Talk:California (disambiguation)

Partial title matches

 * Relocated from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

User:Enquire and I have a disagreement about the latest change made to the page. The discussion was begun at User talk:Clarityfiend. Briefly, my stance is that it violates (1) WP:Partial title match with the Alta California and Baja California entries, and (2) the style guideline with some long descriptions. Alta and Baja California have their own dab pages, which are listed in the See also section. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, unless those entries are also commonly referred to in reliable sources as just "California", they aren't ambiguous with the title "California" and don't need to be included here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note:The following was previously posted at California (disambiguation) and re-posted here as per decision to continue discussion on this talk page.


 * I respectfully disagree with the most recent changes. I do note WP:Partial title match, but also did read the paragraph enclosed which includes the caveat:

Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context—regardless of the article's title.


 * I respectfully submit that Baja California and Alta California are and can be plausibly referred to in the same context. The examples given in WP:Partial title match are: Baltimore Zoo and Mississippi River where the principal noun is "Zoo" and "River" respectively. So, one would not logically expect either to appear in the disambiguation pages for "Zoo" or for "River" (although possibly in "List of ...).  WP:Partial title match continues, and I quote:

''Place names are often divided between a specific and generic part: "North Carolina" (where "Carolina" is the specific, and "North" the generic part). Other common generics are compass points, upper/lower, old/new, big/small, etc. It is entirely proper to include such place names in disambiguation pages with the specific title (North Carolina is properly listed at Carolina (disambiguation)); but only exceptionally in the generic title (we don't expect to see North Carolina in North (disambiguation), just as we don't expect to see Mississippi River in River (disambiguation)).''


 * See for example: Carolina, also a disambiguation page - there you will see, as subordinated bullets:


 * The Carolinas, term used to refer collectively to the states of North and South Carolina
 * North Carolina, U.S. state
 * South Carolina, U.S. state
 * Province of Carolina, the British colonial province until 1729
 * Carolina, Alabama
 * etc.


 * So, I think it is clear that the WP:Partial title match rule is not intended to be applied to related geographic entities. Note also that: "Alta" (Upper in English); "Baja" (Lower in English); "Norte" (North in English); and, "Sud" (South in English) are, as such, the generic parts of place names which are all derived historically and linguistically from the same root noun "California."


 * Moreover, from a geographic and historical context; Alta California (Upper California) includes all of the states of California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah; as well as western Colorado and southwestern Wyoming. The Californias (Spanish: Las Californias), is the predecessor state to all of: California, USA; as well as both Baja California (Norte) as well as Baja California Sur.  Further, the latter two Mexican states comprise the Baja California peninsula (now in "See also" section, even though Baja California Sur, strangely, does not currently appear anywhere on this page at all) ... although the Gulf of California which separates the Mexican mainland and the two Mexican California states is included in the lead disambiguation cluster.  I do not believe that the intention of WP:Partial title match is to distance these highly interrelated state entities which have a long and tangled history.


 * For the record and to avoid repetition of my primary points and for convenience of reference for others, I include the discussion between User:Clarityfiend and myself here:

 You reverted my edit to the above disambiguation page. With due respect, did you pay any attention to my edit? IMHO it would seem not, the only comment you made was: "(Reverted good faith edits by Enquire (talk): Short descriptions are the guideline, just enough for ID purposes. (TW))". With due respect, I took great care to make this edit manually, because on several occasions now I have in he past re-insert references to Baja California, The Californias, and so on, when so called good-faith editors have changed such references to simply California, apparently oblivious of the not so subtle distinctions between the various historical and contemporary territorial entities in the region of SW USA and NW Mexico. I do not mean to suggest that you are unaware of these distinctions, but it has been my experience on Wikipedia as well as in the real world that there are a significant population of otherwise knowledgeable people, who only have superficial knowledge of the historical and factual origins of "California". I trust you understand; I have taken the liberty to revert your reversion of my earlier edit, please take a closer look. You should note that, in addition to organizing and grouping entries, I added a few new ones that should have been on the disambiguation page before, but were not. You may feel that there is excessive editorial, but in my experience, there is a great deal of confusion and misinformation about the distinctions between these various state entities and that, therefore, some rudimentary explanation is appropriate. Enquire (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page is not the place to deal with "confusion and misinformation". It is strictly a navigation tool, with specific guidelines. DABENTRY states "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." I forgot to mention it in my edit comment, but the Baja California entries also violate WP:Partial title matches. If you still disagree, I suggest you ask for a second opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I think the MoS link you referenced is actually DABENTRY. right? On this matter, I would entirely agree that a disambiguation page is not the place to deal with "confusion and misinformation".  However, there is confusion and misinformation and therefore it is important that this disambiguation page (in particular) clarifies the not so subtle distinctions between the various state entities (present and historical) clearly and concisely.  IMHO, I think the current version does that.  Maybe the entry for Alta California appears at first glance to be a little verbose, but I could not see any obvious redundant string of words that could be deleted without detracting from a concise differentiation of the various current and former states, provinces and territories without introducing some level of ambiguity.  Overall, I feel that as is, including the indented sub-entries is a clear way to classify and disambiguate the various meanings of "California" as a state / province / territory.  If you feel otherwise, and not wishing to be perceived as driven by pride of authorship, perhaps we should start a discussion on Talk:California_(disambiguation)?
 * Enquire (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As a footnote, I have a friend who lives in San José del Cabo, Baja California Sur and I needed to send documents overnight via FedEx. FedEx dispatch called me to tell me that I had made a mistake on the label and wanted to know if this package was to go to California or Mexico.  The wanted me to either replace the word "California" with "Mexico" (to make  "Baja Mexico Sur") OR to delete "Mexico" and add a "US zip code".  I forget how long I was on the phone, but it could have been over an hour.  I demanded to speak to a supervisor, who was not much more knowledgeable ... but finally, I was able to convince someone at FedEx that "Baja California Sur" is a real state that really does exist in Mexico.  Considering that employees of an International logistics company are confused just speaks volumes on the need to make a clear and concise disambiguation page for "California".  Please note, prior to my edit, there were no entries at all for: Alta California; Baja California (Norte); or, Baja California Sur.
 * Enquire (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * We'll get a quicker response at the project's talk page, so I'm going to start the discussion there. P.S. There aren't supposed to be entries for anything other than California. Two of the three you cited have their own dab pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's do that. Enquire (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In conclusion, I submit that since California, Alta California, Baja California (Norte), Baja California Sur are all state entities that are constituent parts of the former Spanish, then Mexican state of Las Californias; and that the US state of California is the westerly part of the former Spanish, then Mexican province/territory of Alta California; and that therefore, they should be logically grouped together. If the disambiguation page is to serve its purpose of helping readers find the specific Wikipedia article that is relevant to their search (whether they are among the confused/misinformed or not), then I suggest that they rationally should be grouped together for clarity.
 * Enquire (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you cite a reliable source that refers to each of those entities as just "California" or "Californias"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I restored the Alta and Baja and Baja Sur entries, per analogy with North and South Carolina. But kept the descriptions tight. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Naval Vessels and Ships categories need to be merged.
See title.

2606:6000:FECD:1400:4434:916A:82F5:1234 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Why? It doesn't simplify anything. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)