Talk:Katyn

Target

Target discussed at Talk:Katyn (rural locality)#Move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disambig has been created, as suggested by Piotrus. No need to tackle a problem that was solved years ago. --Illythr (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was acting upon the info I could find. Please link to Piotrus's suggestion and its discussion. If that is the consensus, the disambiguation page should be moved here, to avoid being listed (again) at WP:MALPLACED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there ("or at least creating an outright disambig"). Ah, now I see the problem. Well, the original problem was that the Katyn article was about the place with no disambig, but it is generally associated with the massacre that took place there, so it was moved/renamed. Then the film came out and the disambig page was created. It may be hard to build a new consensus since most of the original editors have either moved on or are topic banned... I'll ask someone.

Aha, you acted in accordance with Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC. Indeed, a point could be made that the massacre is by far the the most popular topic in connection with "Katyn". However, the names don't coincide - the massacre is referred to as "Katyn" only within proper context (the same way "Stalingrad" or, say, "Overlord" is). I think moving the redirect here is the best solution, but let's see what the others say. --Illythr (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought the massacre was the primary topic, even allowing for the fact that "Katyn" isn't its full name. --Kotniski (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another (aesthetic) point is that the article about the massacre already has a {{distinguish}} template. Adding a {{Redirect}} template on top of that will further increase article overhead, which, IMO is a bad thing. --Illythr (talk) 12:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked by Illythr to comment here. My preference leans to having a disambig page at "Katyn" as I think whenever people need to argue which meaning is really primary, it means there's a good chance there isn't one. Also, in my opinion it's more important that a clear distinction is made between Katyn massacre and Khatyn massacre, as the potential for confusion with those is much more than with pretty well interlinked Katyn massacre, Katyn (rural locality), and Katyń (film) articles.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 8, 2010; 13:16 (UTC)

Side note, since I'm neutral on the aesthetic point of Illythir's and the other points of Eshiki's: I don't think people needing to argue means there's a "good" chance. People will argue whether or not there's a primary topic. If there's an argument, there is a chance (somewhere between 0% and 100%) that there's no primary topic, and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC measures should be checked. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any suggestion that any other meaning than the massacre should be a primary topic, is there?--Kotniski (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is. I would argue that the primary meaning of "Katyn" would be the rural locality. However, since "Katyn" is also how the massacre is often referred to, that makes disambiguation necessary. Hence the proposal to have the disambig at "Katyn".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 8, 2010; 15:20 (UTC)

If pressed, I would move the rural locality article to the base name as well, because even though the traffic says the article on the massacre has order of magnitude more readership, it isn't clear that it is generally referred to as just "Katyn". In my initial arrangement otherwise, I was following what looked to be the consensus from Talk:Katyn (rural locality)#Move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I wanted to get to the article on the massacre (before I'd seen this discussion, I mean) I would have typed in "Katyn" - I would imagine that's what most people do, since there isn't really any other fixed name for it (I wouldn't have known that Wikipedia had decided to call it a "massacre" rather than "killings" or "executions" or something). And since the event is of far, far greater interest than the village itself (isn't it?) I don't see that it can be realistically claimed that anything other than the event is the primary topic.--Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Kotniski that the primary topic is most certainly the massacre, not the village. This is analogous to "Auschwitz" automatically redirecting to "Auschwitz concentration camp" rather than to the locality or even to the Auschwitz (disambiguation) page. As it should.radek (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "intelligentsia" to the link for the Katyn Massacre. This is because approximately 8,000 of the 22,000 deaths were non-combatants. Cadar (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]