User talk:Christinebenson58

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Christinebenson58! I am WereSpielChequers and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Ϣere SpielChequers 12:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belushya Guba

Please take your grievances to talk. Calling other editors' good-faith edits "vandalism" is not really a productive approach. What exactly in my edits do you object to? Do you know that Belushya Guba was granted urban-type settlement status in 2005, which is why it does not show in the 2002 Census results? What is the point of referencing the name to an unreliable webpage, when every other (reliable) source in the article already contains this name?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 4, 2011; 16:48 (UTC)

I have no grievances, but I see you have one.

Anger does not resolve issues. - You may have noticed that most of the content, including the map, the sections/heading, the image on the article and most of the references were placed by me. I actually researched this article thoroughly, I made the map myself, and the derivative image from NASA as well, and provided most of the text. - The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Bethesda, MD, USA, is an excellent, and reliable, source of geographical names. - In English, we do not consider a village of 2000 as "URBAN TYPE SETTLEMENT", regardless of its statistical designation by the government of the Russian Federation or its constituent administrative divisions. You may want to note under "History" of "Economy" (by the way, I created those sections as well) that "Belushya Guba was granted urban-type settlement status in 2005", a more meaningful comment to those who visit Wikipedia.Christinebenson58 (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I don't question your work (which was a great improvement—thank you), nor am I particularly angry. I am, however, puzzled as to why you take my corrections of a few inaccuracies so close to heart. As for the points you raised:

The "citation needed" tag in the infobox is added automatically to all lines which don't have a source—it's not a poke :) If you can find a source for 1897, great, if not, someone else eventually will.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is an excellent source, yes, but that's not what the article references. What is references is "geographic.org". I understand that you can't put a link to the real source, but it doesn't mean you should blindly trust the first copycat site that claims to faithfully reproduce their data. Just say where the data came from—it is perfectly OK to have a source which doesn't have a link.
"Urban-type settlement" in this case is an official designation. We actually have a whole article about it. A village is a different matter entirely (and Belushya Guba had never ever ever been officially called a "village"). The infobox is supposed to show the official designation of a place, not the English colloquialisms (those are only fine when you mention a place in passing, not when you write an article, which is supposed to cover everything, including the official status). In other words, you got it exactly backwards—the infobox is supposed to show the official designation (it has fields designed specifically with the official designations in mind), while in those parts of the article which don't deal with the administrative status you are free to refer to it by whichever colloquialism you think is more suitable. Take a look at how other articles are structured—it's exactly the same approach everywhere.
I did cite a reference for the 2005 change. I am thus a bit confused by your comment above (you may also want to cite a reliable reference)—what exactly are you questioning?

Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 4, 2011; 17:27 (UTC)

Being around a while isn't really a criterion for being a reliable source. At the very least the citation needs to be changed to something like "National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency via Geographic.org". This way readers will at least be warned that the data are being accessed via an intermediary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 4, 2011; 18:23 (UTC)

Good point, but I am only re-telling you what WP:RS is telling me :) One can't even find the contact information easily on geographic.org, which makes it nearly impossible to ascertain the quality of their data (or how accurately the data were copied from elsewhere). In fact, it looks that the whole website is a subsidiary of a commercial company, the primary business of which is immigration. To me, at least, this doesn't seem especially reliable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 4, 2011; 19:01 (UTC)

By the way, the source reliability issues aside, why do you feel the need to reference the name of this place? It is something that's immediately obvious from every other source used in the article (which is why I originally removed it altogether), and our own guidelines only require referencing the information that is being (or is likely to be) challenged. Do you think someone will be challenging it and if so, on what premise? Just curious...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 4, 2011; 19:09 (UTC)