Talk:List of places named Batavia

Merger proposal
Can't think of any reason why this should be a separate article, when Batavia is already a perfectly good disambiguation page, at which most of this material can already be found. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a poorly written, poorly conceived, and poorly sourced list article. On the one hand, I don't really see any need for this list of place names to exist as a separate article -- it is not a disambiguation page and because there are entities on the disambiguation page that are not places they are not interchangeable. The items on this page that are articles and are ambiguous with the term "Batavia" should already be on the disambiguation page. This list includes many non-article entries as well as many partial title matches where the subject is not actually ambiguous with "Batavia" alone. older ≠ wiser 12:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, even on this list, there are several entries that are not places, including Batavia (opera), Batavia (ship), and Batavia fever, amongst others. This is a mess, to be sure. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the claims of "a mess" and "a poorly written, poorly conceived, and poorly sourced list article" for their use of weasel words (in the parlance of Wikipedia). On a more serious note, perhaps the very concept of a "list article" is in question.

That said, and in fairness to the allegations, I would welcome examples of well-written, well-conceived, and well-sourced list articles with which the one on Batavia (or any of a number of other such articles) could be compared.

This particular article serves a useful (and arguably unique) encyclopedic purpose in tracing the origin, history, and use of a particular name, in this case "Batavia." Information on the disparate places (or things) named Batavia has added encyclopedic value when combined in one article, a value that is lost if the same information is scattered throughout articles on the various places (or things) named Batavia.

Another wonderful aspect of this type of article relates directly to one of Wikipedia's guidelines: It is not original research.

For that reason, I wonder whether the title itself is appropriate, as the article is more than a list, and certainly quite different from a disambiguation, though it has characteristics of both of these types.

Perhaps the title simply should be "Batavia" or, if allowed by "The Keepers of Wikipedia," perhaps a new type of article should be recognized, a kind of "list article cum disambiguation," in which the encyclopedic information in an article like this one ("List of places named Batavia") could be combined with the cross-references (and often more) found in a disambiguation.

A possible title might be "Batavia (onomasticon and disambiguation)" or a variation thereof.

This article may need additional footnotes (that is, sources) and copy-editing (though it is better written than most of its ilk), but it is worthy of retention as a separate article. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hardly surprising that the article's creator (and contributor of over 1/3 its edits) disagrees with the criticisms found here. Nonetheless, PIP, could you deign to respond to the central question posed, which is, namely, "why the dab page Batavia is inadequate to serve the purpose you intended in creating this article?" The closest you come to providing an answer to that is by referring to the information on the origins of the name Batavia.  I actually think that that is included--albeit in a sparser format--at Batavia already.  Besides, if that's the purpose, then yes, as you yourself indicate, the title is all wrong.  Who decided to call it this? HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger completed
Look, I've moved over everthing that was notable and sourced to Batavia. It may not be perfect, but at least it's not a list of completely undocumented stuff now. Anything like those creeks and other stuff you want to add to Batavia, go ahead, but just get 'em sourced. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)