Talk:Empire of Haiti

Empire revert

Srnec, what was the reason for this revert? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted, as no expiation for the revert has been provided. As for the set index thing, I didn't turn this from a disambig into a set index. This was a set index mis-categorized as a disambig; the two empire entries are (from WP:SETINDEX) "a set of items of a specific type [...] share[ing] a common characteristic in addition to the similarity of name". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Why are you using "expiation" like "explanation"? I never gave one because I never noticed this message on the talk page.

We don't need a set index. We need to disambiguate "Empire of Haiti". That's all. I don't care too much, but I don't see why we need to list three relatively short-lived periods of monarchy in Haitian history. This kind of article just doesn't look very good, having two templates and a notice at the bottom and no bold text to orient the reader. All to list three items. I thought my version looked much cleaner.

Also how is it not a disambiguation page? The empires shared the same name, and we need to disambiguate. It was never a set index until you made it one. Srnec (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

"expiation" was just a misspelling. It was not a disambig, because the Empires of Hati are not two unrelated things that just happen to share the same name; they are a set of items of a specific type sharing a common characteristic (in this case Haitian imperial monarchies) in addition to the similarity of name". It's mostly a categorization difference, set indexes do disambiguate; if a page doesn't disambiguate it by definition is not a set index. To put is simply, the difference between a disambig and an SI is that in an SI every single entry shares a common characteristic other then just the name, whereas in a disambig at least entry one doesn't. They both disambiguate tough.

It doesn't matter that Haiti was only three a monarchy for three relatively short-lived periods. This list is just as encyclopedic and "necessary" as it would be if Haiti were a monarchy for twenty long periods. I'll address the rest of you're points in another post. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You are not reading the policy page you cite well. It says that:

A set index article is not a disambiguation page: A disambiguation page is a list of things, possibly of different types, that share the same (or similar) name, formatted for best navigating the reader to the sought topic. [emphasis mine]

Most disambiguation pages are full of articles that share the same name not by accident but by relation. I see no requirement anywhere in policy that a disambiguation page must list at least one item that is unrelated to the others and just happens to share an identical name.

You are not paying attention to the aesthetics of the page. A list of three things does not need to be a page title "List of ..." Ever. The title seems to promise the reader more than he gets. Srnec (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Srnec to address you're policy argument, that's not how I would interpret the policy, but I think I see you're point of view. An SI is not be a disambig page per sy, but it does disambiguate (e.g. USS Enterprise disambiguates the articles for ships named "USS Enterprise" ) The line between a disambig and SI is quite burley, but I would think it would requires more then mere relation to be a SI; nearly everything can be said to share a common characteristic with nearly everything else. I would think that there must be some meaningful encyclopedic link between the entries (see my example bellow), or at least that the result be an encyclopedic list.

More importantly tough, it also requires every single entry be of that same type (not merely the majority of entries). A disambag may have many entries that share the same name not by accident but by relation, but unless every single every does (and not necessarily even then) it is not an SI. The way I interpret the policy, a "disambig" page that meets SI standards is an SI. As for the requirement thing, there is such a requirement (tough it not quite as strong as you put it): "A set index article is not a disambiguation page". This one page is pretty insignificant. We should probably work to have the policy page itself clarified.

As an example of non-encyclopedic links, William County, Virginia (a page I created) has two entries, both of them are counties in Virgina, and their not located far from each-other. The counties have similar names, probably not by accident but because they are both in Virgina (some county-namer liking X William County, or one was named after the other, or something), and probably have quite a bit in common with each-other sense both are in Virgina and relatively near each-other. This relation however is irrelevant, there is nothing potentially encyclopedic (that I'm aware of) to cover on that page, nor does the page itself constitute an encyclopedic list. "William County" is nothing more then an (incorrect) term for two different, albeit similar and similarity named, locations in Virgina; the page exists only because webpages like this exist. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing your point (and the point of your last paragraph). This article is only needed because there were two Empires of Haiti and no primary topic. Linking to the Kingdom of Haiti on this page was always just a matter of convenience, to keep it clear that the empires and the kingdom were different things. Srnec (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Srnec I'm not surprised; as I said the line between SI and disambig is quite burly, and that makes it difficult to explain. I only put this much effort into trying sense there was a much larger issue then this one insignificant page (clarifying the policy). Basically my secondarily point was that a disambig may resemble an SI (such as by having allot of related entries), but that doesn't necessarily make it an SI. The 2nd paragraph was me showing an example of a disambig where every entry had some relation, but yet it wasn't quite an SI.

My main point is that by my interpretation, a "disambig" that meets SI standards is an mislabeled SI. By (my understanding of) you're interpretation a disambig that meats SI standards is a disambig and not an SI, unless someone relabels it as an SI. Put simply you interpret the label as prescriptive, I interpret it as descriptive. We should probably get the policy page to clarify which interpretation is correct. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the title promises the reader more than he gets; IMO the only thing it promises the readers is a list of all the Haitian monarchies, regardless of however many or few there are. However I have added colonial periods to see also, sense tough arguably not Haitian monarchies per se, they are monarchies which ruled Haiti. This gives the reader more (5 entries total instead of 3), and they probably should be added anyway. The empires and the kingdom would hardly qualify as different types of things, one's a royal monarchy and the other two are imperial monarchies. If it makes any difference, the only reason I renamed this was that the kingdom wouldn't fit under an empire title; I wouldn't support renaming Mexican Empire "List of Mexican monarchies". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Srnec I've added that bold orientation text. 20:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the difference between the Mexican Empire case and the Empire of Haiti case? I don't see one. Srnec (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

If you mean regarding titles, with Mexico both monarchies are imperial, so there's mo need for a "List of Mexican monarchies" title to be inclusive of royal monarchies. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Both empires of Haiti are imperial as well. There is no need to have anything but a disambiguation page (with a 'see also' if you like). Srnec (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Empire restored

WP:3O: This article is absolutely no different than that of the Mexican Empire index. It is absurd, not to present this article in the same manner. Savvyjack23 (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Empire of Haiti is also the name. Notice on both occasions, the name is the same, as in the Mexican empire. Savvyjack23 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)