Talk:Mikhaylovsky

Origins

I've changed "Ukrainian origin" to Slavic origin, because various sources place the origins of this last name in Poland, the territory of modern Ukraine, or adjacent territories. Yet other sources indicate that the last name is derived from a baptismal name. However, none of the sources I've found are exactly high-quality, so if you have anything truly reliable, please add it to the article. In the meanwhile, generic "Slavic" should work just fine.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 25, 2011; 13:56 (UTC) moved here from Talk:Mikhaylovsky (last name) -- Herostratus (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Seperate page for people?

An editor broke this page out into two pages, this page and a separate page Mikhaylovsky (last name) with an edit comment of "Per WP:DABNAME". I don't think this is per DABNAME (I've never seen this before) and if it is, DABNAME is wrong and should be ignored or changed. Moving the people named Mikhaylovsky to another page (which is an unlikely search target) requires an extra click by the user. This is a short page so there's no information-presentation reason for doing this and therefore no upside at all, so I've reverted this. Herostratus (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

People's last names are commonly separated into their own pages; the only time when they are included into dabs is when the list is very, very short (which is what DABNAME basically says). Granted, four entries can be seen as "very, very short", but I think it's obvious that the list is far from complete and, as such, will need to be separated into a page of its own eventually. Note also that a page labeled with {{Surname}} is a set index article, while this one is a disambig. Set indices allow for a lot more useful information than dabs do, which is another reason why the two should be separate. Consider, for example, the above section—the origins of the last name really should be referenced, but a reference cannot be added to a dab page per WP:MOSDAB. Having last names in a separate set index solves this problem.

I will thus restore the split. If you have further concerns, please take another look at the applicable guidelines and/or file a request for comment to gain broader input. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 25, 2011; 16:56 (UTC)

P.S. All in all, the split is pretty much for the same reason why the places in Russia are also in its own set index.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 25, 2011; 17:06 (UTC)

Well, no. There are a number of issues here.

• First of all, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD you need to stop insisting on your version. It is not up to me to "file a request for comment" in order to retain the existing satisfactory state. It is up to you to make cogent arguments and/or gather support for a controversial change. As an admin you should know this and please review WP:3RR as well as WP:BRD before making any more reverts.
• Second of all, it quite simply is not true that WP:DABNAME supports your version. DABNAME is concerned with the names of disambiguation pages and not their contents. If you disagree, please quote passages specifically supporting your contention. And you should not invoke policies to support personal ideosyncratic preferences.
• Third of all, as to your contention that this is common practice: 1) how do I know this is true, 2) some common practices are mistakes, such as inserting unref'd contentious material, and 3) if it is a common practice and is a good common practice then it ought be codified in the rules rather than invoked through hand-waving. If it's not written in the rules this makes me very suspicious of the claim that that it is a generally accepted practice.
• Fourth of all, it makes the application harder to use. Right? Why do people come to this page? Not counting people who come here by mistake, most people are 1) looking for information on the name itself, 2) looking for someone with that this last name (and they can't remember or can't spell the first name) or 3) looking for some other entity containing the word "Mikhaylovsky" but are unsure of the exact name. You are consigning the people in category 2 to have to make another separate click and look at another separate page to get to where they want to be. And there is no reason for this. There is no gain. So let's not do it. OK? Herostratus (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's no use of pointing me to BRD—I am perfectly aware it exists. The point here is not "my" version or "your" version, but rather how things are being done in similar cases. If it's you who insists on an approach that's out of line with how things are done in similar cases elsewhere, then it is up to you to request a comment. BRD applies when a change/revert are both concerned with a grey area that is neither covered by a guideline well nor can be demonstrated to be bolstered by an existing practice. Clearly, that's not the case here (more on that below).

Regarding DABNAME, we seem to be talking about different things. WP:DABNAME indeed does not apply; the DABNAME I meant is MOS:DABNAME. My apologies; I didn't realize that shortcuts which are so similar lead to the guidelines which are so different. If you review MOS:DABNAME (which is a part of WP:MOSDAB), you'll see that my original argument stands, and it should satisfy your "please quote passages specifically supporting your contention" request.

Regarding the "common practice" part, it's easy enough to verify. Go to Category:Surnames and pick any entry that ends in "(surname)" or "(name)" or "(given name)" or somesuch (there's certainly no shortage of such entries there). Then for any such entry, check out the corresponding dab page—you'll see the split/linkage is done the same way I did here (Abba (surname), for example, is linked to from Abba (disambiguation), Ivanov (surname) is linked from Ivanov, Smirnov (surname) is linked from Smirnov, and so on and so forth). Clearly, I wasn't the one who made this convention up just to irk you on this page! And it is codified in the rules—see above (I believe that WikiProject Anthroponymy also has guidelines to the same effect).

Regarding the application being "harder to use", with all due respect, that's just your opinion. As I showed above, the approach we use is contrary to your opinion, which, by the way, is why I advised you to seek broader input. I personally don't have a solid opinion about this—but I think the existing state of the matters works just fine (i.e., it's OK to include one or two entries straight on the dab page, but for longer lists of names a separate page is more beneficial). Look at it from another angle—would it really be "easier" for most people to find what they are looking for if we merged every single entry from Mikhaylovsky, Russia and Mikhaylovsky (last name) into this page? The longer the list, the more entries of different types it contains, the harder it is to find anything in it, which is why set index approach was adopted in the first place. If you are looking for a place in Russia, it helps to have a list with only places in Russia, and if you are looking for a specific person, it helps to have a list of people—this way all other stuff which you couldn't care less about does not stand in the way.

I would appreciate if you restored my version now, please. The guidelines are clearly not in support of your point of view, and if the guidelines themselves are something you take an issue with, please request a comment about whether this approach is the best practice or not. As a former admin, I'm sure you can appreciate the fact that it is my responsibility to uphold the guidelines the community has adopted; regardless of what my personal opinion of those guidelines is. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 26, 2011; 13:44 (UTC)

I would like to hear a response to the above, please.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 31, 2011; 18:36 (UTC)