- Blue-necked (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I was on a wikibreak while the AfD for here. I have brought this information to the attention of JHunterJ, who has notified me that he would not object to a deletion review. I then contacted User:kurykh, the deleting administrator, and requested that the pages be reinstated. Kurykh also recommended a deletion review, therefore I have brought this concern here. Disambiguation pages do not require reference sections; written sources demonstrating that "colour-part" names are employed for a given bird may be difficult to find, but the employment of such names is a widespread convention that is not restricted to specific birds but is generally applicable. Neelix ( talk) 18:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC) [reply- The deletion review process is provided to deal with cases where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a de novo hearing of the matter. The deletion process has been properly followed here, so endorse deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist or overturn without prejudice to relisting. Neelix, the page creator, has made an important substantive point relevant to these articles, which was not made by the other participants in the deletion discussion and therefore not considered by the closing administrator. Although Stifle's point would generally be well-taken, in this instance the potential long-term interests of making the relevant articles more accessible from these dab pages if Neelix is correct, outweighs any purely procedural point. This of course is not any form of criticism of the closing admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse original close, but permit re-creation. Reyk YO! 01:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand the basis for that !vote ("the closer acted correctly but the article-creator can try again"), but it is really more suited to cases of "it might be acceptable to have an article with this title, but the existing article isn't it." Here, "permit re-creation" isn't really apt because there's nothing wrong with the content; if the article is allowed to be restored, so far as we know what used to be there is what the content would be, so requiring re-creation from scratch would mean either an interim userfication of the deleted content or the creator's having to input it again, neither of which would be productive; hence I think "overturn without prejudice" is a better fit here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strictly speaking, the rules were followed. But I do not see how the encyclopaedia was improved by the deletion of these pages, and I can see how some end-users might be helped by their reinstatement.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a ]
- Like most users who've been watching Wikipedia's deletion processes for a few years, I'm well aware of ]
- I think if you read it as a list of things people aren't allowed to say, then I think you miss the point. As to if "no essay can prevent..." I would hope not, what should make you think is the logic and argument behind the essay, both your and my statements here aren't direct quotes of policy. Should they be disregardable on that basis? That particular part of the essay is based on principles of
WP:NOT which to keep everyone happy is a policy. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 16:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [reply- Anything that can help end-users find the content they seek is absolutely justified. Conventional encyclopaedias have contents pages and indexes; our equivalent is CLN and redirects or disambiguations from plausible search terms.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The choice of two mechanisms to benefit the readers is between including a partial-title match list (which is what the disambiguation page appeared to be) or have no page at the title. The benefit of deleting the page is that the reader would go straight from the search box to the search results, which is the appropriate result if there are no topic actually ambiguous with the title. In this case, it may be that the partial title matches are actually ambiguous with the title, but that isn't indicated by the articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I still don't see why it's a good idea to replace a disambiguation page with a redlink that encourages an inexperienced user to create an article that duplicates existing content.—S Marshall T/C 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What red link is that? The deleted articles have no incoming Wikilinks from the article space, and wouldn't be expected to. Wikilinkers use the complete name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I type "Blue-necked" in the search window, the first thing I see is a redlink encouraging me to create an article. Then I get a list of partial matches.—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "You may create the page "Blue-necked", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered." isn't any more encouraging than, say, You may create the page "204 competitive matches", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered." I don't think making those red links blue is a compelling argument for creating a partial-title match list -- some titles that might be searched on should remain red. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that what's needed isn't a compelling argument for creating a partial-title match list, but a compelling argument for deleting it once created. While I see the point that you're making, I'm not entirely persuaded by it.—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you disagree with the current consensus against partial-title match lists. That's fine -- we don't have to try and address that here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've linked to consensus to delete three particular partial-title match lists. If there's a more general consensus that they shouldn't exist, then that's a discussion I haven't seen yet.—WP:D#Partial title matches. Considering that.— S Marshall T/C 19:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC) [reply
What WP:D#Partial title matches actually says is: Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi". — Neelix's nomination statement contains the words: Birders commonly refer to birds by their "colour-part" names alone. Do you dispute whether this is true, JHunterJ?— S Marshall T/C 19:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC) [reply- My response is not a dispute of Neelix's statement. My response is The bird articles do not indicate that common reference, if it exists. Creating partial title match lists without any indication in the articles that the title is ambiguous is problematic, because it leads to things like
Pied). To keep disambiguation pages from becoming indiscriminate lists, we discriminate based on article text, which has the added benefit of being subject to the usual article guidelines for verifiability when needed. But like I said, this wouldn't be the forum for changing the consensus on partial title match lists. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC) [reply- That could easily be addressed by amending the articles' text, assuming Neelix's remarks are verifiable. Thanks for your own view, which brought me to a corner of Wikipedia's guidelines I hadn't previously encountered, and introduced an argument I hadn't previously thought of. What's clear to me is that there's more to talk about here, so I have enough information to !vote.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And, for what it's worth, if it's amended into the articles' texts (with or without citations, as long as the consensus at the article is for its inclusion), I would expect the disambiguation page to be recreated, or would do so myself if I discovered the situation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist. I agree with NYB: substance and outcomes are more important here than process. --
Mkativerata ( talk) 10:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Relist- Nothing against the actions that were taken at the time, either by the nominator or the closing admin. That said, when a new and potentially convincing argument is made by someone unable to participate in the original discussion, it would help us all to
ignore the letter of the rules and allow further discussion. Umbralcorax ( talk) 16:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC) [reply
- Relist and let's have the discussion where it belongs, on AfD. Dealing with pages like this is a fit subject for IAR, since it is one of the special cases which are not really dealt with adequately in existing guidelines. If it comes up frequently, a rule to include it can be written. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is true that disambiguation pages do not require reference sections (and are actually required to avoid them), but in the case of synonyms, it is still preferable to add text to the article indicating the use of the title (alone) to refer to the subject. If it is difficult to source but generally applicable, there may be no objection to its inclusion on an article for a given bird. If that's not required, then I suspect it will be harder to clean up the partial-title match lists where there is no ambiguity, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied, and in those cases, the current consensus is the reader is better served by immediately reaching the search results list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist per Umbralcorax.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If left deleted, the redlinks should be converted to redirects. People interested in particular things do tend to use abbreviated names. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being left deleted and being converted to redirects are mutually exclusive results. Being converted to redirects to what, exactly? People using uncommon abbreviated names for particular things might find them in the search results. If there are common abbreviated names, those should be mentioned in the article and then a redirect (if there's only one) or a disambiguation page (if there are several using the same abbreviated name) should be created for navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
