Jump to content

Talk:Jasenovac (disambiguation)

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

redirect

[edit]

This should be a redirect to the article about the concentration camp, since the term Jasenovac is mostly used for the camp. See google hits: [1] - first nine of ten are about the camp. --Biblbroks's talk 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but Jasenovac is primary still name of the city and the muncipality. --AndrejJ 06:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or should this be redirected to Jasenovac municipality!? --AndrejJ 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another redirect

[edit]

Since the town has the least text I decided to make this a redirect to the concentration camp article and made a new article about the town Jasenovac (town). --Biblbroks's talk 12:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with redirect. Please return! --AndrejJ 13:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can undo the redirect yourself. But please, state your arguments first. --Biblbroks's talk 13:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated argument : Jasenovac is primary still name of the city and Camp was named after the city. --AndrejJ 15:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is also the case for some or all of the Sobibór, Treblinka, Belzec, Auschwitz, and Majdanek. These are mostly all villages, towns or other type of urban settlement. In the case of Auschwitz it is a German translation for Oświęcim. Perhaps Majdanek doesn't conform to this logic because it is a modification of the geographical name as its article states. Also according to article Belzec was a local railroad station but surely it derived from some sort of name for a settlement. All of these though point directly to articles on concentration camps. My point is though that Jasenovac cannot be considered as primarily name of the city. Don't know if the number on the google hits list for Jasenovac is argument strong enough but my opinion it is. --Biblbroks's talk 16:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the situation on other wikipedias I can say that nl:Jasenovac, he:יאסנובאץ, sv:Jasenovac and ru:Ясеновац are all articles on concentration camp, and Portuguese pt:Jasenovac is a redirect to it. Also there are no articles on municipality on all of this wikipedias according to my short search. While on the other hand bs:Jasenovac, de:Jasenovac, eo:Jasenovac, fr:Jasenovac, hr:Jasenovac, it:Jasenovac, pl:Jasenovac, sl:Jasenovac and sr:Jasenovac , they are all articles on municipality. But a dilligent wikipedia surfer like me (<wink>), when doing some extra research, can find that de:, fr:, hr:, it: sl: and sr: wikipedias have better or at least somewhat larger articles on concentration camps. --Biblbroks's talk 16:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And now only eo:Jasenovac, pl:Jasenovac and bs:Jasenovac are wikipedias with articles only on municipality. Doing some more research though, I've come to the conclusion that http://bs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Jasenovac gives same number or more links regarding the concentration camp in relation to the number of links regarding the municipality. I haven't done the same on pl: and eo:, if someone is idle enough he can do it himself/herself. --Biblbroks's talk 16:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the concentration camp is a more common use of the name compared to the municipality. On the other hand, in the case of the five Polish examples, most of those names as such are much better known in the English-speaking world, and only one of them was named after a settlement that still exists under the same name. It would seem to me that it's a bit more kind to the people who live in Jasenovac today to avoid the *complete* association of their village name with the concentration camp, and at least have one more intermediate step. As a side note, the name refers to the ash tree, so it is somewhat generic. I've seen a couple of similarly named locations myself: Jasenovo and Podjasenovac, and I think that there could also be other villages elsewhere in the region with the same name... I see now that hr:Jasenovac (razdvojba) mentions another two villages with the exact same name. They aren't really more relevant than the main two users, but still. --Joy [shallot] 01:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While i agree that the argument of taking inhabitants' of Jasenovac (not the concentration camp) sentiments into account is a kind gesture, and i agree that it would be nice if we could guide ourselves, when deciding to which article this term would be linked to, only by this criteria. Also, i agree that the information that the name refers to the ash tree is somewhat important to be mentioned in the article - if it isn't yet. On the other hand, since i believe that the term Jasenovac is even in the English language associated foremost and mainly with the Jasenovac concentration camp, i don't think that an intermediate step would suffice in this case. Nevertheless, i am keen to ascertain any idea on how to implement such an intermediate step. All the best, --biblbroks (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having a disambiguation page at "Jasenovac" was the intermediate step that I was referring to. It's a question of whether WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies or not. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was some other intermediate step intended, that could emphasize the frequency of usage of the term J. as a concentration camp comparing to the frequency of usage of the term J. as something else. Anyway, perhaps a research similar to one done before could help in deciding what the common name - WP:COMMONNAME is. On the other hand, primary topic should also be considered, but i'm not sure which one should have precedent over the other. Nevertheless, i think that solely the sentiments of the inhabitants of current settlement(s) - however important to be considered - cannot be an argument strong enough for implementing an intermediate step such as one suggested - simply because the frequency of usage of the term Jasenovac as a concentration camp is far more greater that the other frequencies, IMO. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rethink (2012)

[edit]

Last month's statistics:

Because of the redirect (#1 to #2), we can infer that less than 10% of hits there are ambiguous. Yet, the other ratios imply that, of the ambiguous hits, less than 10% definitely don't mean the concentration camp. The case for the redirect is still strong, though I still think we may want to experiment putting the disambiguation page up there again, and see how the hits distribute then. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the entire list of links at Special:WhatLinksHere/Jasenovac and determined that only a part of the concentration camp links were ambiguous in nature - many actually spelled out that part but failed to link to the whole term. On the other hand, the village was linked using the said name from various places, including the camp articles (camp and monument), as well as various unrelated articles, such as those that described the confluence of river Una into the Sava.
Overall, the comparison of the initial link count of "Jasenovac" and "Jasenovac concentration camp" didn't indicate that the redirect is completely legitimate - the large majority of links to the camp were already unambiguous. I'm guessing navbox consistency has an influence there, but still.
Some links I couldn't immediately discern from the context, for example the places mentioned at Ilija Gregorić or at Croatian Defence Forces.
I'm going to go ahead and disambiguate the remainder of the links, and then move the disambiguation page back. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result is 3 remaining ambiguous links. All three look like references to one of the Croatian villages. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how it looks a year later:

The hits to the concentration camp grew significantly, likely for unrelated reasons. A bit fewer people saw the disambiguation page. A bit more people saw the village article than they did earlier. This looks to me like a clear indication that there's no problem with this solution. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jasenovac_(disambiguation)&oldid=1203073790"