Talk:Gorki

Untitled

where did lenin die? we seem to be claiming two places called Gorky which had the honour. Secretlondon 10:53, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

Gorki/Gorky - band

I changed the listing of the Belgian band from

"Gorki, later renamed to Gorky, a Belgian band by Luc De Vos"

to

"Gorki, originally named Gorky, a Belgian band by Luc De Vos"

instead of just switching the names, because the first name is the subject of the sentence, and the subject must be the current name.

The original name was Gorky (Russian for "the bitter one"), which was changed to Gorki for rather commercial reasons. Should I create a stub?

The page has been deleted as rubbish - but clearly the band exists, and perhaps should have a page. http://houbi.com/belpop/groups/gorky.htm -- Beardo 02:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Russia

Some changes based on MOS:DAB:

I have excluded this:

Gorki, name of several rural localities in Russia

As per

Only use this feature if the item being described actually appears on the page you are linking to

There is no mention of any Gorki in Types of inhabited localities in Russia. If and when any such article is created it can be included directly here.

I have also put the Russian places before the Polish ones as per:

In most cases, place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below.

Since Nizhny Novgorod is the best-known (even allowing for the name-change).

jnestorius^(talk) 14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Jnestorius. Thanks for the note. Let me explain why the note about rural localities is important. First of all, we add this phrase routinely to the disambiguation pages and set index articles when it is important to let readers know that places by a certain name (in this case, "Gorki") exist, yet there is no immediate reason to actually list them all. In this case, there are 35 rural localities in Russia by this name that I know of (i.e., can list and source them), and there are at least twice as many more. That'd be an awful lot of red links, so we settle for a compromise—we bundle them together under one phrase. I realize that's bending MOSDAB a little bit, but I'd argue this is one case when a little bending is actually helpful—we don't overwhelm readers with red links yet still let them know that they are not seeing the whole picture.

As for the order, I have no preference here. Listing the items in alpha order makes sense, but you are quite correct about "Gorky" being most commonly used in reference to Nizhny Novgorod. Perhaps it would make more sense to split this page into "Gorky" and "Gorki" (including "Górki"), seeing that in Russian, at least, these are two different words, which are spelled and pronounced differently (the former is an adjective, the latter—a plural noun). Since they are spelled differently in English as well, having two separate dab pages for them (and linking them via "see also") may be a good decision. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki.

• I don't think there is a need to warn readers that "there of lots of obscure places in Russia called Gorki not listed on the Gorki dab page", any more than it is necessary to state that the John Smith page does not include all John Smiths. Likewise, to take geographic examples, there are plenty of villages called Newtown or tributaries called South Fork not listed. We will hardly add a general disclaimer to all Wikipedia pages "Warning: you may be thinking of some obscure entity with the same name rather than this one".
• Aside from the lack of necessity, the statement would violate WP:CITE. Each entry in a dab page will, ideally, link to a non-dab page where the existence of the entity with the given name is evinced by citing a verifiable source. There is no place for such citations on the dab page itself (or, in this case, on the Types of inhabited localities in Russia page), so it would just be your assurance that such places exist: a bad precedent.
• Perhaps it's worth adding a (cited) List of rural localities in Russia named Gorki, and wikilinking that list on this dab; perhaps not. Items in a list need not be wikilinked if they are not noteworthy individually; but if the collectivity is not noteworthy, there should be no list at all.
• As regards splitting Gorki and Gorky, I guess that's okay if all the articles are titled at their appropriate romanization. Should Gorkiy and Gorkij then redirect to Gorky?

jnestorius^(talk) 15:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with you on #1, but one difference here is that we are actually working on being able to list all those obscure places (they all do meet the inclusion criteria, after all). Add to that the fact that "Gorki" is one of the most common toponyms in Russia (definitely in top five, and accounting for roughly 0.1% of names of all inhabited localities), but unlike John Smiths or Newtowns, "Gorki" is not a name that's immediately obvious to be common to English-speaking audience we are targeting. Then, if even one of the obscure entries is included (which can happen any moment as soon as someone feels like writing a stub on one), it becomes even more important to give readers a warning that no, the one we happened to list here is not the only one in existence, and it is very probable that you, the reader, might be searching for something else. Why mislead readers when one short sentence can prevent that from happening? Just because we could stick to the letter of MOSDAB? MOSDAB is not carved in stone; it is called a "guideline" because it allows for some amount of flexibility when such flexibility makes sense. The situation with Russian toponyms makes all the sense to me.

At any rate, if you are so bent against this sentence, we might simply go with your (and MOSDAB's) suggestion and create a set index article which would be linked to from this dab. I rather hate set index articles myself (in my view, they do nothing beyond what a dab page could handle, plus they contribute to useless listcruft), but oh well, I do believe that the problem should be addressed, whatever the means. I guess that the only reason we even have the set index articles clause in the MOSDAB is because someone got reeeeaaaalllyyy tired of dealing with people for whom the letter of the guidelines is more important than the needs of readers we are here to serve :)

In addition, I wanted to point out that when it comes to geographic locations, notability is not an issue. Wikipedia has (and is supposed to have) articles on all inhabited localities, no matter how obscure or small. The only requirement is verifiability.

Finally, as far as splitting this dab goes, yes, "Gorkiy" and "Gorkij" would be included with (and redirected to) "Gorky". Also, by the looks of it, if "Gorki" is moved to a separate page, it may very well become the set index page I mentioned above (so we don't have to use a stupid name like "List of inhabited localities named Gorki"). The only two entries that do not qualify for inclusion (band and metro station) can be listed in the set index article's "see also" section. Would you like to take care of the split, or would you prefer me to do it? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all rules have wiggle room, but this is not an issue applicable only to this one page, so to save redebating on other similar pages, can you back up your earlier claim that such phrases are "routinely" added to dab pages, with some examples or a statement of policy or guideline? Perhaps an explicit modification of the MOS would be better than an ongoing implicit exemption.

As to whether all inhabited localities are covered (Not that I disagree or consider it relevant to our discussion): Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation) is currently only a proposal, and all it suggests is "A city/town/village must show a verifiable notation in multiple atlases."

BTW Górki used to be an untidy set index page; now it's been merged in here. jnestorius^(talk) 01:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few off the top of my head: Oktyabrsky, Kamenka, Pokrovka, Alexeyevka, Nikolayevka... I hope you get the picture. IAR is the main policy behind this, mainly because MOSDAB is not always very efficient when it comes to organizing a workflow for a project of this scope. Another one is WP:NC:CITY#Russia, which provides guidelines as to how the articles on Russian inhabited localities should be titled (and for which it is important to know whether or not a name is unique). I am fully aware that all those "other rural localities" entries should eventually be expanded into full lists, but please note that since Russia has over 150,000 rural localities—all verifiable via official government registries and "available in multiple atlases" (I digress, but what a stupid proposal that is!)—there is no way this can be done all at once. I can (and do) always expand these entries upon request, but from the maintenance and workflow efficiency point of view it is much preferred not to expand them at the time dabs and set index articles are first created. What this also means is that the "other rural localities" clause is added only when there is a good reason to—either it is needed to explain a WP:NC:CITY#Russia-compliant choice of a title, or an article about one of the locations exists and there is a need to clarify that it is not the only one (Gorki!), or there is a link to a dab page but no appropriate entry on the dab page and it is unclear which place is meant (it is not uncommon for several distinct places located in an area to share the same name), or there is a need for red- and backlinks organization and cleanup. All these situations call for a clarification, and the "other rural localities" sentence is the minimal useful solution that allows for such a clarification. Since it is also not a permanent solution but rather a temporary plug, I really don't see the need to amend any guidelines to cover it—applying IAR, in my view, is quite justified here. It's important to understand that while the sentence is indeed routinely added, there is no agenda to add it to as many places as possible, but only when absolutely necessary. Basically, it all boils down to improving workflow efficiency by using some wiggle room for which the guidelines allow vs. insisting that every procedure must follow the guidelines to the letter at the expense of impeding a project with a huge scope and limited resources. Which approach do you think is ultimately more beneficial to Wikipedia?

In conclusion, I have looked at what was done Górki, and, frankly, I am horrified. I do agree that the set index page was not in the best of conditions (the "see also" section was especially awful), but why in the world was it redirected here point-blank? Seems more like "deleted because it sucks" solution to me, except that the deletion decision was masked as a redirect decision. Has the person who redirected the page contacted the author of the page to see if s/he would improve it? If the author was not available, was this page brought to the attention of a wider audience (a note on the Polish noticeboard would have done it just fine)? Have the citations been requested for unsourced material? Was it even understood that set index pages are exempt from the MOSDAB requirements and hence red links are perfectly fine? In my view, the page should be restored, (at least some of the) actions I decribed above taken, and, considering the number of entries, it makes sense to keep "Górki" separate from "Gorki" (and "Gorky").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you've pretty well convinced me. That said, if you are systematically linking to Types of inhabited localities in Russia , the {{unreferenced}} tag needs to be taken care of; at least for the "Modern classification" section. A link to a summary reference should do for that. A nice-to-have would be a reference to some comprehensive gazetteer; in which case, a clunky "some of the most commonly-occurring names for locations in Russia are: Oktyabrsky, Kamenka, Pokrovka, Alexeyevka, Nikolayevka...[add as required]" sentence would satisfy the letter of the MOSDAB without too much unwieldiness. jnestorius^(talk) 15:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and yes, that article is on my to-do list, as it has more issues than just lacking references. Problem is, thousands of other things are on that list as well, but I'll make this one a priority (it is linked to from pretty much every article on Russian places of any scope, so it's long overdue as it is). As for the list of the most commonly-occurring names in Russia, that, unfortunately, I would not be able to source. I myself work off the database which I developed, and it includes lists of and information about Russian inhabited localities based on reliable sources, but whatever aggregation I can run against that database is uncitable as it qualifies as original research. What's more, the database is only about 40% complete, so while I can track the name frequency distribution trends with a good degree of confidence, I don't have the complete stats. Now, this does not mean such stats are not available somewhere else (I'm sure they are), but I never had a chance to see them (which is one of the reasons why I'm bothering with the database in the first place).

Anyway, thanks much for your patience and input. Please let me know if you want to take care of splitting this dab yourself or if you'd prefer me to do it (I don't have a problem with it either way). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hate donkey-work, so if you're volunteering to do some drudgery, then thanks and be my guest :) jnestorius^(talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I find myself specializing in donkey work more and more these days anyway :) I'll take care of it soon; feel free to re-check once I'm done. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

After the split

I have edited this page to a [[MOS:DAB}} state by removing nonlinked lines. Also I have created a compliant way of handling the rural Russian statement by creating a new line on the target article and redirecting to it. Maybe this is the way to handle all those other articles mentioned above, which on a quick glance need some trea=tment too. Abtract (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)