Talk:Fucha

Disambiguation dos and don'ts

Hi @Tisquesusa: the entry for Fuch Fucha River was originally removed (with other entries) because of the consensus concerning disambiguation pages at WP:DDD, notably the bit about not having any redlinks that aren't used elsewhere. Probably better to create the page and then add it to disambiguation page but that's a moot point now. Cheers Domdeparis (talk) 08:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Users arrive at these pages with a specific article in mind. So when you edit these pages:

DO: Put the target link at the start of each entry. Keep descriptions short. Organize, in sections if needed, with "other uses" last. List the primary topic first, if one exists. Link to {{Wiktionary}}, if useful. Fix incoming links to point to the intended page. Tag pages needing work with {{disambiguation cleanup}}	DON'T: Don't pipe links, unless formatting requires it. Don't include multiple blue links in an entry. Don't include entries without a blue link. Don't include red links that aren't used elsewhere.1 Don't include every article containing the title. Don't include dictionary definitions. Don't include references or external links.
Also: Do consider joining WikiProject Disambiguation.

First, it is Fucha River and not Fuch River. Second, I have searched on Wikipedia and included all the meanings because I am thorough and because people searching for that term Fucha may want to know there are different meanings (spreading knowledge), may just browse between the different meanings out of interest (I nor you nor anyone else should define what people are interested in) or were looking for the village Gilema Fucha that is a red link and want to contribute to Wikipedia and fill it in (expansion). There are tens of thousands of disambig pages with red links and red links are the backbone of the growth of Wikipedia. So that indeed is, as you say a "moot point". Third, the addition of a river that is linked, I have added those links myself and there were others, is even according to those guidelines that shouldn't be rules carved in granite, ok, so also that point of you is lost. Fourth; the TransMilenio station has been described as referring to the river. You deleted the river and failed to change the text of the TransMilenio station that referred to the river and at that moment didn't make sense anymore. Fifth, I have ample experience in Wiki editing and what's "better" every individual can only define for him/herself. Sixth; there is far too much constructive editing to do to start destroying the work of others. I'd say you focus on that constructive work instead of destructive work, but it is only you who can make that choice. Tisquesusa (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Tisquesusa: Firstly Sorry for the typo, secondly please read WP:DABRELATED it is true that they are guidelines but they seem pretty sensible really. It is accepted that we do not include a term if there is not a page that includes this term otherwise that would mean adding sources to each disambiguation page for terms that are not included in any page. As there is a page with this redlink I did not remove Gilema Fucha that was another editor. Some of what you added was erroneous eg Empresses in the palace is about Zhen Huan but there is a character called Fucha. there is no mention of the word Fucha in the following blue-linked pages that you added

• Reguły Gry
• Empress Xiaoxianchun

redlinking in a disambiguation page is not the accepted way to encourage the creation of a page btu it is fine to include them in a DAB page if they exist elsewhere on WP. The manual of style MOS:DABRL (which is not a guideline but a generally accepted standard) says this about redlinks in DAB pages.

A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. To find out if any article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the left side of the page.

If the only pages that use the red link are disambiguation pages, do one of the following:

• Unlink the entry word but still keep a blue link in the description. Red links should not be the only link in a given entry; link also to an existing article, so that a reader (as opposed to a contributing editor) will have somewhere to navigate to for additional information. The linked article should contain some meaningful information about the term.
• Start a new article for the red link, using the description on the disambiguation page.
• Make a redirect to a page where the item is described (see § Piping and redirects above).

If you feel that an article should be created but you don't have the time or the information necessary you can use the Wikipedia:Requested articles or you can redlink it in a connected article. Constructive editing should also follow the MOS and guidelines, which avoids others having to clean up afterwards and potentially irritate those that did the constructive editing...or you could also say thanks for the help...that works too. Please remember that even the most experienced editors can make mistakes and humility is a great quality to have. When someone is willing to help you shouldn't take it as a criticism of your work. Happy editing Domdeparis (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The episode in the Polish tv-series comes up in the List of Reguły Gry episodes article, that's why I have included it, I don't invent things. The Empress is called "Fuca" in the article, but an alternative name for that Manchu clan is "Fucha", also that is not invented, it is all on Wikipedia. What I have done is just compile that information and be as thorough as possible in the DAB page, as I think that is a constructive effort. I am not going to "request an article", the existence of a red link is an explicit request for article already. This quote "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics. " from the text above is exactly what I've done; leaving unlinked terms for non-notable topics (such as an episode of some Polish tv-series, or the name of an adult movie, while at the same time linking those terms that are notable (enough). The Bulgarian village is an example of that, the Chinese Township another. The Fucha River had an article already on es:wiki, so to have removed that was even more ridiculous. But I spent already far too much time on this trivial thing, I am continuing to add my work in nice articles, as that is far more constructive. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)