Login
Login

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/43rd parallel south#Post Close Discussion

Post Close Discussion

:Star, thanks for your work on this. Regarding There should probably be a discussion somewhere, but this is far too complex a discussion and with too many articles involved for an AfD: This is how AfDs for these pages always end. Most of us arguing for deletion dispute the concept of these articles in toto as not meeting WP:NOTABLE requirements, along with observations of other guideline violations. Because there is a small but determined group of supporters, and little interest otherwise, at this point the pages seem to be grandfathered into Wikipedia because there doesn’t seem to be any process to deal with such situations. Where should the discussion be held? This is the first one I knew of and participated in, despite editing since something like 2005 and despite that it’s directly in my area of expertise. Yet I see that related AfDs have happened many times, and whether I wash my hands of it or not, presumably they’re going to keep happening because consensus will never be reached because there is a vested interest on the one side, little interest outside of that group, and then a fresh editor stumbles into one of them to experiences a “Whaa…??” moment. Are we, as an organization, fine with that? Fine kicking the can down the road, fine with wasting time on AfDs? Do you have any suggestion on how the Delete side ought to handle this? Can we just mark these articles with a banner that says “Stay calm; don’t bother with an AfD; these articles have been granted immunity”? Strebe (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Well said. Delectopierre (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::There's Wikipedia:Deletion review, if you want to argue that User:Star Mississippi closed this discussion improperly. In my opinion there are 2 problems with this closed discussion: (1) the discussion is clearly not finished, with many questions left unanswered, and (2) the conclusion that "The result was no consensus‎" is not an accurate summary of the discussion so far. My impression is that User:Star Mississippi only skimmed the conversation rather than carefully considering it. In cases where consensus is obvious, that suffices to get a quick impression, but it can lead to serious mistakes, as in this example. –jacobolus (t) 13:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::It's common to see complaints that too many articles are being bundled in a mass deletion nomination, but I don't think that objection holds any water here since these are all basically identical. The votes here are mostly all-or-nothing.

::If we can't hash this out here, perhaps a Village Pump discussion about the lists of locations that each parallel passes through would be more productive. –dlthewave ☎ 13:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks @Strebe @Delectopierre @Jacobolus and @Dlthewave.I've moved this here as it's more useful than a closed discussion for an ongoing conversation. While I have no objection should you choose to open a DRV, I don't think it's going to work any more than this AfD or the prior one did for several reasons:

:::*for a meta discussion, revisit consensus you (collectively, the community - not any of you personally) probably need an RFC to indicate whether we as a community think these are still OK or consensus has changed. Whether that's at N:GEO or the village pump, it probably doesn't matter.

:::*there was no consensus, and none in the prior because AfD is not suited to trying to establish policy. With folks arguing in good faith making it harder to establish input to disregard, it makes it hard if not impossible to find the consensus within the discussion.

:::*I agree with you, the discussion wasn't finished but it wasn't going to finish. Two successive AfDs is an indicator that it probably isn't the right venue for the discussion. We saw this same thing with the Olympians, it led to the 2022 consensus and while those are still a mess, they're better. (That said, I was arguing at a DRV recently that we need a new policy discussion there too).

:::Happy to continue to discuss and no issue with DRV as I said, but I really think your time and energy is better spent looking as a whole. Star Mississippi 13:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Moving this conversation here also seems completely inappropriate. You (Star Mississippi) are now hiding a relevant part of the conversation from most of the interested participants after you previously unilaterally decided to cut off a discussion in progress. I'm not sure if this is a normal way that deletion discussions are closed, but if so it's a fundamentally dysfunctional approach.

::::{{tq|i=yes|"Two successive AfDs ..."}} – With all due respect, this is incredibly weak. There were successive AFDs because people had procedural problems with the first one, and the second one was significantly better. To turn around and say that because people who first raised an AfD didn't know the process, and therefore tried to do a better job on a second go-around that that disqualifies the second effort is, also, deliberate dysfunction. Cf. WP:BUREAUCRACY ("Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures.... A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request.")

::::There is no evidence these articles were ever supported by any consensus, historically or today, and they very clearly violate core policies of Wikipedia (and have since their inception), with the only real support being a kind of Ignore-All-Rules-style "some people like it". Nothing has changed: these articles should have been deleted a decade ago, and should still be deleted today. –jacobolus (t) 14:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Jacobolus while you're welcome to feel the move is incorrect, your assessment of it being inappropriate is incorrect. No one is supposed to edit a closed AfD and having a discussion on a closed discussion makes it hard for anyone to see. I was not aware of your collective discussion until the ping (thank you) as for some likely gremlin reason, Strebe's didn't go through. Now we can discuss it here, or elsewhere if you prefer.

:::::The page you opened the discussion on says (emphasis there, I don't know how to change text color) The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. That is why I moved it, not out of any desire to hide it.

:::::You're welcome to believe they violate core policies, but the place to have that addressed is not an AfD when you have two uninvolved admins reading and closing the discussion in similar ways. I support that discussion and you're welcome to seek community review at DRV, but I don't think it's going to end with the outcome you're seeking, which is why I suggest an RFC. Star Mississippi 15:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Its very common to have a conversation that follows the close or which continues for a few comments, there isn't a problem with that as long as the edits happen outside of the closed edit box (aka the archived discussion is not modified). Comments should be made on the talk page, but are not required to be so. You appear to be in the wrong here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::While that happens a lot at AN/ANI @Horse Eye's Back, I have never seen a discussion continue on a closed AfD @Horse Eye's Back. It's not the right place for an ongoing discussion. There's a reason Talk pages exist. Star Mississippi 15:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I agree that it isn't the right place per say... But it isn't actually forbidden, its not even strongly discouraged... In terms of our wording its more or less kosher as long as you don't make a habit of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't think we disagree @Horse Eye's Back. @Jacobolus seemed to think I was deliberately moving the discussion to evade scrutiny, whereas my sole goal is to make it more functional since I imagine it will be referred back to in a DRV/RFC or further AfD. Star Mississippi 15:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::To be clear I don't think you have done anything in bad faith and I think that your close was the correct one given the cirumstances (bundled deletions are generally hard to get consensus on) but that being said I don't think I've ever seen someone move such comments to the talk page... So I imagine that Jacobolus hasn't either. Novel incidents are prime for misunderstanding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I don't think you are trying to avoid scrutiny. But the practical effect is to remove the conversation from view of most of the partiicpants. Can you explain what you mean by "more functional"? –jacobolus (t) 15:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Horse Eye's Back @Jacobolus I just put a pointer on the top of the AfD. Feel free to edit, but I think that solves the concern of removing it from view, which was never my intention.

:::::::::::Jacobolus, generally people don't follow AfD pages once it has been closed as the only edits are either a DRV notice or a closer amending their close. They are not the place for an ongoing discussion about the close, the underlying article(s) or anything else. I'm not sure AfD talk is ideal either, which is why the template suggests article Talk, but in this specific case the Talk for 43rd parallel isn't it either, so I went with least bad. With a proper header, which was 100% my fault, people can now subscribe to notifications and it can be pointed to when needed. Does that make sense? Star Mississippi 16:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:: {{dedent|9}} I guess I just don't really understand the criteria for closing deletion discussions; this particular closing doesn't seem to me to match deletion process guidelines, whose meaning seems pretty self evident, e.g. at {{slink|Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Consensus}} and {{slink|Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Determining_consensus}}:

:: {{tqb| Closers are also required to exercise their judgment to ensure that any decision complies with the spirit of Wikipedia policy and with the project's goals. [...] The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.}}

:: and

:: {{tqb|Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of different perspectives presented during the discussion, and is not calculated solely by number of votes. Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. (While consensus can change, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.) [...] {{pb}} Also remember that nobody is obligated to close a discussion, nor is it crucial that a discussion be closed immediately once its week-long run has ended. If you feel that there is a conflict between the views expressed, and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (e.g., an inappropriate super-majority view without an appropriate basis), it may be preferable to instead comment yourself, rather than closing, even if the "due date" for closing has been reached, and leave the close to another editor.}}

:: My understanding is that a discussion closer is only supposed to close the discussion as "no consensus" if they "feel there has been substantive discussion, and disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, but consensus has not been achieved," and there is even an explicit note that "arguments that contradict policy are discounted". Personally I have seen no evidence of "disparate opinions supported by policy" in this discussion, which is why I think the close of the discussion itself does not follow policy.

:: In my view, effectively all of the claims in one side of this discussion are unsupported by any policy, and quite clearly fall into the categories described at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The bulk of these arguments are either "Personal point of view" ("I like it", "It's interesting"), "Arguments without arguments" ("Just a vote", "Just notable", "Just pointing at a policy", "Assertion of notability"), "Notability fallacies" ("Existence", "Article age", "Geographic scope", "Subjective importance", "Notability is inherited"); or "Meta-reasoning" (which includes your own invocation of "Repeated nominations" here).

:: The obvious problems with these arguments – most importantly that they don't even try to explain how they are based in Wikipedia policies – were repeatedly pointed out, and even explained at length, with no serious substantive response.

:: So to make this more concrete (and sorry if it seems like I'm giving you a hard time; that's really not my goal): user:Star Mississippi, can you be specific and concrete about precisely which arguments for keeping these pages you think accord with Wikipedia policies and don't fall into any of the categories of "arguments to avoid"? Can give your own summary or at least some links to specific comments which you found to be persuasive / which were evidence of "disparate opinions supported by policy"? –jacobolus (t) 06:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Don't worry. I don't at all feel like you're giving me a hard time.

:::My on wiki time is limited @Jacobolus so I'm not going to be able to give you a line by line, but pinging @Uncle G if they want to share some thoughts from when they closed the first iteration. I think the reality of closing rules in a clean lab like environment vs. a wild west discussion is also in play. See also, Olympians. I already disregarded I like it, but the issue is even with all of those out you're still not at a clean clear delete. The NC close also allows for further editorial action such as the merger @BD2412 references below.

:::As I said, feel free to take it to Deletion Review if you believe I closed it incorrectly, but I don't think the outcome there is going to help your long term goal. An RFC to establish the current community consensus is probably the only way forward. Should you pursue further AfDs, which is well within your right, I won't close them since you believe I see it differently to you. Star Mississippi 14:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::This is basically a refusal to answer the question, because, to paraphrase "I'm too busy to explain myself". This doesn't give me much confidence in your decision. If you are too busy to carefully read the discussion, write a careful summary, and explain your reasoning, it might be better to leave discussion closure to someone who has the time for it. The problem I already have with the decision so far is lack of transparency and engagement. I don't need a "line by line", but some evidence that you read the whole discussion and engaged with the substance of the argument involved would be very helpful. Your closing comment "[...] there isn't a clear consensus here. There should probably be a discussion somewhere [...]" has no detail and no real explanation.

::::After reading Wikipedia:Advice on closing discussions, I feel like basically none of it is being followed here. In particular:

::::{{tqb|Being a closer is a position of responsibility and trust, and should be approached both seriously and cautiously. Each closing statement should be neutral and well-written, and should only be performed after careful analysis of the discussion in question. A poor summary may be disruptive and can cause more problems than it solves. For especially contentious subjects, it can result in days or weeks of unnecessary debate before finally being overturned. [...] {{pb}} As a closer, you should have a full understanding of the discussion. This includes all policies, guidelines, and essays cited by editors, and you should reread any that you aren’t already intimately familiar with. Note that discussions about controversial topics or in Wikipedia space often have a long history which you may not be aware of. Also, editors will often imply policy-based arguments without specifically citing them. Keywords such as “neutral,” “undue,” and “reliable” may be present, but not always. You should also fully understand all the points of view being expressed, as well as enough of the background to understand the subject area, especially the points of disagreement (including but not limited to the RfC question). This may also include familiarizing yourself with the topic, especially for content disputes about academic or other technical subjects. In some cases, participants may have spent dozens or hundreds of hours of experience editing in the topic area, and since as an uninvolved closer you’ll usually be unfamiliar with the discussion, it is especially important to do due diligence. You will be expected to have the necessary background to effectively evaluate the evidence and arguments presented.}}

::::–jacobolus (t) 15:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::we are all volunteers here @Jacobolus. I still don't believe you're intending to give me a hard time, but you're in wikilawyering territory here.

:::::No one has to explain their decision to the point that everyone is happy with it. I have explained several times why I don't see a consensus existing or forming and why I don't think AfD is the venue for the discussion. You're welcome to disagree, but you do not get to badger a closer until you're happy with the decision, because then someone else is unhappy. I'm not declining to engage, I'm declining to spend my Sunday making a case that in the end I don't think you will be happy with.

:::::Please either move forward with DRV an RFC or if you're really insisting that I'm in the wrong, Recall is an avenue available to you as well. Star Mississippi 15:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not trying to "badger" you. I just don't understand your reasoning, which did not seem to me to be clearly explained, despite your assertion to the contrary, and did not seem to accord with Wikipedia policy. Nobody can or should tell you or any other participant here to spend your Sunday doing any particular thing – in Wikipedia there are no deadlines or assigned tasks and we're all volunteers. By all means, take your time and provide a full and clear explanation at your leisure, maybe in a few days or a week or whatever (an ETA would be helpful if it's going to be a while). But if you don't think you have time or energy any time in the foreseeable future to make a clear explanation, then you should probably retract your decision, re-open the discussion, and leave it to someone with enough bandwidth to carefully digest and summarize.

::::::My impression so far (which could well be wrong; again I can only go from what evidence I see, which is very scant here) is that you gave the conversation a quick cursory skim and then ethrew up your hands (because you found the discussion "too complex", "hard if not impossible", "wild west", "wasn't going to finish"). But giving up on "hard" discussions is not the closer's job, and ultimately wastes a ton of people's time, both your own and all of the other participants'. There's no one forcing you to close a discussion that you don't feel you can handle: you volunteered to take up the task. There was an extensive discussion in good faith, and discussion closers owe it to participants to take the role seriously and try to be thorough and transparent.

::::::I'm not "wikilawyering", nor am I trying to badger you into giving a particular decision, and frankly I am starting to resent your response, which continues to feel like a runaround. I don't see anywhere that "this was too hard for me" is an adequate reason for prematurely closing a discussion. All that does is throws away people's past effort on the discussion, leaves the matter with no satisfactory conclusion, and kicks the can down the road, leaving everyone involved feeling disgruntled and disrespected. –jacobolus (t) 19:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think you've misunderstood me or my intentions @Jacobolus, and reading back on my comments it may not be clear. My apologies. It's also not my intention for anyone to feel disgruntled or disrespected.

:::::::I'm not going to leave you waiting for an analysis that isn't going to change my close. I have reread the entire discussion twice since yesterday morning when this decision came to my attention. I still do not see a consensus and will not be changing my close to indicate a consensus in either direction that I do not see, and I will not be retracting my close. I do agree with you that folks weighed in in good faith, even the ones I disregarded in analyzing the close. If you feel that a no consensus is giving up on the close, I think you are missing one of the tools in a closer's toolkit. Sometimes the outcome of a decision is that there isn't a firm consensus. That is just as valid an outcome as Keep/Delete/Merge/Relist. You reading that as "it's too hard" is not what happened. It's just that deletion discussions don't follow exact rules and guidelines exactly. We're humans, we're to a person messy.

:::::::You feel like I'm giving you the runaround, which isn't my intention, but I feel like we're going in circles here too. There are post-close actions happening (the merges referenced below) which you're welcome to participate in. This discussion was a smaller subset than the batch originally nominated, and maybe a yet smaller subset will reach consensus. An RFC could build on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Maps#Article_for_each_meridian? & Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_189#Latitude_and_longitude_articles where @David Fuchs [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_189#c-David_Fuchs-20240125184600-Thebiguglyalien-20240125182800 advocated that] {{tq|Specific, focused merge discussions and AfDs are the best path forward}}

:::::::I think it's time for you and I to agree to disagree on the close and for you or anyone else here to take whatever they feel are the best next steps. Star Mississippi 21:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::In summary: you aren't going to explain your decision with anything specific or try to summarize what you think the current state of the discussion was (beyond further vague statements such as that action being part of a "toolkit"), but you have made up your mind, so discussion participants who want to understand your decision are just out of luck.

::::::::Most likely outcome: these non-notable, almost completely unsourced and un-sourcable, non-neutral, and mediocre articles, created as a few Wikipedians' personal new concept a decade and a half ago and never seriously edited as a community project, will continue to sit there unchanged, largely un-improvable, and give Wikipedia as an institution a black eye indefinitely because they can't possibly be deleted so long as a few motivated editors who created/support them continue to assert that they like them. It doesn't matter whether they have any policy-based reason for their support, or whether they can demonstrate notability, neutrality, or existing reliable sources, because AFD closers don't need to give any specific or explicit explanation for their decision-making, so a vague hand-wave to "this seems hard" will suffice to prevent any community action, effectively giving the AFD closer veto power over any improvement.

::::::::Possible alternative outcome: The large number of stub articles mostly consisting of short unsourced lists will be merged into a smaller number of longer unsourced lists, still consisting of non-neutral and un-sourceable categories created by Wikipedians, but this time more consolidated into fewer pages. There's no policy support for such a merger, nor is there any clear benefit to the project, nor consensus (indeed only a small minority supports such an action), but such an action can successfully evade Wikipedia's bureaucratic AFD process which is apparently fundamentally dysfunctional/incapable in this situation.

::::::::Or as Strebe described above, this clearly policy-violating material has been grandfathered in as untouchable and it is a complete waste of time engage with fixing these problems, so nobody should bother trying. Fair enough I guess. If anyone wants to try escalating this discussion further (to an RFC or whatever) give me a ping and I can repeat my previous argument. –jacobolus (t) 23:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Truly only responding further to ask you to please stop saying I said it "seems hard" as I said no such thing here or in this discussion. That may be your interpretation and that's fine but your use of quotation marks is not. Star Mississippi 12:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Again, as far as I can tell that this was "hard" ("harder to establish input", "hard if not impossible to find the consensus") or "complex" ("far too complex a discussion") or too time-consuming ("on wiki time is limited") was the only real explanation given for your decision and explanation; there was no explicit analysis of the discussion or which arguments on either side you considered to be backed by Wikipedia policy, only vague and unsupported handwaving ("still not at a clean clear delete"), with a refusal to get specific or provide detail. If the actual reason was procedural rather than a lack of consensus (e.g. «this is too many articles for one AFD, please re-submit as an RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)» or whatever) then that should have been stated explicitly. If the reason is, actually, lack of consensus, then it should be straight-forward to make an abbreviated list of some of the remaining unresolved policy-based arguments on either side still lacking consensus, along the lines of "those arguing for keeping the articles argued X based on policy A, and Y based on policy B, without any policy-based reply, whereas those arguing for deleting the articles argued Z based on policy C, which was contested on the grounds of W based on policy D; overall there was a consensus that these articles have problems J and K requiring some fix F to align with core Wikipedia policies, but there was no consensus for or against mass deletion because arguments X, Y, and Z all seem well supported." –jacobolus (t) 20:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

: Despite being an active, longtime editor, I don’t have much sense for procedural rules, since I rarely do anything but editing. Apologies, Star, for not thinking of the talk page, which is clearly a more appropriate venue for this conversation. I hope you’re not feeling too beat up. I just don’t want these AfDs to keep happening for this series of articles. One way or another, it needs to get resolved for good. Strebe (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::Not at all beat up, but thanks @Strebe. I think we all want the same outcome, which is clarity about these articles' status. That ping worked, so thinking there's also something odd with templates on close AfDs and pings. Star Mississippi 17:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: I have boldly merged the northernmost five freestanding circles of latitude into Circles of latitude between the 80th parallel north and the 85th parallel north. It could be refined further, but I think this works as a model. BD2412 T 03:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think there's a problem with those necessarily, but I'm not really in favour of that merge. SportingFlyer T·C 09:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:All I have to add is that I would have !voted delete but when I tried to follow the ping I ended up at a weird error page, and when I tried to get on the talk page of 43rd parallel I got the same error. JoelleJay (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: These merges are now all done. The articles are at:

The only exceptions to the merger are 42nd parallel north, 45th parallel north, 49th parallel north, and 60th parallel north. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:The content of these articles is now even more absurd than before. If we are trying to cover all places in a 5° band of latitudes, there's no conceivable justification for skipping giant metropolises and including an arbitrary personal selection of tiny villages. –jacobolus (t) 18:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Add the giant metropolises, by all means. BD2412 T 19:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::My opinion (and the apparent consensus, after disregarding arguments not supported by Wikipedia policy) is that these articles should all be deleted outright, so no I'm not going to spend hundreds of hours on a project that I think is inappropriate for Wikipedia. –jacobolus (t) 19:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This does make it easier to have individual deletion discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is a puzzling development. I know this approach to a solution was mentioned, but I didn’t see any consensus for it. This method of dividing up the globe does not appear in the literature. It’s WP:OR. 5° bands is arbitrary, and chunking the globe into these bands puts hard boundaries on a continuous space. It would be similar to creating an article for each span of 5.0 in the space of real numbers. Doing this also invites confusion and disputes about which band some particular place ought to go when the place spans a boundary. Who makes the rules for resolving these problem, and on what authority? What is the utility in doing this? Strebe (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:: {{re|Strebe}} There was no consensus for anything in the discussion, but slightly more participants preferred a change to the status quo than keeping the status quo, so I boldly enacted such a change. I would guess that individual deletion discussions for these would as likely result in going back to 160 individual circle of latitude articles. I'm open to alternative divisions. My proposal in the discussion was to have just four, but I see the wisdom in not having quite such enormous blocks, given the data. BD2412 T 21:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment

At the risk of repeating myself, I think the problem is this:

When we divide a set of articles into two groups, the worthy and the (currently) unworthy, we may simplify the question, but we still need to answer it for each item. In some cases we can (or at least we have) ignore all rules and delete them, on the grounds that recreation is trivial, or some other grounds. In this case, perhaps, we don't want to waste the effort to recreate the almanac type content if an subject should prove to be "worthy". Therefore we would need to address each article individually, and, preferably, at a pace where there is a significant chance of one or more people putting significant WP:BEFORE effort into the AfD. Or we could just leave them, as "mostly harmless".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC).

: Theres some truth in that... The primary justification for bundling is that it saves time and pain but given the absolutely pointless shitshows which more often than not result from massive bundling perhaps the approach needs to be rethought. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Again, there is no "almanac type content" here. Only lists of places made up by a Wikipedian idiosyncratically browsing a map and jotting down their personal original observations. –jacobolus (t) 20:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::This is also true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)