Talk:Michurinsky
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Obscurity
[edit]Ezhiki says "the district is just as obscure as the rural localities", except that that is not true on Wikipedia: the district has an article, the rural localities do not. The title "Michurinsky" should lead to the article with a hatnote to the dab, since that's the only information Wikipedia is currently offering. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've added another entry to save everyone's time. That the district article was created before those on (any of) the rural localities is a mere coincidence; think nothing of it. Next time you encounter a similar page just ask for another entry to be added. In 99% of cases there's also a selsoviet that should (and will) be covered later at some point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 18, 2012; 15:45 (UTC)
- Next time I encounter a similar page, I'll handle it according to the consensus guidelines, just like this one. There is no page owner to ask. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know where the "page owner" stuff came from (although I bet it's not from here), but you might consider that in a situation when you know for sure there is an editor willing to expand a page in a certain situation, s/he should be treated as a valuable resource, not as a menace to bureaucratic rules. Moving pages around like you did with this one is fine for an editor who didn't know there's someone available to contribute further, but when help is offered in good faith, isn't it more productive to accept it rather than high-handedly dismiss it? Just because we don't like one another doesn't mean we can't cooperate on occasions where doing so benefits the encyclopedia...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 18, 2012; 18:24 (UTC)
- Just because you don't like me doesn't mean I don't like you -- I don't like the messes these set index articles tend to leave. If I'm gnomishly hitting random pages and have to clean up one of the messes of dab-set-index mashups that are common with these rural localities, I just go ahead and clean them up -- I don't have to ask anyone else to do anything first in order to improve the arrangement of the information that is currently on the encyclopedia. The productive response, if you're not happy with that gnomish improvement's result, would be to add the lacking information then, instead of high-handedly reverting it, and only offering assistance after the reversion is questioned. Then we will have cooperated to the benefit of the encyclopedia without any questions of ownership. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not saying you have to ask anyone; I'm saying that considering to ask someone who you know is there and is able and willing to help, thus preventing the accumulation of other kinds of messes in the long term, is a more helpful attitude. And for the record, I did not "high-handedly revert" your change; I simply reverted the move and immediately went to add a new entry to clarify why the pages were set up the way they were (incorporating, by the way, most of your changes in the process). In the meanwhile, you reinstated your own improvement, posted a comment on the talk page, and we edit-conflicted before I could submit mine or notice that a response is requested. That's a scenario that happens quite often and is not a reason to accuse me of ownership.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 18, 2012; 19:23 (UTC)
- Just because you don't like me doesn't mean I don't like you -- I don't like the messes these set index articles tend to leave. If I'm gnomishly hitting random pages and have to clean up one of the messes of dab-set-index mashups that are common with these rural localities, I just go ahead and clean them up -- I don't have to ask anyone else to do anything first in order to improve the arrangement of the information that is currently on the encyclopedia. The productive response, if you're not happy with that gnomish improvement's result, would be to add the lacking information then, instead of high-handedly reverting it, and only offering assistance after the reversion is questioned. Then we will have cooperated to the benefit of the encyclopedia without any questions of ownership. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know where the "page owner" stuff came from (although I bet it's not from here), but you might consider that in a situation when you know for sure there is an editor willing to expand a page in a certain situation, s/he should be treated as a valuable resource, not as a menace to bureaucratic rules. Moving pages around like you did with this one is fine for an editor who didn't know there's someone available to contribute further, but when help is offered in good faith, isn't it more productive to accept it rather than high-handedly dismiss it? Just because we don't like one another doesn't mean we can't cooperate on occasions where doing so benefits the encyclopedia...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 18, 2012; 18:24 (UTC)
- Next time I encounter a similar page, I'll handle it according to the consensus guidelines, just like this one. There is no page owner to ask. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)