Talk:Cernat

Other pages
I think WP:MOSDAB is pretty clear about this. There are situations where "the sheer number of topics can make it difficult for a reader to find a particular topic on a disambiguation page", at which point various dividers and separate pages are warranted. It's normal that, say, James is divided into James (name) and James (surname). But with under a dozen total entries? Let's not go overboard. Three different pages just confuses the reader rather than helping.

And about Florina Cernat and Magdalena Cernat: could we remove them now? If you have convincing evidence that they're notable, fine, but I've seen none. - Biruitorul Talk 02:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Biruitorul, thank you for expressing your concerns. Here are some comments:
 * "confuses the reader rather than helping". I strongly disagree with that. In my opinion, the way it is now is simple, tight and tidy. I don't think you have a strong point that would compel us to fix something that is not broken.
 * "Three different pages". That is also wrong. Cernat is a disambiguation page, but Cernat (surname) is an article.
 * "Three different pages". Cernat River is not an exact match for Cernat. There is a geodis for all the rivers called Cernat, and there is also an entry at Cernat because in English a river called Cernat could be referred to as "the Cernat". But it is not an exact match for Cernat.
 * If you think Florina Cernat and Magdalena Cernat are not notable, why don't you nominate their articles for deletion at the Romanian Wikipedia so we can see what the consensus is over there?
 * I also think Romanian topics are not covered properly on the English Wikipedia, and it makes much more sense for us to concentrate our efforts on improving the coverage, instead of arguing about the design of a disambiguation page.
 * Cheers, Azylber (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the surname list article is separate; as a convenience, surname-holders are sometimes listed on dab pages until a list article is created, but once it's created, that's where they go. I listed all of the ambiguous rivers here (as well as on the river dab), though, as most rivers are often referred to by their name without "River". If that's not the case here, Cernat River (disambiguation) should be listed in a See also section, not in the main section (creating that redirect to Cernat River for WP:INTDABLINK, and placing it in See also since it's a partial title match. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)