Talk:Churu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primary topic[edit]

Thanks for creating the page, Paradoctor. I haven't looked at the other articles, but just judging by the pageviews you've linked it appears that the city is a clear primary topic: districts and electoral constituencies named after a city aren't really relevant here, and the convention at least for South Asia has been that the city will be the primary topic with respect to the district. All the other topics listed on the dab page look pretty obscure. – Uanfala (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: You're welcome. ;)
I am currently dabbing links to Churu. From what I have seen so far, at least half of them are actually intended to go to Churu district. This, in concert with the fact that Churu accreted views from all the other, makes it likely that the current view ratio would go from 3:4 to 5:2 for the district. Going back further in time, it turns out that the two constituency articles accrued significant views of their own. In total, the city has gotten about half the total views. Remember, that was while snatching away page views from the other topics.
More importantly, as long as the software doesn't recognize dab hatnotes at a redirect's target and warns editors, people will add links we have to clean up. And people coming from external search engines will have the same problem. Or those optimistic fools, who, like me, type in article names as if they were unique. :P If it was up to me, I would move all ambiguous topics to properly ambiguated titles and plant a million dab pages. It just ain't worth the hassle.
Feel free to contest the speedy, but I I'll put it up for deletion in that case. If I'm alone in this, I'd like to know that. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 00:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it were up to me, we'd have a lot more dab pages too, but sometimes there are clear primary topics. What you're proposing here is unorthodox, I've only seen towns displaced from the primary topic by the district article in extremely unusual circumstances. The pageviews, or the abundance of links intended for the district, don't look particularly unusual (You could try looking at pageviews for some other city–district pairs in the region: some districts receive a lot less, but in many cases the figures will be broadly comparable). I think the most appropriate step for you now would be an RM discussion. – Uanfala (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala: (Sorry for not noticing earlier.) "I've only seen towns displaced from the primary topic by the district article" Huh? I'm not proposing that. Never said anything about moving the district there. I want the disambiguation page at Churu! Paradoctor (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that in deciding primary topics for cities in South Asia, articles about the corresponding district and constituency are not taken into account. So for example, if you're comparing pageviews, you compare the views for the city with the views for all other articles with the name except the district and electoral constituencies. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?(v2) I don't see anything in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC even hinting at that. Paradoctor (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just take a look at the cities corresponding to any of the article in Category:Districts of India. And if you're looking for the reasons behind this state of affairs, consider that electoral districts aren't so much separate topics as they're subtopics of the city article, and districts aren't of much relevance as they're often a partial title match: users looking for the districts will type "Churu district", and users who type "Churu" will expect that to take them to the city article. – Uanfala (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"take a look at the cities" Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I submit that in these cases, either the facts are different, or the facts weren't taken into consideration.
"they're subtopics of the city" No. The city is part of the district, not the other way around. When a topic has little content, it can make sense to put it into an article about one of its subtopics. We do that all the time with monotypic genera. But this is not the case here. Otherwise, a merge would be in order, and this discussion would become obsolete. Apart from that, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says nothing about sub-/supertopic relation.
"users looking for the districts will type "Churu district", and users who type "Churu" will expect that to take them to the city article" Holy no! Remember that I said that half the incoming links to Churu were incorrect, and actually intended to point at Churu district? Those were editors. There is no reason to believe that our wider readership will be anymore careful, and likely less.
Maybe a little perspective will help? The city has ~100k inhabitants. The district has ~2000k, twenty times as much. That would explain why there is so much traffic on the district article, compared to the city. The overall urban population at 576k, that is almost five times that of Churu city. However you break it, there is nothing compelling us to believe the city is the primary topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you've misinterpreted what I wrote (it's the electoral divisions that are subtopics, not the districts) and I think you continue to misunderstand the topic area. Are you talking about links of the type [[Churu]] district]]? Anyway, if are convinced that the people who've worked in the topic area over the past two decades have all been wrong, you can go to WT:INDIA and tell them. – Uanfala (talk) 15:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do WP:AGF, okay? We're having a discussion. If there are misunderstandings, we can work them out. Are we at eye level on that? Paradoctor (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Churu (disambiguation) → Churu – Make way for dab page. No clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, see above. Paradoctor (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. ~ HAL333 04:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Far too many historically significant meanings for the term to unequivocally point to the current redirect target. BD2412 T 04:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brand name, too[edit]

There's a brand of cat treats named Churu, too: https://inabafoods.com/for-cats/ BlueIris2 (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueIris2: We need something to link to, which doesn't exist currently.
Their About page states that INABA is "the most popular brand of premium cat foods and treats in Japan". If you can find independent reliable sources confirming that, WP:NPRODUCT should be satisfiable, and you can create an article about the brand we can link to. You can look at other articles in Category:cat food brands to see what kind of sources are required. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could try https://cats.com/churu-cat-treat-review
However, I never create a page. The only time I created a couple of pages, some reviewer didn't like how I did it. So, I tweak existing pages and make suggestions like this. I do not create pages. BlueIris2 (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Someone else will, sooner or later. Paradoctor (talk) 05:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Churu&oldid=1200905494"