Talk:Don River (disambiguation)

message: Is there a policy on standard formats for named geographical features?  I notice that the three entries (before my addition) were all in different formats. -- Daran 07:36, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The common format in Wikipedia is Don River, Scotland. The entry Don River (Toronto) is a redirect to Don River, Toronto, but I would consider Don River, Canada to be the correct form. As for River Don, England, I don't know, if the prefixed 'river' is an inherent part of the placename. -- Cordyph 07:59, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I suppose I ought to create a stub... -- Daran 08:53, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Actually, comma disambiguation is generally limited to communities (neighborhoods to cities), and parens are used for everything else, so they should all be like "Don River (Toronto)". Waterguy 00:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name format

message: This page ('Don River') seems to be the subject of what may be one of the slowest edit wars on the project.  
*It was  first moved in November 2006 by  to be a disambiguation page, and the Russian River Don put in its place; the move was reverted by  two years later.
*Then it was edited (twice) by  and Ghirla (along with an allegation of 'bias'(!)) to put the Russian river at the top in August 2010 (rv by ) 
*It then had the Russian river bolded in November 2011 (Ghirla again; this time the disambiguation was 'silly'), and reverted, again.
*Then in January 2017 the Russian river was bolded again, and embellished, and reverted yet again)
*It was then  pushed to the top in July 2017 by  (twice) and was reverted, twice;
*Now the latest episode in this sorry tale was to move the pages again (with an interesting little trick to prevent a simple revert) in September 2018  by  ( reverted by request to RM/TR)
None of these moves were discussed, and all of the changes mentioned were against our guidelines on the subject. 
To be clear: this page currently conforms to the pattern for a dab page where there is no Primary Topic.
If you are unhappy with that, the remedy is to establish your preferred option as primary via the Requested Moves process. 
And (to be clear again) 'primary' in this case doesn't mean the longest, or the quietest, or the least English of the options, it means the one most likely to be sought by the readership (which, in the case of the English WP  means mainly people who speak and read English; no doubt the Russian WP has the same systemic bias, and caters mainly for Russian speakers. As it should...)
And it may well be that the Russian river is primary, but it's up to anyone who wants that change to prove their case, not push their opinion while throwing allegations around.
Over to you... Swanny18 (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for taking the trouble to post the request move over this, and to present a case for a primary topic here. Swanny18 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  : My apologies if I misinterpreted your actions; they just looked to be in the same vein as the gamesmanship that had gone previously. And I appreciate you wouldn't necessarily have been aware that one of the supporting comments was from a banned editor, but the mere fact that one comment wasn't in support would have disqualified it as an uncontroversial move. Swanny18 (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move