Talk:Chishmy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Russia / Human geography (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force.
 

Requested move 30 September 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: Moved. The !voting is split 50/50 here, but the nomination and the support votes explain clearly why this topic meets the usual definitions for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC according to our policies, while the opposes rely mainly on assertions that are not part of policy, such as "Out of several small localities one will always be the largest, but it doesn't always mean it should be treated as the primary topic". So when weighing the !votes through the lens of policy, the consensus it to move as proposed.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)



– This work settlement of 21,196 is the primary topic for this name and the only article with this name at Wikipedia (the other DAB page entries are redlinks). Note the Russian Wikipedia article at Чишмы. Even if a disambiguator is desired, the current one is excessive. —  AjaxSmack  00:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Alex ShihTalk 19:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. no indication whatsoever of primary topic, you can't use ruWiki as a source to claim primary topic for obvious reasons. Seems to me like there is no primary topic as it is difficult to see how any of these places would have primacy, they're all small.
  2. fundamental misunderstanding of the differences between a dab and a set index. Chishmy is not a dab and with only one blue link couldn't be. It is a set index which is very different, you simple cannot create the dab proposed at the moment. This is also the conventional means of listing Russian place names with the same name (see: Category:Set indices on populated places in Russia)
  3. the idea that the disambiguated is excessive is also not correct. There are three places in Russia with this name, so we need to dab by region, the only differentiator between the two in bashkortostan is their nature so ultimately that is also needed. Is the title clumsy? Yes, is it necessary? Unfortunately also yes.
If this Chishmy was a large settlement and the others minor villages then i could see how there could be a clear primary topic and apologies for the bold revert, but in this instance i felt that the proposal contained too many significant errors and there was nowhere near the level of involvement to indicate clear consensus to go against current conventions. @Ezhiki: do you have an opinion on this? Fenix down (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
But this Chelmy is nearly 900 times larger (22,000 people) than the redlinked village of 25 people (I can't even source the other).  AjaxSmack  15:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support both. Current article title is ridiculous and clearly not according to policy and guidelines. There may be better eventual solutions, but for now nothing better has been proposed, and these two moves would definitely improve the encyclopedia. As would MOSifying the appalling DAB. Andrewa (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose both. I wish people stopped looking for lists containing a bunch of terribly obscure locations with hardly any coverage in English and figuring out which one of them is supposedly "primary". What a waste of time. Out of several small localities one will always be the largest, but it doesn't always mean it should be treated as the primary topic. Is is just the least obscure of the three, is all. On other points, the page cannot be a disambiguation because it would fail WP:DABRL (note a similarly ill-proposed RM for Cheremkhovo, where the page ultimately ended up as a set index anyway, because it was nearly CSD'd as a non-compliant dab and then had to be "saved" as a set index). Per a suggestion below, I've added a source and coordinates to the set index to make it clearer that it is indeed a set index and not a dab, and on future occasions would recommend that sources are requested for any entries which you have doubts about. As for the title, it is in full compliance with WP:NC:CITY#Russia, itself a subset of WP:AT. And why is it a surprise that a minor obscure location with an ambiguous name would have an unwieldy title? That's exactly why we have a set index in place—to clarify that the name is ambiguous and to provide additional information to make telling them apart easier. Also, while "list of places named XXX" is generally a valid title, it is not the naming scheme Russian set indices are using. Using just "XXX" to title a set index is also perfectly fine, as a quick look around other set index categories will easily confirm.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 9, 2017; 14:54 (UTC)
    • If the article in question is the only topic of that title with an article and there is no primary redirect, then almost by definition the topic in question is primary. If you search sources (e.g. Google), this is confirmed. Russian Wikipedia (which should have a better grasp of the relative importance of these topics) agrees. And, yes "using just 'XXX' to title a set index is also perfectly fine" but it should not override WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  AjaxSmack  17:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
      • But the key word here is "almost", isn't it? Application of PRIMARYTOPIC does not hinge on whether an article exists or doesn't; it's the big picture that's being considered. And the big picture is that this here is the English (not Russian) Wikipedia, and the page in question deals with three places unknown (and I daresay of little interest) to most Anglophones. Just because one of the three places is somewhat less obscure does not automatically make it a primary topic. Look at it this way—had this page dealt with three god-forsaken villages (instead of two god-forsaken villages and one god-forsaken urban-type settlement), would you even bother opening an RM to determine which one is the least god-forsaken?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 16, 2017; 14:53 (UTC)
  • Oppose both Obscure topic, yes, maybe the least obscure, but not primary. ("I wish people stopped looking for lists containing a bunch of terribly obscure locations with hardly any coverage in English and figuring out which one of them is supposedly "primary". What a waste of time. Out of several small localities one will always be the largest, but it doesn't always mean it should be treated as the primary topic. Is is just the least obscure of the three, is all." - Sigh. Thanks User:Ezhiki) 78.55.12.169 (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

There are three problems with the current titles:

1 The supposed set index page is not the primary topic

There are three unsourced entries (with no geo coordinates given) on the supposed "set index" page:

Clearly, the town of 22,000 is the primary topic. (Not that it matters but Russian Wikipedia agrees.) It is the only Chishmy with an article and the other two entities are not even sourced. The one I could find info on is a village of barely two dozen inhabitants.

2 The dismabiguators are contrary to guidelines.

Even if other users disagree that the Chishmy (urban-type... is the primary topic, the excessively circumlocutious set of three disambiguators for one name is excessive: Chishmy (urban-type settlement) is enough. Note this recent move request that concluded the same.

3 The supposed set index at Chishmy is not really a set index

I wish it were, and strongly support the continued existence of such indices for Russian places. However, attempting to assert that an unsourced redlink farm is a set index is weak. A title like List of places named Chishmy or some geo coordinates for the listed places might help. Trying to claim primary topic status for a list of terms also hurts the case. —  AjaxSmack  15:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The RM in #2 has nothing in common with this one, and I'm also really disappointed with your #3. If you indeed strongly support the existence of set indices for Russian places, then your first order of business should have been contacting the author of the page requesting its re-design/expansion and proceeding with other options only if that failed to materialize. It took me a whole of two minutes to add a source and coordinates, which sounds like all that you really wanted to see there in the first place. As for #1 and the title, see my oppose !vote above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 9, 2017; 14:54 (UTC)
Re: #3, You will just have to believe me. (I have had similar articles that I have created deleted against my wishes and I believe DAB policy should change to allow for redlinked placename DABs.) However, for me WP:PRECISION, WP:CONCISE, WP:DAB are important for Wikipedia titles.
Re: #2, Having four disambiguators when only one is needed is excessive and is counter to policy. I can bring that up at WT:PLACE if you'd like.  AjaxSmack  17:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

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.

Recent move[edit]

This recent move provided no evidence of primary topic and also ignored the fact that the page turned into a dab wasxin fact a set index. Needs much wider input that one person supporting an incorrect proposal. Fenix down (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

To address the contested move, I have reopened the RM discussion. Alex ShihTalk 06:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)