Talk:Cheremkhovo

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Administrative and municipal status[edit]

In other words, the town and the okrug are coextensive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.208.24 (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is a fairly common setup, but it is important to recognize that the "Town", the "town", and the "urban okrug" are the entities of three different types, even though they are all coextensive.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 20, 2012; 14:38 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. After over a month, a move review, and a relisting, consensus is that these articles are the primary topics of the terms. In both cases, the articles are the only topics of their name and no evidence has been presented to counter the arguments that they are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Amakuru is also correct that these are not good candidates for set indexes, which are for related articles with similar names, not for unrelated towns that have the same name. The pages are better as dab pages and I'll reformat them as such. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. All of the other DAB page entries are red links. (MOS:DABRED issues?) — AjaxSmack 00:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support – As you've pointed out, there's apparently only one actual article for each "disambiguation" page, so the move makes sense. V2Blast (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but not because I agree with the argument "but we currently have only one article", but because those two towns are way bigger (50k and 20k residents respectively) and presumably much more notable than the redlinked villages. Compare ru:Черемхово and ru:Слюдянка (город) No such user (talk)
Relisting comment - this was brought up at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2017 July, following an earlier close by Anarchyte, and a revert of the move by Ezhiki. Anarchyte agreed to a relist, so I'm implementing that here. @AjaxSmack: @V2Blast: @No such user: @GeoffreyT2000: @Ezhiki: please resume discussion here, with any additional points you wish to raise. — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral+Comment. As I pointed out during the move review, I do not believe either of these entities (but especially Slyudyanka) rise above the level of obscurity that warrants application of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm content with the articles remaining where they are. If, however, the consensus is that PRIMARYTOPIC applies here, the set indices will need to be moved to Cheremkhovo (inhabited locality) and Slyudyanka (inhabited locality), as is the custom/precedent for titling set indices on Russian inhabited localities (WP:NC:CITY#Russia is normally used; see Kstovo for a similar setup), as well as due to the fact that these set indices do not meet disambiguation page guidelines and thus cannot exist as disambigs.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 21, 2017; 14:10 (UTC)
- I sympathize and believe the two articles should both exist as they are, DAB policies be damned. The problem with "Slyudyanka (inhabited locality)" (et al.) is it doesn't disambiguate the two pages. All of the Slyudyanka articles are about inhabited localities. "List of places named Slyudyanka" is a more accurate reflection of the contents of the supposedly not disambiguation pages. — AjaxSmack 00:08, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think "dab policies be damned" is a workable approach. There is a lot of room for improvement in WP:MOSDAB but very little interest in getting it reviewed and revised, so as long as it stands as a formal guideline, it should be adhered to. There are people in the DAB project whose activities literally boil down to making rounds of disambiguation pages and axing anything that doesn't fit the guideline, and all too often that leads to perfectly valid and encyclopedic (if obscure) information getting lost just because those cleaners couldn't fit it into the rigid MOSDAB structure. "Fixing" the disambiguation guidelines is, of course, outside the scope of this particular discussion, but ignoring them altogether more often than not just leads to problems further down the road.
    As for calling the set index "list of places named Slyudyanka", that, while a possible approach, is not one WP:RUSSIA standardized on (set index articles structure and setup are maintained by the WikiProjects whose scope those set indices fall under). Toponyms are in the same league as anthroponyms, and it is more helpful to title set indices on place names as "XXX"/"XXX (inhabited locality)" instead of "list of inhabited localities called XXX" for the same reasons why it's more helpful to call set indices on human names "YYY"/"YYY (name)" instead of "list of people named YYY".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 27, 2017; 14:31 (UTC)
Oppose the nomination per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. The question of whether a topic is currently the subject of a standalone article is never a deciding issue in assessing whether it is the primary topic. In some cases it is irrelevant.

The primacy or otherwise of any topic should be assessed by the properties of the topic itself, rather than of how Wikipedia currently covers the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT rationale. In these cases, what is the primary topic of another title that Cheremkhovo &c. are supposed to redirect to? Cheremkhovo, Irkutsk Oblast is a city of over 50,000 while the other places of that name are villages of a few hundred. Or is there another target that I'm missing? — AjaxSmack 00:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AjaxSmack: In this case I am not advocating that the redirect point somewhere else. The relevance of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is simply the part of the guideline which sets out most succinctly the key point that the primacy or otherwise of any topic should be assessed by the properties of the topic itself, rather than of how Wikipedia currently covers the topic.

The argument you make in your reply to me is based on the properties on each topic, which is potentially a valid argument. However, the argument in your nomination is based on Wikipedia's coverage of these topics, and that is what I was replying to.

The point being made in WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT is not that the redirect has to point somewhere else, but that it may point somewhere else, because the issue in deciding whether there is a primary topic is choosing between topics, rather than simply between existing articles of that title.

Lemme give you a hypothetical example. Suppose that of all the topics listed at Ann Williams, we currently had a standalone article only on Anne Williams (activist), the others being redlinks with mentions in other articles.

That still wouldn't make the activist the primary topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So in this case, why is Cheremkhovo, Irkutsk Oblast not the primary topic of Cheremkhovo? — AjaxSmack 02:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is; maybe it isn't.

But it definitely does not become the ptopic per the nominating rationale that other topics currently lack a standalone articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The Disamb / List of... / Set Index discussion is for another place. Currently, the accepted way of dealing with multiple inhabited localities sharing the same name is through Set Indices, changing these few would put them out of kilter with all other similar pages. In terms of whether one or other of the named localities is the primary topic is currently moot, as noted above, simply because one place has its article created first makes no difference. To be honest, I think it unlikely that any of these localities are of sufficient importance to clearly show primary topic. Fenix down (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed - having read all the arguments, I see no convincing reasons not to move the pages exactly as proposed. The topics are primary over the others. And these pages are clearly not set indexes, they are disambiguation pages, just like any other which describes a place name used by multiple separate settlements. Set indexes are useful for things like Dodge Charger, where you have a number of *related* things under one umbrella title. These diverse settlements are related *only* in the fact that they share a name. Fenix down's argument above, that "the accepted way of dealing with multiple inhabited localities sharing the same name is through Set Indices" is completely false. See Leamington, Moscow (disambiguation), New York, Stroud (disambiguation) etc, which all disambiguate place names, and are all disambiguation pages. — Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant for Russian place names. Fenix down (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I had to revert this, as the new setup is incorrect. Neither Slyudyanka nor Cheremkhovo are disambiguation pages (so they should not have "(disambiguation)" in the title). They are set index articles. If you still believe the bluelinked entries meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, please feel free to resubmit the proposal. Titles of set index articles on the Russian inhabited localities must meet WP:NC:CITY#Russia, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 26, 2017; 13:50 (UTC)

The bluelinked topics are not only the primary topics, they are the only topics with articles of the respective names. Wikipedia disambiguators are used to disambiguate from other articles of the same name, not to disambiguate from anything in existence in the world with the same name (and WP:NC:CITY#Russia says nothing about "disambiguating" from non-articles either). You state that "neither Slyudyanka nor Cheremkhovo are disambiguation pages" but they sure look exactly like they are so (and "articles" they are not). They should be titled something like "List of places named Slyudyanka" to be setlists. — AjaxSmack 00:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.