Talk:Nashua

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 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 no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 11:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nashua → Nashua (disambiguation) — to allow redirect from "Nashua" to Nashua, New Hampshire, the primary topic for this term. It has 15 times as many page views as next most viewed Nashua (horse) --Ken Gallager (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Coming from outside the US, I thought the corporation was the primary use. Kanguole 23:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The corporation is based in and named after the city. Page views in August were 9179 for the city and just 219 for the corporation. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question for closer: does what one editor (incorrectly) "thought was the primary use" constitute a good basis for decision-making? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a separate topic and should be discussed elsewhere, in conjunction with the dozens of larger U.S. cities that are not single-named at this point. --Ken Gallager (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, change in WP is just as legitimate if it happens bottom-up (one article at a time, at least at first) rather than top-down. If consensus here agrees that the city is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Nashua", that the name of the city is just "Nashua", and that WP would be improved if the city was therefore at Nashua, that's all that is necessary to move it regardless of what is stated elsewhere, per WP:IAR if nothing else.

However, there should at least be a notice about this discussion at Talk:Nashua, New Hampshire, which I just added. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, Serge, explain why Nashua should differ from all the other towns in New Hampshire. (I oppose this amendment; the original proposal seems reasonable.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nashua should differ from how all the other towns and cities in New Hampshire that are unnecessarily disambiguated are currently named for the same reason that every title in Wikipedia whose title is the primary topic for its obvious name should not be unnecessarily disambiguated: consistency.

From Aardvark to Zagreb,from Cher to Paris, and from Chicago to San Francisco, the use of the undisambiguated obvious most common name of a topic as the title of its article, whenever possible, is arguably the most fundamental naming principle in Wikipedia. So, my question to you is this: why should Nashua deviate from that? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born2Cycle knows the answer to that; for the spectators: because most of the rest of the settlements of the United States must be disambiguated (including the several other Nashuas) and he is the only editor who would prefer to set the reader a series of pointless puzzles (why Nashua, but Laconia, New Hampshire?) than be consistent in a small matter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I prefer to be consistent in a large matter rather than be consistent in a "small matter". The answer to why Nashua, but Laconia, New Hampshire? is the same as the answer to...
Why Laken, but Haren, Belgium? (both are suburbs of Brussels)

Why Nicholas Campbell, but Douglas Campbell (actor)? (both are Canadian actors)

Why Happy Sad, but Lorca (album)? (both are albums by Tim Buckley)

Why Lorca, but Cieza, Murcia? (both are cities in Murcia)

Why Confirmed Dead, but The Economist (Lost)? (both are episodes of Lost (TV series))

Why San Francisco but Salinas, California? (both are California cities.)

Why Limerick but Cork (city)? (both are cities within synonymous counties in Ireland)

In each case, the answer is the same: Because in Wikipedia we strive to disambiguate only when necessary.

So, next question: why stop being consistent on a large matter in order to be consistent on a "small matter"? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current situation is fine. Users can make the extra click to get the one Nashua they are looking for, even if most users are looking for Nashua, New Hampshire, as they likely are, there isn't any trouble finding it. As a secondary solution, I have little objection for having Nashua redirect to Nashua, New Hampshire moving the current Nashua page moved to Nashua (disambiguation). The article on the New Hampshire city should remain at the specific title "Nashua, New Hampshire". --Jayron32 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving the disambiguation page. The unqualified name should at a minimum point to the primary topic. --Polaron | Talk 15:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: should remain disambig for Nashua River, the corporation, several cities, among others. No primary meaning. Jonathunder (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I don't understand what you mean by "no primary meaning". Page views mean nothing?--Ken Gallager (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page views are one consideration, but so is the fact there are many uses for "Nashua" and no single one is fundamental. The current situation works. Jonathunder (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Is fundamental" (whatever that means) is neither a listed nor implied criteria, much less a required one, at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But, lots of people rationalize their own rules to back up whatever their position is, so, whatever... --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "is fundamental" is still a vague term. When I go to the "What links here" to clean up ambiguous links and virtually all point to the city of Nashua, it doesn't matter whether it's "fundamental" or not -- it's the link that virtually everyone meant to use.--Ken Gallager (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually everyone? Not at all. When the reader knows they want Nashua, N.H. they will type that, or something like it, just as if they mean Nashua, Iowa or Minnesota or any of the others. When they type "Nashua" without a state, they're probably looking for the corporation or the horse, but perhaps something else. Following the principle of least surprise, we should keep the current disambiguation, since there are so many meanings here. Jonathunder (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"When the reader knows they want Nashua, N.H. they will type that..." How do you know that??? I don't know about you or anyone else, I type as little as possible when I'm looking for something. If it's a city, I only type the city name. If that doesn't get me what I want, it will almost certainly get me within one click of what I want. That beats typing ", N.H." (which gets you nowhere anyway), much less ", New Hampshire". Besides, anyone who prefers typing to clicking through dab page and hat links is just as likely to type Nashua Corporation when looking for the business he is likely to type Nashua, N.H. when looking for the NH city.

Anyway, here are the relevant page view counts for last month for every use listed on the dab page at Nashua:

Now, we can't tell how many of these were from doing a "Go" to the given name, but we know a substantial proportion of each (except for the dab page itself) must come from links. Any way, no matter how you slice it, this is no contest. I mean, the NH city is viewed several times more than all the others combined, and at least 20 times more than any of the others individually. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the data pointed to by Born2cycle. About 25% of the hits are not for New Hampshire. Given that large of a number and the sheer number of articles, I don't believe that the case has been made that there is a primary use. Disambiguation pages are good and users are not hurt by them so it is far safer to leave them. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's 23% so 77% of the hits are for NH. The criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, "much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer". If 77% of the page views does not constitute "much more used than any other topic", what does??? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right and 75% of the links are for the horse. So I could make a strong case based on current links that the redirect should be to the horse. Nothing is broken by leaving this alone. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 75% of what links are for the horse? If the standard for moving is only when something is "broken", then there would be no reason to ever improve anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course something is broken by leaving this alone. There have been hundreds of cases where an editor has written "Nashua" when they meant "Nashua, New Hampshire", causing readers to have to go through a disambiguation page when they could have gone directly to the link. It also requires editors cleaning up the ambiguous links to go through the repetitive task of pointing to the Nashua city over and over again. Moving the page would save a lot of readers and a lot of editors a lot of time. --Ken Gallager (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. On the flip-side, what breaks if the move succeeds? Nothing. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That breaks things for all the readers who type "Nashua" rather than "Nashua (horse)" or who are looking for any of the many other meanings. Jonathunder (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, judging by page views, by moving it we fix it for 77% and break it for 23%, rather than leave it broken for 100% the way it is now. If that's not a good reason to move an article, what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, based on the last links to the page, we avoid redirecting people who wanted the horse to the city. Page views are not a perfect measure of what readers want. The fact that most of the links that needed dabing were for the horse tells you something. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2009 (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:Nashua&oldid=1079892717"