geography Delsorts, but interested parties who may have missed those notices can see the discussion here:

930: 3255: 2556: 233:

Regarding the Azerbaijani village articles I created/edited, this was a 2-3-month job which required massive time and effort to investigate. Originally,

3447:

I am not expecting any one to vote there or here. I am posting this just as referrence point for any future discussion @ this talk page in due course.

2241:

I think that you are mixing the concept of settlements below the municipal level with the idea that a random "administrative" delimitation (such as a "

630:, it can be a better idea to cover stations with the line they serve. No one should ever be bulk-producing articles they have no intention to expand. 1639:

Based on your initial post (specifically the first 4 bullets in it) I think that you mean per the primary geographic division system of the country.

940: 3367:

but aren't notable. This doesn't apply. Irrigation districts, unlikely but possible since the lack of function may put them in a similar category.

1134: 2677: 1448: 190:

creation is creating several articles a day for many months. The only thing that is massive is the thoughtless destruction of articles by them.

2675: 1827:

seem to be respecting the consensus, but I think the best way to prevent future disruption is to keep the phrasing as explicit as possible. —

1771:

Avoids having to repeat ourselves here, as I don't believe we have any SNG less strict than GNG that railway stations can fit into. Thoughts?

964:. There are at least four other villages in India with the same name, one of which was the subject before it was discovered that it had beeen 3208: 3375:

says "This usually also applies to any other area that has a legally recognized government, such as counties, parishes and municipalities."

1352: 1972: 1223: 986: 3259:

thoughts I'm unsure as having its own council may well make an area notable even if there isn't actually an area but that name, thoughts?

678:

I don't think they do. They're a bit like airports - they're very very likely notable, but not enough to assume an automatic presumption.

501: 497: 393: 2644:

the direction for policies and guidelines to implement, not the other way around. IMO 5P is defacto one of those, probably the only one.

1247: 692: 303:

village articles from Azerbaijan out of more than 4,000 Azerbaijani village articles here. The same applies to other regional countries.

2750:

The short version of my posts with respect to the proposal is that I don't support the proposal. But thanks for the thought and work.

2810:

GNG affects whether a topic deserves its own article. It has no concern over the content of articles, which may or may not fall under

450:. It might be a good idea to add some discussion on this to the guideline. Obviously it doesn't apply if the names are different like 2847: 886: 880: 862: 546: 540: 522: 3244: 2838:

Major wording change to guideline cites "see talk" in edit summary without elaboration or link to disucssion. It has been reverted.

202:

To state the obvious, I have neither deleted anything from any of your articles, nor nominated any of your articles for deletion.

3476: 3059:

Please be aware (1) that a moderated RfC on how to control mass creation of articles, particularly stubs, is now in progress at

3329:

just had the name of the urban district plus another name like the name of a saint and were often more arbitrary and some like

2319:(Edit conflict) I think that the current guideline works pretty well in this area. A part of it is the emphasis on identified 3335: 2821: 2006: 1668: 3246: 2897:

Looks like a valid redirection to me, since the articles being redirected are basically content-less articles about Turkish

2050:

would describe as a "municipality" even though a "municipality" is the lowest level unit in many countries such as Austria.

1239:

Examples of things I think would qualify in the sense of being a settlement with census data would likely pass GEOLAND are:

2243:

pipeline/ water district, "tuberculosis/ sanitarium district, a fire protection district, park district, a school district"

3518: 3480: 3456: 3410: 3274: 3184: 3139: 3106: 3084: 3046: 3015: 2999: 2974: 2961:

at least in the United States, where they essentially act as their own governments (even having the ability to levy taxes)

2953: 2914: 2889: 2866: 2827: 2804: 2783: 2761: 2745: 2711: 2655: 2628: 2590: 2532: 2494: 2476: 2460: 2387: 2361: 2339: 2305: 2251: 2236: 2197: 2163: 2149: 2132: 2106: 1978: 1945: 1916: 1842: 1818: 1796: 1780: 1710: 1650: 1634: 1614: 1586: 1566: 1540: 1524: 1493: 1461: 1432: 1409: 1394: 1341: 1327: 1304: 1193: 1146: 1119: 1097: 1074: 1051: 1014: 992: 902: 855: 837: 815: 794: 778: 768: 743: 727: 714: 697: 669: 648: 634: 619: 583: 558: 516: 481: 403: 371: 351: 334: 312: 297: 284: 266: 247: 226: 211: 194: 171: 139: 1807:

The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability

1142: 1358:

includes 3 other settlements namely Kersey Tye, Kersey Upland, Wicker Street Green and William's Green. If you look at

1033: 1021: 934: 2064:

The 2nd to last point also clarifies that things like sewage treatment districts would not be presumed to be notable.

2046:

notes but we have the more vague "Populated, legally recognized places" which seems to mainly deal with settlements.

1888:

being deleted as not notable, I think we should add these alongside US census tracts. GEOLAND#1 would therefore read:

2984:

of ILIKEIT by a certain subset most of whom registered an account a long time ago and no longer represent consensus.

1769:

that prompted their creation, e.g., to an article about the notable road it carries or the notable obstacle it spans.

607: 1950:

We could certainly use specific guidance on the Iranian census, which does not always locate places to communities.

3497: 3250: 2374: 2058: 2022: 1684: 1363: 38: 3372: 3236: 2607: 1727: 3429: 3305: 1835: 1466:

Cities, towns and villages do not generally hold legal recognition but rather the unit named after them may like

1262:(seems to have 1961 census data?) but the approximately 50 statement from the Visit Coll website wouldn't qualify 555: 513: 2611: 2512: 1470:

the parish of the same name holds it (and is governed by Kersey Parish Council). I don't think we would suggest

603: 3326: 3297: 2992: 2946: 2732:

smaller, sparsely populated, and/or under developed countries. For example, what's a 4th order division of the

2042:

This is useful because it clarifies that such administrative units like municipalities are presumed notable as

1967: 1420: 981: 2352:

I just think this proposal will simply increase complexity without solving any of the major problems we have.

1880:

We should add Iranian Abadi as an example of a place not considered to be a legally-recognised populated place

154: 3404: 3268: 2777: 2705: 2584: 2454: 2299: 2230: 2100: 1939: 1704: 1628: 1518: 1487: 1388: 1298: 1138: 1046: 809: 684: 578: 475: 505: 219: 3204: 2128: 2014: 1676: 1655:

Yes I hadn't thought about other divisions, might something like "1st order divisions (countries) such as

1428: 1405: 1219: 1158: 833: 3240: 2882: 2421: 2409: 1354:. The parish has administrative function in that it has its own council (Kersey Parish Council) and the 1337: 455: 262: 3473: 2741: 2010: 1829: 1672: 551: 509: 447: 431: 427: 3359: 3232: 2481:

You can see this with "Rural districts" in Iran - the sourcing is typically every bit as bad as the

897: 606:

as reason to presume particular train stations are notable at AfD, though this feels akin to citing

418: 3385: 2986: 2940: 2757: 2651: 2528: 2335: 2247: 2215:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 7#Inhabited legally recognized places

2193: 2145: 1955: 1646: 1610: 1562: 969: 851: 790: 764: 739: 710: 665: 400: 367: 294: 234: 136: 3068: 2662: 2438: 2043: 627: 598:

infrastructure, my reading is that train stations would fall under this guidance, which specifies

422: 3397: 3322: 3261: 3135: 3080: 2969: 2770: 2698: 2684: 2577: 2447: 2292: 2277: 2223: 2175: 2093: 1932: 1814: 1776: 1697: 1621: 1511: 1480: 1381: 1291: 1267: 1037: 802: 724: 679: 573: 468: 2811: 2285: 1805:

Regarding explicitly noting the lack of inherent notability, I don't think this is necessary as

965: 417:

for cases where a settlement has the same name as an administrative unit (or similar). Although

610:

as a reason to keep an article on a particular high school. I'm wondering what others think. —

3346:

could be described as being urban parishes and such parishes are sometimes controversial, see

2124: 2083: 2030: 2002: 1802:

have articles created due to the lack of a station name so I don't think it would be an issue.

1792: 1765:. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles or to a 1692: 1664: 1505:

What would in you're books be an example of a "populated, legally recognized place"? given at

1424: 1401: 1209: 829: 644: 615: 2795:

their own, which is to say, they enjoy some fame/notoriety beyond simply being documentable.

1034:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability § RFC on notability of rural localities (e.g., Iranian ābādī)

1022:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability § RFC on notability of rural localities (e.g., Iranian ābādī)

957: 3452: 3343: 3339: 3301: 2862: 2843: 2800: 2560: 2417: 2071: 1333: 1189: 347: 308: 258: 243: 3030: 1762: 1474:

doesn't qualify simply because its an administrative division and not a settlement or that

961: 866: 599: 526: 3514: 3470: 3330: 3180: 3102: 3042: 2960: 2910: 2737: 2624: 2564: 2490: 2425: 2357: 2159: 2026: 1912: 1688: 1582: 1475: 1467: 1348: 1323: 1213: 1115: 1093: 1070: 1010: 439: 330: 280: 207: 191: 167: 121: 2603: 1347:

administrative function but an administrative unit with the same name may do so. Look at

1002:

This is already flagged on the Iran and Geo delsorts, but see here if you're interested:

2614:

as far as I am concerned, but that is an old discussion. Anyway, it is only supposed to

1447:

might consider themselves to be from Brooklyn, New York City or New York State, but not

3491: 3390: 3293: 3216: 2680: 2597: 2431: 2258: 2210: 2204: 2087: 1758: 1745: 1574: 1371: 1351:

for example its a village and parish (municipality) and the village is an OS settlement

1253: 397: 291: 182: 133: 3351: 3318: 3162: 3131: 3094: 3076: 3026: 3012: 2964: 2932: 2816: 2288: 2272: 1810: 1772: 1660: 1203: 1179: 1173: 775: 721: 631: 223: 3061:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale

2263:

Well settlements below the municipal level may be notable or may not be for example

1366:) but the town its self doesn't have any administrative function. With the likes of 360:(vs. just a few table-type factoids) you need material, and material needs sources. 3289: 3285: 3212: 2666: 2541: 2469: 2394: 2380: 2264: 2079: 1788: 1735: 1695:, other divisions are subject to the "populated places without legal recognition". 1533: 1500: 1454: 1284: 1199: 640: 611: 2981:"they provided a location for local schools with minimal coverage to be merged to" 2053:

It also clarifies that some divisions may have greater functions that others like

107:

Two editors have been mass-creating articles on seemingly non-notable localities:

1423:, the first four of which no longer have separate self-governance institutions). 3448: 3022: 2878: 2858: 2839: 2796: 1471: 394:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Turkey #RfC: Turkish village stub mass redirect

343: 304: 239: 111: 46:

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

3231:

called "Swilland and Witnesham Grouped Parish Council". Generally speaking per

2118:(2) the idea that sub-municipal units, such as boroughs or wards, are presumed 3510: 3347: 3176: 3125: 3098: 3038: 3033:

and so subject to a much higher notability standard to avoid self-advertising.

2906: 2635: 2620: 2570: 2548: 2521:

but that abstract administrative entities does not get this special treatment.

2486: 2353: 2182:

country subdivisions (states, districts and municipalities) and formal regions

2155: 2075: 1924: 1908: 1599: 1578: 1367: 1359: 1355: 1319: 1280: 1243: 1161:

that may be things like mills, pumps, wells or factories etc may not qualify.

1111: 1089: 1066: 1006: 891: 323: 273: 203: 186: 163: 3317:

had the same name as a settlement and would probably be presumed notable and

2036:

Knowledge (XXG):Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements

415:

Knowledge (XXG):Separate articles for administrative divisions to settlements

3314: 3228: 2511:

are highly enclyclopedic and also the gazetteer function being mentioned in

2281: 1375: 1259: 1229: 1057:

AFD regarding a Pakistani town with a population of more than 100,000 people

953: 463: 459: 3442:

List of burial places of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

732:

You are basicaly saying that it would be "simple" to eliminate all SNG's.

1478:

doesn't qualify because its a settlement and not administrative division.

1004:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Abadi Zavarzmand Shomareh Mowtowr 55

3224: 3220: 2674:

suburbs that are OS settlements (those that show up as "Other Settlement"

2670: 2413: 1998: 1444: 118:) - Azerbaijani village stubs based on a government geographic directory. 3500:. This includes multiple names for the same village all cited to GNS. I 3300:

and thus would generally be presumed to be notable though a few such as

720:

An even simpler fix would be to say that ALL articles must meet GNG. --

500:

regarding improving our management of geographical stubs. The thread is

3378:

The key problem may be their lack of a "legally recognized government".

2405: 1441:

administrative units and electoral divisions are presumed to be notable

1183: 1131:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/County Borough of Southend on Sea

451: 443: 3304:

it may not be worth having separate article due to the current parish

3055:

RfC on mass creation and deletion (now with added focus on WP:GEOLAND)

570:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#Airports

2733: 2552: 2268: 2054: 2018: 1994: 1750: 1680: 1656: 1169: 925: 909: 435: 2001:), 2nd order administrative units (states and equivalences) such as 2736:, and does it make sense that we'd have articles for each of them? 2694:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Horeston Grange, Warwickshire

1129:

There is a discussion and afd regarding district versus council at

3071:), to be followed shortly by another on mass deletion; and (2) (a 2401: 1951: 589:

Do heavy rail train stations whose existence can be verified have

1884:

Given the large number of AFDs that have now closed with Iranian

3008:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Schools

2441:

saying municipalities and parishes are notable (and my essay on

2017:, 4th order divisions (municipalities and equivalences) such as 1109:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mazraeh-ye Tahqiqati Tutun

703:

A simple fix would be to say that train stations must meet GNG.

2485:

articles and there is typically no better sourcing available.

1754: 25: 3424:

as uninvolved user. There I referred guidelines mentioned @

3167:- I think it uncontroversial that mass-created articles like 2855:

Knowledge (XXG):How to contribute to Knowledge (XXG) guidance

1687:

are generally presumed notable as are formal regions such as

1157:

it would generally be notable. Recently it seems places like

2690:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/White City, Colchester

2009:), 3rd order divisions (districts and equivalences) such as 1275:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Aliabad-e Qotb ol Din

1086:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Agro-Industry Complex

3463:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/Using maps as sources

3223:

even if they don't have a separate parish council such as

1868:

concluded train stations do not have inherited notability

929:

is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to

162:

us), they are better simply redirected to district level.

2669:

so would be presumed notable anyway. Some have have been

2606:

is a poorly thought-out essay that directly clashes with

2515:

that the otherwise-bar gets lowered a bit for recognized

2443:

separate articles for administrative units to settlements

502:

Future discussion on improving our management of geostubs

2877:

There is an editor going through Turkish districts like

2214: 1509:

you apparently said that settlement was a census tract.

1164:

Examples of things that GEOLAND#1 would likely apply to

3434: 3425: 3064: 2902: 2221:

about not all administrative units satisfying GEOLAND.

2218: 1865: 923:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

125: 115: 1266:

An example of a census tract that wouldn't qualify is

602:

for purposes of notability. I've seen others point to

3348:

Letchworth#Letchworth Garden City Council (2005–2013)

3239:

municipalities are generally inherently notable like

2290:

didn't. These for example would probably be notable.

1080:

216 Iranian "village" articles nominated for deletion

998:

129 Iranian "village" articles nominated for deletion

18:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (geographic features)

2503:

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

2328:

in order to have presumed notability. Sincerely,

1989:I propose adding "Administrative units" to GEOLAND 1198:

4th order divisions namely "municipalities" such as

2025:are presumed to be notable. Formal regions such as 1901:

and other areas not commonly recognized as a place"

1663:), 2nd order administrative units (states) such as 1362:

its a non-metropolitan district and has a council (

342:

for some articles included secondary local sources.

3468:This RFC now has questions related to notability. 3422:WP:Articles for deletion/Pullman Flatiron Building 1063:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Nagail Sohal 487:Discussion on improving our management of geostubs 1507:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2022 April 17 956:where there is a dispute to the applicability of 2445:) there is no guidance on other types of units. 2284:had the same name as a settlement but some like 2154:This seems like a very large-scale change TBH. 2057:having greater functions than (at least today) 1679:, 4th order divisions (municipalities) such as 1188:3rd order divisions namely "districts" such as 3025:television region is a "populated place" - as 2068:it would also make it presumed to be notable. 3496:As an example of what I'm trying to do, look 1168:1st order divisions namely countries such as 1103:130 Iranian "villages" nominated for deletion 220:Knowledge (XXG):Bot_policy#Mass_page_creation 8: 2186:other things like sewage treatment districts 1178:2nd order divisions namely "states" such as 941:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Nilaji 2557:List of administrative divisions by country 1671:), 3rd order divisions (districts) such as 3313:that wards are notable. Some of them like 2061:does but both are presumed to be notable. 1135:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Geography 1032:You are invited to join the discussion at 3420:Happened to participate in discussion @ 2505:. Specifically the fact that recognized 1993:"1st order divisions (countries) such as 1761:) can be notable under Knowledge (XXG)'s 931:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines 3440:This reminds me another similar article 3243:and show up on maps and census data etc 1857: 498:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (idea lab) 2980: 2416:would also surely pass, parishes like 2271:its municipality. In other cases like 2242: 2185: 2181: 2112:I see two problems with this proposal: 1992: 1806: 1741: 1440: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3486:Does GNS just basically not work now? 3209:Broad Hinton and Winterbourne Bassett 3006:School districts ought to fall under 2400:addition to ceremonial counties like 1449:New York's 9th congressional district 881:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy) 863:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy) 541:Knowledge (XXG):Village_pump_(policy) 523:Knowledge (XXG):Village_pump_(policy) 7: 3284:In England prior to 1974 there were 1224:Waveney (UK Parliament constituency) 504:. The discussion is about the topic 1954:would have to be linked, however. – 1248:Urban areas in the Nordic countries 752:Inhabited legally recognized places 496:There is currently a discussion at 3444:. Idk premise of it's notability. 1870:for simply being railroad stations 24: 2901:(i.e., neighbourhoods) like this 2559:it seems like they have regions ( 939:The article will be discussed at 153:articles I'd wait for the AFD on 3386:User talk:Stortford#Parish types 3350:for example. In some cases like 1027: 917: 872: 653:From NPP work I can say that it 532: 491: 396:. Your input is welcome there. – 392:A discussion is taking place at 29: 3325:but many were the name of like 3292:. Rural parishes had their own 3171:(a non-existent "village") and 2501:My thoughts above are based on 2424:as well as formal regions like 1744:Artificial features related to 1289:do you agree with my examples? 1228:Any other smaller unit such as 3336:Municipal Borough of St Albans 3227:sharing a parish council with 3016:00:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC) 3000:00:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC) 2975:00:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC) 2954:23:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC) 2828:05:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC) 2805:05:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC) 2784:20:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 2762:20:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 2746:19:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 2712:20:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 2692:unless there is coverage like 2656:13:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 2629:07:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC) 2591:20:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 2533:16:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC) 2495:15:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC) 2477:07:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC) 2461:20:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 2388:09:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 2362:07:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 2306:20:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC) 2209:What would be better than? At 2007:ceremonial counties of England 1669:Ceremonial counties of England 1: 3275:21:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC) 2340:17:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2252:17:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2237:16:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2198:06:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2164:03:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2150:02:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2133:17:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC) 2107:21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC) 1979:16:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC) 1194:Norfolk County, Massachusetts 572:that might affect this page. 388:RfC Notice (Turkish geostubs) 372:17:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC) 352:17:07, 23 December 2021 (UTC) 335:17:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC) 317:And thus its likely the case 313:17:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC) 298:02:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC) 285:01:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC) 267:01:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC) 248:16:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC) 227:22:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC) 212:22:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 195:23:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 172:20:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 140:17:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC) 3457:08:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC) 3411:20:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC) 3199:Grouped parish council areas 3185:10:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 3140:09:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 3107:09:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 3085:06:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 1218:Electoral divisions such as 952:The subject is a village in 482:18:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC) 3047:15:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC) 2915:10:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC) 2890:18:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC) 2867:08:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC) 2848:08:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC) 1946:19:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC) 1917:09:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC) 1843:20:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC) 1541:18:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC) 1525:19:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC) 1147:19:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC) 1120:17:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC) 404:18:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC) 181:For reasons unknown to me, 3534: 3498:Abgarmak-e Sofla, Besharat 3481:06:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC) 3416:Scope for guideline update 3029:'s says these are clearly 2375:Civil parishes in Scotland 2267:has a separate article to 2059:civil parishes in Scotland 2023:civil parishes in Scotland 1819:19:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC) 1797:06:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1781:06:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1711:18:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1685:Civil parishes in Scotland 1651:18:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1635:17:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1615:16:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1587:09:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1567:21:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC) 1494:18:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1462:18:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1433:18:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1410:18:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1395:17:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1364:Eastbourne Borough Council 1342:10:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC) 1328:21:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC) 1305:20:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC) 1098:18:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC) 728:18:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 715:18:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 698:14:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 670:14:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC) 635:18:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 620:16:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC) 559:11:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC) 517:11:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC) 506:Knowledge (XXG):Permastubs 3430:Pullman Flatiron Building 3327:Leicester the Castle View 3207:areas in England such as 1152:Legally recognized places 1075:16:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC) 1052:15:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC) 1015:12:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC) 649:05:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC) 568:There is a discussion at 413:I've started an essay at 409:Settlements and divisions 3519:08:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC) 3211:inherently notable? All 2833: 1421:Arrondissements of Paris 993:19:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC) 933:or whether it should be 903:19:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC) 856:00:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC) 356:Well, to have an actual 218:You are in violation of 3256:community council areas 2180:wedges a line between " 1208:Formal regions such as 838:22:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 816:21:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 795:19:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 779:19:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 769:18:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 744:18:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC) 584:17:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC) 155:Makeyevka, Kursk Oblast 3205:grouped parish council 2015:county (United States) 1677:County (United States) 1220:Westgate Ward, Ipswich 3241:Nedging-with-Naughton 3169:Agro-Industry Complex 3011:fewer have articles. 2422:Nedging-with-Naughton 2410:Nuneaton and Bedworth 1767:named natural feature 456:Nedging-with-Naughton 103:Mass-created geostubs 42:of past discussions. 2790:re enclosing regions 2011:districts of Austria 1985:Administrative units 1823:I agree that people 1673:Districts of Austria 448:Randers Municipality 432:Woodbury, East Devon 428:Neuhofen im Innkreis 2665:. Most anyway were 2280:many of which like 1907:What do you think? 1439:I don't agree that 1125:District or council 3428:. I had a feeling 3340:successor parishes 3215:in England have a 2685:Greenwich, Ipswich 1139:Davidstewartharvey 2930: 2563:) and districts ( 2555:for example) and 2031:Canterbury Region 2003:states of Austria 1817: 1779: 1693:Canterbury Region 1665:States of Austria 1210:Canterbury Region 1061:Please see here: 1050: 901: 608:WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3525: 3407: 3400: 3394: 3373:WP:PLACEOUTCOMES 3302:St Michael Rural 3271: 3264: 3237:WP:PLACEOUTCOMES 3166: 3129: 2998: 2995: 2989: 2979:Your point that 2972: 2967: 2952: 2949: 2943: 2936: 2928: 2923:school districts 2887: 2824: 2780: 2773: 2708: 2701: 2639: 2608:WP:NOTDICTIONARY 2601: 2587: 2580: 2574: 2545: 2472: 2457: 2450: 2435: 2418:Hatfield Peverel 2398: 2383: 2302: 2295: 2262: 2233: 2226: 2208: 2179: 2103: 2096: 2091: 1975: 1970: 1942: 1935: 1928: 1894:"Census tracts, 1872: 1862: 1841: 1838: 1832: 1813: 1775: 1739: 1728:WP:NTRAINSTATION 1707: 1700: 1631: 1624: 1536: 1521: 1514: 1504: 1490: 1483: 1457: 1391: 1384: 1301: 1294: 1288: 1190:Babergh District 1044: 1042: 1031: 1030: 989: 984: 921: 920: 895: 876: 875: 812: 805: 695: 687: 536: 535: 495: 494: 478: 471: 327: 277: 149:For the Russian 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3533: 3532: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3488: 3466: 3418: 3405: 3398: 3388: 3331:Sandridge Urban 3321:was formerly a 3296:and normally a 3282: 3269: 3262: 3201: 3173:Harry Oppenheim 3160: 3123: 3073:new development 3057: 2993: 2987: 2985: 2970: 2965: 2947: 2941: 2939: 2927: 2925: 2883: 2875: 2836: 2826: 2822: 2792: 2778: 2771: 2706: 2699: 2633: 2612:WP:NOTDIRECTORY 2595: 2585: 2578: 2568: 2539: 2513:WP:Five Pillars 2470: 2455: 2448: 2429: 2426:East of England 2408:districts like 2392: 2381: 2300: 2293: 2256: 2231: 2224: 2202: 2173: 2101: 2094: 2069: 2027:East of England 1987: 1973: 1968: 1940: 1933: 1922: 1882: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1863: 1859: 1840: 1836: 1831:Red-tailed hawk 1830: 1828: 1733: 1731: 1705: 1698: 1689:East of England 1629: 1622: 1534: 1519: 1512: 1498: 1488: 1481: 1476:Alston, Cumbria 1468:Kersey, Suffolk 1455: 1389: 1382: 1349:Kersey, Suffolk 1299: 1292: 1278: 1273:This came from 1214:East of England 1154: 1127: 1105: 1082: 1059: 1038: 1028: 1025: 1000: 987: 982: 950: 922: 918: 914: 887:discussion page 877: 873: 870: 810: 803: 783:Excellent idea. 754: 691: 683: 604:WP:RAILOUTCOMES 595: 566: 556:Please ping me! 552:A. C. Santacruz 547:discussion page 537: 533: 530: 514:Please ping me! 510:A. C. Santacruz 492: 489: 476: 469: 440:Maldon District 411: 390: 325: 275: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3531: 3529: 3487: 3484: 3465: 3460: 3417: 3414: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3298:parish council 3294:parish meeting 3290:urban parishes 3286:rural parishes 3281: 3280:Urban parishes 3278: 3251:civil parishes 3217:parish meeting 3213:civil parishes 3200: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3056: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3034: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2988:Chris Troutman 2942:Chris Troutman 2924: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2874: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2835: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2820: 2791: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2681:Whiteash Green 2667:civil parishes 2499: 2498: 2497: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2351: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2192:.--Asqueladd ( 2136: 2135: 2116: 2113: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1948: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1881: 1878: 1874: 1873: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1834: 1803: 1759:train stations 1749:(for example, 1746:infrastructure 1730: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1372:Blofield Heath 1314: 1313: 1264: 1263: 1257: 1254:Blofield Heath 1251: 1233: 1232: 1226: 1216: 1206: 1196: 1186: 1176: 1153: 1150: 1126: 1123: 1104: 1101: 1081: 1078: 1058: 1055: 1024: 1020:Discussion at 1018: 999: 996: 916: 915: 913: 908:Nomination of 906: 890:. Thank you.— 871: 869: 860: 859: 858: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 753: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 701: 700: 675: 674: 673: 672: 651: 594: 587: 565: 564:Infrastructure 562: 531: 529: 520: 488: 485: 410: 407: 389: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 339: 338: 337: 251: 250: 235:Carlossuarez46 230: 229: 216: 215: 214: 179: 178: 177: 176: 175: 174: 130: 129: 119: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3530: 3521: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3506: 3503: 3499: 3494: 3492: 3485: 3483: 3482: 3479: 3478: 3475: 3472: 3464: 3461: 3459: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3445: 3443: 3438: 3436: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3415: 3413: 3412: 3408: 3402: 3401: 3399:Crouch, Swale 3392: 3387: 3377: 3376: 3374: 3371: 3365: 3364: 3361: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3353: 3352:Offerton Park 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3319:Bullers Green 3316: 3312: 3309:consensus at 3307: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3279: 3277: 3276: 3272: 3266: 3265: 3263:Crouch, Swale 3257: 3252: 3247: 3245: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3198: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3164: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3127: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3054: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3035: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3014: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2996: 2990: 2982: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2973: 2968: 2962: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2950: 2944: 2934: 2922: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2888: 2886: 2880: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2829: 2825: 2819: 2818: 2813: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2775: 2774: 2772:Crouch, Swale 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2754: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2713: 2709: 2703: 2702: 2700:Crouch, Swale 2695: 2691: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2648: 2643: 2637: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2626: 2622: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2599: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2588: 2582: 2581: 2579:Crouch, Swale 2572: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2543: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2520: 2519: 2514: 2510: 2509: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2458: 2452: 2451: 2449:Crouch, Swale 2444: 2440: 2433: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2396: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2376: 2371: 2370: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2332: 2327: 2322: 2307: 2303: 2297: 2296: 2294:Crouch, Swale 2289: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2274: 2273:Aingers Green 2270: 2266: 2260: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2249: 2244: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2234: 2228: 2227: 2225:Crouch, Swale 2220: 2216: 2212: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2183: 2177: 2176:Crouch, Swale 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2152: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2142: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2121: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2104: 2098: 2097: 2095:Crouch, Swale 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2065: 2062: 2060: 2056: 2051: 2047: 2045: 2040: 2039: 2037: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1990: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1971: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1958: 1953: 1949: 1947: 1943: 1937: 1936: 1934:Crouch, Swale 1926: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1900: 1898: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1887: 1879: 1871: 1867: 1861: 1858: 1854: 1844: 1839: 1833: 1826: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1737: 1729: 1726: 1712: 1708: 1702: 1701: 1699:Crouch, Swale 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1661:United States 1658: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1632: 1626: 1625: 1623:Crouch, Swale 1618: 1617: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1601: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1542: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1522: 1516: 1515: 1513:Crouch, Swale 1508: 1502: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1491: 1485: 1484: 1482:Crouch, Swale 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1417: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1392: 1386: 1385: 1383:Crouch, Swale 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1357: 1353: 1350: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1302: 1296: 1295: 1293:Crouch, Swale 1286: 1282: 1276: 1271: 1269: 1268:Basildon 010A 1261: 1258: 1255: 1252: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1237: 1231: 1227: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1205: 1204:Stanwix Rural 1201: 1197: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1185: 1181: 1180:New Hampshire 1177: 1175: 1174:United States 1171: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1162: 1160: 1151: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1124: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1110: 1102: 1100: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1079: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1056: 1054: 1053: 1048: 1043: 1041: 1040:Novem Linguae 1035: 1023: 1019: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1005: 997: 995: 994: 990: 985: 979: 978: 975: 972: 967: 963: 959: 955: 949: 945: 942: 936: 932: 928: 927: 911: 907: 905: 904: 899: 893: 889: 888: 883: 882: 868: 864: 861: 857: 853: 849: 848: 842: 841: 840: 839: 835: 831: 827: 817: 813: 807: 806: 804:Crouch, Swale 798: 797: 796: 792: 788: 787: 782: 781: 780: 777: 773: 772: 771: 770: 766: 762: 761: 751: 745: 741: 737: 736: 731: 730: 729: 726: 723: 719: 718: 717: 716: 712: 708: 707: 699: 696: 694: 688: 686: 681: 680:SportingFlyer 677: 676: 671: 667: 663: 662: 656: 652: 650: 646: 642: 638: 637: 636: 633: 629: 624: 623: 622: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 592: 588: 586: 585: 582: 581: 577: 576: 571: 563: 561: 560: 557: 553: 550:. Thank you. 549: 548: 543: 542: 528: 524: 521: 519: 518: 515: 511: 508:. Thank you. 507: 503: 499: 486: 484: 483: 479: 473: 472: 470:Crouch, Swale 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 424: 420: 416: 408: 406: 405: 402: 399: 395: 387: 373: 369: 365: 364: 359: 355: 354: 353: 349: 345: 340: 336: 332: 328: 320: 316: 315: 314: 310: 306: 301: 300: 299: 296: 293: 288: 287: 286: 282: 278: 270: 269: 268: 264: 260: 255: 254: 253: 252: 249: 245: 241: 236: 232: 231: 228: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 193: 188: 184: 173: 169: 165: 160: 156: 152: 148: 147: 146: 145: 144: 143: 142: 141: 138: 135: 127: 123: 120: 117: 113: 110: 109: 108: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3507: 3501: 3495: 3489: 3469: 3467: 3446: 3439: 3426:WP:NBUILDING 3419: 3396: 3383: 3355:notability: 3283: 3260: 3202: 3072: 3058: 2926: 2898: 2884: 2876: 2837: 2815: 2793: 2769: 2752: 2751: 2749: 2730: 2697: 2646: 2645: 2641: 2615: 2576: 2523: 2522: 2517: 2516: 2507: 2506: 2482: 2468: 2467: 2446: 2379: 2378: 2330: 2329: 2325: 2320: 2318: 2291: 2265:Mawnan Smith 2222: 2189: 2153: 2140: 2139: 2137: 2125:Newimpartial 2119: 2092: 2084:Newimpartial 2066: 2063: 2052: 2048: 2041: 1991: 1988: 1962: 1959: 1956: 1931: 1906: 1896: 1895: 1885: 1883: 1869: 1860: 1852: 1824: 1766: 1743: 1732: 1696: 1641: 1640: 1620: 1605: 1604: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1532: 1531: 1510: 1479: 1453: 1452: 1425:Newimpartial 1402:Newimpartial 1380: 1290: 1272: 1265: 1238: 1234: 1200:Aure sur Mer 1163: 1155: 1128: 1106: 1083: 1060: 1039: 1026: 1001: 976: 973: 970: 951: 946: 938: 924: 912:for deletion 885: 879: 878: 846: 845: 830:Newimpartial 825: 824: 801: 785: 784: 759: 758: 755: 734: 733: 705: 704: 702: 690: 682: 660: 659: 654: 596: 590: 579: 574: 567: 545: 539: 538: 490: 467: 412: 391: 362: 361: 357: 318: 180: 158: 150: 131: 106: 78: 43: 37: 3023:ITV Granada 2885:Dr. Blofeld 2834:'See talk'? 2072:Atlantic306 1472:Alston Moor 1334:Atlantic306 1277:, thoughts 593:notability? 259:Atlantic306 36:This is an 3360:WP:GEOLAND 3306:St Michael 3233:WP:GEOLAND 2738:Yilloslime 2671:Chapelries 2286:Melthwaite 1853:References 1368:Lunderskov 1360:Eastbourne 1244:Lunderskov 1107:See here: 898:WP:FINANCE 419:WP:GEOLAND 192:ThWiki1910 122:ThWiki1910 95:Archive 10 3449:Bookku 3391:Stortford 3315:Walsworth 3229:Witnesham 3065:announced 3063:(already 2753:North8000 2663:WP:NPLACE 2647:North8000 2616:summarise 2598:North8000 2561:Samarqand 2524:North8000 2439:WP:NPLACE 2432:North8000 2331:North8000 2282:Brunstock 2278:townships 2259:Asqueladd 2213:noted at 2211:North8000 2205:Asqueladd 2141:North8000 2088:North8000 2044:WP:NPLACE 1825:generally 1642:North8000 1606:North8000 1575:North8000 1558:North8000 1376:Arinagour 1318:ConLevel. 1260:Arinagour 1230:Brunstock 954:Karnataka 847:North8000 786:North8000 760:North8000 735:North8000 706:North8000 661:North8000 628:WP:NOPAGE 464:Val-Cenis 460:Termignon 423:WP:NPLACE 398:dlthewave 363:North8000 292:dlthewave 183:dlthewave 134:dlthewave 126:Creations 116:Creations 90:Archive 9 85:Archive 8 79:Archive 7 73:Archive 6 68:Archive 5 60:Archive 1 3323:township 3225:Swilland 3221:Chickney 3219:such as 3163:Ingratis 3132:Ingratis 3095:Ingratis 3077:Ingratis 3027:Reywas92 3013:Reywas92 2966:eviolite 2933:Eviolite 2879:Çelikhan 2817:Floydian 2812:WP:UNDUE 2679:such as 2549:GeoNames 2414:Hastings 1999:Scotland 1866:2022 RfC 1811:Jumpytoo 1789:Ⓜ️hawk10 1773:Jumpytoo 1445:Brooklyn 966:hijacked 776:Reywas92 722:RoySmith 632:Reywas92 575:Spinning 466:though. 224:Reywas92 3435:WP:NGEO 3344:Sudbury 3031:WP:ORGs 2931:editor 2899:mahalle 2542:Hut 8.5 2471:Hut 8.5 2406:Suffolk 2395:Hut 8.5 2382:Hut 8.5 2350:relief. 2184:" and " 2086:, and 2080:Hut 8.5 1957:Laundry 1751:bridges 1736:Mhawk10 1535:Hut 8.5 1501:Hut 8.5 1456:Hut 8.5 1285:Hut 8.5 1184:Suffolk 971:Laundry 960:versus 958:WP:NGEO 935:deleted 865:has an 641:Mhawk10 612:Mhawk10 525:has an 452:Nedging 444:Randers 358:ARTICLE 159:Mahalle 39:archive 2971:(talk) 2873:Turkey 2859:Djflem 2840:Djflem 2797:Mangoe 2734:Gambia 2565:Narpay 2553:Oqtosh 2518:places 2508:places 2321:places 2269:Mawnan 2190:global 2055:comune 2019:comune 1995:France 1837:(nest) 1757:, and 1681:Comune 1657:France 1356:parish 1170:France 962:WP:GNG 926:Nilaji 910:Nilaji 826:Oppose 725:(talk) 600:WP:GNG 591:per se 436:Maldon 257:view, 112:Kheo17 3511:FOARP 3502:think 3177:FOARP 3126:FOARP 3099:FOARP 3039:FOARP 2907:FOARP 2636:FOARP 2621:FOARP 2604:WP:5P 2571:FOARP 2551:(see 2487:FOARP 2483:abadi 2402:Devon 2354:FOARP 2326:place 2156:FOARP 2076:FOARP 1960:Pizza 1952:Abadi 1925:FOARP 1909:FOARP 1897:abadi 1886:abadi 1600:FOARP 1579:FOARP 1320:FOARP 1281:FOARP 1256:(BUA) 1159:abadi 1112:FOARP 1090:FOARP 1067:FOARP 1007:FOARP 974:Pizza 896:Join 892:Ixtal 580:Spark 344:KHE'O 319:those 305:KHE'O 240:KHE'O 204:FOARP 187:FOARP 164:FOARP 16:< 3515:talk 3477:7754 3474:chen 3453:talk 3406:talk 3288:and 3270:talk 3235:and 3203:Are 3181:talk 3136:talk 3103:talk 3081:talk 3069:WT:N 3043:talk 2994:talk 2948:talk 2911:talk 2863:talk 2844:talk 2814:. - 2801:talk 2779:talk 2758:talk 2742:talk 2707:talk 2683:and 2652:talk 2625:talk 2610:and 2586:talk 2529:talk 2491:talk 2456:talk 2420:and 2404:and 2358:talk 2336:talk 2301:talk 2248:talk 2232:talk 2219:here 2217:and 2194:talk 2160:talk 2146:talk 2129:talk 2102:talk 2029:and 2021:and 2013:and 2005:and 1997:and 1941:talk 1913:talk 1815:Talk 1793:talk 1777:Talk 1755:dams 1706:talk 1691:and 1683:and 1675:and 1667:and 1659:and 1647:talk 1630:talk 1611:talk 1583:talk 1563:talk 1520:talk 1489:talk 1429:talk 1406:talk 1390:talk 1374:and 1338:talk 1324:talk 1300:talk 1283:and 1202:and 1143:talk 1133:and 1116:talk 1094:talk 1071:talk 1047:talk 1036:. – 1011:talk 852:talk 834:talk 811:talk 791:talk 765:talk 740:talk 711:talk 666:talk 645:talk 616:talk 477:talk 458:and 442:and 430:and 421:and 368:talk 348:talk 326:asem 309:talk 276:asem 263:talk 244:talk 208:talk 185:and 168:talk 151:Selo 3409:) 3273:) 3067:at 2903:one 2853:See 2782:) 2710:) 2642:set 2589:) 2459:) 2412:or 2304:) 2235:) 2120:not 2105:) 1944:) 1763:GNG 1709:) 1633:) 1523:) 1492:) 1393:) 1303:) 1222:or 1212:or 1192:or 1182:or 1172:or 968:. – 867:RFC 814:) 527:RFC 480:) 3517:) 3471:Rs 3455:) 3395:. 3183:) 3138:) 3105:) 3083:) 3045:) 2929:To 2913:) 2865:) 2857:. 2846:) 2803:) 2760:) 2744:) 2696:. 2654:) 2627:) 2602:- 2531:) 2493:) 2428:. 2360:) 2338:) 2250:) 2196:) 2162:) 2148:) 2131:) 2082:, 2078:, 2074:, 1977:) 1974:c̄ 1963:03 1915:) 1864:A 1795:) 1753:, 1742:* 1649:) 1613:) 1585:) 1565:) 1431:) 1408:) 1370:, 1340:) 1326:) 1270:. 1145:) 1137:. 1118:) 1096:) 1088:. 1073:) 1065:. 1013:) 991:) 988:c̄ 977:03 937:. 900:! 894:⁂ 854:) 836:) 793:) 767:) 742:) 713:) 668:) 655:is 647:) 618:) 554:⁂ 512:⁂ 370:) 350:) 333:) 322:-- 311:) 283:) 265:) 246:) 210:) 170:) 64:← 3513:( 3451:( 3403:( 3393:: 3389:@ 3267:( 3179:( 3165:: 3161:@ 3134:( 3128:: 3124:@ 3101:( 3079:( 3041:( 2997:) 2991:( 2951:) 2945:( 2935:: 2909:( 2861:( 2842:( 2823:¢ 2799:( 2776:( 2756:( 2740:( 2704:( 2650:( 2638:: 2634:@ 2623:( 2600:: 2596:@ 2583:( 2573:: 2569:@ 2544:: 2540:@ 2527:( 2489:( 2453:( 2434:: 2430:@ 2397:: 2393:@ 2356:( 2334:( 2298:( 2261:: 2257:@ 2229:( 2207:: 2203:@ 2178:: 2174:@ 2158:( 2144:( 2127:( 2099:( 2090:: 2070:@ 2038:. 1969:d 1966:( 1938:( 1927:: 1923:@ 1911:( 1899:, 1791:( 1738:: 1734:@ 1703:( 1645:( 1627:( 1609:( 1581:( 1561:( 1517:( 1503:: 1499:@ 1486:( 1427:( 1404:( 1387:( 1336:( 1322:( 1297:( 1287:: 1279:@ 1250:) 1246:( 1141:( 1114:( 1092:( 1069:( 1049:) 1045:( 1009:( 983:d 980:( 850:( 832:( 808:( 789:( 763:( 738:( 709:( 693:C 689:· 685:T 664:( 643:( 614:( 474:( 462:/ 454:/ 446:/ 438:/ 401:☎ 366:( 346:( 331:t 329:( 324:M 307:( 295:☎ 290:– 281:t 279:( 274:M 261:( 242:( 206:( 166:( 137:☎ 124:( 114:( 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Notability (geographic features)/Archive 7 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index