Image Use Permissions Yellowmead
I am interested in discussing the image found here of Yellowmead which was uploaded by Nilfanion. Please contact me to discuss for upcoming publication. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yellowmead_stone_circle_3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webandladder (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Admin's Barnstar|
|User:Nilfanion/Israel helped me understand what was going on in the IL copyright dispute. Thanks! I would have never found all the scattered discussions on my own. SafwatHalaby (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)|
Unfortunately district dabs are probably one of the worst forms of disambiguation on Wikipedia as almost no one uses them in everyday speech, I don't think anyone would ever refer to Higham as being in Babergh for example. Even for districts without ambiguity I still think it is common to say "Reigate and Banstead District" not "Reigate and Banstead" Geonames calls is as such along with Carlisle but not usually UAs. The latter prevents everything being at "Foo District" which is what I would have suggested otherwise. This also affects districts that are not split such as North Devon because Torridge is often referred to as North Devon. If we change situations where there is local ambiguity such as Stroud and Dover, we should do that with all such cases shouldn't we? I'm not sure they need moving though w:Buffalo, New York isn't at w:Buffalo, New York (state) for example but Stanley, County Durham is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- The problems arise when the simple district name can be misunderstood: "<place>, Dover" would be interpreted by most normal people (ie not wiki-experts) as meaning <place> is in the town of Dover, that's extremely confusing. "<place>, Torridge" would not be understood as meaning <place> is in the Torridge, so is safe. "<place>, North Devon" would be understood as meaning <place> is in the north of Devon, and while their conception of North Devon might not match the district that doesn't cause difficulty. In all 3 cases adding "District" will not cause any harm, but its only Dover that gets any benefit.
- City districts are extremely problematic, as Wikipedia has created an absurd approach to them (the City isn't the city). All that can be done is follow WP practice, and hope WP consensus changes to allow a more sensible titling scheme.
- Be careful about the additional disambiguation as well. "Buffalo, New York" matches an extremely common structure for US place names, so wouldn't be misunderstood. In contrast "Buffalo, New York (state)" is confusing. Which is the state, Buffalo or New York? Mixing commas and brackets destroys clarity.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with that but as I pointed out the same could be with Buffalo being in the city. As we have discussed many times titles are supposed to be understood by non experts (like Carlisle). The thing about districts is that some on WP have additional text and some don't and some are split and some aren't (like Topsham being in Exeter District but really part of the settlement). The reason I was using Torridge and North Devon was because of Huish, there being one in both districts and "North Devon" causing confusion. This website uses "North Devon" when describing the place for example. When I first started I used "Carlisle District" as does GeoNames for most non metropolitan districts apart from Cannock Chase for example.
- What would you do for Category:Rose Green, Lindsey? which is not part of the village of Lindsey. This diff may be helpful here. Also noting that for London boroughs "Belmont, Sutton" not "Belmont, London Borough of Sutton" is used (even if not part of the settlement). Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- US place names are extremely commonly <town>, <state>, and that format is practically universal and well understood. It would be idiotic to deviate from <name>, <state>. Different circumstances apply in the UK, as there isn't such a strong pairing.
- With the UK stuff DO NOT ATTEMPT A STRICTLY FORMULAIC APPROACH! Instead have a set of loose rules, and apply a degree of common sense to allow you to move away from a daft option. You shouldn't need me to tell you that! :)
- If there are two foos in Devon: One in the South Hams and one in North Devon, then "South Hams" and "North Devon" are ideal. If they are in Torridge and North Devon, then "Torridge" is still fine. "North Devon" won't be, as it could be misinterpreted, so the full "North Devon District" would be needed. Different places will need slightly different approaches, and a one-size-fits-all approach will fail on the difficult cases.
- When there are multiple places in the same district, then something else is needed. The CP is typically a pretty good choice, but occasionally it won't work. For instance if there were two Lovacotts in North Devon, then "Lovacott, Horwood, Lovacott and Newton Tracey" is obviously junk.
- Wards are a very poor choice, unless they are named for a place. Consider "Foo, St Budeaux" and "Foo, Three Fields". St Budeaux is helpful, as St Budeaux is more than just a ward name. Three Fields isn't as its sole use is as a ward name.
- Rose Green, Lindsey is fine as Lindsey, Suffolk covers both village and parish. If the parish and village had separate categories, then further disambiguation might be needed. I'd probably just up-merge to Lindsey in any case, as there is no real evidence Rose Green is a hamlet (and not just a couple buildings near a label on the OS map). Your obsession with tiny places, that might not even qualify as hamlets, was a major factor in your WP block and is a factor in the sheer quantity of moves you generate on Commons.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
- New York would be a bit different as the state is disambiguated with brackets not naturally. As least I don't think we add bracket/comma disambiguation to things disambiguated with the place which is also disambiguated.
- The problem is that there is no obvious title that would be much better for district DABs, but guidelines that are too vague are prone to instability, something you in particular want to maintain (which I agree with to some extent). "Ash, Dover District" is not an obviously better title than "Ash, Dover" IMO, there isn't an Ash in the town of Dover. Also the titling of districts is not ideal (like the "City of ...) so we don't want "Hayton, City of Carlisle". IAR/apply common sense is where there is just a few out of thousands of titles where there is an obviously better title for example "Worcester, England" instead of "Worcester, Worcestershire". But with districts, most of them are ambiguous with some other local concept (like the town with Dover, the forest for Forest of Dean or the northern part of Devon for North Devon).
- The average person, even in Devon probably wouldn't know what "Torridge" is, I didn't know what Babergh was until I brought a street map in 2008. But yes adding district to avoid conflict with the general meaning seems sensible in the case of North Devon.
- I would say that "Lovacott, Horwood, Lovacott and Newton Tracey" is a bad title but not unacceptable, "Soulby, Soulby" would be unacceptable though.
- If you use wards then you will probably have the problem of not being part of the settlement of such, most wards don't have the same boundaries as a parish so should be split.
- Rose Green is a poor example as I don't think many people would know it exists, I didn't until I looked on a map even though I'd been through it probably thousands of times. I wouldn't have even known that Lindsey Tye also existed. The main point is that the OS classifies them as places. Maybe Newbiggin is a better example. the one in Dacre is not part of the village and the one in Kirkby Thore isn't part of the ward or parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with something like "Ash, Dover" is that a normal person will misunderstand it to mean Ash is in the town of Dover. That will cause them to misinterpret what that Ash actually is, so therefore it needs to be AVOIDED.
- "Lovacott, Horwood, Lovacott and Newton Tracey" is unacceptable because it fails to distinguish between the <subject name> and <disambiguating term> - you need to know what it is to know where the line is between the two elements, or even that the term has those two elements. In this case the two commas have very different meanings, and you simply cannot read that without knowledge. Again that confusion needs to be AVOIDED.
- Note that OS classifies them as places is very different to as a hamlet. All we really know is OS has it as a point on the map.
- When the rules of English grammar conflict with the guidance, an exception to that general guidance needs to be made. There is no reason to expect things to be written down already, especially if you are the first one encountering issues in bulk. Your interests mean you often go well beyond the circumstances that the existing rules have been designed to handle. That's fine, but if you are going to do so you need to be flexible. If you are unable to adapt, without explicit written guidance, to complicated situations you need to either leave or pick a different area to work on. Its the difference between writing a few simple rules and attempting to create a comphrensive document to cover all situations. The first might that make life easier for you and others, while the other ends up with a document longer than this one and considerably harder to read and no one will ever read it.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Again this also can happen with other units that aren't split. With the 2 Newbiggins in the Eden district, neither are part of the settlements they are disambiguated with.
- Actually I would now agree with your point generally, the first comma is not part of the name, the second is, as its the name of the CP.
- A hamlet is the lowest form of settlement, there is no lower type.
- The problem is still that with stability, the situation for years has been to just use the "short" name of the district, with what you appear to be proposing we could end up with titles constantly being changed. How do we handle like North Devon or Taunton Dean for example that have local ambiguity but don't have separate articles on WP. My point here is to avoid over complicating things. I don't see why "Ash, Dover" is any more of a problem than "Newbiggin, Dacre" is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes I know what the two commas represent. But how would anyone know that? It could be "<Lovacott, Horwood>, <Lovacott and Newton Tracey>", "<Lovacott, Horwood, Lovacott and Newton Tracey>", and other grammatically valid combinations are viable. Two commas in the same term, with commas having distinct uses, is inherently confusing and should be avoided at all costs.
- Newbiggin, Dacre, is fine. It would only be a problem if we had separate categories for parish and village. The other Newbiggin is problematic, but the current term is a least-bad label as there is nothing totally suitable in existing guidance. Alternative like "(near X)" might be possible, but I am dubious of that one as who defines "near"?
- The reason why Ash, Dover, is a problem that is we separate the meaning of the two Dovers (the town and district). Dacre isn't a problem, as we don't split the two meanings. So if you think its Dover A instead of Dover B, you end up getting mixed up. If you think its Dacre A instead of Dacre B, you end up at the combined Dacre, and there is no potential for confusion.
- By displaying a label on a map OS only indicates that it there is a place of that name. That doesn't imply that label is for a settlement, or a hamlet specifically, You are assuming that "labelled location = something between city and hamlet", and that is incorrect. It can just as easily be a farmstead, or some other single property. To say X is a hamlet you need a source explicitly stating "X is a hamlet" not just "OS has it on the map". Royal Mail could qualify as that source, as the Postcode Address File includes locality information for addresses and that includes hamlets.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, I find your comment that these comments will result in "titles constantly being changed" laughable. The titles have been perfectly stable for years, until you decide to move them. eg There was nothing wrong with Category:Widecombe-in-the-Moor, and no-one here apart from you would care about whether the hyphens are there or not. A solution that would generate much better stability would for you to stop changing things and work within what we have already.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
- I now agree that that would be a bad enough name not to use (unless there was no reasonable alternative) but is "Rame, Maker-with-Rame" really a bad enough title? Its not the same as "Soulby, Soulby" as the "Maker" bit tells you something.
- I don't see why being split makes much difference and would the title be "Newbiggin, Dacre (civil parish)" which seems unnecessary. I don't see why this is a problem with Dover either. There isn't an Ash in the town of Dover.
- Well with the OS (from when you could search in it, it only takes you there if it is a settlement, not just a feature, Geograph also returns them as settlements, not just features as it does with Linstead Parva or Cookley which don't even show up until you click Try a wider place search.
- Because it was one of the few that wasn't the same as the OS, I doubt it will need to be changed back. If we title things correctly and simply to start with we can avoid the need to change things to begin with. In particular noting "For example, the article Grenfell Tower fire was once moved to 2017 Grenfell Tower fire and Unite the Right rally was created under the title 2017 Unite the Right rally, all due to this misunderstanding". Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with Ash is "Ash, Dover" appears to be about an "Ash" in the normal meaning of "Dover" (ie the town). In fact, its in a very non-standard meaning of Dover (the district). That is why its confusing, as the fact there isn't an Ash in the town is irrelevant. Newbiggin is different. The gap between parish and village is quite small, and nothing like that between town and district. The most usual "boundary" to the village is the parish boundary. The most usual "boundary" to the town is clearly not the district's.
- You need something more reliable than a link like that: Something explicitly calling it a hamlet. And if its at the hair-splitting level, there probably isn't much value in having a category.
- Widecombe is generally referred to with hyphens, so the WP article is correctly titled. There was no need to change the Commons category, nor is there any need to change it back. Commons is not Ordnance Survey, and Ordnance Survey isn't the word of God either; if it comes to variations of a name, stay aligned to WP unless there is clear evidence they have the wrong name. Don't just move it because OS disagrees with WP on a minor detail like hyphens.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes but there isn't likely to be confusion, along with your argument about wards, you could point out that Dover being named for a town is useful, while Babergh isn't, it comes from the hundred which comes from the Heath. No average person (at least outside Suffolk) would know what Babergh is but would know what Dover is. The difference between Dacre than Dover is arguably more so (or at least Dacre and Darlington) Dacre isn't even the largest settlement in the CP! while Darlington just contains a few villages. Dacre could easily be split here for the fact it has many settlements. The problem also is that we haven't agreed on appropriate titles for say Carlisle, (we could have "Hayton, City of Carlisle) for example. WP or Commons may title the district differently because of being more precise like Category:North Devon District vs w:North Devon and the situations where WP makes a distinction may differ to Commons (of which tends to make more distinctions). Which could also lead to disagreement on weather to use the short or long title for disambiguation.
- That would be difficult and unreliable, the fact it shows up as a settlement means it couldn't be anything less than a hamlet. People refer to things differently and may not use the correct terminology.
- I agree OS isn't the world but is still useful in at least determining the shortest title (natural disambiguation may prefer a longer one). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- The problem with of Dover is that it is highly recognised as something other than the district of Dover. If we use "Dover", people will naturally assume is the Dover they have heard of (the town). If we instead mean the low-recognition district, that doesn't match their preconceived idea and that can cause confusion. That confusion can easily be avoided by using "Dover District", so we should avoid it. In contrast, with Babergh, they probably haven't even heard of it. There is no risk of confusion, so we don't need to clarify further. The same is true of Dacre, or any other random village in the countryside, who has heard of it? Hardly anyone? Then no major confusion, no problem. The problem is the ONLY districts named for an eponymous town.
- If you can't find a reliable source that says "X is a hamlet", then we cannot say "X is a hamlet". Sure that may be more difficult, but mention on a simple list isn't enough. Just because a list says X is a settlement does not mean X is a hamlet (you are ASSUMING settlement = hamlet or bigger, when it is likely to be defined in a much more technical sense for a list like that.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- The point as I have pointed about before is that the distinct is a sub topic of the town but "Dover" isn't ambiguous in this case as there isn't an Ash in the town so adding "District" is redundant. How do we make the distinction, would we disambiguate Epping Forest for example or North Devon. You could point out that "Foo, Three Fields" don't need to be clarified further while "Foo, St Budeaux" does. If we just use the short titles for disambiguation (except for cases of Huish, Torridge and Huish, North Devon) it avoids this debate.
- Rose Green is still a settlement, but if not a hamlet then what else could it be? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem is not ambiguity, but confusion. If there was also an Ash in the town then "Ash, Dover" would be ambiguous. However, that's not a problem. What is a problem is "Ash, Dover" is CONFUSING, as it implies Ash is in the town. And sure if there is realistic risk of confusion in other districts, avoid the confusion by clarifying. Its only really going to be a problem when the commonly-understood meaning is significantly smaller than the district. Dover is much smaller than Dover District, so is a problem. Ditto Chichester or Stratford-on-Avon. When the regular meaning is about the same size as the district, or larger, there is no problem with confusion. North Devon isn't confusing, nor is South Holland. Forest of Dean is more difficult - there may be issues for places that are in the district but not the forest. There may be issues with ambiguity, like Torridge and North Devon.
Rose Green is listed as a settlement on the resource you are looking at. That doesn't mean it is a hamlet, as "settlement" might mean something other than "hamlet or larger". It could be "more than 5 properties in a 100m radius". Geograph derives its info from the outdated OS Gazetteer. This search shows some of its limitations: There are 7 Court Bartons. One of them is listed as a settlement, but is no different to the other 6. All 7 of them are farms, but none of them are listed as farms because they do not include "Farm" or "Fm" in their name.
OS Open Names is a much superior resource. For a start it explicitly uses both "village" and "hamlet". So, instead of saying "X is a Other Settlement" and having to guess that that means Hamlet, the source directly says "X is a hamlet".--Nilfanion (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- So are you saying Darlington would be OK? (if there was a need to DAB by district there). The point is that that same confusion could apply to any administrative unit that has the same name as something else. The point is that you are saying using "Dover" is not OK because of the town but are saying "Three Fields" is also not OK because it isn't also the name of a settlement. The same confusion could apply to both Dover and Dacre for being settlements just as Babergh and Three Fields aren't settlements. Both Dover and Dacre could be split and both could have 1 page but that shouldn't affect how we DAB them. Its just that larger places tend to have enough coverage for 2 WP articles while smaller ones don't.
- It would be interesting to see what they put for Cookley. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- It depends where the place is within the Borough of Darlington. Use common sense to assess if the place is in the normal meaning of "Darlington" (which is the urban area, not the borough). That means "Blackwell, Darlington" is fine, "Killerby, Darlington" isn't. The same goes for any other district in the country please don't bring more up.
- There are two separate issues going on, the suitability of the concept and the precise term: The district of Dover is a suitable unit for disambiguation, while the ward of Three Fields isn't suitable. Electoral wards are extremely low recognition, when they doesn't share their name with a "real" geographic feature like a town or a suburb. Its unlikely most inhabitants of Three Fields would even know that's their ward!
- While the district of Dover is a suitable unit for disambiguation, that doesn't mean its acceptable to use the term "Dover" to mean the district. The reader will naturally assume "Dover" means the town not the district and that easily causes confusion. If the district doesn't share its name with something else there is no confusion. Using "Dover District" instead of "Dover" immediately removes that concern.
- As for Cookley, I assume you mean the one in Suffolk? That's listed as a hamlet. Not really a surprise is it?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- I still don't really get why "Killerby, Darlington" isn't OK in your opinion but "Newbiggin, Dacre" or "Newbiggin, Temple Kirkby Thore" is. With Newbiggin its a similar size to Dacre and I don't think people would describe it as being in (or even near) Dacre and Dacre village probably only has about 20% of the parish while Darlington town is more like 90%!. I'd also point you to Dumbleton which contains formerly separate parishes for the argument that the borough was created from other units. Your statement "Electoral wards are extremely low recognition, when they doesn't share their name with a "real" geographic feature like a town or a suburb" is still contradictory to "The reader will naturally assume "Dover" means the town not the district and that easily causes confusion" which could also easily apply to parishes and wards. However because there isn't an agreed titles for the districts themselves we should probably wait until titles like Carlisle are agreed on first. I appreciate your attempts at trying to use common sense for titling, but this change seems to be unnecessary complication.
- Cookley in Suffolk has a church so is technically a village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- A large town like Dover has high recognition, a small village has low recognition. No-one will have heard of Dacre outside its immediate area, while people have heard of the Dover in Kent in Australia. That's a massive difference and if you cannot get your head around that distinction don't bother talking further about it.
- A statement of fact like "Cookley is a city" has to come from a reliable source to be acceptable on Wikipedia. That particular statement is clearly untrue of course, but "Cookley is a village" and "Cookley is a hamlet" are both plausible. However policy means that "Cookley is a hamlet [According to OS]" is fine, "Cookley is a village [No source]" is not. The first is based what a Reliable Source tells us directly. The second is your interpretation of how a generic dictionary definition applies to a specific case - it is an unacceptable Synthesis of facts, which constitutes Original Research. If you can find a reliable source stating clearly that, for instance, "Cookley is a village [According to its parish council]", then that source justifies the statement.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- How well known isn't relevant, the difference is more so. 1 There is no need to have a longer name as just Dover will do due to the lack of ambiguity. 2 The district of Dover is also of low recognition like wards, I still don't see why you are asking for districts to have a longer name because of having a recognizable feature such as a settlement while you are asking for wards not to be used because they don't have a recognizable feature. As far as I can see you could make the argument that "Hayton, Carlisle" is recognition to someone outside Cumbria while Hayton, Allerdale isn't even to someone in Cumbria. You haven't addressed the issue of why you think using Dover or Darlington is confusing but not Dacre or Kirkby Thore or why unrecognizable districts are better but unrecognizable wards are. This seems to be over complicating things, similar to the fact that you criticized me for including Bolton Abbey on the DAB after being skeptical about the move of Mundham, which confused/surprised me. 3 It is difficult to draw a line on when to use a longer name, do we when Commons makes a distinction, do we when EN makes a distinctions or do we when other Wikipedias do or do we use other sources or make the assertion ourselves. Weather or not a distinction is made on Wikimedia or not doesn't change things in the real world. Newbiggin isn't part of the village any more when there is just 1 category than if it was split.
- Oxford Dictionaries makes the point of what a hamlet is and this and this call it a village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'll make it simple: A district named for a town is a problem. A parish named for a village isn't a problem, and a ward named for a place isn't a problem. I am not going to talk to you further on those points, as I have clearly explained above already.
- A ward not named for a place is useless for a different reason: No-one, not even an inhabitant, will have heard of it. If NO-ONE knows what the ward is, we shouldn't use it either so "Upton, Ambien" is a useless name.
- A dictionary definition of hamlet (or village) is irrelevant, as it doesn't say anything about Cookley. The other links are suitable: As they say "Cookley is a village". That means we have reliable sources calling it both a hamlet and a village, so we can say both "Cookley is a hamlet" and "Cookley is a village". That's a conflict, but you don't use a dictionary to resolve it (instead use "consensus").--Nilfanion (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but you still haven't really addressed why a district named for a town is problematic but not a parish or ward. I don't think we need to continue this discussion as we can't agree, WP would be a better place when we can at least decide what to do with the district of Carlisle first.
- The dictionary explains what the difference is between a village and hamlet, Oxford Dictionaries makes this clear. Cookley therefore isn't a hamlet as it has a church. Consensus will probably determine that OD is a suitable source to determine what Cookley is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- A dictionary cannot be a source by itself. If there were sources saying "Cookley is a hamlet" and no sources saying "Cookley is a village", then we couldn't use the dictionary to override that. In this case the sources are split, and a dictionary definition could be used to support a preference for village. Also remember different dictionaries have different contents.
- If I was to consider any dictionary as authoritative its the full 2nd Edition Oxford English Dictionary, not the simplified online versions. That states a hamlet is "A group of houses or small village in the country; esp. a village without a church, included in the parish belonging to another village or a town." If OED is taken as gospel that means two things: 1. Hamlets and villages have heavy overlap, as a "small village" can be a hamlet. 2. A small village with a church CAN be a hamlet ("especially without a church" does not mean "always without a church").--Nilfanion (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- In this case we could determine by consensus that the best source is the crisp definition, not the vague one which would make the status of Cookley crystal clear. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- Nope. We would instead follow policy and look at what reliable sources say. That means you don't have a single place to look. Deal with it. The dictionaries help to interpret those sources, but I would never take a simplified dictionary definition over a full one.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- In this case we could determine by consensus that the best source is the crisp definition, not the vague one which would make the status of Cookley crystal clear. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not actually suggesting this but would something like on Commons places are generally disambiguated by the country (maybe with the exception of the US) (and always with commas if possible when using a higher level place), not the state (or similar) for example the Octons are at Category:Octon, England and Category:Octon, France, Gretna is at Category:Gretna, Scotland and Gosforth, New South Wales is at Category:Gosforth, Australia. This comment may also be of note. I don't think changing the established but just wandering what you think?. I would however support always using commas though even if other projects don't. If you look at Category:Picton and Category:Carlisle (disambiguation) its common to put the country to identify, but its not needed with Picton, New Zealand so no further detail is added. The other reason I would be against changing England for example is that it is common in speech and reliable sources to use the county to disambiguate just like "(element)" is the best for Mercury even though less specific terms like (atom) may be usable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
The NHC report on Hurricane Erin of 1995 states that "Erin had maximum sustained winds around 100 mph (160 km/h) in a small area within its northeastern eyewall when coming ashore near Fort Walton Beach, Florida at 8:30 AM CDT, making it a Category 2 hurricane at landfall" (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL051995_Erin.pdf and http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/erin1995.html). Therefore all Wikipedia languages put this hurricane as a category 2 (see en:Hurricane Erin (1995)). However, on the track you did in 2006, it is only showed as a category 1 hurricane. It is possible for you, or someone else, to make necessary correction to that track in order to remove any confusion for an ordinary reader of the article?
Thanks in advance,
- @Pierre cb: I'm not sure this can be done. The problem is the dots on the maps show the 6 hourly intervals, and the peak strength at landfall is an intermediate point 1.5 hours after the previous one. Displaying that extra dot could cause more confusion than it solves (as it would suggest that the storm stalled as it hit land).
- I'd suggest you ask over at WPTC to see which of the two variants is involved, and if needed, one of the people who upload current maps could update Erin's (to a different file name). My personal opinion is that this dot-and-line style of map (dot-and-line) is dated, and a superior design ought to be developed. IMO a thick line would be an improvement and would more easily handle a case like Erin. Or even better, something like the NHC's wind field maps which give an impression of the size of the storm.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)