User talk:Nilfanion/Disambiguation of places

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Opening heading[edit]

I'd note that there is a difference between importance (long-term significance) and likely to be sought (usage) (as Commons probably deals with searches less often it has less implications here). Java for example is probably vastly more important but probably not most likely to be sought (as evidence by page hits and the fact I had to clear out images of the program from the island cat). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Importance is roughly the same as popularity when it comes to places, there is no need to introduce the confusing wording from WP - and the point is about when there is a clear number one (like London). When the dominant topics are all the same sort of thing, its comparing apples with apples so its fine. Comparing apples with oranges is not, and it is hard to rate objectively the importance of Java the island and Java the language.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it is harder to rate is why it is more important to include this in the guideline. London is of course easier to rate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problems and the crux of the dispute are cases of place v place, which is why the logic here focuses on that. While it can (and does) acknowledge other cases, my opinion is we don't need to focus on them. That will make resolution easier, and once place v place is settled, it should give some real guidance as to handle place v something else.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, we'll deal with the places first then and think about things like Java later. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

In terms of structure for a potential broad discussion I'm thinking the following:

  1. Intro and basic facts
  2. Open question(s)
  3. Proposed options

As an example question: "Should we pre-emptively disambiguate place categories?" If we did, that would resolve most issues, is simple to follow and has the bonus of making the content of the categories clearer. However where would we draw the line? Would we move Category:Canada because of Category:Canada, Hampshire? Or would we keep the country at the base name and make the proposed guidance cover that case? If so, how far would it stretch? The answers to those questions give the substance to proposals for the way forward.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pre emptive probably not. Canada or Pennsylvania, probably too far, Plymouth or Boston, probably not. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is meant to be about structure: Is the proposed structure ok? Will it guide us to a positive conclusion? Opinions on the individual cases are something for when the main discussion, not its layout. IMO the key fact from "Canada too far" and "Plymouth probably not", is not your view on those cases, but the fact that you flip at all. You have some vague idea of a boundary line. Identifying that boundary - where you would be entirely neutral on a case - is useful. For instance, if it was Manchester you would be entirely neutral there.
That suggests the simplest way of gauging opinion might be to present a range of cases. Like Shanghai through Manchester to Newtown, and asking which would you (the participants) would choose to disambiguate? Or alternatively, will focusing on specifics mean we only get an answer for those specific cases, and nothing that can be usefully generalised? Again I'm not asking for your opinion on the specific places I've just mentioned, but if that approach would allow people to clearly express their views--Nilfanion (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes with Shanghai I would suggest that should probably be at the base name (1), Manchester is more borderline because of Manchester, New Hampshire and the fact that there are lots of places with that name (2), though the one in New Hampshire is named after the English one and is at the expected title " "Manchester, New Hampshire" anyway (so yes I would be neutral there). With Newtown definitely far too generic name (4). I don't think this would just be my opinion (so I have given it anyway as a way of gauging it) and that may well be what others would also do. In this case it could be something like 1 (even things like England or Pennsylvania should be done) 2 Manchester or 3 PLymouth or 4 Newtown for what I mentioned above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I specifically said I DONT CARE about opinions on specific places (at this time). I do care if you think asking about places will allow gauging opinions (it need to be a more granular than those mentioned here to get a solid idea as to where the line is).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw that but you did ask what I would do (the participants) in a case. Or did you want me to answer something else like what I put with numbers (which I think might be what you wanted). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm asking a question about principle: If we ask people to rate a bunch of places (to cover a range of situations), will we get useful general guidance from that? Or will we only know about the cases we specifically asked about? The first outcome is helpful, the second is useless. My gut feeling is the second, which means its a bad approach.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luton example[edit]

I'm not sure if Luton is a good example as WP would likely at least have a redirect for both, it was moved from Luton, Newton Abbot so the author probably knew of both. A better example may be a farm. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced it with Bradshaw, Kirklees, while this would probably be fully disambiguated on Wikipedia, there is Category:Bradshaw, Holme Valley which is not an OS settlement but appears to be an area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stability[edit]

I know that this might be a bit of a generalization but when would we generally regard a title to be stable? Might it by after 6 months, a year or 2 years, or longer (without being questioned). Or might it be after all the links have been corrected on project(s). Or something else? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The principle of stability is not time dependent. Having the same title for 1 month is better than 1 day. The same for 1 year is better than 1 month. The same for a century is better than a year. The whole point of stability is you can still follow them with no problems, even if they are printed in a book or carved in stone.
Practical evaluation of its importance against other factors includes time factors. However, it is just a statement of principle. Sure as hell there isn't a fixed time when it suddenly starts to matter (or not matter).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume though that a move that was preformed only a day ago where all the links have been corrected is better than a move that was completed 5 years ago but still has incorrect links (or even a cat that has never been moved but has incorrect links). Basically from your point about following the links with no problem doesn't matter when the cats were moved as long as the links are corrected (but there may be external ones we don't know about). Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The thing is you cannot know if we have fixed every link. All we can do is fix links from Wikipedia. That's the problem. The only real exception is when the original location was new itself. If I created xxx today, and move it to xxxx tomorrow - its a safe bet no-one will be linking to xxx. All of that means a stable title always has benefits. Basically the principle of stability mandates DON'T MOVE! Simple as that.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be skeptical that a large number of people link to Commons categories outside WP, a more important point is (as you have pointed out before) is that we generally don't delete redirects unless very recent or inappropriate like Category:Hobb Cross, Matching which I created. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WHOLE POINT of keeping things behind is external users. Sure that might be a very limited number. But we can't know it is zero. If Commons breaks incoming links for minor internal reasons, it negates its core purpose - to be an image repository.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should Category:Oxford Street and Category:Sydenham House be moved, there are a load of other Oxford Streets (maybe even a thousand or so around the world) and with Sydenham House there are other listed and unlisted buildings. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Signs[edit]

Wasn't this a good starting point to have on the page as simple guidance? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The point of this page is to establish basic principles. The finer details of what a primary topic looks like is secondary to the question of does Commons even have primary topics. The essential meaning of primary topic - as in "this is the most likely term" - is all that's needed.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Places[edit]

This page has links to CFD about administrative districts (like Georgia) but aren't we also including all types of places, not just settlements and administrative districts? Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions[edit]

How much weight do you think that having a different title according to NC has? For example Category:Plymouth, Massachusetts isn't allowed to be located at Category:Plymouth so how much less of a claim does the MA city have to the title Category:Plymouth? We know that if the English city had to be at Category:Plymouth, Devon, then either Category:Plymouth wouldn't exist or would be a DAB, same goes for Boston if the MA city still had to be at Category:Boston, Massachusetts, Category:Boston would either be a DAB or not exist.

My understanding is that it can be a factor but not determinate, w:WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT shows that a topic can be ambiguous for more than one title. However if an article is at the title according to NC then its likely to be at a stable title (something you think important) and likely that editors are less likely to add incorrect files/links to it. I found 12 links intended for Ipswich, Queensland and 1 for Suffolk, Virginia at WP but as discussed many categorization is done by bots here. Consider some situations/posts:

Titles for disambiguation[edit]

Is it worth including information about how places are disambiguated, most are at "Placename, Country" eg Category:Christchurch, New Zealand if there is only one in the country but some are also "Placename, Statename" (or equivalent) eg Category:Chelmsford, Massachusetts or "Placename, settlement name" if part of a larger settlement or churches in villages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

@Auntof6: Should Category:Barra and Category:Tilty be moved, Barra means shoal in Portuguese and Tilty can mean something that is tilted. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always in favor of qualifying place names like these, but I know not everyone agrees. Have you seen bad entries in these categories? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I think that even Nilfanion will agree with at least Barra, since "shoal"s are a more major topic than an island of 1174 people. And yes there are errors, there are images in different parts of South America and some in Italy[1]. I'd also note that w:Barra, Bahia has 49325 people and w:Barra (Naples) has 40000. With Tilty I think it is an unlikely error/search term but its entire parish has just 98, which I think is too small to have priority, a Google search returns a mixture of things for the place and dictionary word, probably biast as Google is more likely to return places and due to my location (what do you get on Google?), while images returns other things. I will tag both for moving. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Category:Troon which mean "throne" in Dutch. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: I have started User:Crouch, Swale/Different languages, please add anymore you know of, I have tagged Category:Seil to be moved and removed 3 images of ropes (which it means in German). Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I figured out the format, and I added one. There is another one that I watch, Category:Iglesias (some places, and "churches" in Spanish), but I wasn't sure if you'd want that one because one of the meanings is plural (so not an exact match). --Auntof6 (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes you did, yes Iglesias should be on there, I also added Amarillo which had a CFD which you participated in. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nilfanion/Disambiguation_of_places&oldid=301438526"