Talk:20 January 1920 Street, Bydgoszcz

Requested move 1 July 2022

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. Deadlock between supporters wanting to remove (to them) seemingly unnecessary disambiguators for concision and opponents believing that doing so would reduce recognizability was sustained despite many relists. Neither a consensus nor a better-argued side is apparent. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

---

• 20 January 1920 Street, Bydgoszcz → 20 Stycznia 1920 Street
• Adam Mickiewicz Alley, Bydgoszcz → Adam Mickiewicz Alley
• August Cieszkowski Street, Bydgoszcz → August Cieszkowski Street
• Babia Wieś Street, Bydgoszcz → Babia Wieś street
• Bernardyńska Street (Bydgoszcz) → Bernardyńska Street
• Chocimska Street, Bydgoszcz → Chocimska Street
• Chopina Street, Bydgoszcz → Chopina Street
• Doktora Emila Warmińskiego street in Bydgoszcz → Doktora Emila Warmińskiego street
• Długa Street, Bydgoszcz → Długa street
• Farna Street, Bydgoszcz → Farna Street
• Father Stanisław Konarski Street, Bydgoszcz → Father Stanisław Konarski Street
• Gdańsk Street, Bydgoszcz → Gdańska Street
• Gimnazjalna, Libelta and Szwalbego Streets, Bydgoszcz → Gimnazjalna, Libelta and Szwalbego streets
• Grunwaldzka Street, Bydgoszcz → Grunwaldzka street
• Jagiellońska Street, Bydgoszcz → Jagiellońska street
• Jan and Jędrzej Śniadecki Street, Bydgoszcz → Jan and Jędrzej Śniadecki Street
• Jana Karola Chodkiewicza Street, Bydgoszcz → Jana Karola Chodkiewicza Street
• Jana Zamoyskiego Street, Bydgoszcz → Jana Zamoyskiego Street
• Jezuicka Street, Bydgoszcz → Jezuicka Street
• Józef Weyssenhoff Square, Bydgoszcz → Józef Weyssenhoff Square
• Kopernika Street, Bydgoszcz → Kopernika Street
• Kołłątaja Street, Bydgoszcz → Kołłątaja street
• Kościelecki Square, Bydgoszcz → Kościelecki Square
• Krakowska Street, Bydgoszcz → Krakowska Street
• Królowej Jadwigi Street, Bydgoszcz → Królowej Jadwigi Street
• Kwiatowa Street (Bydgoszcz) → Kwiatowa Street
• Maksymiliana Piotrowskiego Street in Bydgoszcz → Maksymiliana Piotrowskiego Street
• Marcinkowskiego Street, Bydgoszcz → Marcinkowskiego street
• Markwarta Street, Bydgoszcz → Markwarta Street
• Marshal Ferdinand Foch Street, Bydgoszcz → Marshal Ferdinand Foch Street
• Mikołaja Reja Street, Bydgoszcz → Mikołaja Reja Street
• Nakielska Street, Bydgoszcz → Nakielska Street
• Obrońców Bydgoszczy Street, Bydgoszcz → Obrońców Bydgoszczy street
• Old Market square, Bydgoszcz → Old Market square
• Ossoliński Alley, Bydgoszcz → Ossoliński Alley
• Piastowski Square, Bydgoszcz → Piastowski Square
• Piotra Skargi Street, Bydgoszcz → Piotra Skargi Street
• Podwale Street, Bydgoszcz → Podwale Street
• Pomorska Street, Bydgoszcz → Pomorska Street
• Przyrzecze Street, Bydgoszcz → Przyrzecze Street
• Sielanka Street in Bydgoszcz → Sielanka Street
• Sielanka Estate, Bydgoszcz → Sielanka estate
• Stary Port Street, Bydgoszcz → Stary Port Street
• Staszica and Paderewskiego Streets, Bydgoszcz → Staszica and Paderewskiego Streets
• Swiętej Trojcy Street, Bydgoszcz → Swiętej Trojcy street
• Słowackiego Street, Bydgoszcz → Słowackiego Street
• Toruńska Street, Bydgoszcz → Toruńska Street
• Wool Market Square, Bydgoszcz → Wool Market square
• Zygmunt Krasiński Street, Bydgoszcz → Zygmunt Krasiński Street

– These being unique names in the encyclopedia, I see no reason why "in Bydgoszcz", or "(Bydgoszcz)", or ", Bydgoszcz" should be included in any of them. BD2412 T 05:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 09:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. These names exist in other cities. Indeed, placing these names in maps I get sent to other far more notable cities than this. I haven't checked them all, but it seems to me none of these are sufficiently well known by itself to merit doing away with the town location. If any are, they can be dealt on a case by case basis. Walrasiad (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Each of these titles is nominated because it is a unique name in the encyclopedia. There is nothing to disambiguate them against. BD2412 T 16:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not a unique name recognizable to readers, e.g. there are a gazillion Chopina streets in Poland. Practically every town has one. The article title should differentiate the one in Bydgoszcz from the ones in Warsaw, Krakow, etc., far larger and better known cities. Just because there happens not to be a current Wiki article dedicated to, say, Chopina Street in Katowice, doesn't mean there won't be one soon (heck, I can create one right now). And do you really imagine that commonplace names, e.g. "Old Market Square" or "Wool Market Square" (in English translation no less!) would be most recognized and associated by Wiki readers with Bydgoszcz? No offense, but Bydgoszcz is not a world-renowned city. And its local street names are not sufficiently unique nor well-known (particularly not in English translation) to readers to justify dropping the disambiguator. This is just a disservice to readers. Walrasiad (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There does not appear to be basis for considering readers as ill-served by the streamlined main title headers. The headers containing "(Bydgoszcz)" or "in Bydgoszcz" would still exist as redirects and the proposed forms are simply a matter of WP:CONSISTENT. A glance at sub-category entries under parent Category:Streets confirms that it is not standard practice to preemptively disambiguate by location streets / avenues etc, including those that are commonly named. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Consistent with what? Just comparing with other Polish cities, e.g. all the pages for streets in Warsaw are " X, Warsaw", those of Krakow are "X, Krakow", those in Katowice are "X, Katowice", etc. And these are better known cities. Seems standard to me. And certainly a better one for readers. Walrasiad (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I have stricken my below support vote and replaced it with neutral. You are indeed correct as far as street names in Polish cities are concerned and, in order to be WP:CONSISTENT, the proposed streamlined main title headers would need to be extended to all Polish cities, not simply to Bydgoszcz. I based my initial vote upon street names in some of the other countries, such as those under Category:Streets in the United Kingdom or Category:Streets in the United States. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Neutral. Other than five exceptions, the proposed main title headers are indeed unique to English Wikipedia and do not require the full descriptive title. The five exceptions are — 1) 3 Maja Street in Bydgoszcz / 3 Maja Street, Katowice; 2) Category:Dluga streets in Poland: Długa street in Bydgoszcz / Ulica Długa; 3) Grodzka Street in Bydgoszcz / Grodzka Street, Kraków; 4) Jagiellońska street in Bydgoszcz / Jagiellońska Street, Kraków and 5) Old Market square, Bydgoszcz / Old Market Square (disambiguation). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Good catches. I have redirected Old Market square to the disambiguation page. The other four should be disambiguation pages themselves. BD2412 T 00:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I see that someone has preemptively moved all of the "street in Bydgoszcz" titles to "street, Bydgoszcz" titles, which is probably an improvement, but still unnecessary disambiguation for titles appearing only once in the encyclopedia. BD2412 T 19:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. Any that are unique should be moved, but most of these probably aren't unique to Bydgoszcz. However, what I'm most uncomfortable with is the odd mixture of Polish and English. Either translate fully or retain in the original Polish (i.e. Ulica Foosta). For instance, Ulica Stary Port means "Old Harbour Street". Stary Port Street, Bydgoszcz is meaningless. Who would ever use it in real life? This is in no way WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Necrothesp: I am actually wondering how we came to have detailed articles on every major street in Bydgoszcz. BD2412 T 20:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm guessing a resident of Bydgoszcz created them. It's very comprehensive coverage! Along with pretty much every listed historic monument in the city, by the looks of it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, this streets aren't unique to Bydgoszcz, so the article name needs to include the name of the city Marcelus (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • This argument was refuted above. Restating it without even acknowledging the refutation, much less addressing it, is not productive. —В²C ☎ 07:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    • @Born2cycle: I don't really see the refutation Marcelus (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

      “Each of these titles is nominated because it is a unique name in the encyclopedia. There is nothing to disambiguate them against.”

      If they exist in other cities but have not established notability to be in WP, it doesn’t matter that they’re not unique to Bydgoszcz. They have to be covered in WP to warrant a possible disambiguation here. —В²C ☎ 14:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

      Agree, even if there are other streets in other cities that don't generally count unless they either have an article or should have one in which case the base names should becomes DAB pages. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

      @Born2cycle: this isn't refutation, but merely an opinion. If streets in Bydgoszcz are notable enough, then cities in other cities are also notable, and sooner or later they will have a WP article, only couple of them are truly unique for Bydgoszcz, literally less than 5 Marcelus (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

      I’m sorry. I assumed you knew how title decisions are made on WP. In deciding disambiguation, we don’t consider what articles may be created in the future. That would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. In title decision-making we also presume notability of topics that have articles, and lack of notability for articles that don’t. There are other contexts to deal with questions of notability. —В²C ☎ 07:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

      @Born2cycle:, first of all don't partonize me. Secondly this isn't violation of WP:CRYSTAL because we aren't foreseeing the future here. You are entitled to have your opinion on how the article should be named, and vote accordingly, same as I Marcelus (talk) 07:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

      We are entitled to our own opinions, but are not entitled to our own facts. Any decision relying on “sooner or later they will …” epitomizes a CRYSTAL violation. This is not the place to even speculate whether any topics without current coverage on WP will ever be considered sufficiently notable to have an article, and whether these other street articles will ever be created does not come close to meeting CRYSTAL’s required inevitable hurdle. Furthermore, even if another street does some time in the future get an article, a separate decision on whether one is the PRIMARYTOPIC and not require disambiguation would still have to be made. In other words, even if an ambiguously named street in another city does get coverage on WP, the street in Bydgoszcz may still not be disambiguated if it’s considered to be the primary topic. To disambiguate it now is simply premature. If such speculative considerations were regularly made in disambiguation decisions, countless titles on WP would have disambiguated titles that currently do not. As originally noted, to warrant disambiguation of a title on WP there has to be, at a minimum, “something [also covered on WP] to disambiguate against”. These articles don’t have that, at least not for now, and perhaps forever. —-В²C ☎ 15:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

      B2C: The lack of a technical need to disambiguate a title doesn't mean we ignore Wikipedia's good title criteria or avoid considering clarifiers that might improve the reader's experience. In this case, something like (say) "Chopina Street" seems among other things to miss the precision criterion which states that a good title should "unambiguously identify the article's subject"... and crucially, not even someone familiar with the subject — the standard for the recognizability criterion — could be sure what street the title refers to, given how common the name is.

      Put simply, title clarifiers can certainly be added for reasons other than just disambiguation among current articles, and I can immediately think of tens of thousands of such examples without even needing to search — as, I'm sure, can you. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

      The title criteria does not call for unnecessary disambiguation, or clarifiers, ever, not in any way. There is no issue with the precision criteria when we have only one topic with a given name. That name alone is precise, by definition, on Wikipedia. Anyone familiar with a given street name will of course recognize it by its name. If they happen to be familiar with another topic with that same name, that’s irrelevant unless that other topic is also covered on Wikipedia.

      I know of no such examples with “clarifiers” not required for disambiguation (except for some US cities, perhaps, but their including the state is arguably the common name, not a disambiguator much less a clarifier). So, if you know of any, please let me know, as they’d be prime candidates for RM too. —В²C ☎ 08:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

      A clarifier isn't unnecessary when it's necessary. That's what we're debating: whether it's better to include the city or to omit it.

      I understand why you suggest it should be omitted, but exceptionless minimum disambiguation is not the only thing we consider when titling articles, and not the only thing that makes a title good. Per policy we must consider and balance all the relevant considerations, and in some cases a minimally disambiguated title many not be the best one.

      If you're claiming you don't know of any examples of this then you may wish to re-read the Wikipedia policy WP:PRECISE which notes some of the many cases where we add qualifiers beyond what's strictly necessary for disambiguation: parliamentary constituencies (e.g. Leeds North West), US places (e.g. Bothell), highways (e.g. M-185), royalty (e.g. Edward IV), and a host of others. If your aim is to open RMs on all the articles within all such naming conventions, then you've got your work cut out for you. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support all other than 3 Maja Street, Bydgoszcz as 3 Maja Street is a DAB and 3 Maja Street, Katowice gets more views (22) than the Bydgoszcz one (1) and Grodzka Street, Kraków gets 40 compred with only 6 for Grodzka Street, Bydgoszcz[[1]]. Also the likes of "Street" and "Square" should probably remain capitalized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I have removed the two actually ambiguous instances (by presence of articles) from the nomination. BD2412 T 18:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom in concept. I didn’t check each one. Crouch’s exceptions seem reasonable. —В²C ☎ 07:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. A reason is “for the readers”. Remember the readers? People unfamiliar with Wikipedia convoluted disambiguation minimalism principles? CONSISTENCY, and RECOGNISABILITY, two big naming criteria that are reader oriented. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  This title simplification is contrary to WP:Readers first. The repeated “basic Wikipedia practice of not disambiguating unless needed to disambiguate from another article at Wikipedia” misattributes the city name as mere disambiguation. Unless the context is extremely local (and thus not suitable for Wikipedia), streets are *always* _introduced_ with their city attached. For real information on the correct title, however, one should fall back to what is actually used for introduction in quality sources. Quality sources are reliable independent secondary sources that discuss the topic directly (basically notability attesting sources). Trying that here fails. These streets do not appear to be Wikipedia-notable. They may be interesting, and beautifully illustrated, but they appear maybe suitable for WikiVoyage, but not for Wikipedia. The observation that the street names are technically unique En.Wikipedia titles just reflects that these are not suitable articles. Even in pl.Wikipedia.org, they mostly don’t exist and when they do there is no pretence of secondary source coverage of the street. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: I can argue these both ways now that the few ambiguous ones have been removed from the proposal. But either way we should end up with redirects for the other names, so either move as (now) proposed or just set up these useful redirects. Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• Relist comment. Might have closed this as "no consensus"; however, relisted it to hopefully get more editors involved and reach consensus. Borderline imho. Also note that Bernardyńska Street (Bydgoszcz), Doktora Emila Warmińskiego street in Bydgoszcz, Kwiatowa Street (Bydgoszcz), Maksymiliana Piotrowskiego Street in Bydgoszcz and Sielanka Street in Bydgoszcz still have different dabs. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 09:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per basic Wikipedia practice of not disambiguating unless needed to disambiguate from another article at Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  02:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per SmokeyJoe and Walrasiad above. Among other things, the proposed alternatives largely fail WP:RECOGNIZABILITY since even those who are familiar with streets in Poland are unlikely to know that (say) "Chopina Street" by itself refers to Chopina Street in Bydgoszcz rather than the various other Chopina Streets in other Polish cities. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:39, 18 July 2022 (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.