Talk:Fyodorov

Redlinks

I just rm these redlinks from the list:

• Afanasy Fyodorov, a Russian writer
• Alexander Fyodorov, a Russian botanist
• Alexey Fyodorov-Davydov, a Russian art critic
• Andrey Alexandrovich Fyodorov, a Soviet botanist
• Gennady Fyodorov, a Russian writer
• Ivan Fyodorov (statesman), a Russian boyar and statesman
• Leonid Fyodorov, a Russian ecclesiastic figure
• Mikhail Fyodorov, a Russian microbiologist
• Sergey Filippovich Fyodorov, a Russian geologist
• Sergey Petrovich Fyodorov, a Russian surgeon
• Vasily Fyodorov, a Russian poet
• Vasily Fyodorovich Fyodorov, a Russian astronomer
• Viktor Fyodorov, a Soviet statesman and party figure
• Yevgeny Fyodorov, a Russian geophysisist
• Yevgeny Petrovich Fyodorov, a Russian pilot, Double Hero of the Soviet Union
• Yevgraf Yevgrafovich Fyodorov, a Russian climatologist

--maf 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks, [l]inks to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject. All of the entries listed here are valid; articles can and should be written about each of these people. Please, put them back. Furthermore, it is common when a person is referred to by last name alone (as opposed to by first name), so the page is a disambiguation page (see template talk:Hndis for details). Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 02:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For some reason I moved the list here and did not delete it at all. The reason is that I don't know any of the names, so I cannot vouch for their notoriety. I trust you that the articles could - I trust you even that the articles should - be written. Still, this is the en.WP, where all of these people start from zero notoriety, so there's no benefit in cluttering the list page with so much redlinking. If it were just a couple of names, it would be different. I wouldn't be offended, however, if the links were totally removed, since this is a list of people, and not an index of articles or a dab page. But you'd have to agree this is not a dab page - read on...

Totally disagree on this being a dab page on the argument that people are referred to often by their last name. That is true but only after a fuller name is disclosed first, as in: "Yevgraf Fyodorov is a climatologist. Fyodorov studies the climate." If there is MORE THAN ONE Fyodorov with such a notoriety, alongside Shakespeare, Einstein, Gagarin, or Brezhnev, that doesn't require writing their first names, then a dab is needed. But it seldom is. {{hndis}} is thus a very dangerous template to apply to surnames. --maf 03:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, native speakers of English working in the English Wikipedia. Naturally, a good portion of those editors seem to be interested in British, American, etc. topics. Russian articles, on the other hand, are developed by at most one or two hundred editors (and I am probably being overly optimistic here). What this leads to is that pages such as Jones, Jackson, or Parker would have quite a few entries with few red links. "Fyodorov" is a very common Russian last name; there would be just as many notable Fyodorovs as there are, say, Jacksons. Just because many Westerners never heard of them does not make them any less notable; in fact, this is a perfect example of systemic bias in action. To answer your concerns about red links above, nearly all of them are there because they are listed in Great Soviet Encyclopedia. As Wikipedia is striving to become the best encyclopedic resource in the world, it should definitely include all entries listed in major encyclopedia's of other countries. However, with limited editor pool working in this specialized area, one should not expect articles on the Russian topics to write themselves overnight. Having red links on dab pages such as this one helps identify priorities for writers. It also helps readers in a way that once they land on this dab page and see an entry they were looking for in red, they would not have to waste any more time trying to find the article elsewhere. That is navigational assistance in my book (of course, having an article instead of a red link would be so much better, but, again, see my remark about limited resources just above).

There is another important point as well. You are saying that [i]f it were just a couple of [redlinked] names, it would be different. That, however, is just your personal point of view. WP:MOSDAB#Redlinks does not provide guidelines as to what proportion of red links is allowed on any given disambiguation page; all it says that [a]dding links to articles not yet written should be done with care. I assure you, I could sit and add a few dozen more marginally notable Fyodorovs, boosting the red link ratio through the roof. Of course, that would be a pointless excersise, as the value of such an addition would be questionable. The links you removed, however, have been carefully selected, with major criterion being their inclusion in another encyclopedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Like you, I am not a native anglophon, so I fully understand the bias danger. If there's a couple really outstanding Fyodorovs in the redlink list, then they could go on the article as their articles should be quickly forthcoming, but to want to include so many redlinks because they're included in a Soviet encyclopedia, that's, well, regionally-biased! Anyway, this argument is easier: "add redlinks with care" means "don't clutter articles with redlinks", does not mean "go ahead and add redlinks of anything that may merit an article in the future, be it tomorrow or in a thousand years". --maf 13:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you did not understand my point. The reason why this dab page was "cluttered" with red links was not because editors who did so wanted to add redlinks on "anything" (if that were the case, the number of red links would be well into one hundred if not more). The intent was to organize the workflow, to provide frame of reference for what should be worked on next, to highlight important topics, to maintain links and backlinks to/from other articles (an important point given that one Russian name can be romanized in a number of different ways), and, yes, to give readers an idea of where to go next when they land on this dab page. If you think "Fyodorov" is an exception, that is not the case—a quick look around Category:Russian surnames would show that the practice is quite widespread, and so far yours is the only complaint about "too many red links".

So, to summarize. The number of editors covering Russian topics in en_wiki is limited. The amount of work involved in covering Russian topics is huge, as the subject is very broad. The editors use disambiguation pages to organize workflow and set priorities. To work efficiently, it is easier to create dab pages (possibly with many redlinks) first, and then use them as guidelines, instead of writing articles first, moving them around to conform with applicable policies, and then amending disambiguation pages every time a new article is written. The benefit for readers is that they can see right away which articles do not yet exist. If you see a red link, you know there is no article. If you don't see an entry at all, you'll have to dig further to find out if the article does not exist, or if it is simply missing from the dab page (possibly because it is misnamed). The obscurity of the topic makes any inconveniences rather minor: we can safely assume that if a reader voluntarily ended up on a dab page like "Fyodorov", it means he more or less knows what he is looking for and would appreciate more choices for guidance. Finally, when all missing article are written, a fully compliant disambiguation page would already be in place. I just don't see any downsides, and a few minor points mentioned hardly grossly violate the MOSDAB.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave it at that. We can't reach consensus nor get anywhere nearer each other. Just notice that you always mention "Russian" articles as precedent for your actions, not articles in general (aside from Barry, which I cleaned up). From now on, if I stumble upon a Russian "dab" page, I'll tag it for cleanup instead of doing it myself, so I can see how other people in general act, as so far this has been a one-on-one dialogue. See WP:BRD. --maf 16:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I only tend to mention "Russian articles" because this is what I mainly work on and know best. In any case, your proposal sounds fair. I was actually hoping to get several opinions when I posted my original "Fyodor" inquiry, but so far you are the only person who responded. Discussion outcome (or lack thereof) notwithstanding, I sincerely thank you for taking time for this discussion. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just found this: WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. --maf 00:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what's your point? I don't see how this essay is relevant to the discussion above. Could you, please, clarify?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an essay about the urge and the stress of wanting to cram everything asap into WP, as seems to be one of your worries. Just food for thought. --maf 02:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an essay about arguments which should be avoided when participating in voting about deletion of articles. Our particular case is not about deletion, it's about how many and what kinds of red links would be appropriate on a disambiguation page. By your logic, we might as well classify the whole missing encyclopedic articles project as "the urge and the stress of wanting to cram everything" into Wikipedia. Sorry, not convinced.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have had the same trouble with Leviathan, so you'll probably understand I'm very much opposed to removing red links. In the special case of Russian articles, is that translation or transliteration is very tricky. Before you know it there are two articles created, because it hadn't been listed on the dab page. Errabee 17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The end doesn't justify the means; use the Talk page for that effect. --maf 23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll look like a stalker, but I just did a thorough cleanup on Leviathan (disambiguation). As a DAB, it's more useful and efective with explanations cut to the point. --maf 23:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've reinserted some of the red links, as their notability has been asserted. Please do not push your POV without reaching consensus first. Errabee 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Maf! If you never heard of redlinked Fyodorovs, it doesn't give you the right to remove them from the dab page. It's that simple. Please, put them back and don't do it again. FYK, these Fyodorovs in particular are all mentioned in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. And no offense, please, it's just that stuff like this happened before in Wikipedia. KNewman 12:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks again

Dear "Great Soviet Encyclopedia" friends, please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, a much better way to park redlinks, unite efforts and find other people willing to help you. --maf (talk-cont) 16:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)