This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This would be consistent with naming convention for disambiguation pages like
Lewis House and many others that cover numerous
NRHP sites, among other sites.
Note, it is simply crazy to have "Gilbert House" point to a house of a different name, rather than be the list of multiple Gilbert Houses.
doncram (
talk)
09:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I see nothing there that says redlink are any more needed here than on many other dab pages ... there is always some really good reason why each case is special but the simple fact is that dab pages are to disambiguate between articles not places that may one day have an article.
Abtract (
talk)
15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)reply
It is and continues to be proper style to include red-links in disambiguation pages as long as each dab page entry has exactly one blue link, a link to a WP article about the entry (entirely or in part). --
JHunterJ (
talk)
02:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Inserted section break to clarify this continuing discussion is about red-links. JHunterJ, can you clarify what you mean in the last comment? I don't understand what distinction you are meaning to make. Surely you don't mean that if there is one bluelink then redlinks are okay, while if there are two bluelinks then redlinks are not okay. If your point is that there must be at least one blue-link on a disambiguation page, I am pretty much okay with that. If there are any remaining disambiguation pages covering NRHP sites which are all red-links, those should be noted and fixed by wp:NRHP members (by creating at least one of the NRHP articles right away).
doncram (
talk)
04:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Dab pages are permitted to have red links. Dab pages are made up of multiple dab entries (the bullet list). Each entry on a dab page needs to have exactly one blue link, and that link leads to an article that describes the entry. The
NRHP link is not descriptive of these entries, but it appears that there are list articles each covering part of the registry that would be appropriate. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
11:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I think you meant to say that each red-link on a dab page needs to have a corresponding blue link leading to an article that has the same red-link. One question: what if several red-links are covered by the same red-link, that links to all of them? Then, wouldn't it be redundant to repeat the blue-link. I am positive that there is a wikipedia guideline somewhere saying that would be wrong, you should just put in one blue-link, and not wikilink the other references. For this reason alone, I do not believe that your statement is entirely accurate. And, what is your authority? See
MOS:DABRL, it does not require these blue-links as you describe them. That's an authority against your very specific advice. If you want to change the MOS guidelines, you could launch an RFC or otherwise campaign for a change, but currently i believe that it is wikipedia policy to allow red-links in disambiguation pages.
doncram (
talk)
07:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't mind if the linked article uses the same red link (although I'd be inclined to unlink it in the dab if the linked article also left it unlinked). Yes, it would be redundant to repeat the blue link, but in a usefully redundant way. Not all redundancy is bad. If it's possible to combine the entries so that they are all listed on one bullet with one blue link, great, but if that's cumbersome, then navigation would be best served by listing the entries and providing a blue link on each entry, even if the target article is the same. The reader looking for Gilbert House and meaning Jeremiah S. Gilbert House is unlikely to read the description for Elisha Gilbert House to follow its link. There is a Wikipedia guidelines to avoid repeated links to the same Wikipedia article from within a single Wikipedia article paragraph (IIRC), but dab pages aren't articles and each entry could be seen as a different "paragraph" anyway. If you want to argue against that, then we can agree to collapse all of those entries into a single entry on the dab page just to avoid the repeated wikilink.
MOS:DABRL does indeed require the blue link: "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." as does the "Individual entries" guideline on the dab mos: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link", as I've pointed out (and quoted) in one of the other splinters of this conversation. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't see how that is better. It is confusing not to label this clearly as a disambiguation page. This page serves the purpose of disambiguating between different places named Gilbert House, and there is no general interest in a list-article about places named Gilbert House. Perhaps i don't understand some subtle distinction between set index articles vs. regular list articles and vs. disambiguation pages, but i don't see the need or usefulness of making some disambiguation pages including a bunch of NRHP sites into SIAs, while leaving others as disambiguation pages.
For this article in particular, by the way, what if there is a Dr. Gilbert House, a person, added to this list? Would you then say it is a disambiguation page and switch it back?
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
This would be consistent with naming convention for disambiguation pages like
Lewis House and many others that cover numerous
NRHP sites, among other sites.
Note, it is simply crazy to have "Gilbert House" point to a house of a different name, rather than be the list of multiple Gilbert Houses.
doncram (
talk)
09:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I see nothing there that says redlink are any more needed here than on many other dab pages ... there is always some really good reason why each case is special but the simple fact is that dab pages are to disambiguate between articles not places that may one day have an article.
Abtract (
talk)
15:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)reply
It is and continues to be proper style to include red-links in disambiguation pages as long as each dab page entry has exactly one blue link, a link to a WP article about the entry (entirely or in part). --
JHunterJ (
talk)
02:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Inserted section break to clarify this continuing discussion is about red-links. JHunterJ, can you clarify what you mean in the last comment? I don't understand what distinction you are meaning to make. Surely you don't mean that if there is one bluelink then redlinks are okay, while if there are two bluelinks then redlinks are not okay. If your point is that there must be at least one blue-link on a disambiguation page, I am pretty much okay with that. If there are any remaining disambiguation pages covering NRHP sites which are all red-links, those should be noted and fixed by wp:NRHP members (by creating at least one of the NRHP articles right away).
doncram (
talk)
04:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)reply
Dab pages are permitted to have red links. Dab pages are made up of multiple dab entries (the bullet list). Each entry on a dab page needs to have exactly one blue link, and that link leads to an article that describes the entry. The
NRHP link is not descriptive of these entries, but it appears that there are list articles each covering part of the registry that would be appropriate. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
11:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I think you meant to say that each red-link on a dab page needs to have a corresponding blue link leading to an article that has the same red-link. One question: what if several red-links are covered by the same red-link, that links to all of them? Then, wouldn't it be redundant to repeat the blue-link. I am positive that there is a wikipedia guideline somewhere saying that would be wrong, you should just put in one blue-link, and not wikilink the other references. For this reason alone, I do not believe that your statement is entirely accurate. And, what is your authority? See
MOS:DABRL, it does not require these blue-links as you describe them. That's an authority against your very specific advice. If you want to change the MOS guidelines, you could launch an RFC or otherwise campaign for a change, but currently i believe that it is wikipedia policy to allow red-links in disambiguation pages.
doncram (
talk)
07:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't mind if the linked article uses the same red link (although I'd be inclined to unlink it in the dab if the linked article also left it unlinked). Yes, it would be redundant to repeat the blue link, but in a usefully redundant way. Not all redundancy is bad. If it's possible to combine the entries so that they are all listed on one bullet with one blue link, great, but if that's cumbersome, then navigation would be best served by listing the entries and providing a blue link on each entry, even if the target article is the same. The reader looking for Gilbert House and meaning Jeremiah S. Gilbert House is unlikely to read the description for Elisha Gilbert House to follow its link. There is a Wikipedia guidelines to avoid repeated links to the same Wikipedia article from within a single Wikipedia article paragraph (IIRC), but dab pages aren't articles and each entry could be seen as a different "paragraph" anyway. If you want to argue against that, then we can agree to collapse all of those entries into a single entry on the dab page just to avoid the repeated wikilink.
MOS:DABRL does indeed require the blue link: "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." as does the "Individual entries" guideline on the dab mos: "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link", as I've pointed out (and quoted) in one of the other splinters of this conversation. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
21:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)reply
I don't see how that is better. It is confusing not to label this clearly as a disambiguation page. This page serves the purpose of disambiguating between different places named Gilbert House, and there is no general interest in a list-article about places named Gilbert House. Perhaps i don't understand some subtle distinction between set index articles vs. regular list articles and vs. disambiguation pages, but i don't see the need or usefulness of making some disambiguation pages including a bunch of NRHP sites into SIAs, while leaving others as disambiguation pages.
For this article in particular, by the way, what if there is a Dr. Gilbert House, a person, added to this list? Would you then say it is a disambiguation page and switch it back?