Talk:Belfast
April 2022
[edit]
This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.
Why have this page, when we don't have similar ones for Boston, which has a town in England with 35,000 people; Richmond, Virginia, a city in California with 100,000+ people, etc? If we don't have enough articles on Belfast, Maine to make it an article, why keep a disambig for it? Why not just redirect to Belfast, Northern Ireland? --JJLiu112 (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- @JJLiu112: Agreed. I’ve redirected to the category. [24Cr][talk] 13:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Acagastya: See the above request. I disagree with this disambiguation for those reasons. [24Cr][talk] 19:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I know that Pi zero disliked Wikipedia's practice of having redirects point to the most commonly used target, arguing it was subjective and played favorites. He much preferred disambiguation pages and created {{mainspace disambig}} specifically for that purpose. This is a very useful tool and I used it myself for George Bush; but he and I disagreed on when it should be used. I feel that for geo-cats it is not useful when there is a great disparity in usage. I echo JJ's sentiment above, especially when Wikinews only has one category. It is a veritable Pandora's box where Paris should point to a disambiguation page for Paris, France and Paris, Texas, just to list another example. Where I agreed with Pi zero, are cases like Obama, where Wikipedia points straight to Barack Obama. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- When a disambig is added already, one should not be putting the effort removing it -- a little bit of precaution and future-proofing does not hurt as much as when things need to be moved when there wasn't much future-proofing.
•–• 20:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)- Belfast is currently used in 14 articles, all of which are intending to point to Category:Belfast, Northern Ireland. What is more work? Changing a disambiguation to a redirect or fixing the archive? What if someone suddenly changed Paris to a disambiguation? Would we be obliged to fix the archive or simply undo it? Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think in a situation like this where all the incoming links are to one cat, we should either change their targets to that cat immediately or make the page with the short name into a redirect temporarily and incrementally work on changing the link targets, rather than creating a disambiguation page there. And in the Paris hypothetical, we could revert that edit and, if we agreed we wanted to implement it, we could move the cat and then work on the link targets, leaving the redirect in place temporarily. As to when we should create disambig pages, I would support being as specific as the situation demands in the naming convention, but only creating a disambig when there are at least two relevant cats (which reminds me, actually, that en.wp does a similar thing, only creating a disambig when there are at least two articles). When we have one, we could link to anything else relevant through the en.wp disambiguation page if there is one. Heavy Water (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Belfast is currently used in 14 articles, all of which are intending to point to Category:Belfast, Northern Ireland. What is more work? Changing a disambiguation to a redirect or fixing the archive? What if someone suddenly changed Paris to a disambiguation? Would we be obliged to fix the archive or simply undo it? Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Obama could be either Barack or Michelle, there are articles on them both. Belfast, Maine has a population under seven thousand, while Belfast, Northern Ireland has many articles categorised under it already. --JJLiu112 (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- When a disambig is added already, one should not be putting the effort removing it -- a little bit of precaution and future-proofing does not hurt as much as when things need to be moved when there wasn't much future-proofing.
- I know that Pi zero disliked Wikipedia's practice of having redirects point to the most commonly used target, arguing it was subjective and played favorites. He much preferred disambiguation pages and created {{mainspace disambig}} specifically for that purpose. This is a very useful tool and I used it myself for George Bush; but he and I disagreed on when it should be used. I feel that for geo-cats it is not useful when there is a great disparity in usage. I echo JJ's sentiment above, especially when Wikinews only has one category. It is a veritable Pandora's box where Paris should point to a disambiguation page for Paris, France and Paris, Texas, just to list another example. Where I agreed with Pi zero, are cases like Obama, where Wikipedia points straight to Barack Obama. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Is this still an important conversation?
[edit]I was going to go through the archive and edit all sixteen of the articles that point here. But then I realized I can't even edit them because they are protected (I assumed I could make un-sighted changes that would then need to be sighted).
Given there has been no new comment in just over two years, do we need to retain the flag? Too many flagged conversations dilutes the effectiveness of the flag. Too many flagged and stale conversations is even worse. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's an important conversation to have, and I don't think there's a consensus for anything yet. Since the articles are all archived, no, only admins can edit them (edits still need to be sighted, which can only be done by someone who has both reviewer and admin, which is pretty much all of the human admins). Heavy Water (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)