Talk:Sloboda

Ukraine Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

• 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.

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

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)

• 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)

  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)