Talk:Sergei Volchkov (singer)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Another article now exists at Sergei Volchkov (Russian Academy of Sciences), and per the evidence here that person woukd be a more plausible candidate for primary topic. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Sergei Volchkov (singer) → Sergei Volchkov – Remove unnecessary disambiguator (singer). There are no other articles with this name so there is no need to disambiguate. Tassedethe (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - firstly on principle, sorry Tassedethe, that any RM which begins "There are no other articles with this name" is contrary to WP:DISAMBIGUATION since we disambiguate on (a) actual article content, (b) user likely search for other notable content. In this case ru:Волчков, Сергей Саввич is a more encyclopedic subject than the singer, and deserves an en.wp article. Being a volunteer encyclopedia that article hasn't happened yet, but in the long run it should. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact this will be an interesting test case of the wikipedia editor choices define notability argument, as to whether since no volunteer has yet created/translated 18th Century printer Sergei Volchkov (Russian Academy of Sciences) therefore the Russian the Voice winner is primary topic in English-speaking world, despite St Petersburg and the Russian Court, 1703-1761 page 138 and other English Google Book sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment Nowhere in WP:DISAMBIGUATION does it say we disambiguate on "user likely search for other notable content". In fact the opening paragraph is fairly clear that we disambiguate only on Wikipedia content: "...when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia. (A "topic covered by Wikipedia" is either the main subject of an article, or a minor subject covered by an article in addition to the article's main subject.)" We should not name articles with the expectation someone, someday will create another article with the same title. If or when that day arrives *then* we can move the first article (if necessary). See also the essay WP:UNDAB. Tassedethe (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course WP:DISAMBIGUATION doesn't say (b), that was me, stating a reality. But it does say (a), that actual article content is the basis of disambiguation, not titles. So with respect but Tassedethe I am sorry to say that at least some of your recent moves and RMs are going contrary to what WP:DISAMBIGUATION says. Your proposal "There are no other articles with this name so there is no need to disambiguate" is an argument counter to the guideline and if you want the guideline to say this you should raise a RfC to change the guideline.

However, as to (b) that is simply common sense. Google Books are full of references to the original Sergei Volchkov (Russian Academy of Sciences) and not to the Voice winner. A Google Book search should be first step before any RM. Both Sergeis are now mentioned on the article for the surname Volchkov (note that that is an anthroponymy stub not a dab, so allows redlinks and interwikis). In ictu oculi (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

n.b. While not prohibited per se, adding a redlink to an anthroponymy article is discouraged per WP:APOENTRIES. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Red links - Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable. However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.

BDD, sorry but I don't read that as discouragement but rather what it says. Please note that ru.wp User:Midnight Gambler already reverted this move (Midnight Gambler moved page Talk:Sergei Volchkov to Talk:Sergei Volchkov (singer) over redirect: also translator Sergei Volchkov, lived in XVIII century) back to User:Sorrat's article creation with (singer). So both Russian editors recognize that ru:Волчков, Сергей Саввич (1707—1773) would be notable and verifiable. A similar example, which I admit I noticed only because of this RM relates to Serbian chess master Nikola Karaklajić which briefly had the barely notable Nikola Karaklajić (footballer) moved over a redlink despite Nikola Karaklajić being primary in even Breton wp (are Bretons more chess) and being mentioned, in 3 cases substantively, in 12 en.wp articles we didn't have an article we only had a topic. So this is an issue again of whether we follow articles or topics. If users don't agree with WP:DISAMBIGUATION's clear instruction on this the place to change it is a RfC, not RMs. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Titling existing articles based on hypothetical ones is poor practice that does not serve our readers. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support superfluous disambiguation. Ideally, a user creating an article about Sergei the scientist would recognise it is the primary topic and first move the article about the singer to Sergei the singer (with a dab) before creating Sergei the scientist. Generally this problem doesn't occur because the wp:primarytopic will naturally tend to be created first, but exceptions will always happen. It's better practice to handle them as they come than trying to pre-empt them with superfluous disambiguators. That's WP:RM's raison d'être. ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Victor, BDD, then what about the Serbian chessmaster above mentioned as a topic in 12 en.wp articles? Is it also better practice to move a barely notable footballer into the editor redlink slot of Džuboks magazine, European Team Chess Championship, Belgian Chess Championship, Borislav Milić, Karaklajić surname article and Wikipedia:CHESS/Most Wanted etc. etc. all waiting for the chess master's article to be created? I do not believe that WP:RM's raison d'être is the ambiguation of titles counter to WP:DAB guideline which clearly states that we ambiguate against topics. In fact at least 10%, maybe more, of the RMs at WP:RM to ambiguate article titles would be better spent on giving a broader WP:WORLDVIEW to our coverage. This is not uncommon case by the way, quite often when an editor moves X (footballer), X (ice hockey), X (reality TV personality), X (non entity) etc. into a "primary topic" slot it will be a red link waiting for our editor base to create a poet, scientist, painter, autor, historical figure. A frequent result of such well intentioned ambiguation is to create misleading bluelinks/mislinks and stunt the development of truly encyclopedic-notable article creation. Sergei Volchkov and moreso Nikola Karaklajić are prime examples of such misdirecting moves. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.