This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Wikimania 2020 |
Bangkok, Thailand – 05-08-2020 |
End (optional) |
Local Time ( ) |
Regional notice boards |
---|
Africa |
Americas |
Asia |
Europe |
Oceania |
Languages |
See also: WikiProject directory |
Help requested
Hello, I have been working on the article SS Germanic (1874), which operated under Ottoman/Turkish ownership for many years. The article says the ship was renamed from Gul Djemal to Gülcemal in the 1920s, however my understanding is, this was more of a re-spelling of the name than a renaming, as I understand that the Turkish alphabet was altered around this time. However, I don't speak Turkish, so I thought I would ask here for assistance from any Turkish speakers. G-13114 (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hi G-13114. Your interpretation is correct, there indeed doesn't seem to have been any renaming - the Latinised Turkish alphabet was adopted in 1928 and Gul Djemal is an outdated rendering of Gülcemal as transcribed from the previous alphabet. I'll also ping Khutuck, who likes to work on the warship articles on tr.wiki; he may be of further assistance. --GGT (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
RfC: Turkish village stub mass redirect
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Firstly, there is strong community precedent and consensus that proposed mass blanks-and-redirects should be discussed through AfD (and not, for example, RfCs at WikiProject pages). This is not the proper venue to make such a proposal.
Secondly, (and I mention this as only as a minor point) not all relevant community discussion venues were notified. I will note that the OP made some efforts to attract more participation, but projects like WP:CITIES were not notified.
Thirdly, only 8 editors participated in the discussion. Therefore, as this discussion had low participation it is in my honest opinion an insufficient level of participation to determine a consensus commensurate to the hundreds of articles it would apply to due to the controversial nature of the options proposed, in light of the context discussed in the next paragraph.
Finally, this RfC's options as proposed have serious effects on the application of WP's notability guidelines (namely WP:NGEO). These notability guidelines and how the community expects them to be applied have strong, wide consensus and as such the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of a WikiProject that villages in their scope should not have their own article cannot override conflicting, wider community consensus on the criteria upon which villages are judged notable enough to have a stand-alone article.
Thus, any result to this RfC either in support of the options provided by OP, a rejection of these, or of no consensus would be moot. In light of this, I strongly encourage editors in this discussion to continue it at a more applicable venue such as WT:NGEO (with a notification at WP:VPP and all related WikiProjects) if they seek a wider and explicit consensus on if redirecting is the best way for Wikipedia to cover village and neighborhood stubs. If they wish to propose an explicit set of articles to be mass blanketed-and-redirected, they should start an AfD discussion. I make no comment on the applicability of WP:AWBRULES to this discussion. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Should Turkish village/neighbourhood stubs that meet one of the following criteria be redirected to a list in the District-level article? –dlthewave ☎ 18:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- A: Articles consisting of "X is a village in Y district" referenced to an unreliable source such as Koyumuz (e.g. Sazak).
- B: Articles consisting of "X is a village in Y district" referenced to a reliable government population table or database (e.g. Karataş)
- C: Articles consisting of "X is a village in Y district. The village is populated by Kurds." (e.g. Düdüklük). This is an "add-on" for articles that also mention Kurds and would only kick in if there's consensus to redirect under A or B.
Please choose any combination of A, B or C. I propose using AWB to mass-redirect these stubs to lists in the District-level article such as the one at Çınar, Diyarbakır. Only geographic coordinates would be preserved, with no objection to others adding population tables at a later time or re-creating articles with significant coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 18:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I've been cleaning up Turkish geostubs created by Lugnuts based on prior discussions [1][2][3] which I believe show consensus to redirect any stub that's sourced only to Koyumuz. I'm opening this discussion to seek further consensus for cases where an additional source was cited, or where government tables/databases were used for mass creation. –dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- C is clearly problematic. First off, information on articles, particularly if sourced reliably, must be preserved unless it violates any other core content policies, so a simple redirect would never be acceptable, a merge of that information would be required at the very least. We have observed so far that the use of semi-automated tools to help with this is proving... error-prone, to say the least. This information may often come with caveats e.g. the name of the Kurdish tribe, the religious affiliation of the Kurds in the village, and I simply do not trust that this could be handled reliably with AWB. It must be remembered that this whole redirection process was started in response to the meatbot-ish mass creation of geostubs. Where the articles have expanded beyond this with actual human attention, I think semi-automated redirects are unwarranted and unhelpful, as a matter of principle. There has been demonstrable interest in people adding at least a sentence to these articles, so they could be expanded further and need individual notability discussions on AfD as a matter of principle - for more details, please see my comments and the closing remarks on this AfD.
- Whilst we're at it, there are other aspects to discuss. I also don't really agree with the way that these redirects are being carried out to essentially dump a database of inhabited places on district articles. On the AfD people have argued that "a good article might help the readers better" but that is clearly not the case in reality. Even with Alanya, a featured article, the list of "neighbourhoods" just looks out of place, awkward and frankly unhelpful. People must remember that Turkish district centres are actually towns, and that unlike American counties, we don't have separate articles for Turkish districts as opposed to the district centre towns. Many Turkish centres are barely more than tiny stubs so this results in clunky, lopsided articles with an undue information on the rural areas (see Adıyaman, Çınar, Diyarbakır). For this reason I'm not too keen on any redirection, but this objection is outweighed in the cases where the only source in the article is an unreliable one (so A is acceptable). When this information is more than just the name/coordinates, the articles start to become very clunky (see Baskil). As such, the amount of information being merged per village should be kept to a bare minimum, so I'd be opposed to even merging in the case of C - standalone articles are the best way to organise this information.
- A somewhat unrelated but important note: for non-metropolitan municipalities, these are not "neighbourhoods", they are villages. Please be sure to check for every district to use correct terminology for redirecting.
- --GGT (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- GGT, some editors have suggested redirecting to "List of villages/neighbourhoods in X district". Would this address your concerns about clunky town articles? –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be a significant improvement. It would still not be sufficient to justify allowing the use of a semi-automated tool to redirect articles containing reliably sourced information (or expanded otherwise), however. These always need to be assessed on a case-to-case basis, as per this AfD. The list suggestion does not entirely solve the problem, for instance, having the ethnicity info for only the Kurdish-inhabited villages would also not be preferable. It is the Köyümüz-derived articles that caused the original concern, and I see no rationale to expand AWB use beyond this. --GGT (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- GGT, some editors have suggested redirecting to "List of villages/neighbourhoods in X district". Would this address your concerns about clunky town articles? –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- A Mass redirecting articles that includes removing reliably sourced population information is very disruptive, an abuse of AWB, and should not even be listed as an option. If it goes ahead it should be reconsidered at WP:ANI in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 08:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- Redirect all to district - Unreliably sourced information should not be kept so "A" has to go. Population data can just as easily be presented in a table at district level, particularly given the very small populations of some of these units, so "B" is also a good redirect. "Kurds live here" is not a meaningful statement in a country with a substantial Kurdish population and adds nothing to the article, so "C" goes as well. Obviously this is all with the caveat that where expansion into a full article is possible this should be done. FOARP (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Non of the above It is egregious to assume that all (village) stubs should/must be redirected to another article, and the three links provided above, do not backup this assumption. The ANI discussion was focused on mass creation and not notability, two very different areas of WP. Reading through the comments of the AfD, it's a rough 50/50 split of redirect vs. keep. That AfD was from almost a year ago, with multiple recent AfDs now favouring keep (details below). The mass creation discussion was at the same time of that AfD, and ultimately created a lot of heat and noise on the back of mass creations of Iranian villages, where the issue there was that those places simply did not exist. Mass creation (on my part) has now ceased.
- On that last point, there are two vastly different issues. The places in Iran did not/do not exist, while the places in Turkey do exist. Infact each village I created already had a corresponding article on the Turkish WP, along with multiple other wikis (Armenia, Germany, and others). Wikipedia:Five pillars, one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, clearly states under point one that "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". The counter arguement is just an essay. All of the villages in Turkey are populated places (many with several hundred, if not thousands of people living there). This meets the requirements of WP:GEOLAND, a long established Wikipedia notability guideline.
- Three very recent AfDs (closed 20th Dec 21, closed 30th Dec 21, closed 8 Jan 22) have ALL been closed as Keep. The last, closed by an admin, had the closing rationale of "articles about villages are kept as long as the requirements of WP:GEOLAND are met, even if the detail provided in the article is minimal". The OP started this RfC whilst all three of those AfDs were either live or had been very recently closed as keep, which could be viewed as forum shopping ("Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages").
- The village of Akuşağı, Baskil was included in the AfD that was closed on the 30th Dec. Thanks to the work of editors @Styyx and GGT:, this was expanded and appeared on the front page of WP as a DYK on 8th Jan 21. Multiple other villages, either nominated on their own or in a group bundle from those three recent AfDs, have also been expanded. The OP has stated that they "propose using AWB to mass-redirect these stubs" which is clealy against the rules of use for AWB ("Do not make controversial edits with it"). Such redirects done en-masse have been reversed by other editors as "inappropriate", and have been labled as "disruptive" in this very thread.
- A final observation - Why just Turkey? Why not other villages in other countries? Well on 11th Dec, the OP tried to delete about 60 villages in Azerbaijan via WP:PROD. A month has now passed and none of those articles have either a) been redirected or b) sent to AfD, which seems quite puzzling based on the modus operandi of redirecting and/or deleting similar village articles. In conclusion, I feel this RfC is flawed (bad RfC?) with a loaded question based on an assumption of everything must be redirected. I've now put my points across, and hope that the OP and the single supporter of redirecting don't feel the need to bludgeon every rationale I've listed, as I don't want to engage in further protracted discussions, as we both have opposite points of view on this issue. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Lugnuts, I respect your wish not to engage further, especially when it comes to differences in opinion. I do have one question: How best to handle the thousands of remaining Koyumuz-sourced stubs, if not by redirecting? Are you still working on replacing Koyumuz references with a more reliable source? –dlthewave ☎ 19:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- Aren't villages (as opposed to suburbs and hamlets) not generally inherently notable especially if they have a stated population? Until November last year when the OP changed NPLACE to specify that they must be legally recognized but this seems to be the case anyway here at least with B and yes the argument that the population could be covered in a table is an argument that could apply to any place so doesn't seem persuasive. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- Support all. These are database entries, not articles, and as such violate WP:NOTDATABASE. These articles should all be replaced with a line in a list, until someone wishes to take on the task of writing something more than a database entry on the topic - if coverage ever exists for such a creation. BilledMammal (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Bad RfC. I initially came here to close the RfC from a request on WP:RFCLOSE, but upon reading the arguments I'm rather shocked at the misunderstanding of WP:CONLEVEL present in this discussion that many !voters have implicitly endorsed. There is already a community consensus on how to handle contested blanking and redirecting; there is a community consensus against using processes for this other than AfD—in the 2021 RfC, editors almost unanimously agreed that contested blanking and redirecting should be resolved at WP:AFD. This RfC, in and of itself, attempts to evade that normal process by creating a discussion on a WikiProject page. WP:CONLEVEL is clear:
Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.
And, on top of that, this is likely not the only relevant WikiProject for many of those sorts of articles—Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities comes to mind—so opening an RfC here is not an appropriate way to obtain a community consensus. In this light, using WP:AWB to mass-redirect a bunch of these articles based off of a Wikiproject-level discussion seems like a great way to violate WP:AWBRULES, which specifies that users mustseek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue
before making them. As this RfC is not capable of finding consensus to engage in mass redirects because it is at an utterly incorrect venue, none of the above seems to be the best substantial response to the RfC prompt. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Please help me
Greetings,
Hi, I am User:Bookku, my expectations to get expanded Black sea related articles failed miserably. I am expecting and requesting at least some help in expanding the article Draft:List of erstwhile slave trading townships with regions surrounding Black sea. In next steps I wish to have a proper map showing erstwhile slave trading townships across black sea.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- "Erstwhile slave-trading [Black Sea] townships" doesn't appear to be an encyclopedic topic. I do not believe it would pass the WP:Notability test, because "townships around the Black Sea that formerly engaged in the slave trade" is not a topic unto itself that is subject to in-depth coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. It wouldn't even make a good WP:Category, because it's not a defining characteristic of those places. Better off creating an article on the historical slave trade in the Black Sea region, and integrating those place names into that regular article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Turkish language help
At Van cat, the wording a couple of years ago was:
named Van kedi (plural kediler or kedileri, possessive genitive kedisi) in Turkish
This was changed to:
named Van kedisi (plural kedileri) in Turkish
Which (if either) of these is correct, and is there a citable way to prove it? I have certainly run into this variety of cat being called Van kedi in Turkish sources, but that doesn't tell us anything about the grammatical relationship between kedi, kedisi, kediler, and kedileri. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
PS: That article could use additional neutral-minded watchlisters. It is subject to bouts of slow-moving editwarring, mostly to censor Kurd-related information out of it, and sometimes to censor it of Armenian details (conversely sometimes to inject irrelevant Armenian details like Lake Van being in an area sometimes called the Armenian Highlands [4]). Also caught someone trying to whitewash out some sourced criticism of a Turkish institution. It's a weird article to attract ethno-nationalistic conflict, but it nevertheless does. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 10:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hi SMcCandlish, native Turkish speaker here. "Van kedisi" is definitely the correct version in Turkish and "Van kedi" is definitely incorrect. That is because as a phrase consisting of two nouns in Turkish (isim tamlaması), the second noun would usually need the suffix -i (inflected as required, -si here) to make sense. Likewise, the correct plural form would be "Van kedileri" and not "Van kediler". Whoever wrote the incorrect version was probably a learner of Turkish, this is a mistake often seen in those who don't yet completely have a grasp of Turkish grammar.
- You may have seen instances of "Van kedi" as part of larger phrases incorporating more nouns or so forth e.g. "Van Kedi Evi", which literally means "Van House for Cats" (i.e. not strictly limited to Van cats only) - note that this actually has a subtle difference from "Van Kedisi Evi" i.e. "House for Van Cats", which would be understood as taking in only Van cats.
- This is WP:SKYBLUE territory for native speakers of Turkish but you can also sort of confirm this by looking at the translations of the keywords in papers such as this. --GGT (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @GGT: Thank you for these details. :-) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Levantine Arabic FAC
Levantine Arabic is a FAC and any review would be more than welcome. Levantine is spoken historically in Hatay and nearby provinces but with the Syrian Civil War, millions of Levantine speakers now live in the rest of Turkey. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Yakamoz S-245
The new Turkish-language Netflix TV series now has a draft page: Draft:Yakamoz S-245. Referencing might benefit from information in Turkish, which is going to be easier to come by to start, and there is also a tr Wikipedia stub. Consider contributing! Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)