Talk:Mapathon

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 May 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Merci - Thanks[edit]

Thanks for keeping: For sure, that is not yet a word into Ngram Viewer. But sure also, that is a Word we need to understand, and more over, coming to one of those international neologism (French speaker ;) It seems US/UK reviewers more clever than french speaking colleagues. --PaKo (talk) 07:08, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Google Mapathon be merged into Mapathon. I think that the content in the Google Mapathon article can easily be explained in the context of Mapathon, and the Mapathon article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Google Mapathon will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Gryllida (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There has been lots of media coverage of Google mapathon for it to have a separate article. This article here is presently nothing but has a huge growth potential. Including all of that at mapathon would cause a severe WP:UNDUE issue there. 103.6.159.89 (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Hum, sure [Mapathon] should include a talk about Google ones. If creating a specific Google Mapathon article, must include a reference to the generic Mapathon and the current dispute about Open Mapathon, vs proprietary as with Google. OpenStreetMap licences are Open, not Google map. --PaKo (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If article are merged I would recommend at least to distinguish between commercial and humanitarion/open mapping like Mapathons organized for MissingMaps, OpenStreetMap or HumanitarianOpenStreetMap. Those mapping products are not owned by a company but by us as a community and it is available under a free and open license. There is nothing wrong with commercial harvesting of data, but the users should be aware about the fact, who owns the mapping data after the Collaborative Mapping event.

--Bert Niehaus (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]