Talk:Pine Valley

Inclusion of foreign language term where linked articles do not indicate any ambiguity in English

Discussion moved here from User talk:Russian.dissident as it is general discussion pertaining to this page. older ≠ wiser 00:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, your edit to the Pine Valley disambiguation page doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion on a disambiguation page. First there is no article on the subject Кедровая_Падь_(заповедник) and there is no mention of the term in the linked articles Primorsky Kray, Russia. Disambiguation pages are navigational aids for existing articles and should not introduce new information that is not supported by other articles. older ≠ wiser 13:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed the entry. In the English Wikipedia, the links should never be to a title written in Russian, and the rest of the issues were easy to fix. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2010; 14:59 (UTC)

Except that the way it is now, there is no indication of ambiguity with the term "Pine Valley" in any of the linked articles. Unless there is evidence that the place is commonly known in English by the name "Pine Valley" there is no need to disambiguate the term. Disambiguation pages are not intended to provide foreign language glossaries. older ≠ wiser 15:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are intended to aid in navigation. A person looking for this nature reserve is likely to look for it under either term. "Kedrovaya Pad" is used as the title because of our own romanization guidelines, but it does not mean that "Pine Valley" (or even "Cedar Valley") is incorrect. Just because you can't see ambiguity does not mean it does not exist. In other words, the sentence "Pine Valley may refer to 'Kedrovaya Pad', a nature reserve... in Russia" is entirely true and conforms to the dab guidelines just fine. The term "Pine Valley" will be in the first line of the article when the article is eventually created. If it makes you feel better, I can create a short (sourced) stub. Will that ease your bureaucratic side's itches? :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2010; 16:03 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not built by mind-readers. The ambiguous usage in English should be evident (and verifiable, or even better, has reference to reliable source for the usage) in the articles. If the linked articles do not provide any support that the term is ambiguous as used in English there is nothing to disambiguate. older ≠ wiser 16:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not built by mind-readers, that, of course, is true, but it doesn't mean we should expect every single person in the world to immediately understand why a particular entry is included on each and every disambig page. It would, for example, be unlikely for you to understand at first glance why something titled "Kedrovaya Pad" is included on the page titled "Pine Valley", but that's only because you have no reason to look for that particular entry. For someone looking for the article about the nature reserve (a reader, for whom, supposedly, the page was created), the reason for inclusion will be immediately obvious. As for the information being "verifiable", hasn't your lot effectively banned the references from all the disambig pages (thinking only of the readers, no doubt)? One would think you were aware of that?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2010; 16:58 (UTC)

Such non-obvious information should be supported by existing article(s). Disambiguation pages cannot introduce information that is not supported by existing articles. References are not allowed on disambiguation pages but the principle of verifiability still applies. Otherwise, editors could start adding all manner of assertions of ambiguous usage to disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to be trying to pass your personal opinion as fact. WP:DABRL requires that a red link a) is included in an article (not just disambiguation pages), and b) is not unlikely to ever be written. That's it. The first condition is satisfied after my edit, and the second one I hope no one is contesting. DABRL says nothing about "non-obvious information" or the necessity to "support it", nor should it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2010; 17:46 (UTC)

No, there is simply NOTHING that indicates the term is ambiguous in English usage. Without evidence of such ambiguity there is nothing to disambiguate. older ≠ wiser 17:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the applicable guideline... which only requires a mention. And by the way, capitalizing all letters in a word does not magically make the entire statement true. I myself have seen this nature reserve called "Pine Valley" (in English) more than once. If I had a source on hand, I would have most certainly already added it instead of continuing with this discussion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2010; 18:43 (UTC)

The entry at this point doesn't even rise to the level of WP:DABRL -- there is quite simply no evidence of ambiguity in English language usage. WP:DABRL doesn't apply if there is nothing to disambiguate. If you think I'm misreading the guideline, feel free to see if any other disambiguation regulars agree with you. If there is consensus at WT:Disambiguation that foreign language entries where there is no indication of ambiguity in English usage are appropriate to include on disambiguation page, then I'll agree I was wrong and you were right. older ≠ wiser 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's what DABRL says: [a] link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. And this is all it says. The red link in question (Kedrovaya Pad) satisfies that requirement, as it is included in the Khasansky District article, and the disambiguation page's statement that "Pine Valley may refer to... Kedrovaya Pad" is not factually incorrect even though it is unreferenced (the key word here is "may"—it's not "does" or "must" or "should" or even "can"). References cannot be provided because there are only three places where they theoretically can be placed: the article itself (which does not yet exist; and when it does, the whole DABRL discussion will become moot), the Khasansky District article (which is not an appropriate place for it), and the disambig page itself (but our guidelines prohibit references on disambig pages).

If you feel the wording of DABRL is problematic or that it fails to deal properly with the entries derived from a foreign language, by all means seek a comment at WT:Disambiguation. If the consensus there is to amend DABRL to make the requirements for foreign language entries more strict, then that's that. But until the guideline is more specific about this, we might as well err on the side of being helpful to our readers, some of which are quite likely to look for the nature reserve entry on the Pine Valley page. I sure am not going to waste my time requesting a clarification about something which does not go against a guideline as it is currently worded and is clearly helpful to our readers.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 20, 2010; 19:47 (UTC)

I've already said WP:DABRL doesn't properly apply here because there is no actual evidence of ambiguity and no need to disambiguate. I don't object to how WP:DABRL is currently formulated. The issue here is there is that disambiguation is unnecessary because there is no indication in any of the linked articles of ambiguity in English language usage. That appears to be what you are having difficulty grasping, which is why I suggested you take it up at WT:Disambiguation if you think my interpretation is out of line. older ≠ wiser 23:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

End of discussion copied from User talk:Russian.dissident. older ≠ wiser 00:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What I have difficulty grasping is just where the heck the "disambiguation is unnecessary because there is no indication in any of the linked articles of ambiguity in English language usage" line came from. Please point me to the appropriate wordage.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 21, 2010; 00:21 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous, and so may refer to more than one topic which Wikipedia covers. If there is no indication that the term is ambiguous, there is no reason to disambiguate. older ≠ wiser 03:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Right. And, applying that quotation in practice, why may I ask the term "Pine Valley" may not refer to the topic of the nature reserve in question? You need to find a guideline that would be more specific when applied to the situation at hand.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 21, 2010; 14:21 (UTC)

Because we do not include random phrases on disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 14:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it a random phrase? It is a translation of the Russian name, which is used in English (although, admittedly, I haven't been able to demonstrate it since I don't remember just where I saw the term being used).

Anyhow, this is getting ridiculous. The guidelines are supposed to support the initiatives aimed at improving our readers' experience, not serve as a perverted means for the admins to wallow in bureaucratic nonsense. I have written a basic stub and placed a link to the "see also" section. Feel free to go have fun with some other guideline. I want no part of this—last time I checked there was still plenty of work to be done around here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 21, 2010; 15:10 (UTC)

Without evidence supporting the English usage, it is effectively a random phrase. There is no reason to add phrases for which there is no evidence of ambiguity in English. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of this? I may not yet be able to provide a sufficient demonstration, but I am quite sure one exists. In cases when I am not quite sure, I don't engage in mile-long discussions such as this one. And just when did valid translations suddenly become "random phrases"? (but then I know it's too much to expect an answer to this—I am yet to see you provide an appropriate guideline reference to your personal opinions you pushed above).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 21, 2010; 15:30 (UTC)

Ever hear of WP:Verifiability? There are billions of things that could be included on disambiguation pages because well-intentioned editors know something to be true. Until the need for disambiguation is demonstrated, in borderline cases such as this I prefer to err on the side of keeping errant content off of disambiguation pages to improve the usability of the remaining content for which there is a demonstrated need.

You say this is a valid translation of the term, but even the source that you provided doesn't clearly indicate it is known in English as "Pine Valley". Apparently, Kedrovaya (Кедро́вая) is Russian term that usually translated as "Cedar" -- however, the plant referenced in this case is the Korean Pine (Pinus koraiensis). There is still no real evidence that the place is known in English as "Pine Valley", but rather than continue to argue with you over this the mention in See also section is close enough. older ≠ wiser 15:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you please stop with that "verifiability" nonsense? This is a dab page we are talking about, not an article! As you yourself pointed out above, dab pages are here to aid with navigation, i.e., they are pages which exist to [ensure] that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term finds that topic. They are not here to provide encyclopedic information, but merely point to it in ways which cover the most likely routes readers would use to arrive to the sought destination. Note also that the only time the term "verifiability" even appears in WP:DAB is in the navigational template at the very bottom, and does not appear at all in MOS:DAB. With that in mind, would you please quit making stuff up now? Or I'm going to lose the last shred of respect I have for you. One would expect an admin to know our policies and guidelines better than this.

As for the translation, a "valid translation" does not necessarily mean "the only possible translation". Had I ever seen this nature reserve being called "Cedar Valley", I'd be adding an entry to the Cedar Valley disambig as well, but it just so happens that I had never seen it called that. This doesn't make "cedar valley" an incorrect translation, mind you, but in this case your arguments about the term not being used in English to refer to the place hold much more water.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 21, 2010; 17:23 (UTC)

No. Verifiability is the essence of Wikipedia. If you think verifiability is nonsense, then I don't know what else to say. Disambiguation pages cannot include information that is not present in existing articles. The purpose of disambiguation pages is not speculative assistance in navigating to pages that give no support for the ambiguous usage in English. I feel extremely confident that I am not making stuff up here. If you think I am, then please, by all means take it up at WT:Disambiguation. older ≠ wiser 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say the concept of verifiability per se is nonsense, I said it does not apply to dab pages (something that the applicable guidelines do not disprove). Just listen to yourself! If verifiability is so important on dab pages, why do you pick on my puny entry but not on the rest of the entries on this very dab? Why does the Pine Valley, Utah line say that it is "a community in Washington County, south of the Escalante Desert"? The target article says nothing about any desert, it labels the place as an "unincorporated town" (is that the same as a "community"? We don't know—it's not verifiable because there is no source!), and it places it in Washington County but provides no reference to back that statement up. According to your logic, the description (if not the whole entry) should be axed? What about the Pine Valley (Utah) line? Why is it on the dab page? According to your logic, it has even fewer reasons to be included than the nature reserve, because in plainly and obviously fails DABRL. Why is Pine Valley, Pennsylvania labeled a "fictional location" when the target article contains no reference to confirm that the place is indeed fictional? Same with the "fictional town in the game World in Conflict"—in the target's current state that's verifiable how? Do tell me how a link to Kedrovaya Pad is so much worse off than all these entries that it has to be removed or relegated to "see also", but the rest of the entries don't even get a touch-up? I do not understand your behavior at all. Furthermore, I feel extremely confident that you do make stuff up every now and then to back up your personal preferences. Why, you made stuff up twice on this very page—once about DABRL and the other about verifiability. If you feel so confident that you are quoting the guidelines, why not point me to where the guidelines say exactly what you are saying? You may start with "verifiability" of entries on navigational pages. What are you going to announce next—that redirects must be "verifiable"? After all, isn't a dab page just a specially formatted collection of conflicting redirects?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 21, 2010; 19:01 (UTC)