Talk:Sloboda

Definition

@Altenmann: "East Slavic lands" is vague, in my opinion. What counts as "East Slavic lands"? Is it the whole territory of modern-day Belarus, Russia and Ukraine? Does it refer to Rus? Some of these lands were part of colonization at the time or formerly inhabited by Cumans, Tatars etc, so can we consider these territories as part of "East Slavic lands"? There was also the German Sloboda, and so on. Mellk (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is intentionally vague. It is lands inhabited by East Slavs, who used the term 'sloboda'. Russian sources say "medieval Russia" or something. - Altenmann >talk 17:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

"East Slavic lands" implies they were native to these all these territories, rather than settlers. Mellk (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Nope. But I changed the lede to avoid the dispute. - Altenmann >talk 18:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Page move

It is generally a bad idea to move a page created 20 years ago. - Altenmann >talk 22:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Um, {{citation needed}} :D --Joy (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2024

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

---

• Sloboda → Sloboda (settlement)
• Sloboda (disambiguation) → Sloboda

– This word means "freedom" in the original Slavic languages, and while there is a significant usage in Russian and Ukrainian history as well as some usage in modern-day Russian administrative divisions, described at this presumed primary topic, its usage and long-term significance does not actually overshadow the ambiguity over the other uses of the word for the average English reader.

In preparation for this move, I went through the list of ~200 incoming links to preemptively disambiguate them. The usage is typically clerical, to explain the strange term, which is most commonly placed in italics. This indicates that the fact that the explanation was directly at "sloboda" was a very easy way to get the etymological explanation. However, that's a possible description of editor behavior, which is not necessarily the reader behavior (WP:RF).

It should also be noted that Russian toponymy lists are quite weird from the perspective of a navigation purpose for set indices, with an apparent habit of linking these kinds of terms contrary to what MOS:DABONE would advise. It's not that I'm opposed to having a link somewhere in such a set index to explain the term, but the volume of this skews the statistics.

After going through the list, I was left with 19 links (~10%) where I couldn't identify a clear connection to this particular subject. Mostly they seemed to be generic references to the Slavic word for "freedom". This also extended to Russian topics. Some were references to specific places named Sloboda, not the concept. I had also disambiguated numerous others by linking Foobar Svoboda instead of keeping a largely useless partial link (sadly I didn't keep a count of these to be able to note the percentage).

A search in Google Books for me does not identify this meaning to be primary - I get more references to people named this way. Likewise for Google Scholar. I don't have reason to believe that this would differ for the average English reader.

WikiNav for Sloboda and meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream archive indicate that the hatnote is consistently one of the most commonly clicked links on the page - even in months where we see a larger readership, it's still among the most commonly clicked links (for example in March '24, with 162 clickstreams to 9 identified destinations, the hatnote was #3 with 17). This is typically indicative of a navigation issue.

Another editor reverted the initial preparatory move, thinking this broke links (it did not) and saying this changes a 'long established' status quo - I don't see an actual rationale there. Just because this grew organically as is - doesn't mean it's not subject to evaluation and adjustment.

In addition, similar terms like svoboda and swoboda are not short-circuiting here and are indeed disambiguated, so this change would seem to make things more consistent. Joy (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the very fact that there were " ~200 incoming links" the nom had to go through says that the term is well-entrenched in its primary meaning as a type of settlement. There are other similar articles about types of settlement: kibbutz, kampong, Village, Kishlak, Miasteczko, Lhota, ... accompanied with disambig pages. - Altenmann >talk 01:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • P.S. regarding "similar terms like svoboda and swoboda" - these do not have individual meanings. - Altenmann >talk 01:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, I can't find any proof that it is well-entrenched. As mentioned above, I couldn't even find proof that it was well-entrenched in Russian usage, where we have ambiguous usage already in the articles. Please demonstrate a rationale for that sweeping assertion. This list of examples is incoherent - it includes both the common English word "village" and a variety of foreign examples that are nowhere near its status for the average English reader (also, not the average geography and history enthusiast). --Joy (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Russia/Human geography of Russia task force, WikiProject Russia, and WikiProject Ukraine have been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 24 August 2024

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

---

• Sloboda → Sloboda (settlement)
• Sloboda (disambiguation) → Sloboda

– Everything I said three months ago in #Requested move 22 May 2024 still holds, we just had so little interest. In summary, there is no primary topic here. I believe I addressed the sole complaint. Here's hoping we'll get more people to read this now.

In the meantime, the usage statistics continue to show the same picture of a lack of a primary topic, the topics most commonly navigated to are consistently not about the settlement meaning. (See Clickstreams from the last three months hidden box below.)

Even if we're unsure, I say we should move it and then do the same measurements again later, and see if reader behavior indicates we need to keep or revert. -- Joy (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans 03:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Clickstreams from the last three months

From meta:Research:Wikipedia clickstream:

clickstream-enwiki-2024-05.tsv:

• Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 28
• Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 12
• Sloboda Boyar link 12
• total: 52 to 3 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-06.tsv:

• Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 32
• Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 12
• Sloboda Boyar link 12
• total: 56 to 3 identified destinations

clickstream-enwiki-2024-07.tsv:

• Sloboda Sloboda_(disambiguation) link 17
• Sloboda Sloboda_Ukraine link 16
• Sloboda Boyar link 13
• total: 46 to 3 identified destinations

• The clicksteream is misleading, because somebody (do you know who it must be, no?) created and wikilinked Sloboda (settlement). Aslo Sloboda Ukraine listed there is not called "Sloboda" because in the term "Sloboda" is an adjectiove. Therefore checking for it is irrelevant. --Altenmann >talk 22:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  No, the way the clickstream system works is that all the traffic to the redirects is merged with traffic to the destination title.

  What might actually be misleading is that there's a lot of mentions of this term that are internally linked, and they contribute to the incoming traffic by inflating the apparent traffic looking for the meaning of the name of the settlement type. This is again why I advise against reading too much into what happens because of what Wikipedia editors did, rather we should look at what reliable sources do.

  The fact that readers are using the word to navigate to Sloboda Ukraine may be technically wrong, but that doesn't matter. The encyclopedia describes, it does not prescribe. If the common uses of a word don't match a clean, neat definition, that is not a problem as such, it's just ambiguity. Pretending we don't see that ambiguity would in turn be problematic. --Joy (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose yes there is a primary topic: the meaning of the word. I underestand when Madonna beats Saint Mary in links, but here it is not the case. None of the items in dab page sticks out, therefore Common sense must prevail. --Altenmann >talk 18:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's a self-defeating argument as the meaning of the word isn't just the settlement type. Per WP:DPT, Being the original source of the name is also not determinative.

  None of the items in the dab page need to stick out - we are not obligated to choose a single topic as primary, it's perfectly normal for there to be none. For niche foreign terms that the average English reader is not typically aware of, it's likewise common sense for that to happen. --Joy (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Not determinative, but a valid argument lacking other competitors. In this particular case there is a huge number of "What links here" wikilinks, so the main meaning is definitely "sticking out". --Altenmann >talk 22:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  I already answered this last time around in the nomination, but here's another try: the problem with judging anything based on WhatLinksHere is that this assumes reader behavior matches editor behavior. These two may or may not actually match. Indeed, when I looked at other sources in this case, they do not. --Joy (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  description of editor behavior -- I care more about editor behavior, who do the work, rather than reader's behavior, who not only do work, but often complain and nag. --Altenmann >talk 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  The article is about a type of settlement, not the word ''freedom''. Killuminator (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. All the more it is primary meaning. --Altenmann >talk 23:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

  This is non sequitur - just because the existing article happens to describe another meaning, that does not imply the described meaning is necessarily primary. --Joy (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Sloboda (settlement type) as there are actual specific settlements with this name. The company has 573 views, the rural locality has 30, the surname has 28, the Podkarpackie one has 9 and the Podlaskie one has 7 compared with only 409 for the settlement type[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  And if you really want to be fair to general reader interest, all the traffic to biographies of people named Sloboda also matter, so the analogous link would be this where we can also see another 11-12 cumulative views a day already. And this'd all probably get a bit more views if they weren't hidden between two extra clicks as they are now. --Joy (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relist, both to discuss whether a primary topic exists, and if the current title is not the primary topic whether Sloboda (settlement) or Sloboda (settlement type) should be used BilledMammal (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal it would be helpful if you could explain what makes you believe the idea that a primary topic exists, because AFAICT we still just have only unreferenced assertions. --Joy (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Altenmann. None of the entries on the dab page look like they match the WP:PTOPIC criterion of long-term significance that the settlement type enjoys, they're mostly low-key entities. Best to stick with the status quo.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Amakuru but what is this long-term significance of the settlement topic? It's a designation that existed in one part of the world, not English speaking, between the 16th and 18th centuries. Its use spanned a significant part of the Slavic-speaking world, but it didn't even span most of it. Today all that remains of it is the smattering of mentions in toponymy. How does the long-term significance of that compare to the long-term significance of the more generic word for freedom, which is used in a variety of other fields of endeavour, not limited to that part of the Slavic-speaking world?

  And, again, this sidesteps the more basic issue of how none of this matters much for the average English reader, who does not recognize these meanings anyway, the primary topic is not fixing any WP:ASTONISH problem whatsoever, as it's all foreign words anyway. --Joy (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  Well that might be so, but the freedom meaning, aside from not being English, also doesn't have an encyclopedic entry and isn't really under consideration for the primary topic per WP:NOTDICT. People may not have heard of the settlements, but that doesn't really make much difference per WP:NWFCTM; the main point is that the other meanings are still minor in comparison.

  Correct. For example Kremlin trumps all other kremlins hence it sits as it is now in Wikipedia, but the generic term "sloboda" is way more common than other inidividual meanings, as you may judge by numerous pages than link to Sloboda (settlement), a redirect created by Joy "running ahead of the cart". --Altenmann >talk 16:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Altenmann again, the mass of links towards the settlement is not indicative of reader interest, but editor behavior. Just because there's a lot of these individual settlements that want to link to somewhere to explain their etymology - that does not imply that their specific meaning is primary in general. --Joy (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Amakuru but that's not true, it indirectly does have encyclopedic entries because all of these various meanings have that same etymology. The documented non-settlement meanings significantly dilute the idea that the settlement meaning could be primary topic. If the average English reader is perhaps more likely to have heard of people named Sloboda, sports clubs, companies, places, ..., then short-circuiting them to read a comparatively irrelevant settlement meaning is just weird and risks astonishing them. --Joy (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  BTW, I noticed that we've had one of the companies documented only for the last two years, and it's not even linked from a navigation box, but as soon as it appeared, its readership quickly rose to roughly the same level that the settlement type article receives at the base name - here's the all-time monthly graph.

  Notice also how the amount of traffic going through the (settlement) redirect also now corresponds to roughly the same level of traffic. Likewise WikiNav for Sloboda says that about 50% of the incoming traffic is recognized to come from these other articles. (If we complete the move, this traffic remains entirely undisturbed.)

  That means that only about 50% of the existing interest coming from elsewhere is organic traffic that may be interested in the settlement type article (may because there's still those two dozen incoming links that are actually ambiguous, too).

  These are the August clickstreams entries the WikiNav graphs are based on:

  • other-search Sloboda external 234
  • other-empty Sloboda external 151
  • other-search Sloboda_(company) external 175
  • other-empty Sloboda_(company) external 90

  That's 385 vs 265, and it's not really 385 because some of that organic traffic could well be misplaced because we also see 26 clickstreams to the hatnote in the same month. So this single company's organic readership is in the same ballpark as that of the settlement type topic - even if our current navigation hides it behind two extra clicks. Let alone the readership of all those other topics.

  Hence we can not say that all other meanings are minor by comparison. The readers are already telling us that by showing up in all these other places despite of how our navigation is organized.

  Here's the updated mass views for all time as well, it's missing the traffic to the company because I just disambiguated that, but it does now show traffic to football clubs. (Mass views of all time for people are here)

  --Joy (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  In other words, statistically, if a reader wants to know about an unknown "Sloboda" then making it a disambig saves the reader a single mouse click most of the time. This makes sense, although beats my senses. I care more about workload of editors rather than of freeloaders. --Altenmann >talk 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  To the first sentence, yes, that's how it looks. We should change it, and then come back after a few more months of stats to verify whether that was indeed the case. It's easy enough to make further changes if necessary.

  I don't think we should treat our readers as freeloaders, as the point of a free encyclopedia is to spread knowledge, which kinda has to mean it needs to be read by those who do not edit :)

  As I already contributed the work to disambiguate the links, there is no substantial extra workload of editors involved any more.

  Thanks! --Joy (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Amakuru is it okay with you, too, that we run this test? --Joy (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  No, respectfully, it is not OK. I have opposed this move request because the settlement is the primary topic by long-term significance, and it was also not moved due to lack of consensus earlier in the year. I don't see a consensus here either so there is absolutely no justification for making the move despite this. Why was a second request even opened when nothing had substantially changed? It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sigh. I'll just say that this claim of disruptive editing is at odds at the fact Altenmann and myself just made progress in this consensus-building discussion. --Joy (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unlike Altenmann, I favor user ease over editor ease, when there is a conflict. I don’t see one here. Whenever a PT is questioned, I often find the Google test to be most illuminating. In this case the first result is a link to this article. That indicates Google’s algorithms have determined this article is sought by more users than any other on the entire internet when users Google with “sloboda”. So by having this article at the base title we are efficiently serving all users looking for the most likely target, and everyone else looking for a more obscure use is one click away from the dab page. That’s as good as it gets. Sending everyone to the dab page would not be an improvement. —В²C ☎ 19:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Born2cycle Your Google test is dependent on your browser's interaction with Google search - your location, session cookies, and any further information it derived about your interests beforehand. It is not necessarily determinative of the average user experience, and you can't make any assumptions that the same thing happens for all other users on the entire internet. It could also be the case that the algorithm didn't have particular insights with regard to this topic for your search session, and it just took the current Wikipedia navigation at face value and tried showing you that, meaning if we changed it - it would also change. --Joy (talk) 07:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh, please. I used an incognito tab. The idea that after over two decades of accumulating user search data that Google would have no particular insights for anyone searching with “sloboda” is absurd. So is the idea that Google might use WP navigation somehow. Yes, use of sloboda in English is low. But this use is not as low as the others, by significant margin. Unless there is a PT by historical significance, that’s plenty. And I’d argue this use is historically significant anyway. As Amakuru (an admin perhaps better versed in WP titling than any other) said, it’s time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. —В²C ☎ 09:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Using an incognito tab only prevents giving them hints about your history, but they still see the same IP address, hence usually they can apply the same geolocation, and the same browser user agent which can likewise be a hint, and the same language choices, screen layout, etc etc. You don't have to trust me on this - simply use tools such as https://amiunique.org/fingerprint to see how this works, in the incognito tab, and see how identifiable that browser session of yours is.

  Nobody's arguing that they don't have insights for anyone searching with that term, but we have no evidence that it gave you a result that is so generic that it can be extrapolated to the entire relevant population. I'd be happy if we could get such evidence, but TTBOMK that's not possible, so we should avoid such claims, and should instead look for other avenues of analysis.

  For example, we could also try to see what is the rest of the results you got, on the first page? Are they all about the same settlement type topic, or are there indications of ambiguity? For me, it also shows other meanings.

  With regard to this use of Sloboda being not as low as the others by significant margin - I'm not sure where you're seeing that, because we already talked about how other topics get much more readership. Here's another link to page views of some of the most popular items. If arbitrary places, people, companies and sports teams get comparable or larger readership than the settlement type article, it's just not the primary topic by usage. We can't use that data to say that e.g. 8 out of 10 average English readers recognize "sloboda" as just the settlement type and everything else is unusual. It's all similarly unusual.

  I'm happy that you acknowledge that other people are perhaps better versed in WP titling than others. I wish you also had a look at WP:CONS, which advises using reasons to build consensus, as opposed to assertions. Bringing up meaningless accusations of tendentious editing, as opposed to simply analyzing the argument presented, is not helpful. --Joy (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Look, I’m Googling for “sloboda” from an English speaking country and Google’s algorithms think I’m most likely looking for this article. If you think you’re a better judge of what people are likely searching for than are Google’s algorithms, then that explains much. That said, immediately after this page in the results is Sloboda Ukraine. This, along with the page views you linked, certainly shows this is not a clear PT. But I still think users are no better off if all searchers of “sloboda” are taken to a dab page. Taking them here, with a hatnote link to the dab page, is better. —В²C ☎ 15:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yesterday I also checked with a British colleague who told me they get #1 our current article for Sloboda and #2 Sloboda football club. They didn't even try to flame me about it, hint hint :) So for them, Google's algorithm showed ambiguity, just like it did for you. Yes, it also sorted the list in a way that had the Wikipedia first choice on top, and that's what we should continue to do in our dab page list.

  We don't have any tools to be able to discern whether showing people this article when they weren't looking for it actually leads them to read it. If we show them a dab page, at least we give them a neutral list that requires an action that is logged, and from those clickstream logs we can then try to analyze usage. If we find that nearly all of them go and read the settlement type article from there, it's easy enough to revert and save them that extra click. If we find that few of them do that, and instead we saved the extra clicks for other topics, then we keep the improvement. --Joy (talk) 07:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  If we dont have any tools, then don't touch it. Also WP:POINT: your suggesion is a disruptive experiment. --Altenmann >talk 16:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  As I've explained over and over again, if we move it, then we have better tools to measure actual reader interest.

  There is no disruption in trying to help readers navigate better based on existing body of clues that they could use that help.

  I honestly at this point don't understand this level of seemingly knee-jerk opposition to such a harmless proposition. --Joy (talk) 09:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  I honestly at this point don't understand this level of healdong insistence opposition to such a commomn-sense "if it works, don't fix it". 14:58, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's the difference - we don't really know that it works. --Joy (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, messing with Wikipedia text or structure is not a proper way of doing research. In fact, it is a disruption. You have to know something for sure before acting. "Let us try and see what happens" is a wrong Tao/Do/Way. --Altenmann >talk 18:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's not just "research", and I've given a multitude of data points about that already. I'm sorry, continuing this argument based on apparent opinion as opposed to data - is meaningless. --Joy (talk) 08:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is your suggested “solution” applies to any PT article: “we don’t really know if this works so let’s put the dab page at the basename so we have better tools to measure reader interest.” That’s why we need strong evidence that the article currently at the base name is not the PT, and strong evidence that some other article is the PT. Otherwise we just don’t have a problem worth solving. —В²C ☎ 22:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

  No, it does not apply to any PT article. I've provided evidence of with references to various statistics from Wikipedia, Google Books, comparison with similar terms on Wikipedia, etc. Each of these data sources can be consulted for any other PT article, and for actual primary topics they will most likely give different results.

  For example, a lookup of "Brahms" in Google Books gives me an entire page full of Johannes Brahms results, indicating their data supports the idea that most readers want that primary topic - and completely different from what a lookup of "Sloboda" in Google Books gives, where I basically can't find a discussion of the settlement type until search page #4, result #45, where a book author relays Russian dictionary information including various 'archaic' meanings (page 48 of "Russia at a Crossroads").

  It's certainly more evidence than any of what I've seen in response. Your claim that e.g. only #1 general Google hit is what matters and what is #2 doesn't matter at all - is not strong evidence for an existence of primary topic and a lack of ambiguity by any known standard.

  The fact that I am happy to discuss various uncertainties in my own argument is not evidence of a lack of strength of the overall argument.

  Opposition by blind assertion, on the other hand, borders WP:status quo stonewalling. --Joy (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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.