Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coordinates discussion

[edit]
  • Oppose' The lack of one or more coordinates templates mean that - unlike most other linear features on Wikipedia - this road and its major junctions cannot easily be located on mapping services and does not appear on the Wikipedia layers of services such as Google Maps and OpenStreetMap. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not actionable; coordinates are not part of the featured article criteria, and one of the FAC delegates has stated that coordinates will not prevent an article from reaching FA. Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Coordinates --Rschen7754 11:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • [As I've just replied to the same comment elsewhere] If you refer to Karanacs, they said " This is an issue that could be brought up in a review" and "You are welcome to put forth your argument in individual FAC nominations where you think coordinates ought to be applied". And who said, on 21 August 2011: "Yeah, I agree that coordinates aren't a priority - they should be among the "finishing touches" of an A-class or a FA"? Rschen7754 did. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're going to use quotes, at least put them in context. Here's the full quote from Karanacs: "The FAC instructions are not going to micromanage which content is and is not included (and if that ever changes I'm targeting infoboxen, not coordinates, first). You are welcome to put forth your argument in individual FAC nominations where you think coordinates ought to be applied, and the nominator can then respond. As a delegate, I am not going to fail any article that does not include it. And yes, this strikes me very much as forumshopping." Uchua has also weighed in: "In issues like this, FAs should follow the Manual of Style. If there is consensus at MOS that these coordinates must be included, then FAs must have them; I don't think it's a good idea to have the FA criteria talk about this quite specific issue." And as far as my comment, I repeat what I said earlier: "Yes, if you take that out of context, I did." --Rschen7754 12:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh my. I didn't recognize any of those words, and in following the link, discovered that some time ago, I somehow inadvertently unwatched WIAFA. It does appear that Karanacs was misquoted and misunderstood. Now to catch up and see what else I missed, since I don't know how or when I mistakenly unwatched that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Andy is free to comment on the nominated article as he pleases, including opposing, but there isn't a requirement anywhere to include coordinate data in linear features, and there is no accepted method in including it yet for roadways. (We've reached a stalemate on discussions about the issue at WT:RJL on including guidance in MOS:RJL, which this article otherwise complies with.) The current guidance on linear features from the coordinates project is still a draft that has not achieved consensus. Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) stated in the previous discussion at WT:WIAFA that this issue "definitely needs more discussion as a general rule somewhere prominent so it can be seen by a large number of people who can then comment." Until that happens, and there is a guideline that isn't a proposal from 2008 that hasn't yet left the draft stage, I don't feel that adding such content is beneficial since the string of numbers displayed in the article adds very little to the end reader. The important details on where US 2 is in located in Michigan are already included in the article through a map in the infobox, the prose discusses its location in relation to the various municipalities and the counties, and there is a link to the OpenStreetMap page in the External links section. That's plenty, and I stand by my refusal to add coordinate data to this article in the absence of a guideline that requires it. Imzadi 1979 → 23:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. You say "there isn't a requirement anywhere to include coordinate data in linear features". Since when did articles - let alone featured articles - only include what is required? Even then, surely failing to include any coordinates is a breach of Criterion 1(b) "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". The discussion at WP:RJL is about columns of coordinates in road junction lists; nothing to do with including a single set of "title" coordinates to locate the road (and which enables readers to place a road on a map of their choosing, or about including additional coordinates, for key features, in prose. Yes, the guidance on linear features is still a draft, but in all the time it's existed, no-one has proposed a viable alternative, and the lack of consensus to which you refer is about how to give coordinates for such features; not whether to do so. Your dubious claim that "the string of numbers displayed in the article adds [sic] very little to the end reader" is unsupported by evidence and ignores the fact that the string of numbers are actually, coordinates in one of two, user-selectable, common representation of geographic coordinates which many of us learned to read at school, and is also a clickable link, delivering a page linking to many useful services. The infobox map which locates the highway in Michigan is useless to me and to anyone else unfamiliar with the geography of that state. Nor does it help me to easily see the road on, say, Google Earth, or whatever tool I might prefer to use. the link to OSM is to page of metadata, some in formats internal to OSM, and all of which will be unhelpful to casual readers, even when it does not, as at present, display the text "Sorry, the data for the relation with the id 115988, took too long to retrieve". Wikipedia gives coordinates on well over 700,000 articles (many of which are for linear features). There is clearly consensus to do this on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft = no acceptance, hence being a draft. 700,000 article, how many of which are linear? Oh right... many. That's a reliable number. There are several dozen featured road articles, none of which have coordinates. That's just as much of a precedent (I think that was the word you were looking for, not consensus). There is no agreed upon method for choosing a single point to represent an entire road, so therefore you cannot expect a single coordinate to represent it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I might add that you've been encouraged to come up with a way of drawing a line on map services. I can do it for google with most direct roads using a pair of coordinates; the url remains static outside of the DMS values, and so it is indeed possible. Why should an article contain inaccurate, arbitrary or rough numbers for something that is meant to be precise? If you know its in the US state of Michigan, you load up your favourite map service and type "Michigan", then you find the item. It's not a point, its a convoluted line. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The word I was looking for was "consensus"; though yes, there is precedence for GeoTagging articles, too; including feature articles about linear features. I've just loaded up my favourite map service and typed "Michigan" and unsurprisingly, that didn't find the road. Pardon me for not responding to the rest of your straw-man rhetoric. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus implies a discussion, and from WP:CONSENSUS, silence (though this implies a discussion that wasn't answered) is the weakest form of consensus. Precedent is taking the standard from an existing set of articles and applying it to more...
Anyways, I'm looking for a number, not a "many", because I can provide approximately 40 that do not, quickly. What rhetoric by the way? You're just choosing to ignore the points you can't respond to, because there is no good response. Again, what source do we take the coordinates from? How can one number be applied to the entire length of a non-straight feature with any sort of accuracy? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose. Respectfully, I disagree with Imzadi1979. WP:FACR starts "A featured article exemplifies our very best work' and 1(c) continues "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". Emphasis sources plural. Because we obviously can easy do much more and IMO better than the infobox map, the openmaps link, and the textual description, by the use of {{coord}} and {{GeoGroupTemplate}} which link to multiple RS maps, we should. It is incomprehensible to me that we would deliberately not take the opportunity to link to this diversity of rich sources, and promote this as an article that exemplifies our very best work. Under what part of "best" in a web environment is "deliberately not linking to some of the best sources around" found? Where will we find a user base thankful or happy that they can't view this structure on GoogleMaps or Bing or their preferred map provider? Only if an aim of this FAC is to deliberately and needlessly frustrate or dismay segments of our readership should this be promoted. At the risk of boring you, I will oppose each road article FAC having the same issue as this one. I appreciate your view may differ from mine; there we go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments, but this article does use multiple map sources. To wit:
    • Footnote 2: the Physical Reference Finder Application from the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) with cartography by the Michigan Center for Geographic Information
    • Footnote 4: the online edition of National Highway System, Michigan, a map prepared by MDOT.
    • Footnote 6: the official paper MDOT map from 2010, copies are free upon request from the department if others wish to get their own.
    • Footnote 8: the online map from Google Maps, used for aerial photography alone. (Google Maps is notorious for cartography errors. I had to submit an error report because they showed Interstate 296 on the map views of Grand Rapids, Michigan, even though MDOT hasn't signed that designation since 1979 or 1980.)
    • Footnote 11: the 2008 edition of Rand McNally's The Road Atlas.
    If these aren't enough high-quality reliable sources to verify the information from the "Route description" section, please let me know. Otherwise, your reasoning has been addressed. Additionally, what would be a high-quality, RS for the exact coordinates used for the roadway? OSM is user-generated and can't be used as a source. MDOT does not publish coordinate data for its roadways and for me to measure it from Google Maps runs into issues with original research and their reliability. I must respectfully state that that your opposition has already been addressed and no further action is required. Imzadi 1979 → 02:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to have addressed Tagishsimon's - or my - concerns about failing to link out to GeoTemplate and its useful tools; nor the fact that failing to include title coordinates prevents the article from being include in Google Maps', Google Earth's, an OpenStreetMaps' Wikipedia layers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagishsimon quoted FAC criterion 1c regarding the use of sources and being representative of the relevant literature on a subject; a {{coord}} inline or in a table is not a source for the article so that argument does not apply, full stop. In addition, I've shown how this article uses several, high-quality reliable sources in compliance with that criterion from multiple publishers. He could have quoted criterion 1b about being comprehensive, but adding strings of coordinates to the article does not add any necessary detail needed to understand the subject of the article: the two segments of US 2 that exist in the state of Michigan. In fact, the utility of {{coord}} requires in a link to a different page to be meaningful, not in the strings of numbers that would appear in the article.
Now, under criterion 1b, the comprehensiveness point, I don't see how this article does not comprehensively cover the subject based on reliable sources. What official/reliable source gives the hypothetical single point A°B'C"N, D°E'F"W as the location for US 2 in Michigan? MDOT does not publish coordinate data for their highways. Google Maps is notoriously unreliable for their cartography; I had to submit an error report because they marked I-296 on a map, when that highway designation hasn't been in use since 1979, and they marked a Quebec highway designation along US 30 across the US recently. (Yes, Google Maps is used as a source here, but for the satellite imagery view, not other details which instead are based on MDOT and Rand McNally paper maps or other sources.) How is it not original research for me, as a wikipedian, to arbitrarily pick one point as representative of a highway when no RS does that?
What you two are arguing is to include data in this article for the benefit of Google Maps and other online mapping services; we are not required to do such a thing by policy, by the Manual of Style nor by the FAC criteria. MOS:COORDS only specifies how to format geographic coordinates, if used. Since they are not used, MOS:COORDS doesn't apply. I'm arguing that adding those numbers is of little benefit to the article, and you disagree, but without a requirement to add them, and a convincing argument that this article is not comprehensive without several strings of blue-linked numbers scattered throughout, I will not add them, which is an option in the draft guideline, which states "no coordinates" as an option as to what an editor can include. The debates about including coordinate data in roadway articles have been on-going for months, and they will likely continue for months, and at this time, there is nothing that specifies that a Featured Article needs to include it. Should that change in the future, articles can be updated accordingly. I suggest a site-wide RfC advertised in the appropriate locations on changing MOS:COORDS to require them and to finalize guidance on what to do with linear features. Imzadi 1979 → 03:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"What you two are arguing is to include data in this article for the benefit of Google Maps and other online mapping services" No, we're arguing to do it for the benefit of our readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm arguing that adding those numbers is of little benefit to the article, and you disagree, but without a requirement to add them, and a convincing argument that this article is not comprehensive without several strings of blue-linked numbers scattered throughout, I will not add them, which is an option in the draft guideline, which states "no coordinates" as an option as to what an editor can include."

Just thought I'd point out where Imzadi already addressed that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pigsonthewing/Tagishsimon: I think you've made your viewpoints regarding this FAC clear enough. I'd suggest that you take this somewhere else, and let the FAC delegates decide whether they think your arguments are valid. At least, that's what I'm doing. --Rschen7754 02:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAC delegates discussion w/ context

[edit]
  • Oppose - This edit from the nominator, unilaterally removing the comments of oppose votes, is unethical. No comments on the article itself, but I must oppose this nomination because it is neither fair nor acceptable for nominators to do this. Either put it back, point to a statement where an FAC delegate explicitly stated that the comments should be removed, or I will take this to AN/I and bring it up when this is written up in the Signpost. Refactoring comments is a blockable offense. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should be aware that the discussion surrounding the opposes (which is linked from the opposes) is entirely spill-over from discussions at MOS:RJL regarding coordinates on road articles. The nominator was not trying to sweep it under the rug, but rather trying to keep that discussion from dominating this nomination. The delegates would obviously check the link to see what the reasoning behind the oppose votes (which remain here) was. I do believe there is a greater need to assume good faith here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the nominator notified a delegate right after he moved the discussion to the talk page. He moved the same comments (almost verbatim) from M-185, which was promoted just days ago. –Fredddie™ 04:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Had I seen that one in time, I'd have opposed that too. If discussions take up too much space, you collapse them, you don't sweep them under the rug. What the nominator is doing is unethical, plain and simple. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, actually no, not at FAC. To help page loading times at WP:FAC, extended irrelevant discussions are moved to the talk page, not collapsed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions in question are not irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The !votes are not irrelevant, but according to two FAC directors now, the discussion on coords as part of an FAC is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? And when did the community devolve such decision-making powers to those few individuals? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 has been the FA Director since August 2004. SandyGeorgia has been an FAC delegate since November 2007, and Karanacs' appointment as an FAC delegate dates back to March 2009 according to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-03-16/Dispatches. Ucucha's appointment dates back to August of this year according to WT:Featured article candidates/archive52#New FAC delegate - Ucucha. Imzadi 1979 → 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; but that's not what I asked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can go find the history behind it yourself, but that is how the featured article process has always been. Those few individuals, known as FAC delegates, have the absolute authority here. This particular nomination is not the place to dispute that authority. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Those few individuals, known as FAC delegates, have the absolute authority here" Please provide a citation for that remarkable assertion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because the instructions say so. Listen, if you want to overturn the whole FAC director-delegate authority, you go to WT:FAC, where it will be noticed, not here. And please don't give a "But I never said that!?!?!" reply, it's clear that you're at least questioning their authority. --Rschen7754 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a citation, not another assertion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the FA for M-185 should be revoked, at least until the objections are properly resolved? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that I didn't know about that, when it's my comments that were hidden. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, neither of you are FAC delegates, so that's not your place to decide. Sweeping under the rug would also imply no link was left behind. Andy, you were well aware that they were moved, hence why you continued to respond on the talk page to those comments, without issue. Don't play coy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 15:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Floydian, you grasp the wrong end of the stick when attempting to describe my feelings and thoughts; and once again in such a manner as to create a falsely negative picture of them. Funny how you never wrongly say anything positive. My comment above refers to a post on SandyGeorgia's talk page, which discusses me, but about which I have only recently become aware. How the fact that I'm not a FAC delegate is supposed to affect that is beyond me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It means its not up to you to reopen a closed FAC, but you're always welcome to start an RfC (but you won't). Funny how you think after several months of being a tempest in a teapot that there is anything positive for me to say about you, but that is an aside. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I moved this discussion to the talk page as a prime example of what I was referring to. Andy, feel free to question the FAC delegates' authority, but as long as they still enjoy the community's support, you're not going to get bery far. Bring up your points on WT:FAC if you'd like to continue, but otherwise this has gone beyond the purpose of this page, which is to review U.S. Route 2 in Michigan. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/U.S._Route_2_in_Michigan/archive1&oldid=1086030627"