![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Moved. The !voting is split 50/50 here, but the nomination and the support votes explain clearly why this topic meets the usual definitions for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC according to our policies, while the opposes rely mainly on assertions that are not part of policy, such as "Out of several small localities one will always be the largest, but it doesn't always mean it should be treated as the primary topic". So when weighing the !votes through the lens of policy, the consensus it to move as proposed. — Amakuru ( talk) 10:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
– This work settlement of 21,196 is the primary topic for this name and the only article with this name at Wikipedia (the other DAB page entries are redlinks). Note the Russian Wikipedia article at Чишмы. Even if a disambiguator is desired, the current one is excessive. — AjaxSmack 00:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Alex Shih Talk 19:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There are three problems with the current titles:
There are three unsourced entries (with no geo coordinates given) on the supposed "set index" page:
Clearly, the town of 22,000 is the primary topic. (Not that it matters but Russian Wikipedia agrees.) It is the only Chishmy with an article and the other two entities are not even sourced. The one I could find info on is a village of barely two dozen inhabitants.
Even if other users disagree that the Chishmy (urban-type... is the primary topic, the excessively circumlocutious set of three disambiguators for one name is excessive: Chishmy (urban-type settlement) is enough. Note this recent move request that concluded the same.
I wish it were, and strongly support the continued existence of such indices for Russian places. However, attempting to assert that an unsourced redlink farm is a set index is weak. A title like List of places named Chishmy or some geo coordinates for the listed places might help. Trying to claim primary topic status for a list of terms also hurts the case. — AjaxSmack 15:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This recent move provided no evidence of primary topic and also ignored the fact that the page turned into a dab wasxin fact a set index. Needs much wider input that one person supporting an incorrect proposal. Fenix down ( talk) 23:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: Moved. The !voting is split 50/50 here, but the nomination and the support votes explain clearly why this topic meets the usual definitions for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC according to our policies, while the opposes rely mainly on assertions that are not part of policy, such as "Out of several small localities one will always be the largest, but it doesn't always mean it should be treated as the primary topic". So when weighing the !votes through the lens of policy, the consensus it to move as proposed. — Amakuru ( talk) 10:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
– This work settlement of 21,196 is the primary topic for this name and the only article with this name at Wikipedia (the other DAB page entries are redlinks). Note the Russian Wikipedia article at Чишмы. Even if a disambiguator is desired, the current one is excessive. — AjaxSmack 00:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Alex Shih Talk 19:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
There are three problems with the current titles:
There are three unsourced entries (with no geo coordinates given) on the supposed "set index" page:
Clearly, the town of 22,000 is the primary topic. (Not that it matters but Russian Wikipedia agrees.) It is the only Chishmy with an article and the other two entities are not even sourced. The one I could find info on is a village of barely two dozen inhabitants.
Even if other users disagree that the Chishmy (urban-type... is the primary topic, the excessively circumlocutious set of three disambiguators for one name is excessive: Chishmy (urban-type settlement) is enough. Note this recent move request that concluded the same.
I wish it were, and strongly support the continued existence of such indices for Russian places. However, attempting to assert that an unsourced redlink farm is a set index is weak. A title like List of places named Chishmy or some geo coordinates for the listed places might help. Trying to claim primary topic status for a list of terms also hurts the case. — AjaxSmack 15:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This recent move provided no evidence of primary topic and also ignored the fact that the page turned into a dab wasxin fact a set index. Needs much wider input that one person supporting an incorrect proposal. Fenix down ( talk) 23:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)