Talk:Tchaikovsky (disambiguation)

Questions
..so SIAs can go anywhere, and just duplicate entries needed, but how to select which ones - MOS:DABSUR covers which names, what about other SIAs? - ships etc? Widefox ; talk 13:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC) (tweaked)
 * Asteroids always seem partial matches to me
 * confused: SIAs in see also or not? (they aren't further disambiguation)
 * The set index should be titled "List of places named Tchaikovsky". The set index itself is not a topic ambiguous with "Tchaikovsky" (although elements of the SIA might be, if mentioned on WP somewhere). Similarly for ships, etc.; elements from the SIA that are ambiguous with the title should be listed directly (and duplicatively) on the dab page.
 * Asteroids seem to be matches to me, since I can easily recall that there is an asteroid named "Tchaikovsky", but not so readily recollect which sequence number it has. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Widefox, before you take this opinion too close to heart, please note that it is, for the most part, just an opinion, not directly supported by either guidelines or reality. While the bit about how the set indices "should be" titled using the "list of..." convention when they share the title with a dab comes directly from WP:SIA, note that it never had been a subject of any discussion prior to being inserted there. One might argue that the fact that it remained there unchallenged for so long is itself an indication of a (silent) consensus, but one quick look through Category:Set indices and its subcats, where this piece of the guideline is followed almost nowhere, would attest that for all practical reasons it is simply being ignored. Which is no wonder, since it results in titles which are cumbersome and make things harder to find, not easier.
 * I know J will take exception to this based on his own interpretation of the disambiguation guidelines (as you can probably tell, we've met before :)), but in practice, set indices on ships, places, etc. are not at all different from set indices on human names. Duplication of names or ships or places on a dab is a horrid idea that creates more problems later on than it solves (of which maintenance is only one), especially when a set contains more than just a handful of entries. If readers are expected to click through for a list of people with the last name "Tchaikovsky", there is no practical reason why they can't do the same with other types of set indices. This all does not, of course, mean, that on every dab page all entries of the same type sharing the same name should be shoved to some set index just because they can be, but when an active, well-developed set index network already exists (such is the case with ships), it makes perfect sense to rely on it instead of doing monkey work of figuring out which entries qualify for duplication on a dab page and which do not (and then tracking future changes to keep both sides in sync).
 * All that regardless, "List of places named Tchaikovsky" is a bad choice for this particular set index because the entities listed on that page are hardly ever referred to by that spelling in English (even though they can occasionally be).
 * On asteroids, I agree with J. Asteroids are commonly referred to using just their names without the number, so while technically their non-numerical parts and full designations are partial matches, for practical purposes it's more helpful to treat them as full matches. This is just another example where following common sense instead of technicalities produces better results :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 26, 2013; 15:07 (UTC)
 * Set indexes are articles, disambiguation pages (including those on human names) are not. They are indeed at all different. Surname list articles (not human name dabs) are lists, but not lists of things that are known by the same title. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia ambiguity, and keeping the reader from having to navigate two pages to reach the topic sought is not at all a horrid idea; maintenance chores are acceptable -- the encyclopedia is for the readers, not for the editors. All that regardless (my view is my understanding of the broader consensus, and includes my understanding of your strident opposition to some of that consensus without actually succeeding in forming a new consensus), "List of places named Chaykovsky" is fine too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But pages on human names are set indices, not disambiguation pages. Tchaikovsky (surname) is a part of Category:All set index articles, not Category:All disambiguation pages. What's more, set indices are not purely "articles" (or "lists") either; per that same WP:SIA, they are ...meant for information as well as navigation. Linking to a set index from a disambig does not in any way deteriorate the navigational aspect, since navigation is an attribute of a set index, per definition. It's not different from linking to a disambiguation page containing a subset of entries at all. At the same time, linking to a set index in certain situations is of a greater benefit to readers, since sets contains further helpful information pertaining to the type of entity the set index covers, information which disambiguation pages cannot include due to limitations of WP:MOSDAB.
 * As for the maintenance chores, piling up maintenance work directly affects the usability of the pages and hence negatively affects the readers. You can't expect having two tangled messes to improve readers' experience, even if initially a set index and a dab duplicating its entries started out perfectly synchronized.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 26, 2013; 15:38 (UTC)
 * Surname articles (articles in the Category:Surnames) are articles, sometimes list articles, covered by WP:ANTHROPONYMY. Human name disambiguation pages (pages in the Category:Human name disambiguation pages) are disambiguation pages, not articles, covered by WP:D. Tchaikovsky (surname) is a surname list article, and not a human name disambiguation page. Set indexes are articles (hence SIA). Linking to SIAs is fine, as long an any actually ambiguous topics covered in Wikipedia are also directly linked from the disambiguation page, for the navigational utility provided to the readers (and despite the maintenance required, which would be required whether or not the SIA exists, if you are concerned about not being able to keep up with the maintenance of the SIAs, simply don't create them). Since the set index itself is not an ambiguous topic, it does not need to be listed in the list of ambiguous topics, and so should be listed in the "See also" section. Linking to the SIA is of no benefit to readers who are seeking an article on a particular topic (that is, to the readers for whom the disambiguation pages are written) unless the SIA is about a separate thing knwn as the title (such as a surname or a given name, which exist and might be documented separately from their list of name-holders), but are allegedly useful to readers seeking an article covering the set of similar things sharing the name (which is why they should be titled as "List of X named Y"). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Surname pages are set indices which WikiProject Anthroponymy treats as articles/list articles in exact same way ship pages are set indices which WikiProject Ships treats as articles/list articles and Russian place names are set indices which WikiProject Russia treats as articles/list articles. That you choose to treat these situations differently is your choice, but please don't try to present your choices and opinions as the uniform truth to be followed by everyone, because one quick look through how things are being done on Wikipedia will show that they are not. In fact, I find it curious that pages formatted to "my point of view", so to speak, are formatted so by a great variety of different editors, while the pages formatted to "your point of view" are typically formatted so by you. Ever noticed that? :)
 * As for the human names disambiguation pages proper (those which are in Category:Disambiguation pages as opposed to Category:Surnames/Category:All set indices), you'll find I have no disagreement with you there.
 * To sum this part up, I'm glad we both agree that set indices have informational purpose. However, you seem to have ignored the other part&mdash;that the set indices also have a navigational component, as per WP:SIA. Thus, for all practical intents and purposes, linking from a disambiguation page to a set index for the purpose of navigation is in no way different than linking from a disambiguation page to another disambiguation page with a subset of entries. Duplicating the set's contents on the dab page is redundant, adds to maintenance unnecessarily (as opposed to "unavoidably" in other situations where maintenance work tends to pile up), and most readers would not understand the purpose of such duplication. And if a set index has no navigational component, then it is no longer a set index but rather a plain vanilla list (one which should be titled using the "list of..." convention).
 * The easiest way to avoid unnecessary duplication is not stopping to create set indices (which is a strange proposal coming from someone who's just said that "SIAs are articles); it is to stop duplicating the entries on dabs for no other reason other than to slavishly follow the letter of the guidelines.
 * On the remaining points, as I said before, the recommendation of titling the set indices as "list of whatever called X" is, in reality, generally not being followed. Since our guidelines are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, that recommendation can safely be removed from WP:SIA, or re-worded as a possible alternative (instead of an imperative), or be safely ignored altogether. The recommendation of putting such links under "see also" is not in the guidelines at all, and the fact that the question of "why should this be done" comes up with frightening regularity shows, among other things, that such approach is counter-intuitive to many. If you have to rationalize it every time the question is asked, it is a good indicator that there is something wrong with that approach, no?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 26, 2013; 16:52 (UTC)
 * Among your other misconceptions, I didn't suggest you not create SIAs. I suggested that if you have a problem with maintaining SIAs, you should not create them, since they incur maintenance. I have no such problems with maintaining WP; maintaining WP is what I come here for. That SIAs haven't yet figured out how to distinguish articles about surnames from articles that only list people sharing the surname doesn't mean that the distinction doesn't exist. "Smith" is a surname, and Smith (surname) has actual information about the surname beyond a list of people who happen to have it; any surname can be similarly covered in WP. Information about place names beyond the list of places having the name is not as encyclopedic. All articles have navigational qualities, but articles are not non-article navigational pages; redirects and disambiguation pages are non-article navigational pages. Recognizing that is common sense, not slavish legalism (although editors who can't be bothered working with the consensus or forming a new consensus have an amazing preference for casting those consensuses as such). The advice on using appropriate names for list articles remains sound. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ezhiki, all of our opinions are equally valid (maybe with weighting for level of clue). As for SIA titles, I am aware that most aren't prefixed with "List ..". I agree with J, there should ideally be more of a differential for lists (SIAs included), SIAs have to justify their existence with refs per all lists and leave disambiguation to DABs. The current blurring/namespace contention doesn't help IMHO, but there's probably no easy way forward as SIA are a way for projects to be easily found with content more on their terms.
 * OK, the issues of using/not using SIAs to be part of double/secondary/further whatever it's called disambiguation has merits either way, but I'm certain of only one thing - DABs are good for finding, and entries in SIAs are the duplicates in finding, not the other way around. Of course, the projects maintain their SIAs so they are likely to be more comprehensive, and I guess exist because of that reality.
 * OK, asteroids sounds common sense (although I believe the threshold is "commonly referred" MOS:DABENTRY). Widefox ; talk 17:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Widefox, I'm glad I could help with at least something, even though we disagree on some points. And regarding the duplicates, consider this example&mdash;if entries on Alexandrovka, Russia set index qualifying for duplicate inclusion on Alexandrovka (disambiguation) under WP:MOSDAB are actually included, will that make finding things easier for readers? Will it make things already on the dab page easier to find? What about a year from now, when pages grow increasingly out of sync? Just some food for thought...
 * And J, saying that "information about place names beyond the list of places having the name is not as encyclopedic" is like saying that toponymy is not as encyclopedic as anthroponymy. I hope that's not what you intended to say. As for the advice on using appropriate names for list articles, it remains perfectly sound for list articles proper, but is rather questionable when applied to set indices, which are only partially lists (and partially navigational tools, per definition).
 * Been a pleasure talking to y'all.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 26, 2013; 17:47 (UTC)
 * Add toponymy information on the toponym "Chaykovsky" and I'd agree that it would become an encyclopedic topic for disambiguation rather than a list for "See also"ing. Set indexes are fully lists, and the advice remains perfectly sound. WP:SIA: "A set index article is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name." They are useful for navigation, just like all list articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, because there exists not one single anthroponymy article where similarly important information is missing and is not expected to be added by somebody, at some point... We are all volunteers here, so let's not command one another which articles to edit and how, shall we? Especially if the only purpose of such request is to satisfy a bureaucratic interpretation of a guideline. Lack of important information means only that the article can be improved, not that it should be disqualified from the area of knowledge and relegated to a surrogate collection of links which are purposefully made more difficult for readers to find.
 * As for navigation, all list articles are useful for navigation, of course, but it is the set indices for which information and navigation are explicitly declared as their main purpose: [a] set index article is meant for information as well as navigation (from WP:SIA). A stand-alone list is intended for information, with navigation being only its side benefit. Yes, set indices are fully lists, but they are also, explicitly, navigational tools, per definition, and that needs to be taken into consideration. You are effectively treating list articles and set indices as if they were the same thing, but the very existence of a separate set index concept indicates that they are not. The slew of existing set indices indicates that it is a concept that's in demand.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 26, 2013; 19:24 (UTC)
 * "Smith is a surname" has a meaning meaningfully distinct from "Chaykovsky is an inhabited locality" (which is not quite correct; there's more than one inhabited locality and only one surname). Retitle it "Chaykovsky (toponym)" if you want to force it into the same mold as the anthroponymy lists. And no, making the assertion explicit that they are navigational tools does not magically grant them some sort of special treatment on dabs. If there's a topic covered on Wikipedia that's ambiguous with the ambiguous title, we include it as an entry on the title's disambiguation page; if there's not, we don't. Common sense. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)