User talk:Sambc/wip/Sprawl Control Policy Proposal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page should be used to discuss ways to make the proposal good and widely acceptable, not to criticise or discuss the proposal's basic intent and value. If you want to criticise that, wait unti it's actually proposed, if and when that happens.

Contents


[edit] How to proceed

Before going much of anywhere with this, I think the ultimate goal needs to be clarified. Is the target a new policy, or perhaps a new guideline based on existing policies? In either case, please see Help:Modifying and Creating policy. Not to be overly discouraginng, but be mindful of the Difficulty of policy adoption using this method section of this page. There are hints of this in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Notability, but I'll make it more explicit. User:Argyriou says We have an article on every godforsaken state route in Alabama, and there are road geeks who will kill rather than merge the damn things back into one article. The same sentiment will exist toward any newly proposed policy or guideline that attempts to change the status quo. Policies and guidelines are created through consensus (not voting), meaning any new policy or guideline about sprawl must be supported by the very same folks who create and defend the articles it likely suggests be turned into redirects. The bottom line is you won't be able to create a policy that forces a significant number of editors to do anything.

I'd suggest rather than spend time and energy crafting a policy or guideline about sprawl with like minded folks, you seek out one or more of the "road geeks who will kill" and discuss the issue you see with them. If you can work out a jointly acceptable policy or guideline proposal, I think your chances of success are likely to be far higher.

BTW - I completely support the sentiment. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think guideline more than policy, but renaming (ie moving) the page seems a bit much at this stage.
My thought was that generating a document with reasoning and not condemning the information/coverage itself would help in talking to these people and bringing them aboard. I'd like some help coming up with relevant language, and then, or at the same time, start talking to some of the wikiprojects that are involved in this but already have some degree of anti-sprawl policy to bring broader support. Then spread outwards from this point. This is going to be a slow process, that must be taken with care, and without even the hint of aggression towards the communities that are associated with sprawl.
In essence, I see the goal not as forcing through policy/guidelines in order to change people's behaviour forcibly, but instead using the process of advocating policy/guidelines to encourage people to change their own behaviour. at which point the guidelines will represent a consensus, even if that consensus didn't exist initially. SamBC 17:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Sentiment suppported - this would have my nod. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits and comments:

(1) The sentence "Thus, the direct objective ..." sounds like it has a specific agenda direction (fewer larger articles). The issue is notability, not count, Make neutral. Suggestion:

"Thus, the direct objective of this (policy/guideline?) is the consolidation of sprawl material into articles where notability is more readily evident, grouping the individual subjects together except for specific articles where notability may exist independent of the class." FT2 (Talk | email) 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(2) Sprawl definition: somewhat contradictory (as you note) for example they have "little [independent] notability" but "are not immediately deletable"? See below for this one, it's a section on its own. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(3) The sentence "Sprawl control should only be undertaken when there is some degree of consensus opinion, or when it is very clear that the subject will not become individually notable, nor the article sizeable, in the foreseeable future." could be better. Not sure what you're aiming for here. Suggestion:

Sprawl control aims to provide guidance in situations where there is a choice between fewer higher level articles, and a temptation to create many smaller articles, and where notability of the individual items is dubious. As such, sprawl control involves moving away from forking to consider whether the sub-articles really meet WIkipedia's inclusion criteria, even if the main class does. Remember, everything has interssting things which can be said about it; this doesn't mean they are automatically notable. Equally, sprawl control should be used with commonsense, for example as a consensus view following deletion processes or discussion, that in fact the named individual items are at this time, not sufficiently notable. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


(4) The sentence "The fact that 'it might grow/become notable, you never know' is not an argument against sprawl control." should reference WP:CRYSTAL. When it acquires notability, then it has an article (in principle). Future promises don't count ("It will be notable.. maybe!") FT2 (Talk | email) 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

(5) Its also worth noting 2 other arguments. (a) The fact something (or much) can be said, and it's of interest, does not alone make something notable. (b) Wikipedia is not a travellogue, or index of all things. Example of these two: The London Underground has about 300 stations. many are notable. But many are not. It may be useful, interesting, or much can be said about a given station, but is it notable in Wikipedia terms is the main issue. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

FT2, please feel free to make the edits you've suggested. I assume our thoughts are in accord, because your suggestions say what I mean much better than my attempts. Of course, the fact I'm not sleeping well probably isn't helping, but that's besides the point. SamBC 02:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of sprawl

Original: "Sprawl can be characterised as the mass proliferation of articles on subjects of little independent notability. In this case, it is meant to refer specifically to articles which are not immediately deletable, such as entirely non-notable subjects, or artciles unsuitable for Wikipedia, such as described in WP:NOT. Instead,the artciles characterised as sprawl tend to be about specific instances of things that may be considered notable (such as schools, music albums, TV episodes, and so on) but where the articles are light on content and/or relatively formulaic."

Suggestion: "In the context of this (policy/guideline), sprawl can be characterised as the mass proliferation of related articles of little independent notability, on the basis that they are sub-articles of some class or subject which is notable. In this case, 'sprawl' refers specifically to articles which exist as part of coverage of some class, but where (examined neutrally) it is doubtful whether the members of that class actually meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (notability, suitability, and verifiable reliable sources). Examples of articles characterised as sprawl tend to be about specific instances of things that may be considered notable (such as schools, music albums, TV episodes, and so on). They are often created in order to complete a set rather than because each and every one was notable. It's important to be aware that the fact something (or much) can be said on an item, and that it's of interest or useful, does not alone make it notable. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


Good def, I agree that this is a problem. The information itself is valuable, but it's just not worth cluttering up Wikipedia with things like this. Any idea how big the problem is? If it's not so big, then we can just put up with it. If it is a huge problem, then why not moving the information to another wiki--one specifically on places or something. [[Community editor 19:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)]]

[edit] Invitation template (and test thereof)

I've built a template to invite potentially interested or worthwhile users to the development of this proposal, {{User:Sambc/wip/Sprawl Control Policy Proposal/invite-user}}. It should be substituted, and appears below:

Due to your history or expressed opinions, I believe that you would be interested in a Sprawl Control Proposal currently in development. Please note that the idea is not deletionist, and advocates retention of all suitable material, by current definitions. If you oppose the idea in principal, please do not attempt to discourage its development. The intent is that all views may be integrated into a proposal that may achieve the stated aims and be acceptable to as wide an audience as possible.

This invitation template was placed by: SamBC 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to do a version for wikiprojects. SamBC 14:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The version for wikiprojects is {{User:Sambc/wip/Sprawl Control Policy Proposal/invite-project}}. SamBC 14:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

I hope there's room for objection here. I recall a similar discussion this January at Wikipedia:Places of local interest. There, I raised the following objection to a merge proposal concerning train stations:

There are several good reasons for keeping stations in their own articles. First of all, individual stations are independent geographic and historical concepts. They may have substantially different history from each other, or different architecture. To take Pittsburgh's light rail network, you can have stations which are a newly-built part of the "T" and stations which exist from the old Castle Shannon railroad days. Lumping them into one list seems counter-productive (for one thing, you'll have a hell of a long list). Splitting stations into separate articles also allows one to create a sense of geographic expression, through the use of succession boxes (from this station to that station). Speaking from experience, it is tricky to properly express the idea of a junction in the kind of list being proposed. Stations may also belong to one or more lines, which might not even be operated by the same transit company. In that case, we either duplicate the information on multiple lists (yay, forking!), or we place it all in one station article. Furthermore, any station that still exists is an obvious candidate for the creation of free images. Finally, once we start splitting out some stations, it makes sense to split them all out for consistency.

Let me throw that out there as a starting point. Mackensen (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's room for objection where it can lead to improvement in the proposal, to enable us to come up with something that does what it's meant to do without causing problems. We want to put together a proposal that, when it is actually proposed, will be largely acceptable (in as much as that's actually possible). I think there is such value in your input, but I can't quite see how to use it as such. Can we work out some way to meet such concerns within the concept and spirit of sprawl control? This ranges from a consensus (within those who believe in sprawl control at all) that such articles are not sprawl all the way to saying "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs", but I don't believe it would be either. SamBC 16:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
We can go from here. One thing is to evaluate whether "sprawl" is problematic in itself. You've described, with some accuracy, what I term "associative notability"--X may not meet notability by itself, but meets it as part of larger whole Y, and Y benefits from the existence of X. For the reasons I've outlined above, I see value in permitting railway stations to "sprawl" into their own articles rather than merging into one gigantic list. So, how do we identify "bad" sprawl as opposed to "good" or "tolerated" sprawl? Mackensen (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to use some inflammatory language here, but I'm using it for the sake of brevity. I hope I can trust people not to take offence.
The practical (and in some ways ideological) problem with this sort of thing is that the all-schools-are-notable lobby will say "hang on, the all-rail-stations-are-notable lobby got to keep their huge mass of dubiously notable articles, why don't we?" While I don't intend the term 'sprawl' to be derogatory, I would also say there can't be 'good' sprawl, although there may be 'tolerated' or 'acceptable' sprawl. It's a knotty issue, and I think there ought to be some solution that preserves this line and junction information and navigation features yet still allows the reduction in individual pages. I will give it some thought. SamBC 18:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so here's a thought. I don't know if it does this for all browsers, but when I'm looking at a wikipedia article with references in the square-bracket-number style, that link to a list at the bottom of the page, clicking on the number sends me to the bottom of the page and highlights the relevant entry. Where station info is formatted as a table or list, this works. Alternatively, they can be formatted as subsections or similar, and the same technique can be used if desired, but seems less necessary.
The issue of stations being on multiple lines is more problematic. I cannot suggest a solution right now. SamBC 18:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There have already been some some small moves in the UK Railways Project towards grouping statiosn which are, err, less notable. At present it seems to be only used for closed stations, for eaxmple Disused railway stations (Exeter to Plymouth Line). The stance taken is based on a route-by-route apporach and only rolls up all these stations, most of which have some small degree of notability in itself, putting them into a single article. A junction station, such as Plymouth Millbay railway station, is more notable - it will have been recognised outside the immediate community as so many people would have been told to change trains there - and can retain its own article. However a short extract (with a note linking to the main article) appears in both the Exeter to Plymouth article, and also the Disused railway stations (Plymouth to Penzance Line) which deals with those on the connectiing line.

I can see a similar approach working for open stations where a series of small, unstaffed stations with no buildings worth mentioning, could be rolled up into the article for the route - many of which are really only stubs at present anyway, consisting of little more than a list of stations along the line. This obviates the need for the "route information" boxes which often sprawl into lists of stopping patterns for different services serving the same line; junctions can be dealt with clearly using the route maps that have now been placed on these line article pages, as exampled in the disused station pages noted above. Geof Sheppard 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar discussions from a year ago

We had a similar discussion beginning about a year ago. My feelings have not significantly changed, I dislike the proliferation of articles about individual subway stations, tram stops and local request stop stations. Slambo (Speak) 19:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)