Talk:Flat Bastion Road

History section

The first paragraph of the section "History" from "Constructed in" until "by a curtain" is not about the road, but about the bastion. Can people please correct or remove this? Fram (talk) 09:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Article quality

It's a pile of trivia or unrelated things connected by silly writing. "Constructed in the thirteenth century, ... " "The road predates 1828" Wow. Barely related info such as "Located on Flat Bastion Road, the Committee of the Public School (also referred to as the Gibraltar Public School) opened in 1832 as a school for impoverished children of all denominations. The school excluded boys in 1897; however, it continued as a school for girls into the early 20th century." should be included in an article about the school. WP:COATRACK etc. "Families living on the road in 1830 included those of Josepha Bernado, Jose Nuñez, the financier Grellet, the family of Thomas Gum, and the family of Michaela Medina" list of probably non-notables mostly without any explanation as to whom they even were. Can we have a list of all the residents living around the road today? That would be epic. "The Flat Bastion Magazine is a Category A listed building on Schedule 1 of the Gibraltar Heritage Trust Act" What does that mean? And nice WP:CFORK from Flat Bastion#Flat Bastion Magazine too. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is about ten weeks old. Your constructive assistance would be most appreciated. GFHandel ♬  20:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If we were to remove all of the trivial mentions from the article, there wouldn't be anything left in the article. There are a lot of references in the article, but when you start actually looking at the references one by one, that's when the article starts to fall apart. - SudoGhost 21:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road/Correct version for a version of the article which removes all puffery, errors, unreliable sources, and unrelated stuff, but still keeps some really passing mentions. The current article is a disgrace. Fram (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Notability concerns

There are currently 27 references in the article. I asked this question during the AfD and the question was not answered, so I'll ask here: which of the references in the article provide notability? None of the references are third-party reliable sources that describe the subject in any depth, so where is the notability coming from? - SudoGhost 21:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article isn't notable according to our guidelines; however, I don't feel that a notability tag should ever be added to an article that has survived AfD. We should probably open up a wider discussion on whether it is appropriate to add the tag to an article that has survived afd. Ryan Vesey 22:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why a tag wouldn't be appropriate; an article that has notability issues isn't somehow exempt from those issues being addressed just because it's been to AfD previously. Maintenance templates are used to inform both editors and readers that there is an issue with the article, both of those reasons are still present and it would be a disservice to both readers and editors if a merge discussion were to take place without giving a chance to notify them of the issue and give sufficient time to address that issue. - SudoGhost 23:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles are either kept or deleted at AfD due to the existence or nonexistence of notability. If you want a merge discussion there are merge tags. Ryan Vesey 23:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Again...this is a notability issue, and I'm unsure as to what point you're trying to make, but I don't think you understood me. A merge tag is for actively discussing a merge, that's not applicable here unless you'd like to open a merge discussion, but I'd like to give people a chance to try to establish the notability first. AfD is not the only result of a notability issue, as indicated by the template itself and the closing admin of the AfD discussion. You're more than welcome to help contribute to that discussion or to improve the references in the article, but this line of discussion isn't going to help address that. - SudoGhost 23:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument, but I'd like to inform you and anybody else taking part that I started an RfC on the topic at Template talk:Notability#RfC. Ryan Vesey 23:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• As the closing admin, I'd be ok with the tag. Usually I think Keep closes preclude notability tags, but my close was intended to communicate a "Keep or Merge" consensus. I felt that there was consensus not to delete the article, but no consensus as to whether it should have its own page or be merged onto a more general page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I see Sudo has engaged in an edit war with editors over the notability tag. I don't see this as constructive and applying the tag in no way will suddenly magically make the article become as notable as you wish it to be. It'll never reach the level of notability you are looking for. The best thing if you are truly concerned about it would be to propose a merger and a condensing of information to purely about the road in a general article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll need to read up on the definition of edit war, I've been asking for a while now to ask editors to discuss this with me. You don't see asking editors and readers to improve the article as constructive? I'd rather give editors a chance to add sources. Just because the article doesn't currently have sources showing notability, and just because we can't find them doesn't mean they don't exist. If the tag isn't there then those readers have no idea that some source they know about might help the article, and then everyone is scratching their head wondering why this article with 30 references is suddenly gone, because they didn't know it was an issue. If you think merging the article now is more appropriate, you're more than welcome to open a merge discussion, but the template's entire purpose is as an alternative to merging or deleting the article, so the fact that a merge discussion could take place instead doesn't mean anything, since the template is used as and was created as an alternative to this. - SudoGhost 12:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

So a few editors have removed the tag now without seeing this discussion, so hopefully commenting again will put it on their watchlist. Nobody has seemed to argue that the article was notable when removing the template, just that the template wasn't appropriate for some reason. I think Mark Arsten's comment above shows that no, the AfD did not show that the article was notable, so the notability issue still stands and needs to be discussed. A few editors now have seen the tag, but have apparently missed the discussion; I think that reinforces the fact that the template is needed since the tag is more visible than this discussion, and the article does need sources; most readers never look at the talk pages, and if they have sources that can help improve the article, we've accomplished the dual purpose of both improving the article and getting a new Wikipedia editor, and that seems like a win-win. The only thing removing the tag does it hide the notability issue from editors and readers, and then editors feel slighted when they don't have enough time to improve the article before some action is taken such as a merge or deletion. - SudoGhost 12:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I've created Streets in Gibraltar. Needs a lot of work but I think it could be a valuable article. I've cleaned this article with more focus now on the road and I'm still of the opinion its fine as a separate article, although should worst come to worst all of the info could be merged. But for now, no more notability tags please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to suggest that the article is not notable. "For now" makes no sense as a rationale, if the article is not notable, it's generally a good idea to let editors and readers know that this is a potential issue, for the reasons I gave above. Your issue seems to be against maintenance templates in general, as opposed to believing that the issue the template highlights isn't applicable here, unless you believe this is a special exemption for some reason. I removed it temporarily to discuss it, if no discussion is forthcoming then it will be restored, as it belongs on the article. - SudoGhost 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Parking

There is a paragraph in 'History' about parking in 2009-2010. As written, the relevance of parking to the history of the road is not explained. The sources are actually focused on the lack of parking across all of Gibraltar, and how this is being handled by the government. I did a little digging, and Gibraltar has a very high car-person ratio, and parking has been a problem for a long time, and Flat Bastion Road is not special in this regard. I think this parking problem should be merged up to a more general Wikipedia article such as Transport in Gibraltar or Streets in Gibraltar. To be useful in a history section, it would need to say when the parking problems started and what the current status is. Using these sources and not mentioning the fact that there are parking problems is very odd, as it includes minutiae about parking spaces but omits the central issue being a election promise of the previous government.

Also, I am not sure that "proposed putting an additional 104 public parking spots on the road" gives the reader accurate information. Specifically "on the road" suggests that these parking spots will be on the road (i.e. on the curb or in the middle of the lanes), rather than in parking areas that are beside/along the road. I strongly doubt that these 104 new parking spots are in parking lots. In the English source GOVT REVEALS TRAFFIC BLUEPRINT, it includes Flat Bastion Road as one of many "Parking Projects" that is "being developed", and this is in a section which is primarily talking about "Car Parks" and "parking facilities". It does not say these parking spots will be on the road. So, I have revised this sentence to be "In 2009 the government released a Traffic, Parking and Transport Plan that mentioned a parking project was being developed and/or implemented for Flat Bastion Road and it was projected to add an additional 104 parking spots.". The "developed and/or implemented" is not ideal, but I cant quickly think of a better way to describe this and I cant find any sources which say what the status was in 2009 when the plan was launched. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Two problematic sentences

• Lead: "Barracks and married quarters were built on the road." This is not included (or sourced) in the body of the article.
• History: sentence around "Wilson's Buildings, two wooden sheds on the road to Flat Bastion": there is no evidence that the "road to Flat Bastion" is the same as the Flat Bastion Road and not any of the other roads leading to the Bastion. Fram (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed "barracks were built". They were built within the bastion. The road today runs through the bastion and out the other side, so the barracks are on the road now, but they were not when they were built. Ditto with the magazine, for that matter - on the road now but not when it was built. The 1889 Army Medical Department report, cited in the section on History, discusses the condition of "the married quarters of the Flat Bastion Road". As one might expect, the married quarters were built on the road leading to the bastion, not within the fortification itself. A glance at an old map such as this one from 1865 shows there used to be only one road leading to the Flat Bastion. That would be the road described by the cited 1831 source as "the road to Flat Bastion". Aymatth2 (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As a side note, "Wilson's sheds" may have been erected as a temporary hospital by Peter Wilson (1791-1863), one of the medical officers of the civil hospital during the 1828 outbreak, who published a "Historical sketch of the epidemic yellow fever which prevailed at Gibraltar in the autumn of 1828" in the Lancet. If we had better access to some of these historical documents it would be possible to give a much more complete account of the road's history. Perhaps someone who lives there will take the trouble some day. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Flat Bastion Barracks (Married Quarters)

Just to clarify, the barracks recently redeveloped into ten two bedroom flats and now renamed Flat Bastion Mews, is not within Flat Bastion but 300 metres (980 ft) south down Flat Bastion Road. So they have been on the road since they were built. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 20:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If they are south of the bastion, that puts them outside the old town wall, and makes them relatively new, right? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I meant north! See here: 36.137779°N 5.351482°W / 36.137779; -5.351482. The Google Maps photo shows them during the redevelopment. Hope this helps. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 22:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Speed ramps

Speed ramps were placed in 2010 [1] [2]. Ryan Vesey 01:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not flat at all

I walked the length of Flat Bastion Road last weekend. Talk about misnamed! There's nothing flat about it. :-) Prioryman (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is the bastion flat?  Unscintillating (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The highest point of the road here is flat. The Flat Bastion is built on the western sloped of the Rock of Gibraltar so its not flat either. Flat Bastion Magazine is at the bastion's highest point and it's lowest is by Prince Edward's Gate. I'm afraid I can't give you the actual elevations. Anyway, to clarify the etymology this is taken from the bastion's article:

“ The name of the bastion refers to the faces of the fortification and not to the slope of the ground on which it was built. The Flat Bastion was constructed on sloping ground. A 1908 map of the Flat Bastion confirms that its south faces join at an obtuse angle which is relatively flat, and nearly parallel the Charles V Wall. ”

Hope this helps :) --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 22:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussions on GA

Another confirmation that "GA" has become absolutely meaningless. An article with meaningless padding like the "Families living on the road in 1828 include" sentence or the "During the 1970 census" sentence, and with already expired links like the 7daysgibraltar one, is good enough to be a GA? " the local Llanito name for the road is Cuesta de Mr. Bourne"? No, that was the name in the 1890s, no reference that it is the name has been given. It is a hotchpotch of information, with huge gaps, including nearly no information on the 20th century at all. Fram (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering when you'd turn up... Think what you like... The information happens to be relevant to the article and doesn't stand out particularly as inappropriate. Oh and Pyrotec happens to be one of our best and most experienced reviewers who couldn't see any major issues with the article, if you want to slate anybody who makes an effort to improve quality that's your problem not ours. The article is considerably better than a lot of our road articles, even on some state highways in the states, which use nothing but maps to reel off a description. In my opinion the article on the subject is about as good as we can get it so I think its GA worthy. Ten Hamadi is also a "hotchpotch of information, with huge gaps, including nearly no information on the 20th century at all." but is about as good as we can it. We can only use sources which exist to write the best possible article. If we can't access info on the 20th century, and can only find scraps to compile it then you're not going to the wealth of material which would be available for more notable subjects. Anyway GAs don't need to be fully comprehensive, just need to have a general grasp of the subject and to be well sourced. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Which non notable surnames lived on a road at one time is appropriate information? I can't imagine this information being included on any other road article. Setting an article up for GA review, or marking it as reviewed, is not "improving quality", it's rubberstamping things and giving them an appearance of quality, unwarranted in this case. Being considerably better than other similar articles is a far cry from being a "good article". Your comparison with "Ten Hamadi" is rather farfetched, since that has no serious gaps since its establishment in 1960. Having a comprehensive article is not the same as including any possible snippets you can find and throwing them together, mixing the relevant and notable aspects with minor fluff, hardly related things. What does "An 1883 Sanitary Order in Council aimed at reducing health risks defined Flat Bastion Road as one of the boundaries of the "streets, ramps, roads, lanes, passages, alleys, stairs and public places" within which the new regulations would apply." say about Flat Bastion Road? Nothing at all, it is being mentioned in a list of roads cs. Article writing, certainly "good" article writing, is not the same as dropping any mention of the subject in the article indiscriminately, but about removing the fluff, the irrelevant stuff, to present the reader with what is truly important and relevant, instead of asking him to weed through things like this. Fram (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As you have clearly convinced yourself GA is absolutely meaningless, it is amusing to me that you're trying to make a point of it here. If it is absolutely meaningless to you, it wouldn't bother you that the article is listed as GA and you'd ignore it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It bothers me because many people make a lot of it, and articles like this are highlighted to our readers as being especially good. No wonder many reders don't take Wikipedia very seriously, if things like this are considered "good articles". If something which I believe is very meaningful, has subaspects that are trying to give prominence and an exemplary status to things that clearly aren't good examples of it, then I am bothered by it. I don't only care about what I think, believe or know, I care about the impression we give and the impact labels can have. Something can be intrinsically meaningless but seemingly impressive anyway, and it's not the kind of thing that we should ignore. Fram (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think us having a good article on a minor road of Gibraltar is the chief cause of readers "not taking us seriously" then you're mistaken. Readers don't take us seriously because we're an open anybody can edit encyclopedia, mostly written by teenagers and young geeks and have an astounding focus on fictional cruft including TV episodes, fictional characters, cartoons, comics, Pokemon etc and generally neglect getting important subjects up to high quality. Wikipedia will never be a respected source in the way we'd all like, get over it. That's a problem with the way the encyclopedia is built in general with little focus or central movement towards quality, not the odd person writing an article on obscure road. If anything a browser is more likely to be impressed that we have a half decent article on such a road rather than be grossed out by how "bad" it is. The general quality of wikipedia articles are very poor. I would expect an article on a minor road or TV episode to be relatively short but technically fine for GA. This article is about as good as it's going to get in terms of coverage and is pretty well presented. Perhaps some of the facts could be excluded but that's just nitpicking. The prose and sourcing is satisfactory, that's why it meets GA. I think you're unfairly judging the article with more notable articles for GA quality. Is Abuwtiyuw as good as William Burges as an FA? No in my opinion, but both do their job in providing a decent overview of existing knowledge on those subjects for which sources available differ massively. I don't think you have any experience with what is required for GA and don't really understand it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't "think us having a good article on a minor road of Gibraltar is the chief cause of readers "not taking us seriously"", I never said so. Having a poor article on a barely notable subject listed as being a "good article" is a cause, not the chief cause obviously. I am not comparing this article to other GAs on more important subjects though, I'm taking this on its own merits. In my opinion, this article doesn't have satisfactory contents, lacking in some parts and having way too much filler in others. Some subjects will never have enough information to get to GA or FA anyway, things like Mills (Kent cricketer) are an example of this; there is no shame in that, but that doesn't mean that such an article is a FA just by virtue of being complete. And I have written a few GAs (and contributed to a few others), so please don't try to blame this on my experience or understanding: I just don't highlight them on my user page (another reason why poor GAs and FAs are a problem, some people use them as "trophies", and some people regard such trophies as indicative of the "value" of the editor involved). Fram (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I may be overlooking it, but where is the evidence that Flat Bastion Barracks actually is located at Flat Bastion Road? The Bastion bordered multiple roads, and I can't find an indication that the Barracks are actually located at the FB Road and not at one of the others nearby... Fram (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course your concern doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you tried your hardest to get this articles deleted and went to extraordinary lengths to do so, so it now being a Good Article is the ultimate humiliation next to FA as you think the article shouldn't even exist. Your response is similar to the reaction of those to the Justin Bieber on Twitter article passing GA. The "what is wikipedia coming to" utter disgust type of response based on your own principles of notability and expectations for an encyclopedia, little else.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite honestly, Fram, everyone has their own expectations of what articles should comprise. Obviously yours differs from Dr. B's and the GA reviewer's. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinions. But arguing about it here isn't going to do anyone any good, so why don't you and Dr. B just drop it and get on with doing more productive things? Prioryman (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

They've paid for the full half hour. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd removed the above link as a copyvio link, but apparently it's the official channel and so not a copyvio. My apologies for this error on my part. Fram (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(Repeat) By the way, I may be overlooking it, but where is the evidence that Flat Bastion Barracks actually is located at Flat Bastion Road? The Bastion bordered multiple roads, and I can't find an indication that the Barracks are actually located at the FB Road and not at one of the others nearby... Fram (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This is the location of Flat Bastion Barracks (former married quarters), renamed Flat Bastion Mews since their recent refurbishment. --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 00:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Any reliable source that actually gives the address for them? Fram (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I could take a photo of the gate which says "Flat Bastion Mews, 14 Flat Bastion Road" if that's of any use...? --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you have a section in this article discussing the Flat Bastion Barracks, but none of the sources, as far as I can tell, indicate that this is located at the FB Road. Now, you may well be right, but I have seen to many claims in this article in the past that turned out to be incorrect (not by you, in general) to prefer to avoid any WP:OR and stick to what can be sourced to published, reliable, secondary sources. Certainly for a GA, that shouldn't be too much to ask. Thanks for the offer, but it is not what I am looking for. Fram (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)