Talk:Górki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] no articles, no list??
Mmmm you may be right I had read this "A set index article is a list article" from mos:dab as "A set index is a list of articles". Abtract (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- True, but last I checked WP:LIST had no clause banning red links from the lists. These red links, of course, are subject to verification and have to have references, but lack of references is not the reason to remove these red links on sight. Requesting sources is a much better course of action than overriding a potentially useful list with a redirect. Dropping a note on the Polish noticeboard would have also been nice, but that, of course, would be going an extra mile.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- OK but bear this in mind: "Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." Abtract (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- That is true, but if you believe that a list is stuck in the "development and maintenance" stage, why not first ask either the list's author or the participants of the WikiProject the list is covered by? If they can't improve it, then optimize it for the readers, but at least give it a chance to get improved or "be moved to project or user space". That said, I have left a note on the Polish noticeboard regarding this list. If they don't reply or if there is no change by the time Category:Articles with unsourced statements since March 2008 is due for purging, then there should be no objections of merging the blue links to "Gorki" and turning this list into a redirect.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK but bear this in mind: "Some lists are useful for Wikipedia development purposes. The lists of related topics give an indication of the state of Wikipedia, the articles that have been written, and the articles that have yet to be written. However, as Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list of red link articles needed) should be in project or user space not the main space, if the list is not otherwise encyclopedic." Abtract (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I can do no more than I have: I reverted myself as soon as I discovered my misreading of mos:dab, I apologised in my edit summary, I offered some useful guidance above, I added the fact tag to alert those watching. You on the other hand seem intent on repeatedly pointing out the error of my ways. I presume you will now move on to improving the list. I will move on to improving other dab pages, which is what drew me here in the first place (this page was previously tagged disambig-cleanup ... I was merely the agent of change). Abtract (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Abtract, my only intent was to suggest that you might want to consider other ways of handling similar situations in future, because those other ways are ultimately more beneficial to Wikipedia. I never meant to be shoving your (good-faith!) mistake up your butt until your nose bleeds :) or imply that your dab-cleanup efforts are useless; I apologize if that's how you interpreted my comments.
- I won't be moving on with improving this list myself, because my knowledge of all things Polish is rather limited (I specialize mostly in Russian topics). The best I could do was to save the list from being overridden as I believe it is potentially useful and to expose it to wider audience. Once the list uses up all its chances for survival, I might very well bury and redirect it myself. I just don't think its time is up yet. No hard feelings,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can do no more than I have: I reverted myself as soon as I discovered my misreading of mos:dab, I apologised in my edit summary, I offered some useful guidance above, I added the fact tag to alert those watching. You on the other hand seem intent on repeatedly pointing out the error of my ways. I presume you will now move on to improving the list. I will move on to improving other dab pages, which is what drew me here in the first place (this page was previously tagged disambig-cleanup ... I was merely the agent of change). Abtract (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
[edit] Comment transferred from Abtract personal talk page
This is a well-written disambig; please don't disrupt it by redirecting it or citation spamming it. As Polish Wikipedia disambig shows, it is a relevant disambig, and all of those villages do indeed exist. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- As has already been established, this is not a dab page but a list. It is either in development stage or needs to be redirected or deleted - I have no personal view on which would be better. If anyone thinks it is worth saving in this form, then citations or target articles are a must. When I put the fact tags on it was in recognition of the single target article that had emerged. If you would rather revert to the previous 'unreferenced' version I am happy with that, indeed I will do it now. Abtract (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- When people type Górki they should arrive at a disambiguation page, it's as simple as that. It is obvious that the villages exist and are notable. Why are you removing this useful info? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- It actually was me who removed this part in the very beginning; Abtract merely reverted to the revision that already had this list removed. My problem with the list was that it contained nothing but the names. The rest of the page at least provides descriptions as to the whereabouts of the villages, but this part looks like a data dump. Any way you could add some descriptions to them? In this form they are just begging to be deleted :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Articles will probably be created for all of these villages in the foreseeable (but not immediate) future. At the moment the information on this page is all we have; it's not ideal but it's accurate and potentially useful. There seems no point in redirecting this page to Gorki; someone might type "Gorki" looking for Górki, but the other way round is a lot less likely.--Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- It actually was me who removed this part in the very beginning; Abtract merely reverted to the revision that already had this list removed. My problem with the list was that it contained nothing but the names. The rest of the page at least provides descriptions as to the whereabouts of the villages, but this part looks like a data dump. Any way you could add some descriptions to them? In this form they are just begging to be deleted :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- When people type Górki they should arrive at a disambiguation page, it's as simple as that. It is obvious that the villages exist and are notable. Why are you removing this useful info? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- As has already been established, this is not a dab page but a list. It is either in development stage or needs to be redirected or deleted - I have no personal view on which would be better. If anyone thinks it is worth saving in this form, then citations or target articles are a must. When I put the fact tags on it was in recognition of the single target article that had emerged. If you would rather revert to the previous 'unreferenced' version I am happy with that, indeed I will do it now. Abtract (talk) 18:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
-
There seems to be a problem understanding wp:v when we see remarks like "It is obvious that the villages exist and are notable" and "the information on this page is all we have; it's not ideal but it's accurate". To whom is it obvious? How do we know these villages exist and are notable? How do we know the information is accurate? Abtract (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
