Talk:Demidov (disambiguation)

Recent discussion

Please link & quote the recent discussion that puts set indexes in the dab list while removing links to ambiguous topics covered by Wikipedia articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The discussion I'm referring to is the one on Talk:Ural, where two people asked you about the benefits/rationale of putting set indices under "see also" and where you disappeared into thin air without replying. Your further solicitation of advice on the dab noticeboard also did not generate any interest, which, coupled with your disinterest to pursue changes to that page further, make your sudden insistence to shove the localities set index under "see also" on this page rather peculiar. I explained my reasons why doing so is not a good idea on Talk:Ural and would very much appreciate to hear your rationale. There certainly is no guideline regulating this, so it all boils down to whether an approach benefits readers or not.

As for the replacement of duplicate links already covered by a set index, I refer you back to the standard practice employed by WikiProject Ships and repeat the questions I asked on several previous occasions—how are the sets on inhabited localities different from the sets on ships (or surnames, for that matter) and who is going to maintain and update two identical substructures as the entities listed on the set index pages start turning blue or qualifying under WP:DABRL over time (see my Alexandrovka question on Talk:Ural)?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 14, 2013; 14:37 (UTC)

Ah, the discussion in which I pointed out that set indexes were set indexes and got the non-sensical query "Why"? You're right, that did not seem to be worth pursuing further. I thought you meant a discussion of the guidelines or other applicable area. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't possibly second-guess what Diego meant by his "why", but my question was specifically about the part of your statement that says that "set indexes... are placed in the See also section". I fail to see what's so nonsensical about questioning this. I also don't see any policy basis supporting this statement—MOS:DAB#See also, for example, does not include "lists" or "set indices" under any of the bullets.

Regarding the part where you say that "if any of the entries on the set index are also valid disambiguation entries, they should be so added", I'd also want to see the basis for that. It most certainly is not what I am seeing in the wild—while there are dabs which do it this way (and a horrible mess some of them become as time goes), there are also quite a few which include only a link to the set index. Since your way requires maintaining and supporting two identical or near-identical listings (one on a dab page, the other on a set index), I once again ask you to answer the question of how this approach benefits the readers. Or is that a nonsensical question as well?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 14, 2013; 17:55 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages disambiguate ambiguous topics covered by Wikipedia. If you want to claim that inclusion in a set index changes that to mean that we send the readers from a dab page through a set index before reaching the sought article, I'd want to see the basis for that. It is most certainly not what is useful for the reader. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

First off, before I claim anything, could you please answer my questions which I keep asking and asking and you keep ignoring and ignoring? (They are in my very first response to you in this section)

Secondly, categorically claiming that something "is most certainly not useful for the reader" without even trying to give any substantiation is not really... convincing. I addressed this concern of yours in great detail at Talk:Ural; no need to repeat it here.

Finally, as for the "disambiguation pages disambiguating ambiguous topics covered by Wikipedia", I understand full well what this definition says. What I don't understand is why you believe that linking via a set index suddenly results in not "disambiguating ambiguous topics covered by Wikipedia". All those topics are still reachable from the dab page one click away, and the resulting structure still fits the definition just fine. There simply is no logical reason to claim that doing it this way goes against the spirit of the dab guidelines! An additional benefit of this approach is reducing the maintenance burden and increased accuracy (which is in fact my main concern, not the esoteric discussions about which way of linking is the best in principle). WikiProject Ships understands this—many of their sets are linked from the dabs without additionally enumerating each entry, and if one stops splitting hairs over the literal wording of the guidelines and look at this holistically, one just might see why this approach is used—it works and it does not result in thousands of pages needing syncing every few months. The downside? I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate it. So far a literal interpretation of the guidelines is all you could muster; surely if this approach is so horrible you should be able to find some examples of how it is not working in practice?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 14, 2013; 19:49 (UTC)

You made it two clicks away to get to Demidov, Smolensk Oblast. I leave off trying to reason with you when it becomes apparent that it won't work. I am not ignoring you; I am ignoring your ignoring of the answers that have been given at the project discussion, which you disagree with or don't understand. The WP:LOCALCONSENSUS you may or may not have formed at Talk:Ural does not affect the guidelines or this page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's one more click away, hardly a big deal. And since set indices bundle the entries which are most likely to be confused with one another, for those readers looking for any scraps of information on the other Demidov it's actually a more efficient solution. With your setup it's all too easy to miss or confuse it with the one in Smolensk Oblast. Nor does this approach seem to be a big deal on all those other dab pages I've seen (the sheer amount of which indicates that it's more than a "local consensus").

I'm also not sure what you mean by "my ignoring" of the "answers given at the project discussion" (a link to which I'm yet to see). First off, answers given at project discussion are not guidelines, they are an interpretation of the guidelines, and interpretations might vary with the circumstances. The actual guidelines do not directly support your approach (although I'd agree that they do not discourage it either); they simply don't say "liking via set indices is prohibited". At the same time, the said linking does not contradict the guidelines' spirit (one or two clicks away, the target is still accessible from the dab page, in exactly the same way as with the surname set indices, by the way). Second, since when does a project discussion which presumably took place elsewhere preclude valid questions about a specific case from being answered? I've demonstrated you how the setup in which the guidelines are applied overly literally actually does harm in the long run and impedes readers' experience (far more than a trivial additional click possibly can). In response, you are just parroting the same old same old about some mysterious undocumented consensus, without addressing the substance of my questions. I'm sure you are capable of doing better than simply brushing me off and calling it "reasoning". You are an admin, for crying out loud. Behave like one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 14, 2013; 21:56 (UTC)

"one more click away, hardly a big deal." I stopped reading after this -- it's exactly the deal we're trying to deal with in disambiguation, so I leave off trying to reason with you when it becomes apparent that it won't work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, stopping to read when presented with a list of concerns is always the most productive way to resolve differences, sure.

Anyhoo, I know the noble task of saving our poor readers from clicking around too much is "exactly the deal" you are trying to deal in disambiguation, yet my point is that not everyone shares this strange belief that it's a big deal, especially when it can be demonstrated that saving a click leads to all kinds of more serious problems with other aspects later on. Closing your eyes and ignoring those problems will not make them go away. Invoking some magical "consensus" which presumably was reached some time ago on some project talk page (but apparently never made it to the wording of the actual guidelines) isn't going to convince anyone either. Next time instead of vaguely invoking the generic policy please consider either quoting relevant style guidelines or, when multiple approaches are possible, be prepared to discuss them on their own merits. Once again, you are an admin. Pull yourself together and behave like one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2013; 18:31 (UTC)

Sure. Anyhoo, if you think there's a new consensus for giving readers two clicks in between their search and their destination so that editors who like to write set index articles can avoid the effort to give the readers one click, please bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Until then, disambiguation pages disambiguate topics on Wikipedia that are ambiguous with the title, regardless of the existence of someone's noble set index article. Closing your eyes and ignoring the guidelines won't make them go away. Like many before you, you have mistaken "act like an admin" with "agree with me". As an admin, I just need to wield the mop responsibly. Here, I helped identify out the problems with your edits that you apparently based on the local consensus at an unrelated page. You're welcome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)