Talk:Vostochny District

linking to dab page

The text: The name literally means "eastern" links to the disambiguation page for eastern. The guidance on when to link to disambiguation pages can be found here. It says "With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous." The exceptions are listed (there are five), and the example here for the word "eastern" is not one of them. I deleted the link, and my change was reverted. Can you please expalain the rationale for including a dab link here? If you just feel like defining the word "eastern" then perhaps a wiktionary link would be more appropriate (although frankly I don't see the merit in that either), but why a dab link? Coastside (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the comment. As you correctly pointed out, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous with few exceptions. The purpose of INTDAB is first and foremost to make sure that people don't accidentally link to dab pages, when they really mean to link to one of the entries on those dab pages. It does not ban linking to dab pages on purpose (and indeed, for each dab page called "XXX" there supposed to exist a page called "XXX (disambiguation)" to make it possible to distinguish intentional links from accidental links), nor can it cover every possible situation where making an exception is warranted (although it lists the five most common ones).

I suppose it would be OK to replace the link to a dab with a link to Wiktionary (the sentence does, after all, explain the meaning of the Russian word), but then it would still make sense to list "eastern (disambiguation)" in the "see also" section of this page (as the set indices on Russian districts and inhabited localities routinely include such links; this is due to translation/transliteration concerns and a high possibility of mislinking). And the WP:SEEALSO guideline, of course, says that the "see also" section should not contain any links which are (or can/should be) incorporated in the main text. Which brings us back to square one—linking to "eastern (disambiguation)" may not exactly fall under one of the five listed exceptions, but it is nevertheless logical, somewhat beneficial, and not at all harmful. And when cards fall like that, we can further bolster them with WP:IAR—while the benefits of linking to a dab page can be argued, it's nearly impossible to make a case for why such linking would be harmful in any way, so the net result is positive (even if only marginally). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 29, 2012; 14:22 (UTC)

Technically this page violates another rule about See Also sections by including links to dab pages there. WP:ALSO says "The 'See also' section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguationin a disambiguation page)." This article is a Set Index Article, not a disambiguation page. If you think there is a "high possibility of mislinking" and want to include links to dab pages as in the See also section, then a more traditional hat note would probably be clearer and more appropriate. That's why a hat note is one of the listed exceptions. In this case, I would suggest the following:

This article is about administrative and municipal districts in Russia with the name Vostochny District. For other uses of the term Vostochny, see Vostochny (disambiguation). For uses of the term Vostochny Okrug, see Vostochny Okrug (disambiguation). For uses of the term Eastern, see Eastern.

Coastside (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ALSO is actually not too specific on that point, plus it deals only with the articles (if it weren't, the British vs. Britain (disambiguation) example under bullet two on WP:INTDAB would have been in direct contradiction with WP:ALSO!). It is true that linking to dab pages from articles is pretty much useless, but linking to other dab pages from a dab page (or, as is the case here, from a set index article, which is technically a combination of a dab and a list) often makes perfect sense. It makes even more sense in the context of Russian terminology—for example, various places may be called "Восточный" ("Vostochny", meaning "eastern") in Russian, but rendered in English as either "Vostochny" or "Eastern" (oftentimes interchangeably). Case in point: Vostochny District in Moscow may be referred to as either "Vostochny" or "Eastern" (with the former making more sense from the usage standpoint), yet while the same is true for the administrative okrug that district is a part of (Eastern Administrative Okrug), with that one the "Eastern" usage is actually much more common. A high potential for confusion? I think so!

A hatnote approach might occasionally resolve these kinds of problems, but in this case adding one will result in overly pedantic, long, and plain ugly string which will confuse more people than it will help (for one, this page, and other pages similar to this one, are not just about administrative and municipal districts, they are also about city divisions, which in some federal subjects are neither administrative nor municipal). Don't you think it is so much cleaner to have them in a "see also" section? What do we have to lose, anyway? A pedantic adherence to a rule which was designed with a wholly different situation in mind? I'd say if there is a prime example where a rule is better off ignored, it's right here on this very page, and besides, it's not even so much "ignoring" it, as it is being flexible about approaching a problem which can't be neatly pigeonholed. To quote WP:ALSO, [deciding] [w]hether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The whole of MOS is a guideline describing best practices which work in most (but not all) cases; it is not a policy which should nearly always be enforced regardless of the costs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 29, 2012; 15:44 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have Eastern (disambiguation) included in the See also section here than to link to it as it is now. At least then a reader would understand they were being led to a dab page. As it is, I don't see any benefit at all to a reader who lands on this page. They see something that says "Vostochny" is Russian for "eastern", and what are they supposed to think that link will take them to? It's not clear. I think most users who click it would not want to be served a dab page on the word "eastern." I deleted it altogether, which is my choice, but you say there is a risk of "mislinking." Can you explain that? How would a reader inadvertently end up on this page and then find it helpful to go to a dab page on "eastern"? If there is such a case, again, I'd rather see it clearly spelled out in a Hat note with "eastern (disambiguation)" or in the See also section with "eastern (disambiguation)" and not passively linked in the text as it is now.Coastside (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What I meant by "mislinking" is that some editors, who aren't very well-versed in the idiosyncrasies of Russian translation/transliteration, tend to link to all sorts of crap :) A link meant to lead to "Vostochny District, Moscow" might, for example, be rendered as any combination of East/Eastern/Vostok/Vostochny/a handful of alternative transliterations of "Vostochny" and District/Raion/Rayon/Area/Territory/Region (sometimes with both terms linked separately). I always try to interconnect the most plausible variants and to set up the most common redirects, but the truth is, it's impossible to predict how readers will end up on a dab page and whether the dab page they land on is the most helpful one.

That said, I see your point how linking to the "eastern" dab from the text doesn't do much for a reader. The sentence, after all, explains the meaning of the Russian word, and there is nothing on that dab to further enlighten the reader about that meaning. So, how do you feel about this compromise: we'll either link the term to Wiktionary instead or unlink it altogether, but at the same time add "eastern (disambiguation)" to the "see also" section to cover the most mislinking contingencies? I assume that sounds reasonable, as it's pretty much what you've just proposed? I guess I got a little carried away with linking to an explanation—what works well in Dmitrovsky District does not really work here. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 29, 2012; 16:54 (UTC)

I'm fine with that compromise. I defer to you whether you think the Wiktionary link would be helpful vs. just deleting the link, and then adding the dab under See also. Thanks.Coastside (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I went with the Wiktionary link for now, although I'm going to think a bit more about it. If you think of anything further, or change your mind, please feel free to re-open this thread. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 29, 2012; 18:11 (UTC)