Talk:Novouralsk

Old talk

From article (to be merged):

1. History

2. Economy & Industry

3. Education & Sport

4. Miscellaneous

5. External links

Living in Golden Gage in 2000`s ?

I wonder how this is possible in modern times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.117.60 (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Novouralsk-01.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Novouralsk-01.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Piped link

Piping 'town' to 'Types of inhabited localities in Russia' is an example of an 'easter egg' link and should not be done: "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Do not use piped links to create 'easter egg links', that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on" - Crosbie 20:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The target is the most appropriate article to link to explain the intricacies of categorization and terminology in Russia. One could link to town#Russia or city (note, however, that the distinction between the two does not exist in Russia and is purely a semantic choice during translation), but the former merely refers back to the types of inhabited localities in Russia (a roundabout approach which arguably is worse than the perceived easter egg problem), and the latter needs a re-write (and a link to the "types..." article as well). If linking directly to the overview article is too surprising, perhaps linking to its Urban localities section (which starts immediately with discussing the terms) would be an acceptable compromise? Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 11, 2013; 20:23 (UTC)