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) reply

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) reply

@ 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) reply

@ 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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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. Rs chen 7754 03:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

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) reply

• It is a potential outcome of this RFC that articles about geographical features can be supported only by maps. This is indicated particularly by those arguing that the large number of articles (most mass-produced, and not reviewed much by uninvolved editors, many being deleted when they reach AFD) cited only to maps justifies their position. If that is where it is going, then the community should have its say on that. FOARP ( talk) 10:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Maybe this RFC shouldn't have been planned in private. The notability question has been part of previous discussions, including the painfully long one at RSN. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 21:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• ActivelyDisinterested - I hadn't heard about the RSN discussion until just now, but, taking a look at it, What The Actual? Google Maps as a reliable source?!? This is seriously just about wanting to write articles that are basically "Road X goes through cities X, Y, and Z and is 123 miles long (356 kilometres)" based on a source that practically anyone could just go and edit and is based in large part on Wikipedia itself? No, no, no. FOARP ( talk) 08:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  Agreed. Had this RFC been planned publicly on RSN or elsewhere on the wiki itself, it would've been painfully and immediately obvious that people would be concerned about the notability issue. Based on that RSN discussion, it should already have been obvious that not every editor agreed with your and Floydian's take on the matter. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 08:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC) reply

It has been revealed that this proposal was developed through off-wiki collaboration in an undisclosed forum.

While off-wiki collaboration to write an RfC is not explicitly against policy, it is generally discouraged as antithetical to the open nature of Wikipedia, and the fact that it was done by two admins, who are held to a higher standard of behavior than a general editor, is disappointing.

It becomes a potential policy violation because of statements made by Rschen7754, who disclosed that they have a secret strategy, which this proposal is part of, to bring about an increase in the number of road articles on Wikipedia. They have provided no explanation for how this RfC is supposed to bring that about, and hiding this information from other editors does not align with policies to articulate honest motives, as well as ensuring that editors cannot fully understand what they are !voting on.

This off-wiki communication also invites concerns about convert canvassing; if this forum extends beyond the three editors involved in drafting this RfC then posting a notification to it of the opening of this RfC would violate that policy; requests to say whether the forum was notified was ignored, while a request to list the members who were part of the forum was refused.

When Rschen7754 was asked if they would be willing to share the communication with ArbCom, to ensure that everything was aboveboard, they reverted the question without response. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Hike395 Judging by this discussion you seemed to be aware of this as well, or at least I see you calling it a "sensitive topic". Maybe you can comment on this? -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 10:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Rschen7754 said they were "hesistant to comment about it on a public page", so I apologized for bringing up a topic where they seemed unhappy. I don't know anything about offwiki discussion --- I never engage in it. — hike395 ( talk) 11:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

That seems like a reasonable explanation. I have a follow-up question, just to make sure I understand the context of the discussion correctly: What did you mean by "I'll go back to WP:NGEO and talk about the refactor generically?" -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Rschen7754 objected to my proposed refactor of WP:NGEO at WT:NGEO#Proposed refactoring because they were concerned that a sentence in WP:GEOFEAT The inclusion of a man-made geographical feature on maps or in directories is insufficient to establish topic notability would apply to roads after the re-factor but not before. (I don't agree with this analysis). Rschen7754 gave some examples of deletion discussions where this may have come up. I came to Rschen's talk page to say that I couldn't find examples he was talking about. I was trying to convince Rschen7754 that the issue with road notability wasn't that sentence in WP:GEOFEAT but poor wording of WP:GEOROAD. Rschen did not seem to want to discuss WP:GEOROAD, so I gave up and was planning to go back and make generic (non-road-related) arguments at WT:NGEO. North8000 also seemed to think that my proposed refactor was more than tidying. I got distracted by other Wikitasks, so never pursued the discussion.

Of course, this is my interpretation of how the discussion went: Rschen may have interpreted it differently.

Your questions are rather unusual for Wikipedia -- I can't recall being asked to carefully explain a user Talk discussion like this in the last ~20 years on WP. What are your goals in asking me these questions? — hike395 ( talk) 12:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply