Talk:Baykal (disambiguation)

message: I suggest the content of the page should be moved to Baikal (disambiguation), while Baikal should redirect to Lake Baikal. Every other meaning stems from the lake. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Since you folks are apparently too lazy to go back and take time to understand what your opponent is trying to say, here is a Reader's Digest version of the issues.  Please comment on each one and explain why any particular change should not be implemented, how not implementing these changes improves Wikipedia, and what policies/guidelines prevent us from implementing these changes.
#Intro line
##Currently: Baykal may refer to Lake Baikal, a lake in southern Siberia, Russia.
##*Why: according to Sesshomaru, it is supported by MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic.
##*Why not: the cited clause does not prescribe using any certain wordage for the intro sentence; all it says is that [i]t is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top... and provides an example.  Thus, a certain degree of flexibility is allowed when composing the intro sentence.
##*More why not: "Lake Baikal" is linked to via a "Baykal" redirect.  While the redirect itself is valid, it is important to note that "Lake Baikal" is the lake's established English name, while "Baykal" is an alternative romanization of the Russian name "".  Linking the article via a redirect unnecessarily shifts the emphasis from the established English name to romanization.  As per WP:UE, one should not use a systematically transliterated name if there is a common English form of the name.
##Proposal and substantiation: considering that the goal of Wikipedia is to build a comprehensive and accurate encyclopedia, WP:UE, which deals with the names of concepts, should be considered to have a priority over WP:MOSDAB, which deals primarily with the issues of navigation.  Furthemore, since MOSDAB does not require using a certain template for the intro sentences, a certain degree of flexibility is possible.  Taking into consideration a suggestion by ShelfSkewed to model the intro sentence after the intro sentence used on the HP (disambiguation) dab, the following wordage of the intro sentence is proposed:
##:Baykal may refer to Lake Baikal in southern Siberia, Russia.
##:::Actually following the intro sentence structure on HP (disambiguation), the following wording is implemented:
##::::Baykal may refer to Lake Baikal, a lake in southern Siberia, Russia.
##:::Take another look at HP (disambiguation) to see.  OTOH, other editors objected to what would parallel here as:
##::::Baykal may refer to Lake Baikal, a lake in southern Siberia, Russia.
##:::but I don't have any problem with it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Restarted discussion

message: Wikipedia is information. Disambig pages are tools for quick access to information. Red links are very useful prompts that articles must be written. You may play with format  as much as you want, but deletion of information will be strongly opposed. Gudelines will never take precedence over common sense.  `'Míkka>t 01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read all of WP:MOSDAB. This does not help the situation and we're still trying to figure things out (see above discussion). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MOSDAB is not code of law, it is guidance and cannot supersede editing nessessities. Your interference in the flow of editing process by deletion of important wikilinks based on formalisms disrespectful to fellow wikipedians who actually create content is disgusting. You are disrupting my editing process and distracting people from content creation by endless babbling in places not suited for this. YOu figure this out then start troubling people. I will not wait Your Majecty's permission to add a line or two to this page. `'Míkka>t 07:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not welcome rudeness, read our rules on civility. And really, was this "nasty" comment and this "chidish revenge" necessary? (See what trolling is) I'm just trying to keep this page in tip top shape, as you are, and everyone else. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I do not welcome your utterly civil destruction of my edits for formalistic reasons and I see no reason why I should refrain from expressing my disgust with your de-facto disrespectful attitude. I myself may list you a couple or two policies for your perusal, starting with WP:OWN. `'Míkka>t 07:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's enough from you, assume good faith. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no good faith in people who band up to delete my edits without minimal explanation. `'Míkka>t 08:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formalism a no-go 

message: I noted your revisions to a couple of headings I had created on Baykal (disambiguation).  Could you explain in more detail as to what you felt was "meaningless and erroneous" about my choice of sectioning?
Thanks. Marchije (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "erroneous": Baikal booster is neither weapons not artillery (not to say that "artillery" is "weapons"). It is  spacecraft.`'Míkka>t 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: meaningless: (a) splitting very small nonnotable setlements in urban and rural is useless for search, not to say that their status frequently changes, depending they grow or die. (b) sections with only 1-2 items are useless for navigation: item description should be self-sufficient.  `'Míkka>t 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The WP:MOSDAB part in this respest (sectioning) is a useless joke. I will start a discussion about sectioning there. `'Míkka>t 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  From talk pages 

message: Why has the Russian section been taken out of alphabetical order? Abtract (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They are in alphabetical order (by federal subjects).  Districts are used in the titles only when a federal subjects has more than one locality by the same name (so, "Baykal, Bashkortostan", for example, would still be ambiguous, because there are two villages by this name in Bashkortostan).  Mixing districts and federal subjects in the sort key would not be unlike, say, mixing counties and states when sorting the places in the United States.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Order?