Talk:Kazanka

Redlinks

Per WP:MOSDAB, redlinked items should only be included if there is also a blue link on the line which points to an article containing that name. --El on ka 17:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DABRL, red links should be retained if there are articles that link to them. Then making such an article into a qualifying blue link is a trivial task. Removing the valid red link altogether, on the other hand, is of no benefit whatsoever. And honestly, in the time it took us to write these two comments, both stubs could have already been created...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:07, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

If you want to create stubs, please do. But when you did a wholesale revert of my own changes (which is a waste of my time), that's not exactly the kind of thing which helps other editors to assume good faith. So I will repeat: Per WP:DABRL, "Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term.". Currently the two redlinks on this page do have bluelinks, but neither of those bluelinks has any information on Kazanka. As such, they are not appropriate. --El on ka 18:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot immediately create all stubs for each of the tens of thousands places in Russia every time someone accidentally stumbles upon a valid red link entry on a dab page. Please take a moment to read and understand what WP:DABRL really says, as we seem to be talking about two different things (I am not talking about existing blue links, but rather about existing backlinks which can easily be made into the blue links meeting the guideline requirement; backlinks like this one).

Anyway, I've just split the Russia-related portion into a dedicated set. Like I said before, it's quicker to fix the issue (to the benefit of both readers and your fellow editors) than to keep dragging this bureaucratic nonsense to no one's benefit. What you do with the Ukrainian entry is not of my concern. I don't edit Ukrainian articles, and although I'd guess you would not be doing folks at WP:UKRAINE a favor if you decide to re-unlink this entry, I sure am not going to argue such a decision. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. By the way, sorry if my comments appeared harsh; this is most definitely not because they are meant personally. It's just that your edit is exactly the frustrating kind of thing I have to put up with time and time again. Take Kazanka, Ukraine, for example. You could have incorporated a mention of it in the Mykolaiv Oblast article; you could have tweaked the dab line to include a blue link to any one of the articles that do in fact mention Kazanka in Ukraine; you could have asked WP:UKRAINE to verify this entry and either link it properly or create a stub, yet of all the approaches you selected the one that's second least helpful—you simply unlinked the entry altogether (an action which didn't even make the entry MOSDAB-compliant!). Well, at least you haven't removed it completely; thank you for that.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:37, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

I know that the topic area of Ukraine-related articles can be filled with strife, but I assure you, that's not the motivation for my edit. :) My genuine desire here is to have disambiguation pages which are of use to our readers. Trying to include links to villages just because they exist, is not what a disambiguation page is for. Instead, it's to be used to help direct readers to existing pages about the information. Another concern has to do with the policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anything that is not sourced on Wikipedia, can be removed immediately. Or in other words, in order to include mention of any locations named Kazanka, there really need to be sources which verify the existence of these locations. Without sources, we shouldn't be mentioning the location at all. The way that this is supposed to work when using a redlink on a disambiguation page, is that we also include a blue link to some article with information about the term, and generally that article will have sources verifying the information about the term.

As for how to proceed here, I don't think that having a new disambiguation page for Kazanka, Russia is a good idea, since it's just full of unsourced redlinks right now. Better would be to merge the information back here to the Kazanka disambiguation page, and then link each entry to someplace on Wikipedia where the term is actually used. --El on ka 19:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't vouch for the places in Ukraine because, like I said, it's not the subject area that I personally edit, but I can vouch for every single Russian entry on a disambiguation page like this one. If it's included, it's because there was a reason to. I don't have a habit of dumping lists of places into Wikipedia just for the heck of it, even though I am capable of doing so (and sourcing every single such entry at the same time, by the way).

Speaking of sources, perhaps this thread (and the section following it) would be enlightening to you. A great number of useful red links are deleted as "unsourced" or "unverifiable", yet the sad irony is that MOSDAB does not allow adding sources to disambig pages, and DABRL provisions often do not work too well. Attempts at fixing this situation are met with hostility, mockery, and heated accusations (I am deliberately not providing any diffs to this effect, as to not make this matter personal).

Finally, regarding Kazanka, Russia, please note that it is NOT a disambiguation page; it is a set index article. It may look like a disambig to you, because it is nothing but a hack job to alleviate your concerns about Kazanka (which is a disambig page), but it is in fact a set. When it gets developed more, it'll look a lot less like a disambig page (here's a similar example, which accompanies this disambig page). Sets are actually supposed to be linked to from disambig pages. If an analogy helps, sets are very much like articles about human names. I don't like to create new sets which are all red either, but it is quicker to do that than hold prolonged pointless discussions with mosdabbers over and over again (nothing personal here). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:10, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

If it's a list page, please provide sources. --El on ka 20:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please request sources on that page then. (If you intend to be bureaucratic, I will be, too). Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:20, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am not trying to be confrontational, I'm trying to find a consensus solution which both of us (and anyone else who has an opinion) can live with. What do you think of the idea of merging the two pages and putting sources on talk? --El on ka 21:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not assuming bad faith here, although I do suspect mis-communication. You have every right to request sources for any unsourced statement; if you wish to do so with Kazanka, Russia, you are welcome to mark the article accordingly. I can't humanly provide sources to every unsourced article in Wikipedia, but I will, to the best of my ability, source the articles in my watchlist for which such references have been explicitly requested.

Regarding merging the articles and placing sources on talk, this is one approach I've been advocated for months and months. Alas, the folks at WP:DAB don't think too high about this solution (believe me, I tried more than once). If merged, the page will probably last for a while, until discovered again by mosdabbers and weeded all over for non-compliance. The existing solution (placing Russian places in a set) is an acceptable compromise; this is not the first time it's been implemented without complaints. Sets exist for a reason, and this is one situation where they work just fine.

In order not to make this any more confrontational and pointy than it already seems to be, I'll add the sources to the set index in a few minutes. Hopefully we'll be able to close this matter then. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:46, December 21, 2009 (UTC)