| advertise add site services publishers database health videos | ![]() | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Talking Watch, Talking Watches, Talking Clock, Talking Bible, Talking... independentliving.com | Talk Radio Show Tooth Talk Dr. Mitchell A. Josephs D.D.S.Products radiotoothtalk.com |
[edit] OpposeI'm going to have to oppose this for two reasons. 1)It's instruction creep. 2)m:Wiki is not paper. "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." Why shouldn't we have an article for every road? Why aren't they all notable? Cool Bluetalk to me 16:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[Indent reset] I support having a guideline for highway notability. It would reduce the number of AfDs for roads, and would at the same time simplify that process. While most AfDs have resulted in Keep or Speedy Keep, I believe the point is to eliminate most future AfDs. As for the creeping issue, I don't see how it is. A good example is Pennsylvania. The commonwealth has the main state routes numbered 1 to 999. There are quadrant routes (QRs) which are all four digit numbers. Many state maintained bridges are given quadrant route numbers. A few of the QRs could be significant enough to have articles, perhaps because there's something significant on them (such as 3rd Street in Harrisburg, PA which has the state capital on it) or that a decommissioned route ran on the modern QR. I think that a guideline would eliminate future attempts at creating articles for minor QRs. I think that while WP:PASH could have its own guideline, I believe that a Wikipedia-wide guideline would better serve all of the road-related WikiProjects, creating a better organized and cohesive encyclopedia. --myselfalso 23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RejectedIt looks like this has failed to reach a consensus and should be rejected. --Kevin Murray 10:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC) [edit] ClarityEven though this is not a policy page, can there be clarity on what special historical significance means? Andy 1One (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC) | ||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |