Template talk:Crimean Tatar Surgun era

Revert
Hello, why are you reverting me? I am changing the link so it fits the actual name of the article. A pipe link is not needed here. Super  Ψ   Dro  20:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment explanation for the 3O request. There currently is an article titled De-Tatarization of Crimea that for some reason is here being pipelinked so that "Detatarization of Crimea" is shown instead. The article was already under the latter title but was moved under the current one as that's how it should be done in English. For more info on whether the hyphen should or should not be there, see this discussion . Note that the opposing user has not bothered in reverting me with an edit summary nor on discussing this in the talk page so I am not doing more useless efforts with this kind of stubbornness and asking for someone else to determine which version is more correct. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And I am not interested in getting into another fruitless petty discussion about this with someone who hasn't evven contributed anything of value in content to the subject matter at hand.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. But I will give an opinion about this: The edit summary in this edit by PlanespotterA320 is about as plain a claim of prohibited page ownership as I've seen. And, yes, reverting without explanation, either by a edit comment or opening a discussion on the talk page is disruptive, especially when coupled with the refusal to discuss set out above. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , well, as per WP:DISCFAIL, I will wait for a while to see a response from you and, if not, I will file a report as indicated in this policy. As clearly shown in here, "de-Tatarization" is more common than "detatarization" (see  and ), it's also more appropiate in English per this  and, most importantly, "de-Tatarization" is already the title of the article (no need for a link here I assume).  Super   Ψ   Dro  22:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If anyone is being disruptive, it's the one, who isn't even a Crimean subject matter specialist on the wiki, who decided to start all the drama by insisting changing the spelling in the first place, and THEN deciding to drag such a petty matter into a full blown discussion complete with a request for comment (Super Dromaeosaurus). I maintain that this should be let to those who have specialized in Crimea and детатаризация related matters on the wiki, and have no interest in dealing with such comments who only contribute sparking such conflicts to the wiki. I suggest they find something more productive to do (produce content) instead of making petty fusses over existing content they have no intention of meaningfully contributing to. Detatarization is the proper word here, as it is derived from the Russian word детатаризация, which is not hyphenated, and hypenation changes the meaning of the word. Please keep in mind that there is also an ongoing controversy around the hypenation of the term "Crimean Tatar" in Russian, which is often done by outsiders and opposed within the community. TLDR - anyone who isn't a Crimea subject-matter person should stay out of this and not start this drama in the first place. I have better things to be than put up with these tireless stupid nonstop pings from people who never contribute meaningfully or even read the Crimea content here who arrogantly think they know best.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * But as shown above, per English recommendations, "de-Tatarization" is preferred, and it's also more used in the academic world. The Russian word does not matter here. Other Wikipedia pages follow this convention, see Sub-Saharan Africa for example. See also Hyphens and dashes, precisely 'They are used: [...] when prefixing a capitalized word, such as "un-Christian"'. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , per your summary, I do not care if you made the template or not, you don't WP:OWN it. I have no interest in the topic, but if the edit warring continues, I will be handing out blocks.  Work it out, or move on to something else if you can't, but stop editing it until you do.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * , you've clearly been given enough time to reply in this discussion again. Per WP:DISCFAIL, I will warn you one last time. If you maintain it unresponsive, I'll report you after 24 hours. You may also revert yourself and end the dispute. Super   Ψ   Dro  10:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am appaled by your threat of a block for not responding "timely" enough" to a discussion I have no desire to be a part of and strongly considered ignoring it all together lest I appear to be caving in to power-tripping admins issuing threats to productive volunteers for not devoting their precious time to pedantic talkpage drama. A single hypen should not result in "thorough" talkpage disscussion, we all have better uses for our time. I have already issued my response and I do not care to elaborate further. I have a life beyond the monstrocity that is English Wikipedia and frankly so not wish to make any more comments on this page. You can revert on the template if you feel like being a grammar nazi that badly, but I will NOT self-revert and I will NOT contribute to the prolonging of this discussion that should not ever exist. I am OUT and do not care to listen to this pettyness any further. Lots of people leave discussions and do not owe you any excuse for it. This is a VOLUNTEER project, all contributions are VOLUNTARY. I will not sucumb to your power trip if you continue to threaten blocks, or even decide to go through with it, I WILL appeal it to the fullest extent. I am sick and tired of these UNPRODUCTIVE, USELESS "discussions" that don't create a single byte of genuine content and have no interest in any more of it. As an editor who actually produces and published real content (semi-regularly, and NOT at 24-hour intervals), I am tired of being disrespected, stonewalled, stabotaged, and hurdled by editors looking for ways to be obstructive (who do not produce any article content and seem to get a kick out of getting in the way of those who actually do the hard work that goes in to wikipedia). I DON'T CARE about this "discussion". Make your ruling for it. Heck, go ahead and decide whose ethnonyms should be hypenated or not (no need to even consult said peoples). But I contribute to Wikipedia IN THE ARTICLESPACE, not on talkpages. I do not consider the template that I made to be "mine", if someone else decided to make any kind of PRODUCTIVE edits to the template (ex, CREATING new articles on related content and ADDING links to them), I would not have even considered reverting it. The reason that I reverted was because де-татаризация has a different meaning from детатаризация and such changes are completely counter-productive - just like if someone had vandalized it (ex, blanked it), I would have reverted it, because I value creating and preserving quality CONTENT. Goodbye, and I do not wish to hear from you again. Do NOT reply to me, do NOT come to my talkpage, DO NOT ping me, DO NOT email me. Because I DON'T CARE. (Unless you have a genuine interest in the subject matter at hand, and would like suggestions of reading materials to familiarize yourself with Crimean Tatar history or have questions about content like "why were there 2 commissions after Gromyko, one by Yanaev and the other by Doguzhiev?", in which case I will take your real questions.)--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, I've undone the edit. But I note that unilaterally reverting a move that was agreed upon by a RM won't do you any favors.  Super   Ψ   Dro  17:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I've reverted your latest edit because per the article, toponym renaming is only part of the process. By the way, you've been told it is illogical to try to oppose a link that follows the actual title of the article. If you are opposed to "De-Tatarization", De-Tatarization of Crimea is the first place where you should try to enforce a change. Not here. If the article is moved, you may change the link here. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not entirely illogical to have a link label that is not the article title. If you had an understanding of the template, you would know that the Key parts section is largely in chronological order. The toponym renaming was immediatly after the deportation, however, other manifestations of detatarization occured at different times. The toponym renaming is simply the most important and prominent aspect here (the 1920's book burning and occasional mislabeling of Amet-khan in the later 20th century being a relatively minor aspect of it). People looking for information on the subject will be better served by being able to easily find the link to the article that clearly covers the toponym renaming as opposed to the niche phrase of detatarization. (Heck some parts of detatarization weren't even part of the official Surgun era covered by the template as clearly labeled in the title which specifies that this template is only for 1944-1989 manifestations, which fits the toponym renaming but not nessesarily all other forms of detatarization). And pipe links are perfectly fine to help articles fit the navboxes better. If the Gromyko commission article used the full super long name of the commission, the navbox certainly still should use the simpler name. And the deportation article is labeled by a pipelink too. For the billionth time, please find something more productive to do than being blatantly obstructionist in the design of this navbox, stop wasting my time, please inform yourself well about Crimean history before pushing your opinion on this navbox. I have tried to reason with you, proposed this compromise, etc, all in vein for this is like trying to explain calculus to one who doesn't know their 12x12 table. In the time you have spent droning on and demanding use of the improper term I have already filled one of the remaining redlinks and I certainly hope you will drop the stick by the time I finish the remaining two. Please drop the stick, accept the comprimise, and move on to something more productive, or at least bother to slightly inform yourself about the subject of this navbox before making a single further reply.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense to have the link title only cover part of the article if the link is to the whole article. It confuses readers what the linked article is actually about. Someone wanting to read about propaganda in other forms would not expect to find this in an article about topographical renamiing. And while we could pipe to De-Tatarization of Crimea, this would seem to make the link less useful since the whole article seems relevant to the template not just that subsection so we have the same problem that readers will be unaware, in fact they will be confused why they are being taken to a subsection when the whole article is relevant to what they want to read about. An alternative would be to include multiple links to different subsections, but it's unclear to me where these links would fit in the template, and even if a space could be found, it's unclear to me this would be better. It seems to me it's best just to have a single link to the whole article rather than multiple links to different subsections since ultimately the whole article is relevant. We often cannot expect to have perfect chronological order in templates since different issues are covered in different articles and some things may be short, other things may happen over a long span of time. In this case, I wonder if the De-Tatarization of Crimea should be moved around, perhaps to the beginning or end to reduce chronological confusion, but either way we should not confuse readers by failing to tell them what an article is about. Readers will be way more confused by a link which is about way more than the link title tells them about, then they will be the chronology being a bit messy. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It is NOT the entire article that is relevant to the template, and you would know that if you were vaguely familiar with Crimean history or at least read the title of the navbox which CLEARLY indicates that the navbox is ONLY for 1944-1989 era. Detatarization in a much more broad sense has lasted over centuries, and hence pre-1944 and post-1989 manifestations (ex, 1920s book burning, Russian Empire era detatarization, etc) are outside of this template's scope (will eventually be addressed by a different navbox when I get to making one). We will not have a redundant link to the demonization/Tatarophobia section (since we already have a link to the article for that). For now we will have the pipe link to the ONE relevant non-redundant section. If/when I add content and a section to the article about detatarization of Crimea in the Russian Empire, it better not be given another pipe link in the template as I hope everyone here is aware that the Russian Empire fell BEFORE the Surgun era of 1944-1989 (but given statements of various editors here, I know better than to make assumptions of that kind).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "" Clearly that happened between 1944-1989. I expected most of the "" happened during 1944-1989 too. Considering all the other things they did, it would seem very unusual they completely stopped their indoctrination efforts from 1944, except for that one conference. In other words, the entire propaganda section is of relevance. Also while the airport name is new, it's unclear to me that attempts to pretend Amet-khan Sultan was Dagestani only happened after 1989. This seems unlikely since from the article on Amet-khan Sultan, he was pressured to say he was Dagestani even though he wasn't during his life. Since he died in 1971, it seems very weird that there would be attempts to make him Dagestani before he died, then this stopped between 1971 to 1989. In any case, even if the Soviets really stopped trying to make Amet-khan Sultan Dagestani after he died, the attempts to make him Dagestani during his life probably should be mentioned in the De-Tatarization of Crimea article since this seems to be a somewhat iconic example where a Crimean Tatar hero (from the period of the template!) has been falsely made into a Dagestani both during his life and after. BTW, there's no mention of 1920 book burning in the article itself, only in the lead. This is a problem which needs to be fixed since the lead is supposed to summarise the body. I didn't really consider the lead when making my comments above since the lead shouldn't be that important. Nil Einne (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * PlanespotterA320, what if you included a note specifying that Crimean Tatars are different from the Volga Tatars? Don't think "detatarization" would make this confusion any clearer or that it would fix all issues. I can bet any reader new to the topic (that is, most people) would first assume that Crimean Tatars are related to Tatarstan Tatars regardless of whether the article is titled in one way or another. I really hope you don't reply to this with something along the lines of "they would know if they had the slightest idea of Crimea Tatars" blah blah. This is not how Wikipedia works. It isn't a specialist-only website or something. Super   Ψ   Dro  18:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This article contains a link to the article about Crimean Tatars, which clarifies that. We should not need to have a paragraph dedicated to the origin of the word "tatar", history of the term, Crimean Tatar ethnogenesis, etc, in every single article at every mention of the ethnonym. The wikilink is sufficient.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)