Wikipedia talk:Notability (Transportation) (failed proposal)

Streets/Roads

The following types of streets and roads, numbered or not, would have inherent notability

A limited-access highway
A non-limited access highway that is the main route connecting two or more cities or towns
A non-limited access highway that backs up a limited access highway connecting two or more cities or towns, and is used by motorists for that purpose
A large commercial boulevard
A major street in the center of a large city
The main street or road in a town or suburb that is above all the rest
A street or road that plays a role in popular culture (such as being featured in a movie)

The following types of streets or road would not be notable:

A side street
A short secondary road that plays no signifigance in connecting two or more notable locations
A large but short road, often with no outlet, that is designed to serve a business park or equivalent, but has no other function.

Public transportation

Companies and agencies providing fixed-route transportation on a published schedule would be inherently notable
Urban bus routes in a major city with a long history would be notable, and in some cases, an article could be devoted to a single bus route. The routes of a smaller agency, though, should be described in the article about that agency.
A transit service operating solely for those with special needs or for a limited group of people and not open to the public would not be notable

Sebwite (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lombard Street

Lombard Street (San Francisco) doesn't seem to meet the present requirements. I think that's because this street has unusual characteristics. There may be similar situations, such as a small street which has its own bridge, is paved with gold, or the Indy 500 is run on it. The present requirements seem to use technical or transportation oriented definitions. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though the length itself of a long street or road may make it the main road for an area, being short does not count it out in terms of notability. There are many possible reasons why a small, short street, even a dead-end side street could be notable. The example given here, Lombard Street (San Francisco), is very unusual compared to other streets around the world. If a street is a part of household vocabulary because of some major landmark located on it, or a movie was filmed there, those are just some examples.

Or you could look at the one I created more recently, Gates Pass. This road does not run through a developed urban area. But it has a history dating back 125 years, and action has been taken over danger the road has posed to motorists. Factors like these can make a street or road notable.Sebwite (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find much of the guideline to be misguided, even if earnestly well-intentioned. In general Wikipedia describes notability in general terms as being worthy of note, as evidenced by coverage in secondary sources. We do not describe in detail the intrinsic characteristics of things that make them notable. For example, a sports team member is notable if he or she wins a major award, gets lots of press, etc. We don't say that basketball players who are taller than seven feet, or swimmers who can swim faster than X are notable. The effort to describe the physical characteristics of streets that make them notable is over-detailed and to a great extent misses the purpose of notability. Even within the United States there is a great variation in urban design and layout, so that something that could lead to a street being notable one place (connecting two dense centers, length, etc) could be different in another place. The encyclopedia covers villages all over the world, ancient, modern, with public or private transportation, planned cities, and so on. There is no way we can reasonably catalog, much less deal with, all of the different types of street systems. Better to simply fall back on the more general notability guideline. 70.7.27.28 (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for route numbers of roads that are still under construction?

Although the Intercounty Connector is clearly notable, for example, should the redirect of Maryland Route 200 to Intercounty Connector wait until the construction nears completion (or the highway opens to traffic?)

(On a different topic, see the Deletion Review for Nevada State Route 805 for a discussion of whether Nevada State Route 805 should redirect to the USA Parkway or not. There is a key difference between Maryland Route 200 and Nevada state route 805: Maryland route 200 is the correct number for the Intercounty Connector, whereas Nevada state route 805 is an unofficial and possibly incorrect designation.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter Train Stations

The proposed guideline wants to let some stations drop below the notability threshold. I think the same approach as in WP:FOOTY makes sense where if the majority fall in the notability bracket then all are classed as notable. (WP:NOTPAPER) Agathoclea (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N-American bias?

I think this guideline is too much from a North American point of view (e.g. each single example is; and the downtown grid map is pretty much unique to the US). I think to be usable this guideline should be checked by a wordlwide body of editors; and calibrated against international situations before being brought into effect. Arnoutf (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought along similar lines looking at the street maps. In most European countries for example it would make more sense to distinguish between local and state/country maintained roads. Agathoclea (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the whole document reads as if written from a North America viewpoint. If an article were written in a similar manner, I'd be tempted to put a {{globalise}} tag on it. Bluap (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In total agreement with the North American bias I have some comments related to how things must change to incorporate a more global perspective (my proposals are probably again biased from my European point of view):

The term "continental railway" is almost explicitly North American; any continental railway is so absolutely inherently notable that leaving out the whole concept would probably be better. Though the term "intercity" is not used in North America (partially because of limited availability), it would probably best describe interurban, mainline rail services, which is what the meaning of "national/continental" is, especially related to passenger transport and stations.
The term "services" is not particularly clear; while in North America it is common to have a vague distinction between the railway line / operating company / service, there is often a lot clearer distinction in Europe. This is often because jurisdiction may be split up, and a tradition for giving each sector or branch its own name.
The term "commuter rail" is used incorrectly here. Commuter rail is a heavy rail service with "lower frequency" than rapid transit; though definitions can be vague, a more general term like intraurban or urban rail should be used.
The term "subway" in British English means a path under a road. The correct term is rapid transit (per sort-of consensus on Talk:Rapid transit).
The term "light rail" carries different meanings in North America and Europe; what Americans call a light rail Europeans call a tram, and what Europeans call a tram Americans call a streetcar. What is called "light rail" in Europe is sometimes considered "heavy rail" in North America. In Asia there are different meanings to this. Stay away from the term light rail; the term "tram" seems to be the least ambiguous globally. Conversely use a phrase like "commuter rail, rapid transit, light rail and tramway."
By "municipal bus service" i presume the idea is urban bus services; these are typically provided by counties, regional governments or metropolitan transit authorities in larger cities. Perhaps the term "urban bus services" is better, alternatively "regional bus services".
As mentioned by others, not only are all examples from the United States, but also all from the Northeast. If examples are provided, a more global sample should be incorporated. This is particularly problematic on the section about streets in Washington and New York, where there seems to be no general rule, merely vague claims based on naming of those cities. I fear that had I not been to those cities I would not have any idea what was meant by the examples; for instance are only roads with bus routes and no parking considered notable? Reading between the lines may make it seem like that.

Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Wow, this guideline is very cogent. I think the North American specificity isn't just the examples, but the entire analysis. Roads in other parts of the world are organized differently. Older cities are not on grids, for example. Some cities are on canals, others on back streets. Some parts of the world have local and national agencies that number and maintain streets; other places streets are not numbered, or they date back to ancient times and go by their original names - in the American West you have a few of those, streets with names like "trail", "pass", or the "Camimino Real". I wonder, for instance, how well this one would apply to Tokyo or Mumbai, or roads in Central Africa. If making this universal is too daunting all isn't lost - I would leave it as an essay or see if there is a wikiproject that can adopt it as a guide for North American roads. Although I would normally recoil from yet another a special-purpose notability guideline I can't find any major holes in it for North America, nothing that can't be fixed with some evolution over time and a healthy dose of IAR for special cases (e.g. roads on a military reservation, Indian Reservation, barrier island, giant ranch). Wikidemo (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. The policy should be limited to North American sites only. Maybe even excluding SF. NVO (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - By making a point of railway lines being "continental", I feel this proposal strongly underestimates the notability of branch lines. Store norske leksikon includes articles on unremarkable lines like Arendalsbanen, as well as closed branch lines like Valdresbanen, Numedalsbanen and Flekkefjordbanen. The point here is not that coverage in the Norwegian paper encyclopedia provides notability, but that simply being a branch line was sufficiently notable for SNL to spend limited space on covering them. These branch lines would be notable even if SNL did not exist. Even lines which would qualify as "main line" in Norway (Bergensbanen, Dovrebanen, Sørlandsbanen and Nordlandsbanen) are hardly "continental" in nature, and if anyone tried AFDing those articles on the Norwegian Wikipedia they would wind up blocked for trolling faster than a TGV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Another thing to remember about rail lines is that there often will be newspaper coverage, but not under the official name: usually the articles say something like "the Union Pacific Railroad tracks through town". On the other hand, minor branch lines may be best covered with the main line they branch from. --NE2 12:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on name

The current name is (Transportation). You guys should change it to (roads) because all the criteria right now are roads. Last time I checked, airports are part of the definition and if someone looks here for this lengthy debate, it would be useless.Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 13:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, other things have been listed. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusions

Are airports, route operators, leasors, owners, flying schools, air maintenance workshops and so forth all to have independent guidelines for notability? There should be an underlying principle at work.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is: multiple independent, third-party sources that contain a detailed examination of the topic. The only content that should be in this guideline is advice about sourcing, reminding people that atlases, maps, timetables, and schedules are not sufficient to establish notability.—Kww(talk) 20:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft incidents

Would be useful if this guidline could provide some more clarity on the notability of minor aviation incidents. Every time there's a decompression or clear air turbulence incident, there's a great argument over deletion/inclusion of the associated article, which is typically created due the amount of press coverage. (e.g. QF30, QF72) However the bigger picture is that these incidents are not rare and also are not typically catalysts for changes in regulations, procedures, design, safety etc, especially where no deaths or aircraft loss occurs. WikiProject Aviation has clear guidlines, but these are usually stomped on by the herd, who cite wider Wiki policy to justify inclusion. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that both QF30 and QF72 as you cited are in fact rare in terms of the kinds of accidents they were. QF30 involved an oxygen bottle rupturing and bursting up through the cabin floor, knocking the door handle (in the process activating a safety mechanism in the handle), hitting the ceiling, then crashing back down through the cabin floor and after that falling out of the hole in the side of the aircraft created by the initial rupture. This is hardly a common occurance. The wikipedia article was nominated for AfD less than two hours after the article was created, but within the AfD period it became clear that something out of the ordinary had occured and the AfD was defeated. In the QF72 incident, a normally reliable system malfunctioned. There are very few occurances of the unit malfunctioning and the most notable previous case has clear differences. The aircraft manufacturer has cited the QF72 incident as being a first of its kind on their aircraft. In this case the wikipedia article was nominted for AfD within minutes of the article being created. Further facts were beginning to emerge during the AfD process, however the article was still deleted. I nominated the article for deletion review two days after it was deleted in light of growing information and it was restored a further two days later after unanimous support including from those who had voted for its deletion in the AfD. In both cases the AfDs cited WikiProject Airports despite both incidents being inflight accidents not involving airports. In this case you've cited WikiProject Aviation - QF30 and QF72 both clearly satisfied this project's notability criteria from the outset. QF30 involved clearly unusual circumstances (it wasn't the first hull breach but these are hardly common events, especially one which involved no injuries) and QF72 automatically satisified the criteria on account of it being a scheduled air carrier service that involved serious injuries. Please don't belittle the views of those who argued to keep both articles as being "stomped on by the herd", especially when both articles satisfy the very notability criteria you are referring to. I see both AfDs as disruptive to Wikipedia, but I accept that they were nominated in good faith (and therefore would also like to see WikiProject Aviation's notability criteria included into Wikipedia policy, so that future AfDs of similar nature can be dealt with more swiftly, or avoided entirely. -- Rob.au (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact both of those occurences were accidents, not incidents. They also happened on scheduled commercial flights of large aircraft operating within well regulated systems. We should continue to use the same definitions for these terms as the industry, regulators and investigators use. See Aviation accidents and incidents. Accidents on such flights should be automatically notable.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Accidents notability will cover most (but not all) accidents involving commercial aircraft, but I would tend to agree - any regular public transport flight falling within the ICAO definition of an accident [1] is inherently notable and it would be appropriate to use the same criteria. -- Rob.au (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines

It says "Commercial airlines offering services to the public are notable. Cargo and charter only airlines are generally not notable." That's a bit confusing as cargo and charter airlines are at the same time commerical airlines that offer services to the public. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Types/classes of transportation vehicles

An issued relevant to this policy is raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ČD Class 471 about the notability of types of transportation vehicles, particularly those from the non-English speaking world. Some guidelines could be considered as part of this policy. Specifically:

Notability of types/classes of transportation vehicles. Examples: Boeing 737, TGV, Leyland Titan, Scania 4-series, Powell River class ferry, Southern Pacific class AC-4. (Note: Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is an essay and inactive.)
Notability of individual vehicles. Examples: G-BDXJ, MV Pont L'Abbé, LNER Class A3 4472 Flying Scotsman.
Related to both issues is types (including prototypes) where only one unit of a particular type may have been built.

McWomble (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give this proposal another chance

Let's give this proposal another chance to succeed, this time involving countries other than the USA as well as the USA itself. — Rickyrab | Talk 14:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]