Talk:Juba (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested page move[edit]

The following is a closed 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 moved. While I agree that that recentism is a concern and that the long term impact of the capital city versus the many other meanings of Juba is uncertain, the relative 'unknown' nature of the other Juba's, the current primary nature of the capital city, and the analysis of Bazonka below, all together make it is relatively safe to assume that this is likely to be the primary topic going forward as well. If it isn't, we can always reverse this move. --rgpk (comment) 19:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juba → Juba (disambiguation) – I think that in light of Juba, South Sudan, becoming a national capital, this page should be moved to a designated disambiguation page and "Juba, South Sudan" should be moved to this page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. The city is clearly the primary topic now. Bazonka (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. While a simple google search has yet to overwhelmingly show that Juba the capital city is the primary use now, it is already occupying the first few links and pages and is likely rise in prominence in a matter of days.--Huaiwei (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, becoming a national capital does may raise a city's prominence in international relations, but it does not and should not have an immediate effect upon our primary topic selections. Our determinations of primary topic are based on medium- to long-term likelihood of the topic being sought by our readers. Sure, for the next while, Juba, South Sudan is likely to be very popular as the country starts itself up. But there's no indication that this is anything more than a temporary blip in its popularity. It is premature to say that it has become the primary topic just because it is now a national capital. Powers T 17:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is there any other national capital that has a name that directs to a disambig page? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Washington. Powers T 03:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Washington, D.C., is fairly standard convention, especially in English. Unfortunately, there is no such appellation for Juba. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kingston. I could keep going. Powers T 13:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Compare the global usage of Kingston with that of Juba. It is obvious the former needs disambiguation far more than the later. Cite a better example please.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kudzu asked for one. I've given two. Tell me all of the requirements first, then we'll see if you've carved out enough exemptions to make Juba the only one. Powers T 17:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Washington, D.C. and Washington (state) are both very important and prominent, and both deserve to be the primary topic. But that can't happen, hence having Washington as a disambiguation page. I think that there is a strong argument for moving the Kingston, Jamaica article to Kingston as it is the most important of the Kingstons listed (although Kingston, Norfolk Island is also a capital city of sorts). Of all the other Jubas, none are anywhere near as important as Juba, South Sudan. Bazonka (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but no one's provided any evidence of that beyond "it's a capital city now". Being a capital city is not one of the criterion for determining primary topic. Powers T 23:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness' sake. Are you saying that a small Estonian village, a meal of leftovers, or an Iraqi soldier are of equal importance to a capital city of 250,000 inhabitants? (None of the other things listed on the dab page are just called Juba.) Bazonka (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly support moving Kingston as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I think I've made my point. Leaving Juba at Juba, South Sudan would not make it some singular anomaly among capital cities. Powers T 23:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, clearly more prominent than the others now. --Soman (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. As an historian, I would still consider the kings of that name to be more notable, as I'm sure would many others. The fact they have qualifiers after their name is irrelevant, since most people looking for them will still simply search for "Juba". Of course Google searches at present will predominantly come up with the city, as it's currently in the news, but that is completely irrelevant, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of the world throughout the ages, not simply a gazetteer of current events. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism has nothing to do with it. Yes, of course it's been in the news a lot recently, and it's likely to be in the news less in the future - but it'll still be a capital city, its importance will not be lessened by not being involved in a current event. Certainly more important than (forgive me) relatively obscure ancient kings. Bazonka (talk) 12:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not obscure to students of ancient history. And probably of far greater significance in their day than the capital of (forgive me) an obscure country in an obscure corner of Africa. I'm afraid your argument that a capital city is more significant than a king doesn't hold water. Today it is, then it wasn't. Recentism again. Frankly, if you asked the average person on the street, I very much doubt whether they would have any more idea of what or where the city was than who the king was. It really doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Today it is, then it wasn't." Perhaps so, but what's really important is the future. I've been looking at the article traffic statistics (see [1]). Whilst these unsurprisingly show a massive spike for Juba, South Sudan this month, previously its views were less than those of Juba I of Numidia and Juba II (which I did not expect, but then I'm no expert in ancient history). However if we compare the statistics for the capitals of equally "obscure countr[ies] in an obscure corner of Africa", Bangui, N'Djamena and Nouakchott, then the stats are considerably higher than those of the kings (NB these were the first three obscure capitals I thought of). I think it is highly likely that a similar level of interest will continue with Juba, South Sudan, and if so, it will indicate a greater level of interest and importance to the "average person on the street". Bazonka (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If, in the future, it turns out that the city becomes far more likely to be sought than all other uses of the word, then we can move it. There's no deadline. Powers T 13:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there has to be an element of forward-looking when assessing what should be a primary topic - we are trying to identify what will be the likeliest subject matter of future searches. An analysis of previous searches (as recommended by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) can help us to estimate what will happen in the future, but we can never be absolutely certain - we're just making an evidence-based prediction of what is likeliest to happen. In this case, there is no real history of page stats for Juba, South Sudan as a capital city, but based on the evidence of article traffic stats for similar capital city articles, I think we can be fairly confident that it is worthy of primary topic status. If necessary, we can revisit this in a few months when we have real evidence, but I honestly don't feel that this is necessary. Bazonka (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. There are many utterly obscure capital cities in the world that almost nobody outside the country has heard of. It's quite possible that once the current media interest in the new state has died down Juba will be among them. As LtPowers says, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The city is already the No. 1 topic. Topic No. 2 is the sniper. A band is topic No. 3. You have to go way down before you find results about Numidian kings. Kauffner (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You have to go way down" what, exactly? Are we talking about Google Books results? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some further analysis of the popularity of capital city articles, based on article traffic statistics for June 2011 (the last complete month). If we assume that the importance of a city is defined by its size (population), we can show that there is a reasonably straight trend line when comparing population and article hits. See the table below (click show to see it), and graph to the right.

Graph of capital city population and article hits

There is absolutely no reason to suggest that Juba would not fit this pattern. The city's population is 372410, which (based on the trend line) would lead us to estimate that its article traffic would be in the region of 5800 per month. Yes, there is an element of crystal-balling here, but as I explained in an earlier post, how else can we identify which article should be the Primary topic, i.e. the one that people are likeliest to be looking for?
Juba I of Numidia only got 845 hits last month, so considerably lower than even lowly Lobamba. Juba II fared slightly better with 2610 hits, putting it slightly ahead of Mamoudzou (the second least-visited African capital city article). Even if my 5800 hits estimate for Juba is wrong, it is still highly likely to receive considerably more hits than the two kings' articles.
I think I have now provided sufficient evidence that being a capital city is notable enough for primary topic status, certainly when compared to the other Jubas.

Bazonka (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Should we agree to revisit this and test Bazonka's hypothesis in a month or two? -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why wait? Let's do it now. Actually, we should probably wait for a previously-uninvolved admin to close this move request and give his/her judgement. Bazonka (talk) 08:14, 20 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Juba_(disambiguation)&oldid=440529395"