Talk:Mir (disambiguation)

message: I really don't know how you, Tedernst, decide what is worthy of inclusion.  I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so maybe you can teach me something about policies.  Are you saying that there must already be an article in existence on something in order for something to be included on a disamibiguation page?  
: MoS:DP#Individual entries talks about redlinks.  Sometimes there are redlinks that are obviously noteable to all.  Those stay.  When something doesn't seem noteable to me, I remove it, not because I'm the last word, or some kind of authority, but because most often I'm right and the other editor leaves it alone.  If I'm wrong, which I seem to be in this case, then the other editor challenges me and then writes the article.  Great!  So now we've collectively made a better encyclopedia.  Thanks for being here!  Tedernst | talk 07:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, that was a good page—I've bookmarked it.  Appreciate the guidance. Unschool 12:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noteworthiness 

message: I had difficulties to find the right article on mir (commune), mir (social) as I had never heard of obshchina. Something seems wrong with the links to the communal land tenure in Russia. It is quite hidden on Wikipedia. Actually only the German Wikipedia uses the word :de:Mir (Gemeinschaft). In the 19th and early 20th century the mir was a village with peasants, free or serfs, long before a space station was named after it. Lately there is this mir (payment system). Perhaps we can group them under Russian language as this wide and popular concept which means world, peace, sometimes globe or planet. Perhaps you can think of something better? Taksen (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I realize that there are in fact countless policies and guidelines on Wikipedia and it's a near impossible task to keep up with them. I sympathize with that. It doesn't mean that we should ignore the guidelines though. I've linked MOS:DAB in my latest edit, as I should have done sooner, and I apologize for not coming to the talk page beforehand. "DAB" is just an abbreviation for "disambiguation", which is the type of page we're editing here. As far as organizing things into Russian and not, that isn't very often done on disambiguation pages because a user searching for something that they don't know much about is quite unlikely to know what language it might come from. They are far, far more likely to know that it's a ship, computer, etc and will look in those sections. That's why most disambiguation pages are organized that way and I don't see why this page would be an exception. You talked about a "difficult concept" but it seems like the real problem you initially had is solved simply by using the Mir (commune) redirect. And while we don't organize things by importance on these pages, if we think a handful of topics are much more likely to be searched for (indicated by page views usually), than all the others, then we can do something like what's described at MOS:DABCOMMON. -- Fyrael (talk) 07:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  To improve a complicated concept 

message: Obshchina is an unknown concept, compared to mir (social) or mir (commune). Someone probably chose for obshchina to avoid disambiguation. The problem lies there in my point of view. Besides, quite a few articles on this page have information on the meaning of the Russian word mir. To some people that seemed important. You seem to think a link to dictionary is enough. People do not need to know what it means in Russian and why the Mir concept is used so often. Not very informative. I have seldon seen such strange subsections as See also, Fiction and Other uses on a DAB-page. A clear sign that there is something wrong. The subsection Fiction with vague links seem more important than a famous Russian word which really explains what is going on. Quantity seems more important than quality.Taksen (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what disambiguation pages you're looking at, but I would estimate that 90% of them have both "See also" and "Other uses" sections. There is nothing at all wrong with those. If there is a general concept that is known as "Mir" in Russian and you think is worthy of its own article, then there is nothing stopping you from writing that article, and we'd be happy to have it added to the encyclopedia. Just don't write it here on a disambiguation page. You need to start a new article for that. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I think maybe there's still an issue here about not understanding the difference between an article and a disambiguation page, and maybe I should have started with linking WP:DISAMBIGUATION. The short version is that this page is just meant as a navigational guide to get readers to another page they were looking for that happens to be called "Mir". This page itself is not meant to explain any concepts. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This page itself is not meant to explain any concepts seems Nonsense to me. Taksen (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You can think whatever you like about it, but that is the truth of disambiguation pages. From the top of one of the two pages I've linked you, "Note that even though disambiguation pages are kept in the Main/Article namespace (aka mainspace), they are not articles. These pages are aids in searching for articles. The style guidelines on this page aim to give disambiguation pages a consistent appearance and help the efficiency of searches by excluding extraneous information. Any page containing one of the disambiguation templates should contain only disambiguation content". Is that not very clear? Again, if there's a concept called "Mir" that you believe isn't covered here, go ahead and create a new article for it. I am not discouraging you from writing about that, just not on this page because that's not its purpose. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: This article and the structure is messy