Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep until technical limitations change. Xoloz 15:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages

Nobody seems to know why this set of pages exists. See Wikipedia talk:Links to (disambiguation) pages and Wikipedia talk:Links to (disambiguation) pages/How to update for some old comments by other confused people. If anyone can articulate a reason to keep this page and its subpages, I won't press the issue (but you might consider adding that reason to the page itself, too!). --Quuxplusone 06:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (nominator's vote). --Quuxplusone 06:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't do anything
  [omg plz] 06:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Appears to be superceded by the category, as ^demon says above-EMP 08:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC) Keep, per After Midnight-EMP 02:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm not sure I understand all the technical details, but it appears that this has been discussed before. Can someone else please look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/October 2005#Wikipedia:Links to (disambiguation) pages and determine if it still applies? If I understand correctly, deletion of this will cause these pages to show up with the orphans. If someone can tell me I am wrong, I will gladly retract. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:Stevage already pointed out that most if not all dab pages are linked from their corresponding articles; e.g., 411 links to 411 (disambiguation). That fact seems to weaken the Special:Lonelypages argument. (The Right Thing, of course, is not to list dab pages in Special:Lonelypages at all; but that's a technological question.) --Quuxplusone 02:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Nabla on other
  Talk·Guestbook) 00:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for now, I guess, but suggest that it be repurposed to contain links to dab pages that are not otherwise linked! Making it a cleanup page of sorts. As it is, it's just silly. Of course, that will require some work, given the already-baroque way it's maintained currently, But I suspect it will be worth it, especially given the already-baroque way it's maintained currently. :) Xtifr _tälk 12:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just updated that page! Salad Days 20:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have my sympathies. Not just because you had to go through what looks like an awkward and tedious process, but also because the fact that you were able to do so indicates that your computer is infected with a Microsoft product.  :) Xtifr _tälk 11:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same method that's currently being used to make WP:DEAD. Let me know once you've ported AWB to OS X or Linux, as I'd be more than happy to run it somewhere else! Salad Days 14:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Daniel Bryant 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Everything is covered at
  ^Talk 16:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep to cancel you out. Salad Days 22:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I love this vote :)

  Gracenotes^T § 00:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. There is an explanation for the existence of this page at Wikipedia:Links to disambiguating pages. I'm not sure if the technical reason is still valid, but in a nutshell the page exists to prevent disambiguation pages from showing up on the auto-created page Special:Lonelypages. By definition, disambiguation pages should have no content-related incoming links, though many do have incoming links from hat-notes and redirect pages; it should be technically feasible to exclude disambiguation pages from the "Orphaned pages" listing by filtering out those pages that have Template:Disambig affixed (or the family of dab templates, to be inclusive), but I don't think that technical enhancement has been applied. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. Perhaps not the ideal system, but definitely needed for the orphaned listing. --- RockMFR 23:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.