Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources
Split here from the village pump
Hello, all, I've boldly re-located this from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) because it's already well above 100,000 bytes long, and it just started a day and a half ago. Pinging as many people as I noticed, so you all know where this RFC ended up:
User:Moabdave, User:Imzadi1979, User talk:Rschen7754, User:Kahastok, User:BilledMammal, User:Fredddie, User:Licks-rocks, User:Justinkunimune, User:Jc3s5h, User:Dough4872, User:Floydian, User:Selfstudier, User:Guerillero, User:ActivelyDisinterested, User:Horse Eye's Back, User talk:Viridiscalculus, User:Sammy D III, User:Epicgenius, User:Tcr25, User:Ɱ, User:Choess, User:Pburka, User:Kerry Raymond, User:JoelleJay, User:Scott5114, User:Andrew Davidson, User:Mxn, User:The ed17, User:Mx. Granger, User:Gusfriend, User:RoySmith, User:S Marshall, User:Jim.henderson. Apologies to whomever I missed (and please ping them if you figure out the missing editors). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- User:Banks Irk, User:Blueboar, User:Chipmunkdavis, User:Deor, User:Masem, User:Murgatroyd49, User:Rschen7754, User:Viridiscalculus. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing Fair enough, I suspected this would get moved to a sub page as fast as it was growing. One concern, the template used to announce the move at WP:VPP is the same template used to close discussion. In fact at first glance, I thought that's what you did was close the discussion. Any objections to adding a line or two of text inside the section on vpp but outside of the RFC template that points people to the subpage, just so it's more clear? Dave (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Moabdave, I've no objections at all. It's important that people be able to find this page. Do we want an {{anchor}} at the old location, so that links in WP:FRS messages still work?
- Also, @Redrose64, I've just reset the RFC id number, in the hope that this will make the bot post the new location. If that doesn't work on the next run, could you figure it out? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK I'll add the text. I'll let you be the judge and executor on the question of an anchor. I know enough about FRS and anchors to be dangerous.Dave (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've set up the anchor on the old page, and @Izno kindly fixed Template:Centralized discussion, and I think that means we're all done with housekeeping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK I'll add the text. I'll let you be the judge and executor on the question of an anchor. I know enough about FRS and anchors to be dangerous.Dave (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Alas, it seems we've mostly said our say. Summarizing my own opinion, we will continue to do do object locations by aerial/satellite photos, at least those that have a good track record for location repeatability such as those of Google Maps and Bing. We won't use them for object identification, because if the written record isn't good enough then these photos are unlikely to do the job better. And an object being indicated on a map or a photo does nothing for reaching the notability bar for an article. Anyone who studies OpenStreetMap can see great numbers of individual trees, fences, and streetlights. Hey, maybe someone will restart the discussion by explaining why I'm wrong! Jim.henderson (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oops! I am very much mistaken, having mistaken the RFC Talk Page for the RFC page. I see the discussion is continuing to produce great volumes of thought. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's a good sign that we don't have more comments over here on the talk page. The talk pages for large RFCs sometimes host the least happy conversations.
- (Of course all right-thinking editors believe appearing on a map confers notability. How else would we fill Wikipedia with articles on important subjects like Third tree south of Main Street and Sixth Avenue on east side of the road? Also, any pedestrian incidentally photographed by Google Street View is notable now.
;-)) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oops! I am very much mistaken, having mistaken the RFC Talk Page for the RFC page. I see the discussion is continuing to produce great volumes of thought. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Alas, it seems we've mostly said our say. Summarizing my own opinion, we will continue to do do object locations by aerial/satellite photos, at least those that have a good track record for location repeatability such as those of Google Maps and Bing. We won't use them for object identification, because if the written record isn't good enough then these photos are unlikely to do the job better. And an object being indicated on a map or a photo does nothing for reaching the notability bar for an article. Anyone who studies OpenStreetMap can see great numbers of individual trees, fences, and streetlights. Hey, maybe someone will restart the discussion by explaining why I'm wrong! Jim.henderson (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Notability!?
I strongly object to the use of this RFC as a vehicle for determining notability of geographical features. This RFC was never advertised as having to do with notability at any of the venues it was crossposted to, and the proposals are coming almost a week into the RFC. I believe they should be closed. Rschen7754 03:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- As I mentioned in a comment, the purpose of the RfC was to see if we could be citing maps, if the act of reading a map and translating its content ran afoul of original research rules. I think that's primary to any secondary discussions related to using those sources to determine notability. Imzadi 1979 → 05:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)