Talk:Kstovo

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (primary usage). I moved Kstovo to

• Comment this is an improperly formatted multimove request. Can someone reformat it? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A disambig page with one clickable link is a pointless stop for someone looking for this Kstovo. The shorter title is easier to search and link. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom but oppose the atrocious "inhabited locality" tag. Move it to Kstovo (disambiguation) per usual practice. —  AjaxSmack  22:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't, since it's not a disambiguation page. It's a

  atrocious guidelines. Helpful, eh?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?

  ); November 8, 2012; 23:47 (UTC)

  I agree with Ëzhiki that

  Wikipedia:DABRL#Red_links is indeed ridiculous. Certainly the list of populated places called "Kstovo" is very useful (e.g., because one occasionally finds a documents like this), and whatever one says, it really is not too different from a disambig page (well, a disambig page with sources). At the same time I'd agree with AjaxSmack that "Kstovo (inhabited locality)" is indeed a rather weird name for an article; but if we're prohibited to call it Kstovo (disambiguation), maybe it should be just List of populated places called Kstovo, or maybe even List of geographical objects called Kstovo (in case a pond or a swamp somewhere goes by that name too). :-) -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  There is no such thing as a disambiguation page with sources :) From the same well of wisdom where DABRL originates, it's perfectly OK to include blue links to unreferenced substubs or to artificially jam a mention of a redlinked entry into an existing article, but it's not OK to include red links which have a developed counterpart on some other wiki or are/can be sourced. "Violations" are routinely "cleaned up"; that is to say castrated by removing unqualifying red links altogether. Go figure.
  As for the "list of..." titles, the problem with those is that they actually make the sets harder to find, a pain to link to, and make catching already existing incoming links (which are never to "list of..." :)) impossible. The "inhabited locality" moniker is typically used when a set index is contrasted with something of the same name but of a different type (e.g., a district, a river, a pond, an air base, etc.) or when, as is going to be the case here, the main title is taken by a "primary meaning". Parenthetical disambiguation is the most common approach for distinguishing entries of different types on the English Wikipedia, so I don't really understand why it is a problem here? All sets falling under the two circumstances I described are titled using either "(rural locality)" or "(inhabited locality)"; the latter is used when the set includes both urban and rural entities. Furthermore, these terms coincide with the terminology we already use across all of the articles about the inhabited localities in Russia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 9, 2012; 02:08 (UTC)

  Here's an idea. Use the sources listed and create a stub on one or two of the Kstovos. If you know Russian, use ru:Кстово (Вологодская область) or ru:Кстово (Рыбинский район Ярославской области) to get you started. Throw them, the redlinks, and the rajon together into a dab page (or, better yet, use the current Kstovo page) and you have a dab page that will withstand deletion attempts. Put the remaining references in the talk page for future use by other editors and to justify inclusion of the redlinks. Sure, it takes work, but not much more than these discussions (but also notice I'm not volunteering). —  AjaxSmack  03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Problem is, there are hundreds of pages like this. Yours is not a sustainable or scalable solution (in no small part because you are not the only one "not volunteering" :)). And as a matter of fact, the very reason behind the existence of set index articles is to prevent proliferation of useless unreferenced substubs. Articles should be created when there is enough material to sustain them, not to pander to bureaucratic whims of the enforcers of poorly designed guidelines.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 13, 2012; 13:10 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.