I seem to have caused a bit of a stir on the AfD for the article Ghost ramp. I commented that if the Keep advocates don't fix the fundamental problems identified with the article at its previous AfD two months ago - which are: no reliable source for the name, no reliable source for the description and all the inclusions sourced to maps and satellite photos, i.e. original research - then I will delete it as original research.
Since the AfD was started there have been only three edits to the article, and the only sources added are of the same kind. Am I really completely off-base in thinking that direct interpretation of maps and satellite photos is original research? I can't really see it as anything else.
Ghost ramp is an interesting topic, but we do have these policies...
Guy (JzG)
On 28/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Since the AfD was started there have been only three edits to the article, and the only sources added are of the same kind. Am I really completely off-base in thinking that direct interpretation of maps and satellite photos is original research? I can't really see it as anything else.
I was going to just agree with you, but took a look at the article and took a look at one of the maps in question: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.839503,-92.152655&spn=0.00826,0.023732...
The map (which overlays a satellite photo) is pretty unambiguous. From the map one can see the ghost ramp, and can determine its coordinates. I could accept your point if we were talking about satellite photos only. But maps are symbolic representations of space; they are designed to be unambiguous and easily read.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:16:25 +0000, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
The map (which overlays a satellite photo) is pretty unambiguous. From the map one can see the ghost ramp, and can determine its coordinates. I could accept your point if we were talking about satellite photos only. But maps are symbolic representations of space; they are designed to be unambiguous and easily read.
What's the map symbol for a ghost ramp? What's the USDOT definition?
Guy (JzG)
On 28/12/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
What's the map symbol for a ghost ramp? What's the USDOT definition?
Ghost ramps do not have distinct symbols, but within the context of the roads around it the markings are clear. It would be nice to have examples of ghost ramps listed on that page to have a second, written source.
On 12/28/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:16:25 +0000, "Oldak Quill" oldakquill@gmail.com wrote:
The map (which overlays a satellite photo) is pretty unambiguous. From the map one can see the ghost ramp, and can determine its coordinates. I could accept your point if we were talking about satellite photos only. But maps are symbolic representations of space; they are designed to be unambiguous and easily read.
What's the map symbol for a ghost ramp? What's the USDOT definition?
I think this is a bit overly deletionist of you.
There are two questions: One, is this article referenced to proper academic standards, including a source for where the name comes from, and two, is it correct in the "accurate usage of the term" sense.
The first question, you're correct on. A couple of online dictionaries aren't "reliable sources" by normal standards.
The second question... I think there's enough evidence out there that it's in common usage that it's also clear that it IS correct and accurate, whether we can provide verifyable references to that effect or not.
I am against deleting articles which are accurate but not (yet) well referenced. Fixing the references problem is a valid ongoing concern, but I don't see any reason to delete this article.
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:27:35 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I am against deleting articles which are accurate but not (yet) well referenced. Fixing the references problem is a valid ongoing concern, but I don't see any reason to delete this article.
Last time, sure. This time, when it's still not fixed? I disagree.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/28/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:27:35 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I am against deleting articles which are accurate but not (yet) well referenced. Fixing the references problem is a valid ongoing concern,
but I
don't see any reason to delete this article.
Last time, sure. This time, when it's still not fixed? I disagree.
I think we have a fuzzy-boundary problem with neologisms.
I think that deleting this is not the ultimate right answer.
On 28/12/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/28/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:27:35 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I am against deleting articles which are accurate but not (yet) well referenced. Fixing the references problem is a valid ongoing concern,
but I
don't see any reason to delete this article.
Last time, sure. This time, when it's still not fixed? I disagree.
I think we have a fuzzy-boundary problem with neologisms. I think that deleting this is not the ultimate right answer.
More generally, AFD/DRV are really bad tools to use as the quality control department.
- d.
On Thursday 28 December 2006 12:06, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
Am I really completely off-base in thinking that direct interpretation of maps and satellite photos is original research?
Yes.
If I went out to a site, took photographs, made drawings, and measured dimensions, used that information to make my own map, and used THAT map as a source, then yes, that would be OR.
That's not the case here.
The name, "Ghost ramp", might not be well sourced, but the instances are fine - a map is a perfectly good source for information about the existance of a road. Perhaps the page should be moved (as someone suggested on the AfD), but it shouldn't be deleted.
On 12/29/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
I seem to have caused a bit of a stir on the AfD for the article Ghost ramp. I commented that if the Keep advocates don't fix the fundamental problems identified with the article at its previous AfD two months ago - which are: no reliable source for the name, no reliable source for the description and all the inclusions sourced to maps and satellite photos, i.e. original research - then I will delete it as original research.
I think you're wrong here. To my mind, if there is an interesting topic worth writing about, the lack of an official accepted term should *not* inhibit us from writing about it. We avoid neologisms where possible - but if not possible, we should use the least neologistic word possible. I'm sure there are plenty of examples of this, particularly when we're writing on topics which may never have been discussed in English before.
In this case, I would be inclined to rename the page "List of incomplete onramps and offramps". In any case, if you're nominating a page for deletion because you don't like the name, shame on you...
Steve
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 12:21:44 +1100, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
In any case, if you're nominating a page for deletion because you don't like the name, shame on you...
No, I identified three problems, all unresolved for two months - and I didn't nominate it, either.
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I seem to have caused a bit of a stir on the AfD for the article Ghost ramp. I commented that if the Keep advocates don't fix the fundamental problems identified with the article at its previous AfD two months ago - which are: no reliable source for the name, no reliable source for the description and all the inclusions sourced to maps and satellite photos, i.e. original research - then I will delete it as original research.
Without discussing the actual reliability of the sourcing -- which, it seems to me, would require evaluating the quality of the huge mass of references provided for the article -- I'd just like to say that I don't believe AfD is really an appropriate way of dealing with incorrect article titles, which is what this nomination really seems to be about.
I doubt anyone would deny that there are such things as unused ramps and highways, and the nominator himself has since started a separate article on [[Unused highways]] and advocated a redirect or merge there. As it happens, I find this a reasonable solution; it's just that I wish it had been proposed on [[WP:RM]], where it really belongs, in the first place.
Of course, this kind of thing does happen, often starting with a "delete or at least rename" nomination. I've done it myself in the past: see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinkadecimal]]. "Rename" is indeed a valid conclusion for an AfD debate, and may often be a good compromise solution. I just wish more people would consider that option _before_ taking the matter to AfD.
On 29/12/06, Ilmari Karonen nospam@vyznev.net wrote:
Of course, this kind of thing does happen, often starting with a "delete or at least rename" nomination. I've done it myself in the past: see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinkadecimal]]. "Rename" is indeed a valid conclusion for an AfD debate, and may often be a good compromise solution. I just wish more people would consider that option _before_ taking the matter to AfD.
Such nominations should be speedy-closed as defective and the move made if sensible.
- d.