Talk:Radchenko

Radchenko places
I would be nice when you read the link to Wikipedia:NC:CITY first before you use it incorrectly, mr. Ezhiki. And secondly, stop the edit warring. The Banner talk 18:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you perchance seen bullet three? If so, I would appreciate if this time you kindly revert yourself. As for the platform link (whatever way it is formatted), it does not belong per WP:DABRL as there is no article linking to it. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013 ; 18:31 (UTC)
 * P.S. Bullet one does not apply because there is only one inhabited locality (which is the only type of entity WP:NC:CITY#Russia applies to) in Russia called Radchenko. A railway platform (or station) is not considered to be a populated place. Titles of articles about such entities are regulated by other guidelines (none of which, by the way, would result in "Radchenko, Leningrad Oblast").—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013 ; 18:35 (UTC)


 * Just stop the edit warring over it. When you read your own links, you will see that "my links" are completely compliant. And please bear in mind the existing of links to the places from other places, like templates. See for an example: Links to Radchenko, Leningrad Oblast The Banner talk 18:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they are not compliant. "Radchenko, Tver Oblast" is incorrect per bullet 3 of WP:NC:CITY. "Radchenko, Leningrad Oblast" is incorrect per naming conventions used in railway-related articles (railways stations/facilities are not disambiguated by a political unit) and may not belong per WP:DABRL anyway ([a] link to a non-existent article... should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article... also includes that red link→templates are not articles). I have no problem admitting that the very last point falls within the grey area and the platform's inclusion on this page can be debated further, but the fact still remains that not a single article about a railway facility in Russia is disambiguated using the federal subject. That, and a railway facility is not an "inhabited locality", which makes WP:NC:CITY#Russia's bullet 1 inapplicable here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013 ; 18:47 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, where comes WP:DABRL in play when disambiguating places? The Banner talk 18:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On reading it again: you say that is perfectly okay to create links to disambiguation pages in templates when that suits you better than applying WP:IAR to be able to solve problems? The Banner talk 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DABRL, [a] link to a non-existent article... should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article... also includes that red link. Radchenko (urban-type settlement) is contained in administrative divisions of Tver Oblast, to which a backlink was given in the description you removed. Radchenko (platform)/Radchenko, Leningrad Oblast is not contained in any article (except via a template), so it should not be included. If having an article which contains a template which contains the red link is in fact sufficient for inclusion (I don't know for sure whether it is), then it's fine to include the link—hence my mention of a "grey area".
 * Now, I seriously don't care whether a link to an empty railway platform in the middle of a forest is included or not—if you want it IAR'd, it's fine by me—but the guideline under bullet 3 of WP:NC:CITY clearly explains what the link to the urban-type settlement should look like, and the railway facility naming practices clearly show that "Radchenko, Leningrad Oblast" is not an acceptable format to name an article about a railway platform. I would appreciate it if you reinstated the proper links yourself. And you still haven't answered my question about removing the descriptions—how was that "solving problems"?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2013 ; 19:08 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate a response to the above, please. None of my concerns have yet been coherently addressed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 6, 2014 ; 15:35 (UTC)
 * Loud and clear: when I see templates show up with links to disambiguation pages, I will have to revert to solve that. The Banner talk 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Next time consider waiting (or doing some checks) before reverting on the spot. I updated the templates with proper links around the same time as I edited this page, but in case you didn't know, it takes the WhatLinksHere queue up to several days to catch up. Had I not caught your revert on time, this page would have had two dead links with no indication on how to fix them...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 9, 2014 ; 20:23 (UTC)