Talk:Argleton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Picture[edit]

If Argleton is non-existent, what is this a picture of? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a picture of a pub. I would have thought it was fairly obvious really. RaseaC (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, it's the Cockbeck Tavern in Aughton. Small-town hero (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Cockbeck Tavern is about 600m (as the crow flies) from the point Google identifies as Argleton. It would be nice to have a picture of "Argleton", but it really should be the farmer's field west of Winifred Lane, not just some feature of Aughton. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OS identifies the farm as Lime Tree Farm. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case let's get a picture of the farm and put it in. Putting a picture of a building and then having the article say there's nothing there is a bit pointless. Having a picture of a building from a nearby town is misleading. RaseaC (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can get you a photo if you want, but obviously it's just going to be a field. Would it not be more relevant to use a screenshot of Google Maps under a claim of fair use? Small-town hero (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking a birds-eye view would be the way to go, but a decent picture of the field would arguably be more interesting. RaseaC (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a bird, so ground level will have to do. ;) The point marked on Google seems to lie on a public footpath, so it should be easy to get to. Small-town hero (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding using the Google image as fair use: I don't think we have a sufficient case for that, given that it's available on Google. If Google fixes the problem, then we'd have a much better case. To that end I've taken a screenshot (one with map, one with map+sat) which (cropped heavily) we can use in that event. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't matter that it's available on Google; since the town only exists of Google Maps, a screenshot should be considered significant within the context of the article. As long as it's cropped to the relevant portion it shouldn't pose any problems with regard to WP:FUC. Small-town hero (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not. It shouldn't be too difficult to create a free map showing the supposed location of Argleton, I suppose. Small-town hero (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded a CC photo to Flickr - [1], feel free to use or not. --193.62.3.251 (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's a good picture but I think we either need a birds-eye view or a wider view to show that there's nothing there. Your picture could be taken from inside a village and no one could tell, it's too closed. RaseaC (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo also doesn't have a license compatible with Wikipedia or Commons. I've now added a photo showing a wide view of the area, though. Small-town hero (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unusual articles[edit]

Would this article qualify for the list? --114.72.238.122 (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It'd be nice if we had a photo of this place that doesn't exist. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multimap[edit]

Interesting, Argleton exists on Multimap too:

http://www.multimap.com/maps/?qs=argleton&countryCode=GB

Small-town hero (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem may, therefore, be something to do with the Dutch firm Tele Atlas who work with both Google Maps and MultiMap.com. They seem to be the common theme here. RaseaC (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Although the infobox is useful in some respects it is, by default, completely wrong. Because the town doesn't exist I am unable to see how it can be considered a part of any county/postal district etc. The map has some use, but the rest of the info is irrelevant and should be removed. RaseaC (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The infobox says Argleton is in West Lancashire, but it isn't (it can't be, because it doesn't exist). It says its on the OS map, but it isn't. We don't put the real-places infobox on other fictional English places like Royston Vasey or Ambridge or Emmerdale or Trumpton, even if someone thinks they correspond with a real location. So the infobox is nonsense, and must be removed. Similarly the category "Geography of West Lancashire" is inappropriate. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is such an obvious move that further discussion isn't really needed. It's simply wrong so I've gone ahead and made the edits per above. RaseaC (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the category "Geography of West Lancashire" -- this is anything but inappropriate. It may be fictional, but the article is explicitly about a geographical curiosity in West Lancashire. Small-town hero (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree more. It can't be a part of Lancashire's geography if it doesn't exist, just as fictional locations are not given the same categories. I've gone ahead and removed again on the basis that two editors want it out and one wants it in, if this changes then we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. RaseaC (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored again. Two comments against one does not equal a concensus to remove. The article is relevant to West Lancashire and is geographical by nature, so the category is appropriate. Small-town hero (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, the article should go in Category:West Lancashire. Small-town hero (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a vast number of editors are not involved in a discussion does not mean there is a consensus. The majority of editors in this discussion do not agree that category should be there and therefore it should be removed (as it will be momentarily) until said agreement changes. WP is very dynamic and others may wade in with an opinion in the next few minutes and agree with you, until then we'll go ahead with what the majority want. Ofcourse some guidelines proving me wrong would obviosuly sway the argument but I'm not aware of any. As it's been said, a place cannot be considered a geographic feature if it does not actually exist. RaseaC (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:West Lancashire makes sense, "Geography of West Lancashire" does not. RaseaC (talk)
I thought you weren't going to edit war? Concensus is not a vote, it is not determined by majority opinion. Concensus is established through discussion and the quality of argument. I suggest you take a look at Wikipedia:Consensus. Small-town hero (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the merits of the category, the article is about a cartographical anomoly, and cartography falls under the field of geography. It's not as if we're talking about a fictional entity like Narnia. Small-town hero (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, so stop re-adding it. It's as good as fictional. It does not exist. Please feel free to go there and, if you find a town take a picture of it, and I will gladly admit I was wrong. I'm not interested in what does and does not constitute geography, the fact of the matter is just as we wouldn't put a non-existant Scottish location into 'geography of Scotland' we don't put a non-existant Lancasharian location into 'geography of Lancashire'. As far as I'm concerned a consensus is reached when a majority of editors reach an agreement that discounts major errors, getting confused between what is real and what isn't is a pretty fundamental error. RaseaC (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, when you continue to revert someone like that you kind of are edit warring, and your idea of concensus is not consistant with policy. And I see you didn't even bother to replace it with Category:West Lancashire which as you said above "makes sense". Your attitude here is very dissapointing. Small-town hero (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my fault if the policy is flawed. Go ahead and add Category:West Lancashire, this article falls within it's purview and therefore it's inclusion is justified. RaseaC (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparent that an elaboration of my standpoint would be appreciated so here it is. As far as I'm concerned, the majority of interested editors would prefer that category "Geography of West Lancashire" is not included in this article. Because WP is such a dynamic entity such majority agreement may change in no time and if it does no respectable editor would disagree, until such a time I'm all for going with what the majority wants. I feel that both myself and Small-town hero (an established editor against whom I have no quarrels except this one) both have valid arguments which essentially cancel eachother out which, coupled with Finlay McWalter's view, lead us to the de-facto agreement that the category in question should not be included. If any editors are interested my approach to this discussion is being discussed here. RaseaC (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think that "Geography of West Lancashire" is appropriate. It is a geographical fact about West Lancs that this place is non-existent. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it warrents it's own article is the fact that some pot-smoking Dutchman got confused and created a new town in Lancashire, that has nothing to do with the Geography of Lancashire but everything to do with GM annomalies, map mistakes, pot smoking Dutchmen, whatever you want, except the geography of Lancashire. If something does not exist, it cannot be considered a geographic matter of anywhere. RaseaC (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you said before. Let me expand. The statement "Argleton is a town which is alleged to exist in West Lancs but in actuality does not" is, as far as we know, a fact. Is it a fact about West Lancs? Clearly yes. What sort of fact is it? Clearly a geographical fact. That is, it is a fact about the geography of West Lancs. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a geographical fact, it's a computer error, if this was a 'trap' then it may be considered geographical but I don't believe for a second it is. The only fact here is that somebody or something ballsed up the software. RaseaC (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already commented on your interpretation of concensus, but I also think you have a rather narrow definition of "geography". Ans while "Argleton" may not exist, the spot marked on the map quite clearly does, so again we're not talking about Atlantis or Middle Earth or whatever. Another editor has now disagreed with your removal of the category, and you've also overlooked User:Dreatand mink who added the category in the first place when he created the article. However you choose to define concensus, there quite clearly isn't one for the removal of this category, and I shall promptly be restoring it. Small-town hero (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, database errors happen and dogs bite men. User talk:Nyttend/Archive 12#Mount Jefferson (Ohio) --NE2 21:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the consensus is now leaning towards inclusion and so on that basis cannot object to it's re-introduction. RaseaC (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De-orphaning[edit]

To address the orphan issue I have suggested on the Aughton talk that Argleton be mentioned in that article and I am wondering if there is a way to bring this into the Google Maps article. Any suggestions? RaseaC (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts that this article would survive AfD as a free-standing article, and I rather think it should be merged into the Google Maps topic tree (although I couldn't immediately see a good home for it; presumably we do have some coverage for other Google Maps weirdnesses, defects, and misc issues somewhere). I don't have a problem with it being mentioned in Aughton, but I don't think it should be merged there, nor with trap street until we have confirmation that it really is that, and not just an accidental database defect. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, such merges are usually for the betterment of articles like this. Left by themselves, once the single newspaper story and re-reports of it die down, it festers, and becomes part of an archipelago of trivia. A combined article about the various defects and traps in digital maps (and that business where Google Map wanted you to swim across the Atlantic) would make for a genuinely useful and interesting article, rather than a minor curio. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree but don't think we're quite at that point yet, you never know it might turn out that Google have stumbled across some secret government facility and therefore the article would remain notable. All joking aside I think we should make this article as good as we can, de-orphan it and then look at merging. RaseaC (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be the first secret government thing in google maps - [2] -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to think, that was the craziest thing I could come up with! RaseaC (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the article would need a merge further down the line, but I don't see why Aughton, Lancashire shouldn't be the leading candidate. The supposed location of Argelton is firmly within the Aughton civil parish. Small-town hero (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff[edit]

The Ormskirk & Skelmersdale Advertiser have reported two other phantom towns close to Argleton – Mawdesky and Dummy 1325 [3]. Slightly further afield, Henderson, Nevada has been renamed by Google as Rochester [4]. Small-town hero (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanations[edit]

Hi all,

Kindly accept my authority, or call it expertise, on this subject, without me explicitly stating how I got the information.

The presence of "Argleton" can be seen as a map making error or an unfortunate choice by Google to render the map. Argleton, Bickerstaffe, Burschough, Hilldale, Lathom, Mawdesky ... these are all names of an obsolete administrative structure, which is still captured in the map maker's map, but which was never cleaned up or verified. These administrative structures, which actually cover areas, are rendered by Google by their Centre Point. Hence they end up as "places" with coordinates that represent no building or crossing at all and possibly fall into an empty wasteland or field. At best the name of suche an area has been taken over from an existing town or village, and the centre point happens to be close to that town. This is for example true for Ormskirk, which is present twice on the map, once as a town centre, once as an apparent name for a park, but the latter is actually again the centre point of the administrative area.

For Argleton, there is no any village or area known by that name, at least not by locals or people reporting here. The same seems to be true for Mawdesky.

The solution for this problem is twofold: the map maker must clean up this obsolete structure, and Google must be a little more careful in rendering area features as point features.

Although it is indeed not recommended to smoke pot in the office, I do not think this was the issue here. Knotwilg (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea, but It doesn't seem to explain the differences in spelling between "Aughton" and "Argleton", or "Mawdesley" and "Mawdesky", or why Google treats the erroneous entries as distinct settlements. Any theories on "Dummy 1325"? :) Small-town hero (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aughton and Mawdesky could result from OCR mistakes... Is it that simple? Copying the "obsolete administrative structure", plus errors in the scanning of text? Mporter (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

encyclopedia?[edit]

what the hell is that article? i thought wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an map error listing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.178.145 (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank God Wikipedia's not paper. Sorafune +1 01:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sentence construction?[edit]

Is this sentence correct? The way that Google Maps is mentioned twice makes me think otherwise. "As of January 30, 2010, Argleton was no longer in Google Maps[4] but can still be seen on Google Street View and Google Maps by searching for "Argleton"." --Spencerm2 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means that it is no longer labeled on the map like real cities are, but it will be located when you search for Argleton. Well actually, when you search for it, it will give you "Argleton Mayor's Office‎", which is in about the same place. But yeah, the sentence probably does need rewriting. Sorafune +1 21:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

argleton-village.co.uk[edit]

There's a mention of the argleton-village.co.uk spoof site in the article, and the reference citation was a link to the site itself. The site itself has now vanished, so the link has been removed and someone else has now flagged this line with a "citation required" tag. I checked web.archive.org and they do not have an archive of the site. The site obviously did exist at one point, and at the time that could be verified, so the claim in the article is factual and was once verifiable, but unless someone saved an archive of the site, how can it's existence be verified now? Robman94 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages can take up to six months to appear on archive.org, so maybe it's just a question of waiting, though I have no idea when argleton-village.co.uk went under. Miremare 00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal[edit]

The article says both "As of 30 January 2010, Argleton was no longer in Google Maps." and "It was finally removed sometime around mid-November or early December 2010." This doesn't make sense; I suspect the removal occured in 2009, not in 2010. -- Maribert (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for an actual source, this article from May 2010 says "Google claims to have no idea why it was there and has since removed it, although it still appears in name on Google Streetview." I'll cut the existing, unsourced dates (one is just sourced to a Google Maps search) and quote that article instead. --McGeddon (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argleton&oldid=1205319677"