Talk:Baykal (disambiguation)

Move
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)
 * Support. Will move in two weeks if no serious objections are recorded here during this time.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dab style issues
Long discussion at User talk:JHunterJ/Archive 8. Summary of my take on it: Since this page is Baykal (disambiguation), the intro should lead with "Baykal is (some description of the primary topic, the target of Baykal)." Since this page is a disambiguation page, and disambiguates Wikipedia articles that might otherwise have the same title, entries for articles that do not mention "Baykal" or "Baikal" are inappropriate. This is not a "set index article", because the entries included do not have a common attribute (such as "mountains" or "ships") other than their nomenclature. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the first point, can you explain why did you not find the suggestion by ShelfSkewed (to model the intro line of this dab after the intro line of HP (disambiguation)) acceptable? Also, please comment on my most recent inquiry to you, which you seem to have conveniently ignored and archived.
 * On the second point, would you mind to explain why you are so adamantly refusing me a right to invoke IAR, as applied to inclusion of a red link and a summary? I am yet to hear a valid reasoning regarding this from you&mdash;"inappropriate" above does not count&mdash;how do you define "inappropriate"?  Why are you only looking on the down side, rigidly enforcing the letter of MOSDAB, and have simply discarded the benefits achieved by this inclusion?  Why should readers be denied a right to know that they are not presented a complete set of options, especially considering the fact that those options should eventually become valid articles?  The only argument you have presented so far is that the page did not 100% comply with MOSDAB, so it must be fixed.  You have not so far directly addressed a single counter-argument by me.  Please, do.  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're going to ignore all rules, then you will need consensus to do so. I would much rather not. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not start walking me in circles. As I have already pointed out, IAR says nothing of a consensus, and neither does WIARM.  What's more, the latter explicitly states that "following the rules is less important than using good judgment...", and so far none of my counter-arguments have been sufficiently addressed by the MOSDAB-enforcing crowd.  I have listed not one but several reasons as to why exceptions on this particular dab page make sense; the only reply I have got so far was that "if it's against MOSDAB, it is a no-go".  If you want to establish consensus, then please directly address the concerns the other party raises; you can't simply ignore them and declare the consensus is lacking.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read this and this? Since we have guidelines for disambiguation pages, there is no reason as to why they should be ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sess, I wonder why you chose to participate in this thread if you don't even bother to read what the other side is writing? Just one paragraph above I said that there are good reasons to ignore MOSDAB on this page, and if you looked through the JHunterJ's archive link in the beginning of this section, you'd know what these reasons are.  Also, did you even notice that you referred me to exact same page I referred you to?
 * Insofar as IAR goes, please let me summarize it here for you, since you obviously do not have a good understanding of it, despite kindly duplicating a link for my perusal. The bottom line of IAR is that any person may choose to ignore any rule, as long as doing so improves Wikipedia.  The person ignoring the rules must, however, substantiate his actions if asked to do so, and be willing to discuss how ignoring a rule improves Wikipedia.  I, on my part, have done precisely so; it is now your turn to show me if (and where) I am wrong, why ignoring MOSDAB or a portion of it on this page will not improve Wikipedia, and how my concerns of factual accuracy being undermind by blind and mindless following of the rules may be addressed in an alternative (and MOSDAB-compliant) way.  If you manage to present good counter-arguments and convince me, we'll have a record here, so the situation will not need to be repeated again.  On the other hand, if you fail to present good, logical counter-arguments, we'll have a substantiation of why the rules are ignored on this dab.  Simply citing MOSDAB at me no matter what argument I present is not a constructive discussion; it's bullying.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your edit does not conform to WP:MoSDAB, therefore, does not improve the page. When I say consensus, I obviously mean you need others to support your view. Remember that editors do not own pages; JHunterJ and I are only doing what the rules say. It's what sticklers do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That much I figured out&mdash;you are here not to write the encyclopedia, but to enforce the rules to their last letter even when it does not make a whole lot of sense and does more harm than good, and then refusing to even hear out the arguments the other side presents :( Anyway, for your convenience, below I have provided a summary of the situation.  Please, comment.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's more, your sentence that [my] edit does not conform to WP:MoSDAB, therefore, [it] does not improve the page shows just how poorly you understand Wikipedia's philosophy. "Improvement" in Wikipedia does not mean literally following each and every rule.  Consider these:
 * Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (from WP:WIARM)
 * The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both (ibid)
 * Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing (WP:UCS)
 * Wikipedia's rules are principles, not civil code or exacting law (WP:RAP)
 * Needless to say, I could go on and on and on...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You make it difficult to respond to the multitude of questions without interleaving the responses, but:
 * "... why did you not find the suggestion by ShelfSkewed ... acceptable?" I did find it acceptable. That's why I modeled this page's intro after the intro line on HP (disambiguation).  The version I replaced was not so modeled.
 * "Also, please comment on my most recent inquiry to you." Sorry. When I returned from an unannounced wikibreak, it appeared that your question had been sufficiently answered, both by my earlier answers and by BKonrad.
 * "... would you mind to explain why you are so adamantly refusing me a right to invoke IAR, as applied to inclusion of a red link and a summary?" I haven't refused you the right to invoke it, but I also haven't given up the ideas of consensus, and the rules-ignoring edits do not appear to benefit the encyclopedia or anyone except you. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining why you are adamantly trying to disambiguate a Wikipedia article without a Wikipedia article to disambiguate?  Cluttering up the list of Wikipedia articles that do need disambiguation with non-existent articles that don't (yet) is detrimental to the purpose of disambiguation pages.  You have not shown that adding that distraction will help anyone.  A better solution would be to create stub(s) or include information on those "baykals" on encompasing article(s) first, then adding the links to the articles that require disambiguation here.  Another option is to create List of baykals or some other set index article companion to this disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This was later answered below, as a part of restarted discussion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Restarted discussion
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. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Intro line
 * 2) Currently: Baykal may refer to Lake Baikal, a lake in southern Siberia, Russia.
 * 3) *Why: according to Sesshomaru, it is supported by MOSDAB#Linking to a primary topic.
 * 4) *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.
 * 5) *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 "Байкал".  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.
 * 6) 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)
 * I don't have a problem with the second wording myself, even though it seems silly to link to the same article both directly and via a redirect in the same sentence. All I care about is that the intro sentence includes a directly visible link to the main article.  If the wording above is what it takes to achieve that, I'd support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that both version have "directly visible link(s)"; the second happens to have two directly visible links. Links to redirects are not bad things; see WP:R for more.  But I don't find the two links silly either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By "directly visible link" I meant a directly visible "direct" link (i.e., one which is not via a redirect and which utilizes no piping); sorry if that was unclear. Second version is fine with me, first is not.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I deduced. Again, see WP:R for an explanation of why direct links are not required in all cases; but if both links find their way into the intro, I won't revert it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Direct links are indeed not required in all cases, but one is needed here due to the English usage concerns outlined above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't the primary topic of "Baykal" the lake? And this dab is name "Baykal" because of the Russian spelling rules, right?  Those seem to me to point to the use of the redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary topic is "Lake Baikal", not "Baykal the lake". The former is proper primary English usage, that trumps MOSDAB any time.  The latter is a proper romanization variant, which always should yield to proper English usage.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary use of what is Lake Baikal? The primary use of "Baykal" is Lake Baikal, which is why Baykal redirects to Lake Baikal, and why "Baykal is Lake Baikal" serves to introduce a dab page for the term "Baykal". -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * J, we don't exactly seem to be talking about the same thing. "Lake Baikal" is the primary English name of the lake in southern Siberia, Russia; and it is the term available in pretty much any English dictionary.  If one chooses to call the lake differently in English, then that person would not be using the primary English name, but something else (an alternative romanization, a misspelling, etc.).  We, as an encyclopedia, are bound to use primary names at all times, but occasionally, when we have good reasons to use an alternative name (in our case&mdash;to set up a disambiguation page), we are allowed to do so, but we must nevertheless make sure that we do not imply that a non-primary name is somehow more important than the primary name (even if such an implication directly follows from one of our guidelines such as MOSDAB).  While you are absolutely correct when state that "Baykal" primarily refers to Lake Baikal, you keep missing the point that "Baykal" is not the primary name of the lake, "Baikal" is.  This is precisely why we need to have a link to Lake Baikal in the intro (because it's the primary name and it is very important that it is emphasized!).  As for how the rest of the intro line is going to be formatted, I completely and utterly don't care, because it is not a matter of encyclopedic correctness, but rather a matter of our internal procedures and practices, enforcement of which I am happy to leave to you, a member of a WikiProject dedicated precisely to maintaining, developing, and upholding those procedures.  I am, however, trying to ensure that you don't do said enforcement at the expense of the encyclopedic value.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking about the same thing. The common English name determines whether the article should exist at Lake Baikal or at Baykal.  Since the English name is "Lake Baikal", Baykal redirects to Lake Baikal.  If there were a need to disambiguate "Lake Baikal",  Lake Baikal (disambiguation) would lead with "Lake Baikal is ...".  However, "Lake Baikal" doesn't need disambiguation.  "Baykal" does.  If the reader, looking for the lake, enters "Baikal", "Baykal", or "Lake Baikal" in the search box, she will never see the dab page -- she will end up at the article she sought.  However, if a reader seeking one of the other "Baykals" enters "Baykal" and clicks through the hatnote to this dab, then we assume that the lake wasn't sought, and simply point out, in the intro, what the primary topic of the dab base name is by linking to the base name (redirect or not), and then listing the possible articles that the reader of the dab page may have been interested in instead. The part that is unclear to me is why, for a reader who has already seen the page Lake Baikal, it is important to emphasize that name again here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * J, I actually already addressed this in one of previous discussions :) To repeat: you cannot state with 100% certainty that a reader has already seen the page Lake Baikal, because that reader may have very well landed on the disambiguation page in a non-standard way (using the "random page" feature, via a search engine, or following a link from outside Wikipedia).  These would, of course, account for a smaller portion of "landings", but neither they are purely hypothetical examples.  Wikipedia is here for all readers, not just those who started on the Main Page and drilled their ways down to the topic they need.  For those who arrived to this dab from the outside, it may very well not be obvious that "Baykal" is not the primary English name of the lake.  While I would agree this is not exactly a super-major problem, it is nevertheless one that can easily be fixed, which is exactly what I'm proposing.  Why we keep generating kilobytes of discussion over this is by now simply beyond my understanding.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Alternative proposal (by Tesscass): considering that both "Baykal" and "Baikal" spellings refer to the same Russian word "Байкал", which in turn refers primarily to Lake Baikal, it is proposed to re-word the intro sentence as follows:
 * Baikal and Baykal are English romanizations of the Russian name "Байкал". It may refer to: 
 * 1) Inclusion of a red link and an aggregate sentence
 * 2) Currently, a red link to Baykal, Republic of Tatarstan and a sentence about Baykal being the name of several other rural localities in Russia is commented out.
 * 3) *Why: according to WP:MOSDAB, [a] link to a non-existent article... should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link.
 * 4) *More why: according to WP:MOSDAB, [d]isambiguation pages are solely intended to allow users to choose among several Wikipedia articles, usually when a user searches for an ambiguous term. Since the "other rural localities" sentence does not link to a page qualifying for inclusion on the "Baykal (disambiguation)" page, it should be removed.
 * 5) *Why not: a link to Baykal, Republic of Tatarstan is (and has for quite a while been) included in the Arsky District article, which shows that MOSDAB-enforcers did not even bother to verify the link before commenting it out.
 * Very good! It's unfortunate that you appear to have also been "lazy" in bringing this up, but that matches the suggestion I gave you before this restart.  It just shows that the IAR-wishers did not even bother to verify the link before now either. I've added the link to the appropriate article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you do realize that I was the person who wrote that particular section of the article in the first place, so my laziness is not the reason for not bringing it up, and that I did not need to verify the link beforehand because I new exactly where it can be found? Sigh...  You really need to cut on sarcasm when you have no intent of researching all aspects of the situation before posting a comment...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why keep it a secret until now? You really need to cut down on the insults if you don't like "sarcastic" ways of dealing with that level of ridiculousness. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not "keep it a secret", but merely missed it the very first time, when I also assumed that folks who clean up dab pages do take time to verify that what they are doing is correct (and this statement is not sarcasm; it is genuine disappointment with a sloppy job). I saw no reason to raise this later (until this proposal), because I believe that the root of the evil is the current wording of the MOSDAB red links clause (see below), not this one particular entry.  I am sorry about the insults, but I guess we both share the blame for continuing to mutually provoke one another.  For what it's worth, my apologies.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I apologize for returning those insults. I find the link to WP:AGF odd here -- you didn't assume good faith (or bad faith, that's not what I'm implying), you assumed other editors would find an article to go with the entry you added, and that has nothing to do with good or bad faith. Cleaning up dab pages does not mean figuring out what articles other editors meant to link to, although certainly I do it when I'm familiar enough with the topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What I meant by linking to AGF is that I normally assume that an editor knows what he's doing when making an edit. As far as this particular incident goes, I in good faith assumed that when when a red link was commented out on a dab page on account of that link not having any backlinks, someone has checked that the said backlinks are indeed absent.  This is a simple technical procedure, which requires no guesswork.  Hope this clarifies my comment above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I can at least clarify that: WP:AGF does not cover assuming the other editor has done anything except acted in good faith. In particular, it is not "Wikipedia:Assume [Some Work] Was Done". -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) *More why not: current edition of the MOSDAB red link clause has been passed as a result of discussion by a handful of editors and has been contested. Prior revision of the red links clause stipulated that a red link may be included if the article located at that link should be written, which is a far more sensible approach to the problem.
 * 2) *More why not: according to WP:NC:CITY, when the name of the locality is not unique within Russia, it should be disambiguated by using a comma-separated name of the federal subject on the territory of which the locality is situated. If only Tatarstan's Baykal is listed on the dab page, it is unclear why the name is not disambiguated using other methods outlined in WP:NC:CITY#Russia.  An aggregate sentence clarifying that other localities called "Baykal" exist in Russia provides a necessary explanation, while at the same time letting readers know that multiple localities by this name exist.  Additionally, the sentence is not intended to serve as a permanent solution&mdash;it will be removed as soon as articles on all Baykals are written.
 * 3) *More why not: while it is possible to expand the aggregate sentence and explicitly list all of the localities, it would unnecessarily overload the dab page with red links. Creating mini-stubs for each entry would also counter-productive, as it averts the limited resources of WikiProject Russia to menial tasks of mechanically satisfying the MOSDAB guidelines, thus disrupting the process of actual content creation.  With over 150,000 rural localities in Russia, many of which with non-unique names, a situation similar to Baykal's is bound to repeat again, ultimately leading to creation of a bunch of worthless mini-stubs while at the same time inhibiting the project's progress.  Srategically (and temporarily!) putting aggregate sentences on dab pages, however, provides readers with vital information sufficient to prevent confusion, while at the same time minimizing circumventing of MOSDAB guidelines.
 * 4) Proposal and substantiation 1: a link to "Baykal, Republic of Tatarstan" should be restored, as it is not in violation of anything.
 * 5) Proposal and substantiation 2: the aggregate sentence should be restored as benefits of doing so far outweigh the downside. WP:IAR specifically allows to ignore rules when doing so improves Wikipedia.
 * I disagree that the aggregate sentence improves Wikipedia. The earlier revision of the guidelines you find more sensible was changed with consensus to a version more editors find more sensible. Telling the reader here that there are other Baykals in Russia but without giving them articles to "land" on does not help them.  If they were looking for one of the other Baykals, they already know it exists, and if they weren't, they don't need to.  Disambiguation pages are navigation pages, not exploration articles. If you have a longer list of (what would currently be redlink) Russian villages named Baykal, perhaps a set index article Baykal, Russia (or Baykal (Russia) or Baykal (Russian), I'm not familiar with the naming convention for them) could be created to list them per WP:NC:CITY, and then linked as a See also here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To counter that, consider a person who is trying to locate a place called "Baykal" and ends up on this dab. Without an aggregate sentence, he is currently presented two options&mdash;a place in Irkutsk Oblast and a place in Tatarstan.  He assumes it is one of those places and uses the information accordingly, left unaware that these two are not the only Baykals in Russia.  What if he needed one of Baykals in Bashkortostan?  The aggregate sentence at least lets him know to continue searching (even if it's outside Wikipedia) if none of the two places we have listed quite match the description he might be working off of.  If you think it's a highly improbable and hypothetical situation, I assure you it is not.  In genealogic research, for example, people very often have to work with extremely limited information, and quite often even tiniest bits of extra data prove to be very helpful.  Here, for example, if all you know is that, say, before emigrating to the US your grand-grand-father lived in one of the ethnic republics of the USSR and you happen to have information that his native village was called "Baykal", it would be all too easy to assume it was Baykal in Tatarstan while in fact it might have been one of Baykals in Bashkortostan.
 * Of course, incorrect choices due to insufficient information may be easily made just about anywhere else, but in this case we know for a fact that other places exist, we just choose not to list them individually for style reasons and better organization of workflow. Why deny readers an extra bit of information, when a sacrifice we would need to make is so minor (and temporary at that), not to mention that it also aides the participants of WikiProject Russia to organize their workflow more efficiently and helps cut on the number of unneeded maintenance tasks in the long run?  Why have us jump through extra hoops by creating unneeded set index articles with red links, which in the end should become blue links and ultimately incorporated into dabs anyway?  Every set I'd have to create per your suggestion would simply steal my time which I could otherwise devote to tasks that actually bring us closer to achieving universal coverage of Russian places, and then they will steal even more time when they are ready to be merged into dabs.  Factor in the huge scope of the project and you'll see the waste of time grow manyfold.  How is that good for Wikipedia?  Are you willing to impede WikiProject's progress by months (if not years) just because you don't want to see MOSDAB rules slightly bent over the course of a limited period of time?  How is this not a situation in which IAR applies in full?  What about not follow[ing] written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider[ing] how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit?  What about the common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trump[ing] both [the spirit and the letter of the rules]'?  What about following the rules [being] less important than using good judgment?  Still think that omitting the sentence will improve Wikipedia?  Sorry for asking so many questions, but I don't think I quite managed to address the whole scope of the problem and the effectiveness of the solution in my original posts.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "What if he needed one of Baykals in Bashkortostan?" Then he would find it's not in Wikpedia, and could either give up or keep looking. Adding the redlinks to a proper set index article is no more burdensome than adding them to a dab page -- the Wiki interface makes it pretty easy.  If you'll help formulate the title, I'll create it with the entries that are here and used to be here, but I'm not sure if it's Baykal, Russia, Baykal (village), or Baykal (Russia) or something else.
 * It sounds, though, from your example, that "Baykal" (in English usage) maybe isn't primarily used to discuss the lake? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To address the second point, "Baykal" is the BGN/PCGN Romanization of the lake's Russian name, and while it is not the main English usage, it is nevertheless quite common on maps and in atlases which predominantly use BGN/PCGN.
 * As for the first point, the problem is not that the person would not find the entry s/he was looking for and leave, it is that the person can very easily mistake the entry we have for the one s/he needs, because we failed to mention that the list is incomplete. I do, of course, understand that such a confusion can arise pretty much anywhere, but in this case we know that other places of the same name exist; why not provide a one line hint to this effect to avoid potential confusion?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And my suggestion is to make the one-line hint a link to a new Baykal, Russia page, created to list the various Baykals in Russia (but that doesn't disambiguate Wikipedia articles, since they don't have Wikipedia articles). -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a problem with doing it just this once, but I am adamantly opposed to this approach on a larger scale. As I explained above, such pages do not really add much value, are an extra step readers searching for relevant information would have to take, and require time and effort to set up and then to be merged back into the dabs once the links turn blue.  All this merely to satisfy a formalistic MOSDAB requirement?  I am sorry, but I am not willing to waste precious time on this hoop-jumping; my resources are stretched as they are.  So, if this makes you happy&mdash;here are five brand-new blue-liners I created outside the normal project's workflow.  Of course, now I'll have to actively pay attention to this page in case any other Baykal turns up later (I don't have a full list of Russian rural localities, although I'm working on it), but I guess it's a small price to pay for time I'll free up by not having to carry this discussion any further.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So finally you understood that these guys are control freaks and trying to reason with them is waste of time. The only way to deal with is to consider them to be a natural disaster and act accordingly. `'Míkka>t 16:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposal per arguments presented here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, I was hoping for a point-by-point review and discussion, not for a circular link to a section above.  See how I nicely summarized all your arguments and presented my counter-arguments?  What I would like to hear from you now is counter-counter-arguments and the rationale behind them.  Can you do that?  Discarding the whole proposal without providing reasons can hardly be considered a valid vote.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have said what I had to say. Now awaiting comments from others. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pity.  I was hoping to at least hear your opinion on the red link part.  Anyway, I'm entering the sleep mode myself...  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see, you get responses to all of your points, but you don't like them, so you call the other editors "lazy" and demand fresh point-by-point rebuttal on the same stuff rehashed? I don't think that's how it works. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's see: and just where can I find those responses to all of my points? Feel free to add the diffs, if you are not willing to "rehash" them.  Please, pretty please, indulge me.  In all honesty, the only response I got so far is that since what I did was not MOSDAB-compliant, it was therefore bad.  I diligently incoporated that response into the summary above and provided counter-arguments (which, to answer your question, is how it works).  Have any of my counter-arguments been addressed?  No, all I got was a circular reference back to the "MOSDAB non-compliance is bad" mantra.  Seriously, folks, is that how WP DAB members do business nowdays?  Ganging up on people, refusing to address their concerns, and then shifting all the blame back to them?  Disgusting...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro line - another proposal
Baykal may refer to:
 * Lake Baykal <-- put amongst the other entries.

Reason: There is no primary topic called "Baykal". The primary name for the lake article is "Lake Baykal". Further more, if I were the editor, Baykal would not redirect to Lake Baykal. Baykal would be the disambiguation page, and Baykal (disambiguation) would be redirected there instead. --Tesscass (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Tess, thanks for the comment, but please note that both "Baikal" and "Baykal" are valid names of the lake. The former is the English name (per WP:UE), while the latter is a romanization (per WP:RUS).  Both refer to the exact same Russian word "Байкал".  Both "Baikal" and "Baykal" (as well as "Bajkal") should redirect to the lake, since this is the primary entity named "Байкал; all other meanings should be relegated to a dab page.  Does this help?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my ignorance on the Russian language. How about something like this:

Baikal and Baykal are English romanizations of Байкал. It may refer to:
 * Lake Baikal, a lake in Siberia, Russia

I have no personal stake as to which is the dab page. But both Baykal and Baikal seem better to me than Baykal (disambiguation), and neither Baykal or Baikal is currently "occupied" by an actual article. --Tesscass (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My issue with the current intro that does this " Baykal " is that it in effect hides the actual name of the article, which is not recommended for a disambiguation page. --Tesscass (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignorance of the Russian language is not a problem; unwillingness to accept that one is ignorant of something is (obviously, this is not aimed at you :)). As for your suggestion for the intro statement, I actually like it even better than ShelfSkewed's version above.  It reasonably compromises on MOSDAB requirements while at the same time addressing the areas covered by WP:RUS.  Whether other WP DAB folks, some of whom treat MOSDAB as an infallible and absolute gospel, would agree with you is anyone's guess, but here is my support for the record.  Feel free to include this wording into my proposal above yourself (as an alternative), or let me know if it's OK with you if I do it.
 * I do not, however, agree that the dab page should be moved to "Baikal" or "Baykal". Russian word "Байкал" refers first and foremost to the lake; all other meanings are either derivative, or not well-known, or both.  Since the Russian word can be romanized in a number of different ways, it makes sense to redirect all those romanizations to the article about the lake (because regardless of the romanization system used, 99% of searches for "Baikal", "Baykal", "Bajkal", or "Baĭkal" are going to be for the lake).  The dab page would thus have to have "(disambiguation)" qualifier in the title, as per MOSDAB requirements, and it should be titled "Baykal (disambiguation)" as per WP:RUS requirements.  I hope I didn't confuse you too much :)  It's just that this one is not your run-off-the-mill usual dab; it actually lies on an intersection of multiple guidelines and practices, so finding a compromise solution is not all that straightforward.  I do agree that masking the articles title via a redirect is unacceptable, though.  We are creating an encyclopedia here, after all, not "the-most-MOSDAB-compliant-at-the-expense-of-everything-else-compendium".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to go ahead and use my suggestion about the intro line as you see fit. Yes, the part about Baikal shouldn't be a dab page is a bit confusing to me.  But I'll defer to you experts about this subject.  As far as disambiguation is concern, as long as its not more obscuring, its fine with me.  Hope other dab folks will weigh in on this also.  --Tesscass (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks and done (item 1.3). Please edit if I misinterpreted any part of it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Formalism a no-go
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * That's enough from you, assume good faith. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

From talk pages
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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Order?
Why has the Russian section been taken out of alphabetical order? Abtract (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

Primary topic wording
(considering long discussion above, I need to add this...) I've set it per the guide WP:DABPRIMARY. I consider it slightly awkward, but we can decide here if it should be set like the Mozart example, for example. Widefox ; talk 10:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Slightly awkward? :) It looks horrible and artificial. Surely we can IAR this case? The Mozart solution looks quite sensible, by the way. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2014 ; 12:14 (UTC)
 * I agree. What exactly was wrong about the way it was previously? older ≠ wiser 12:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, then try this one.. I think we should try to use a link with the ambiguous term in it (Mozart example does).
 * For something similar, there's Danzig (disambiguation) (and no doubt better examples - know of one?). The interesting thing about the Danzig dab is that I think it is the obvious way to word this, but I believe it currently breaks Use–mention distinction. I don't think we're yet at the point where invoking IAR is needed. Widefox ; talk 08:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)