Talk:Nowa Wieś

Requested move

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowa Wieś → List of places in Poland named Nowa Wieś — Requesting to move this back to the list article based on consensus here. --JaGa^talk 13:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support as agreed in previous discussion (it's a perfectly sound set index article, and having it so classified keeps it off the list of dab pages with links).--Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. It looks to me like merely another disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Or just like another set index page (except that those aren't such a common beast). All the entries are things of one type in one domain - they're all Polish villages, no people or companies or albums or anything.--Kotniski (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, if people don't like the set index approach, we could make it into a plain old list article. That can be decided after the move, since it would be the same title regardless. --JaGa^talk 21:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support On a WP:SETINDEX basis. I think List of places named Nowa Wieś or List of towns named Nowa Wieś would be a more appropriate title, but I'll let those most involoved in the page make that call. Nowa Wieś (towns) or Nowa Wieś (places) would be equally acceptable.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Question If this page is renamed to be List of places in Poland named Nowa Wieś, then what would be at Nowa Wieś? If the answer is a redirect to the list article, then I oppose the proposed move. As it is, Nowa Wieś is an ambiguous title and a disambiguation page is required. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, that's obviously where it would be redirected to. Look, if this offends people's sensitivities, can we just add some parameter to the dab template that keeps it off the list of dab pages with links? That way this page could be a dab page without causing anyone any problems.--Kotniski (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, are towns in Poland the only Nowa Wieś articles on wikipedia? If that's the case I'll be changing my vote to an oppose. The only way I'll support the move is if Nowa Wieś becomes a dab. page for everything that is not a Polish towns. We only use set indexes if a dab. page exists, never in replacement of one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify that last sentence? --JaGa^talk 16:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrected the grammar. Simply that set indexes are not a replacement for dab. pages but for when a section is so large that a seperate index seems appropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is that policy outlined? I've never come across it. --JaGa^talk 19:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's more by convention than policy. In the site index policy you will see the distinction that is drawn between Signal Mountain and List of peaks named Signal Mountain. I'm not saying a site index is completely inappropriate (I notice there are articles for Nowa Wieś Lęborska (PKP station) and Nowa Wieś Człuchowska (PKP station)). There just has to be more legitimate topics for the dab. page than just the towns to merit a move. Otherwise, why would you move the page? --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kotniski, people's sensitivities are pretty much irrelevant. If the term Nowa Wieś is ambiguous, then a disambiguation page is appropriate. Moving to a different title, redirecting and using a different template doesn't change the underlying issue. Similar to what Labattblueboy says, if someone wants to expand this list to have encyclopedic content specifically about Nowa Wieś as a Polish place name, that'd be great -- but there would still need to be a disambiguation page at the base name unless someone is suggesting that there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 16:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And a set index article (see WP:SIA) is inappropriate because...? --JaGa^talk 17:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Because there would be no need. older ≠ wiser 18:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The doc says "A set index article is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name." Nowa Wieś is simply a list of towns in Poland - not a single thing more. There seems to be a belief that you can't have a set index unless you're splitting it from a dab, but that doesn't bear out in the guidelines or other articles. USS Enterprise is a set index, but there isn't a corresponding dab; should it be converted into a dab? --JaGa^talk 19:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Turn it around the other way and ask why call something a set index when in every other respect it is a disambiguation page? older ≠ wiser 21:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Nowa Wieś is "a list article about a set of items of a specific type", unlike 99.9% of disambiguation pages. I answered your question, with a reference to the docs, no less. Now it's your turn; why should this be a dab and not a set index? --JaGa^talk 22:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Because Nowa Wieś is an ambiguous term. There is no material difference between this and any other disambiguation page and no reason to call it a set index. older ≠ wiser 23:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is the difference that "Nowa Wieś" isn't ambiguous between unrelated meanings (there's no person or song or anything else called that), only within a set of things of a specific type (Polish villages), so I see no reason why it's not legitimate for the page to be an SIA (even though it's equally legitimate to call it a dab page). This whole argument seems kind of pointless - the only reason this matters is that the large number of incoming links (which exist for good practical reasons that have been set out elsewhere) causes the page to show up on the list of dab pages with incoming links, if it's a dab page. Making it a set index article is really just a version of my suggested fix for this problem - change the template so it doesn't show up on that list. We could presumably make a template that's identical in every way to {{disambig}}, but that the bot that maintains the incoming links list is programmed to ignore. But is it really necessary to go to even that bother, when calling it a set index article (which it can legitimately be) already solves the problem.--Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Exactly, Kotniski - Bkonrad says "no material difference" even though I just named a big one - it's a list of items of all the same type, which is the very definition of a SIA. It fits the definition from WP:SIA - you don't seem to dispute that. --JaGa^talk 10:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit to creating set indexes for one-off purposes. And more seriously, I think that having it not show up on the list of disambiguation pages with links is a VERY bad reason to create a set index. When I look at what links here now, nearly all of the article space links are deliberate links through a redirect. These shouldn't cause it to show up on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links -- if they do, then perhaps then perhaps whatever generates that list needs to be tweaked. Besides the deliberate links though redirects, there are a handful of inadvertent links. Since this is an ambiguous term, inadvertent links should show up on that report to be repaired. Making it a set index merely to get it off that report makes no sense. older ≠ wiser 13:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(I would really appreciate an answer to this) does the article fit the definition of a set index, or not? --JaGa^talk 20:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That is IMO not a relevant question. The real question is what benefit is there to calling something set index when in EVERY respect it is nothing more than a disambiguation page? older ≠ wiser 21:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You refuse the answer the question because you know the answer will weaken your position. You're more intent on "winning" this discussion (which has sadly degenerated into a contest) than anything else. It is more than a disambiguation page because it fulfills the definition set out in WP:SIA. 99.9% of disambigs do not fulfill this definition. Do you deny this to be true, even if you think it's an irrelevant question? --JaGa^talk 21:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I refuse to answer because it is a cheap rhetorical trick that you already know the answer to. Simply because it is possible to do something does not mean it is a good idea to do so. I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to attack my intentions here. I feel strongly about this because the vagueness surrounding the use of set indices undermines the very point of having disambiguation pages. The argument that you and Kotniski have put forward (to avoid having the page appear on a list of disambiguation pages with links) is utter folly. older ≠ wiser 21:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You attacked my intentions first, Bkonrad. And you did it to avoid answering the question. And you still avoid the question. The simple truth is, there's nothing wrong with classifying this as a set index, because it fulfills the definition perfectly. But you don't like the idea so you attack it first, and when that doesn't go well, you attack my motives. Well, don't worry; I'm not going to try to get the move done, or get it reclassified, so you get your win. But it wasn't on honorable grounds - it was with cheap rhetorical tricks. --JaGa^talk 21:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If I might have questioned intentions, I've never personally attacked you as you have. I suggest you apologize. Up to this point I bear you no ill will whatsoever -- I regarded everything that went before this point to be a impassioned discussion of the topic at hand. But I think you have crossed the line and made this personal. older ≠ wiser 21:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose This looks like a disambiguation page. The only argument for changing it to be classified as a "set index" appears to be "to keep it off the list of disambiguation pages with incoming links" -- but I don't understand why that's a goal. Why would you want to link to a list of towns with this name, instead of to a specific town? Unless it's for the same reasons that we link to disambiguation pages from a primary topic. (The hatnotes linking here from disambiguated titles, such as Nowa Wieś, Aleksandrów County, are useless and should be removed unless someone can offer a reasonable explanation how a user would reach that article in search of a Nowa Wieś that is not in Aleksandrów County.) Also note that the criteria for a "set index" article is not "a set of items that have similar or identical names" -- by that token, virtually every disambiguation page would be a set index. The criteria is that there be some reason why it's beneficial to users for the list to be excepted from the style guidelines in the MOS for dab pages. Propaniac (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given the "reasonable explanation" you ask for in other discussions - people are highly likely to get to these articles by clicking piped links, and the disambiguation tags are going to be meaningless to people who don't know contemporary Polish adminsitrative geography. Basically the scenario would be "oh, Nowa Wieś, that's where granny came from, gonna click on that." Such readers are helped by being told via a standard hatnote that actually this is only one of many Nowa Wieś's, and the one they've clicked on may well not be Granny's.--Kotniski (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no problem with leaving the hatnotes on the pages. But that's not a reason for making this a set index. older ≠ wiser 12:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad explanation (although if you don't realize that the NW in such-and-such county is the wrong one, it seems unlikely you would be able to pick the right one from this page), but, like the user above, I still don't think that's a reason not to consider this a disambig page. Propaniac (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support for all reasons pointed out by Kotniski and JaGa. WP:SIA FTW. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 06:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

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.