Talk:Ural
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Recent edits
[edit]I asked this before, never got an answer, so I'll ask it again: how is duplicating entries across disambiguation pages and set indices going to help navigation? J, I previously asked you if there is anyone willing to maintain and sync what is essentially identical lists and you certainly did not volunteer. Nor did anyone else, to my knowledge.
Set indices on Russian inhabited localities contain complete lists of places which share the same name (lists which can and will be referenced, mind you--the current limited set of barebone collections of red links is only Phase 1). Listing only those items which have blue links and meet DABRL on the dab page and the rest only in a set index (a link to which isn't even near) creates a false impression that the dab's list is exhaustive, which it most often is not. While the proclaimed purpose of the dab page is to disambiguate between existing entries, chances are that a reader might be searching for an entry which neither has an article nor qualifies for inclusion per DABRL. Placing a link to a set index far from the dab list makes it very easy to miss, depriving the reader of the information the set contains. And even though many of the sets' entries are Wikipedia dead-ends, they do provide valuable clues as to where to move next if one were to use other research venues. There is also the case of very long set indices (which is another question I previously asked you and received no answer): Alexandrovka, Russia is a typical example. It contains a number of red links which actually meet DABRL, and that number is slowly growing. Eventually all those entries will qualify for inclusion on the dab page—are you saying that duplicating them on Alexandrovka (disambiguation) would be a good call; one which ultimately "helps navigation"?
My last point is the WP:MOSDAB's description of the "see also" sections, which are intended primarily for misspellings, alternative spelling, and different forms of the title, as well as links to related disambiguation pages. Set indices don't fall under any of those categories, and the title of Ural (inhabited locality) is exactly the same as the title of the dab. Why, then, should it not be in the main section?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 17, 2013; 16:14 (UTC)
- Set indexes are set indexes, please stop removing the term "set index" from the description of the links. Set indexes are lists (and you're mistitling them with the qualifier instead of List of places named Ural, per WP:SETINDEX), and as such are placed in the See also section. If any of the entries on the set index are also valid disambiguation entries, they should be so added. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why? (Please don't say "because a guideline says so"; I'm asking for the intended benefit). Diego (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, why? No other dab I've seen labels set indices as such (ships are a good example) and there is no formal requirement to do so. Throwing wikijargon around when a perfectly simple description can be written is no good either. Also, links to sets are most certainly not usually stuck under "see also" when their titles match the title of the dab itself (again, ships come to mind, and with those the match technically isn't even exact, since they are usually preceded by USS, HMS, or some such moniker). The "list of..." requirement is not followed by the vast majority of the pages in Category:Set indices, which seems to be an indication that it no longer has consensus and should be retired/amended as obsolete. The merits of this requirement itself, when proposed (and ultimately added in 2007) were never specifically discussed and, if current situation with sets is of any indication, never enforced or re-visited; at the very least it should be marked as optional. On top of that, J, you yourself at the time agreed that sets (at least ships') are similar to surname lists, and those are never tucked under "see also". Thoughts?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 17, 2013; 17:48 (UTC)