Talk:Namesake achievement

I think that this proposal needs work defining how much creativity is allowed. Are we allowing translations of the same name, for example, could a Hans or a Yohanan claim the achievement for any place containing "John"? Then, some places have different names in different languages. Could a Constance claim the achievement in the Bodensee, which is known in English as Lake Constance? Could a Konstantin? Could a Francis, or a Franziska, claim the achievement for France? Could a Helen claim the achievement for Greece, a Jacob for Israel?

Speaking of larger place names, the proposal mentions that any part of the point may be used, but doesn't mention any locations larger than cities. Can a Georg claim the achievement for Georgia, the US state? What about Georgia, the country? Can an Amerigo claim the achievement anywhere in the Americas? Can a Gaia or a Terra, admittedly not terribly common names, claim the achievement anywhere on Earth?

I'm all for allowing maximum creativity, but I want to make sure that this is the intention of the achievement. --Fippe (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Translations of the same name should be allowed. If the name fits in some way and can be explained by the individual then it's a valid claim. With larger place names, I think that should still be valid. If you happen to have a name that coincides with a larger place then you just happened to be luckier than others, but still equally valid (so, yes, a Gaia could claim any point if they thought to do so). --KerrMcF (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if adding individual limitations would end up causing unnecessary confusion. For example, I've said that usernames would count, however, usernames such as "Englishdude" and similar in which the country or nationality is part of the username seem unfair since the vast majority of attempted locations will always fit the achievement and the username is created by the individual. Adding a limitation restricting usernames from counting if the username relates to nationality would just confuse, especially since an actual name (like Saxon) would count for England. I agree that adding clarification on the creativity allowed is a good idea (and I'll do that now) but I can't think of any limitations that wouldn't simultaneously make the achievement requirements unfair for certain people. --KerrMcF (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm rewording this because I seemed to struggle to put my thoughts down clearly. I don't think it makes sense to include any limitations. It is true that certain users will find it easier to earn this achievement, but they should not be punished for this. Doing so would overcomplicate the requirements for the achievement instead of make it fairer. --KerrMcF (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I support this achievement, I can see this is very challenging for myself and thereby very rewarding if I ever achieve it, though it can be much easier for others as explained in the examples. I also support maximum creativity, but would like to count only someone's real name (given names and family names). A username that is not their real name can be chosen and that would make this achievement too "manufacturable". Manufacturable achievements should be harder (such as the Twister or Bill Gates achievements). Although it's less optimal if people do not want to share their real name on the internet (or provide proof of it). If you marry a particular someone or are trans and that way can change your real name into something to manufacture this achievement, you deserve kudos for that level of commitment. --Blauwe BIC (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it is possible for someone to change their username after creating their account, but I could be wrong. If someone happens to create an account named after the first point they reach, I don't see any reason not to give them a ribbon for doing so. It is probably unlikely that this will happen and most cases in which usernames are used are likely to just be coincidental that they match. I see it as one of two options. Either usernames are not allowed to be used, excluding those who are uncomfortable providing their legal name, or usernames are allowed to be used, but a very small minority of people might decide to "abuse" the achievement by naming their account a certain way, which isn't really an issue. --KerrMcF (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

We could add the restriction that the user name has to be older than the time the coordinates are announced for that particular day. --Fippe (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That works for me! --KerrMcF (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Pretty niche, but potentially fun. Maybe it will inspire me to travel to the UK and wait for a geohash in the village of Stevenage. Stevage (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Open to too much interpretation of "your name" and "graticule name" and favours ethnic Europeans and non-immigrants. Bottomley Potts (talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this objection. The person who inspired this achievement is an immigrant and not ethnically European. --Fippe (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Same as above, I'm not overly sure how anything about this achievement is region specific. As the achievement allows for translations/alternative versions of names, a Grzegorz could move to the UK and still earn the achievement via the name Gregory (or Greg, Gregor, or even Kelekolio should they end up in Hawaii). --KerrMcF (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A Grzegorz, yes, because it's a Christian saint's name and therefore has equivalents in all European languages. A Muhammad or a Sanjay living in the UK has no such options. Bottomley Potts (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems that your two reasons for objection cancel each other out. "Too much interpretation" solves the foreign name problem. Muhammad will be just fine if he can use Anthony, and Sanjay if he can use Victor, as those names have equivalent meanings. --Fippe (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Just adding a note here in case someone reads the discussion page for clarification on what can be considered valid. Since the above comment was added, the achievement was updated to add a restriction against using a different name if the only commonality was a shared or similar meaning. Names with equivalent meanings are, in the current achievement's restrictions, not valid unless they relate due to an additional factor. --KerrMcF (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I also don't agree with this objection. It's true that people whose name is similar ethnically to the area they tend to go geohashing stand a greater chance of achieving it, but this doesn't seem like a good reason to oppose. Geohashing is not a level playing field - certain places in the world are much easier or harder. Me, I have a pretty common English first name, and live in a former British colony, and still I've never geohashed at any kind of "Stephenstown" or "Stephen Street", although I did pass down a "Steve's Lane" pretty close to this hash. I think it's a pretty hard achievement for everyone. Stevage (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Favouring non-immigrants seems an excellent reason to me. I think we just value different things. Bottomley Potts (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Just adding another reply to this comment as it's been a while since it was made and discussions have gone further. If this is still your stance, it's very contradictory. Do you want interpretation of what can be used as the geohasher's name (as you indicated on Discord by saying you agreed with the shared/similar meaning allowance) or do you want there to be less interpretation? I'm of the opinion that there can be interpretation to an extent (hence why I've not agreed with the suggestion of the meaning-links), but you recently said (Discord) you were "back" to being an Oppose (did this change at any point?) because of the interpretation being limited. There was also a discussion that ethnic Europeans do not actually have a distinct advantage, which you eventually agreed with at the time, but you have recently swapped back to disagreeing with this also. Additionally, your mention of "graticule names" is confusing, as they are not referenced anywhere within the proposal, and were not referenced at the time of the vote either. Until this vote is updated to be non-contradictory with itself and with your own views referring to conversations on Discord, it doesn't hold any significant weight. --KerrMcF (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the "contradiction" you're seeing here mostly stems from you asking me what would need to change about the proposal for me to support it. I tried in good faith to answer that question, which effectively meant that I was treating my Oppose as a Needs Work for the purpose of the discussion, but I also said that I didn't think that change was viable, so I don't think it's accurate to characterise me as "wanting" that change.

I don't believe now, and am not aware of having indicated earlier, that people with names derived from European languages are not at an advantage. They are. Europeans named large parts of the world after themselves; the process of renaming them in their "native" languages is slow and controversial (c.f. Port Elizabeth, South Africa).

We really, really need to sort out this Muhammad/Anthony issue. People seem to be coming away from discussions believing that they've agreed on this but holding different beliefs as to what was agreed. Antonio > Anthony is a cognate, Muhammad > Anthony is a translation, and Jesus > Helen is not equivalent in any way. If you support translations then you support Muhammad > Anthony, if you support "equivalent names, provided they are cognates" then you don't support Muhammad > Anthony.

That's what I mean by too much interpretation of "your name"; what I meant by too much interpretation of "graticule name" is much less relevant but centres on the fact that the community gets to pick graticule names, which it doesn't get to do with street, town or region names. Someone with the surname "Blythe" living in Edinburgh could claim the achievement by going on a trip to Berwick-upon-Tweed, because that's in Blyth graticule, but do they lose the achievement if the graticule gets renamed because we decided Blyth isn't the right place to name it after? Can a George claim the achievement by going hiking in deepest South Carolina (not crossing into Georgia at all) because the title of the graticule page is Savannah, Georgia, although the graphic says just Savannah (but then you click on one of the grats to the east and it's Savannah, Georgia again)? Bottomley Potts (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added a note to the page that graticule names do not count as they are more subject to change than places external to geohashing, and they are usually named after a place within that graticule anyway.

The 'Muhammad/Anthony issue' is, to my knowledge, resolved. It was a case of whether or not names that share the same meaning and only have this connection are considered valid, which they are now explicitly considered not to be valid. Antonio and Anthony are cognates, yes. Muhammad and Anthony are not a translation by anything other than a shared/similar meaning, which is explicitly not a valid connection. I am in agreement that Jesus and Helen are not linked. The achievement supports direct translations, such as Lily and Giglio, as well as cognates, such as Hans and John. I do not understand where you are taking the Muhammad and Anthony link from other than a shared meaning. There does not appear to be any confusion about this for the people who have formally voted on this proposal, despite you claiming otherwise. All of the people who have voted are aware of this restriction and do not consider it to be a valid reason for opposing the achievement.

You say that you don't think that change is viable, and that you do not want a change (referencing you stating that oppose was the correct vote for you, rather than needs work). I find this extremely confusing, as you have spent the past couple of days expressing your view on the achievement strongly, as if you believe it does matter and should be changed. It is therefore very difficult to move forward with the proposal, as it is unclear whether you are in a position of strongly opposing (which you initially stated yourself to be before getting into discussions on and suggesting potential solutions, implying you wanted to "fix" the proposal) or in a position of wanting to improve the achievement, which you have just stated that you are not. If you wish for your vote to be seen as an opposal with no convincing in any other direction, that is fine, but your attitude towards discussions on the achievement has been heavily that of someone who believes the proposal could reach a stage you would be happy with. Please make sure to be clearer in discussions via Discord next time as to whether you could be convinced or not, as a lot of people have spent a decent amount of time trying to do so with it appearing as though you were willing to hear them out.

Finally, you have repeatedly mentioned the achievement being unfair to non-Europeans and immigrants, despite non-Europeans and immigrants disagreeing with you. I believe that in these circumstances it is probably better to listen to the voices of people who have lived these experiences rather than someone who hasn't, and since we have several geohashers who fall within these categories (as well as people external to the community who I have asked regarding this) who say that is is not an issue (in fact, 100% of the people I asked said this would not bother them), it should not be treated as such. I appreciate the concerns you have raised regarding this and how passionate you appear to be in ensuring equality for all, but when you have previously been told by people in these groups that it is not the issue you have been making it out to be, it might be best to let them do the talking. --KerrMcF (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You say that you don't think that change is viable, and that you do not want a change. No, you've taken what I said and added a second part that I didn't say. I do want a change. I do not think that the change I want is possible. Neither did you, when you thought harder about it, because you decided that it would make the achievement too easy. No contradiction. I opposed the achievement when I read it and assumed Muhammad would have zero change of getting this achievement in the UK. You asked me what would make me stop opposing it, and I said allowing translations would, and you said translations were clearly allowed and had been since December 2023, but that you were going to message Fippe about it anyway. Then you changed the page to make it clear that translations were not allowed, so I left my vote as Oppose.

I've also come to the conclusion that this achievement is significantly harder for 100 randomly selected women than for 100 randomly selected men, and I know I'm not alone in that conclusion, and so I oppose this achievement for reasons of gender equity too.

The proposal could, indeed, reach a stage I am happy with. You decided, with full knowledge of what my preferences were, that you didn't want it to reach that stage. In light of that, I find your remarks about my participation in the discussion process to be in bad faith and needlessly confrontational.Bottomley Potts (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Definitely one of the harder achievements to get, but I'm all for it, especially with some wiggle room and creativity along the lines of what's already in place for A Tale Of Two Hashes. We could argue about the specifics of what does and doesn't count, and I've already spoken a bit on the Discord server about my thoughts there, but I think we could just go with "any variation of your name or username, including translations" and if someone wants to game the system... so be it. Everything's on the honor system here anyway. --Haberdasher

The proposal is better defined now. I would have prefered for us to allow not only cognates but also other translations, but I still like the achievement. Support --Fippe (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - It's a really nice concept which feels less arbitrary than and has a similar range of difficulty to existing "lucky location" achievements. While it may be easier to achieve for some geohashers than others, that doesn't take away from its value as an achievement. The only possible benefits gained from completing an achievement are a sense of personal accomplishment and respect from other geohashers. In both cases, this is based on what was actually accomplished, not the fact that you have the ribbon. e.g. It appears to heavily "favour" an Amerigo living in America, but it's actually pretty much meaningless to him. --PeterRoder (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - I like this idea. Actually looking at the hash and seeing what the region/street/building is called is an extra layer that is sometimes ignored. Local geohashers might have a slight advantage, but if the interpretation of the name is a stretch, a ribbon is also a good option.

Support, it's fun and I think more achievements are a good thing. Almost every achievement is easier for some people than others, but that hasn't stopped (and shouldn't stop) us. E.g. I can't easily get the GeoSquishy achievement as they hardly ever sell those here. --π π π (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Support --Tarasaurus (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The namesake achievement has been approved. --Fippe (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Honorable mention

How do we feel about an honorable mention for translations, substrings, and really anything that you can somehow explain? --Fippe (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support --Fippe (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support Stevage (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support (if the achievement is going to be created regardless of my vote which remains Oppose) Bottomley Potts (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I know this achievement is my proposal but I feel I should still vote on this specific aspect. --KerrMcF (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Ironeagl (talk) 2024-07-18 00:07 (UTC)

• Support. MyrtleGlacy (talk) 2024-07-18 09:15 (UTC)

• Support, why not. --π π π (talk) 11:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support --Tarasaurus (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

That's several fully supportive votes, with previous general votes stating they would like this aspect to be included, so I'll add this to the proposal now. --KerrMcF (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The question of significance

The page Proposed achievements states that an achievement a proposal can be approved when it "no longer has any significant opposition".

I think there might be a consensus that an opposing vote from an armchair geohasher who does not seem to be interested in geohashing, but rather about abusing the voting system can be deemed insignificant, especially if their reasoning has been addressed and we have reasonably tried to form a compromise with them.

I would be in favour of that. What do others think? --Fippe (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

As a highly opinionated person myself, I am sure that I contributed to several definitions and rules debates on IRC between the time that I joined the community and the time that I conducted my first expedition. (At the time I had a full-time job that could not be done remotely, and I did not own a GPS device and thus could only attempt points that were uniquely identifiable based on satellite imagery - so it was several months between attempts.) However, I would never have expected my opinion to override that of the entirety of the established community should we ever have found ourselves in opposition - not even after a dozen expeditions. Yerushalmi (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Nor would I, Yerushalmi. Especially not after everyone upvoted Stevage's suggestion on July 14th that my opinion be disregarded. So we agree! Bottomley Potts (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely in favour of moving forward. I don't think it's strictly about how many expeditions one needs to do to have a "vote" but when the community has heard the argument, and not been persuaded, and all that's left is the dissenting vote - then we can say "we heard it, we're fine with the objections you raised, we're doing this". Stevage (talk) 10:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

100% agree. Bottomley Potts (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely agree that it should move forward. I've been heavily involved in the approval of previously proposed achievements, many of which lay dorment for a decade or more. In some of these cases, the majority of people supported the proposal, with one, maybe two people opposing it. In all of these cases, the oppositon was either just the word oppose (already frowned upon by the proposed achievement voting guidelines) or a discussion had taken place where the majority agreed that although the opposition was there, it was not significant enough to warrant a block of the achievement. --KerrMcF (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Yep! That's what we all agreed on July 14th. Bottomley Potts (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm an armchair geohasher! I've been around for quite a long time. I've always refrained from getting involved in proposed changes because I don't really think I have standing to do so (not because I don't have opinions because sometimes I certainly do). I've always considered the community to be very reasonable, but I think you're bending over backwards here to accommodate a very insignificant opposing voice. I'm still not going to "vote" but I do think this achievement is a fun idea that might give some participants pleasure. Certainly not worth making all this heavy weather over. I agree with Fippe, Yerushalmi, Stevage & KerrMcF. Grunesquallor (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I should note for the record that at no point did I ask anyone to bend over backward to accommodate my insignificant opposing voice, and this discussion here is evidence that it was never necessary. I have been scapegoated for a problem that's actually a well-known weakness of consensus decision-making. Bottomley Potts (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

A formalised definition of "significant opposition" has been requested, so I'll write one here for comments before moving it to the proposal page itself.
A significant opposition is an opposition (or needs work vote!) where:

• It raises an issue that has not yet been discussed by other voters, or
• More than two people agree with the opposition

If the opposition recieves adequate discussion and three or more people still hold the same opposing view, the proposal cannot go ahead in its current state. This was the case for the Bingo proposed achievement which has since been rejected due to the creation of the N-in-a-row achievement.
Significant opposition in terms of the proposal as a whole can also refer to when there is a large number of opposing/needs work votes. In a situation where is is 10-1 in support or even 10-2 in support, the opposition is not overly significant, but if it is a case of 5-3, for example, then there is a clear percentage of the community who have an issue with the achievement, and this must be discussed in order for any progression to take place.
A significant opposition does not necessarily mean an automatic rejection. An achievement is normally only rejected if the majority vote is in opposition of the achievement.
Please leave comments and thoughts below regarding this process, it's roughly the mental steps I was taking when approving or rejecting the recently changed proposals. The age of the votes was also taken into consideration during this, but that will not be an issue for any future proposals so does not need further discussion. --KerrMcF (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Sounds wonderful! (Although I wonder what would happen to a proposal that a total of 4 people care about, two in favour and two opposed.) Bottomley Potts (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think the best way to deal with the situation is not to convince others that one person's opinion is insignificant, but instead change the rules to something more rigid like KerrMcF suggests above. This specific proposal still has the problem that not everyone might agree about what has already been sufficiently discussed, so I suggest we drop that criterion and make such "official" decisions based solely on number of votes per voting option. That way, we can also avoid coming up with our own definition of "significant" and avoid that phrase altogether. To account for when Geohashing inevitably becomes really popular, I think it's more reasonable to use relative agreement as they do in Wikipedia – à la "a proposed achievement needs at least 80% support and at least 10 supporting votes to be implemented" or something. --π π π (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I love this. Absolutely in favour of anything that avoids putting a single voter in the crosshairs of the majority. Bottomley Potts (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)