Jump to content

Talk:Rombo District, Kilimanjaro

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

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– The existing names of these articles provide almost no information to readers about what the articles are about, especially given that these names are in Kiswahili. The simple changes I have suggested would comply with the article names policy and help our readers. Per WP:Title, "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. ... Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize. Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such titles usually convey what the subject is actually called in English. Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." AfricaTanz (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:JDLI. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis is it "unnecessarily long"? What proof do you have that those are not common names? AfricaTanz (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about the articles' sources, none of which seem to use the "X ward of Tanzania" format? The sources usually refer to wards simpy by their names, and to districts either by the name or, more commonly, as "X District". I don't see how your proposed changes comply with the demand of conciseness, which you somehow forgot to bold. I also don't see why the current titles wouldn't distinguish the articles from others or why someone familiar with these wards and districts wouldn't recognize them by name without a "ward of Tanzania" qualifier. Huon (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that "Rombo" is wrong and "Rombo district" is correct? AfricaTanz (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of this article's two sources uses "Rombo", the other "Rombo District Council". Neither uses "Rombo district". Thus I don't see why "Rombo" should be wrong or "Rombo district" correct. Huon (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is correct? We have to choose. Surely you have an opinion. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of better sources I'd be happy with either "Rombo" or "Rombo District", not "Rombo district". Since it's already at "Rombo", there's no need to move it around. Huon (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - should be the WP:COMMONNAME. Also no article name gives any explanation to the reader of what it is about unless they know it already, e.g. Tokyo. The fact that Tokyo is much better known than Rombo is no reason to have the name replaced by an explanotory phrase. The explanation belongs in the article unless it is necessary disambiguation. Imc (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is factually incorrect. For example, the articles about counties in Texas use the "Bexar County, Texas" format. Are those article names incorrect? AfricaTanz (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, 'factually incorrect'? Yes, I would say that many of those Texas county titles are not in accordance with our naming policy. The 'County' may be necessary and correct because the name proper belongs to a town village or city in it - this is a common situation. The additional 'Texas' is not necessary in most cases and is probably present because Wikipedia often attracts people who wish to regularise names. Imc (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I just did a quick Google search and found the Official Website of Bexar County, Texas and the Bexar County, Texas Twitter channel. Since the county itself uses that title there's nothing wrong with Wikipedia doing so, too. If sources showed that Rombo commonly called itself "Rombo district of Tanzania" I'll gladly reconsider my stance. Huon (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The use of U.S. states in U.S. place articles is covered extensively at WP:USPLACE. Zarcadia (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a special case in a nonbinding guideline that was developed by consensus of (undoubtedly) American editors, just as we could by consensus determine to use "Rombo district of Tanzania" or the like. So, what's with all the hand wringing about how we "must" be naming articles? AfricaTanz (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we take this discussion to WP:NCGN where numerous special exceptions have been made for places all over the world. AfricaTanz (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage that sounds like forum shopping to me. You didn't get the response you wanted at WT:WikiProject Tanzania, you didn't get it here, so take the discussion to yet another place? Huon (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really, now, don't be so grumpy and sensitive about others being able to give their opinions. A stronger consensus is formed when many participate. And don't be so quick to assume bad faith in others. OK? NCGN is the most appropriate place for this discussion. I didn't know it existed until today. Believe it or not, that's up to you. Cheers. AfricaTanz (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I disagree with that interpretation of Wikipedia:Article titles. The phrase, "the title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles", at the top of the guideline is the general goal but the rest of that page defines and details how to go about doing that. In terms of recognizability, the title should be a name that someone familiar with the article's subject will recognize, NOT necessarily immediately provide information to any reader who does not know anything about that subject, nor knows the Kiswahili language (the job of actually defining the subject of the article is done by the lead section). As for naturalness, this is related to the WP:COMMONNAME section, where article titles should be the most commonly used name (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) used for that subject, and thus the term readers are likely to look or search for in English. No evidence has been made yet that significantly establishes that more sources use "Rombo district of Tanzania" than "Rombo". And if "Rombo" is used as the most common name to distinguish it from other subjects, that would be sufficiently precise enough and concise enough than "Rombo district of Tanzania". Remember, the burden of evidence is on the editors who support additions or changes to the status quo, and thus should be the ones to provide the proof that the "X ward of Tanzania" format is commonly used more than "X".Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Until yesterday, the status quo, for example, was "Rombo district (Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania)". Then, 2 editors short-circuited a new discussion of this issue by making wholesale moves of these articles, resulting in, for example, just "Rombo". So, according to your standard, the burden is on them to provide the proof. I highly doubt that any reliable sources use just "Rombo" when referring to the Rombo district. AfricaTanz (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That "status quo" had persisted for only a few weeks, because you had unilaterally changed the title of the article. Prior to that it was just "Rombo", and that status quo was in effect for over seven years. If your argument is that we shouldn't mess with the status quo, or that those who wish to change it need to seek consensus first, then you are clearly in the wrong here. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you always so harsh? Are you familiar with the "bold edits" standard around here? I moved the Rombo article 6 weeks ago. No one objected. But this was not the first Tanzania article I had moved. It has been an ongoing process, spread over perhaps 100 articles. Not one editor has objected. Not one. That is clear evidence of consensus according to Wikipedia policy. AfricaTanz (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "complicated" about "Rombo district of Tanzania". I do not presume that our readers are dumb. AfricaTanz (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a legitimate compromise should the original proposal fail. AfricaTanz (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, the entries at Majengo should be properly disambiguated with commas, as should Bondeni (Moshi Urban ward) and Bondeni. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the "of Tanzania" (or even ", Tanzania") bit as unnecessary and against normal Wikipedia article naming practice, where we only add a disambiguator if necessary (yes, American placenames are an exception - one that many of us disagree with, but which many American editors, used to always seeing the state appended to the placename, continue to support). If they are commonly referred to as "district" or "ward", however, then we should add those words. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Editors may wish to note a similar discussion which has just been opened at Talk:Rau ward, Tanzania#Requested move. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rombo_District,_Kilimanjaro&oldid=1198370967"