(refs for the ship)
- The ship:
- --Thatnewguy 20:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
This is not mentioned:
Old Novgorod dialect (Russian: древненовгородский диалект, also translated as Old Novgorodian or Ancient Novgorod dialect) is a term introduced by Andrey Zaliznyak to describe the astonishingly diverse linguistic features of the Old East Slavic birch bark writings ("berestyanaya gramota") from the 11th to 15th centuries excavated in Novgorod and its surroundings.
Found here: Old Novgorod dialect.
- I happened to add this last year. You should have added it yourself five years ago. --Makkachin (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Style of lead of Primary-topic Dab page
(I feel like i'm channeling Bill Clinton!)
I unlinked where i found "Novgorod or..." in the accompanying Dab page, bcz on a Dab page, the meaning of the word
(when it follows the title that would have redirected to the primary topic) on the first line of a Dab,
(i.e. would very likely without conscious thot -- if it were not mistakenly a link instead of plain text -- communicate to experienced users)
- that the primary topic article does not bear the title the Dab page is disambiguating, bcz there's an (in some sense) even better title for the primary topic.
In this case that better (i.e., unambiguous) title is Veliky Novgorod, and in this case the page bearing the name being Dab'd (Novgorod) is a just a redirect to that article, which begins with a WP:Disambiguation hatnote that says (much more politely than i am writing)
- "You poor schlub, you're getting to the large modern city, bcz it didn't occur to you that the ancient trading post (that most people never think about) passed on its name to a large modern city whose residents are proud to pretend to take credit for the existence of a major world power, as if they were there at the inception(s) of both. Sorta kinda like the city named after Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus."
My venting my spleen over vanitas aside, the user who saw both names linked may have, quite rightly, even if unconsciously, wasted energy wondering why two links to the same place would be joined with a conjunction, and whether they are missing something by not following both links in turn. The construction i'm converting to
(1) avoids the occasion for wondering that,
(2) may gently implant the hint "you could have avoided landing on this dab page by using the topic's unambiguous alternate name" ... if you by happened to know it, and
(3) reduces the shock of landing on a page whose title you didn't click on.
(Us geeks who routinely edit Dab pages learn to let the fuss of getting to the Rdr page instead of the article (on the occasions where we have to do so) roll off our backs like smoke on a windy day ... or something like that. In any case, most users never face that inconvenience.)
(I believe guidelines -- rightly -- offer no support for any other approach to this embarrassing situation, and that this is:
- a relatively widely applied approach,
- the optimum solution, and
- probably at worst just short of being strictly required by the guidelines.)