Talk:Trams in Rio de Janeiro

Contested deletion

David.moreno72 requested speedy deletion of this disambiguation page, with the reason incorrectly formatted. Not used in any Wikipage. As best I can see, this disambiguation page is entirely correctly formatted for such a page. And if not used in any Wikipage means not linked by any article, then isn't that exactly what you would expect for a disambiguation page. I created the page because my search earlier for Trams in Rio yielded no results, despite have seen clear evidence in yesterday's TV coverage of the Olympic Marathon. Most cities that have trams have an article, or redir, of Trams in X, so I would expect other readers to make the same search and we should therefore have some form of target for it. In the case of Rio, a disambiguation page seemed the best solution, but I'm happy to entertain others. I therefore contest this speedy deletion; it needs at least consideration and debate. --chris_j_wood (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

David.moreno72 has responded to this as follows (copied from my talk page):

The article Trams in Rio de Janeiro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not comply with current policy. Although it doesn't meet any of the CSD criteria, it does not seem to comply with what a disambig page is supposed to be. Looking over at the talk page of Disambiguation, there are comments like '"WP:DAB was created to address a very specific situation – what to do when two or more articles share the same name.' and "WP:DISAMBIGUATION has always been, and should always remain, limited to situations where two or more actual articles on WP share the same WP:COMMONNAME"... "When no actual ambiguities exist between actual WP article titles, then there is no need for WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Period."

In this case the two entries being DABBED, do not share the same title, and do not share the same title as the page itself, so there is no need for any DABBING, and the page should be deleted.

There is also another similar page created by the same editor, 'Trams in Sheffield'. I would like to propose that any consensus reached here should also apply to that, and any other similar pages.

So after a contested CSD and almost triggering the three reversion rule, I think I now understand your objection. Although it took me a bit of puzzling, because what you quote above are actually on policy talk pages, and are not clearly reflected in policy. I don't believe there is a policy that says all entries on a dab page must share the same text. However I think that you could argue that my creation of DAB pages violates WP:CONCEPTDAB, and that therefore they would be better created as broad-concept articles rather than dab pages. If that is what you are saying, I think you might just be correct. But wouldn't it have been so much easier if you had said that in the first place. You might also like to reflect on WP:SHOUT. I will not contest this deletion, but reserve the right to create (or convert to) broad-concept articles with these titles. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks chris_j_wood for your comments. The purpose of a DAB page is, and I quote, 'Disambiguation pages ("dab pages") are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term'. So if the 'search term' is different, ie. 'Rio de Janeiro Light Rail' and 'Santa Teresa Tram', there is no need to disambiguate. Now, on the other hand, if on the 'Santa Teresa Tram' page, it said that it is also known as the 'Rio de Janeiro Light Rail', you could have a DAB page with the title 'Santa Teresa Tram (Disambiguation)' you could have an entry that says 'Santa Teresa Tram, also known as the Rio de Janeiro Light Rail'. As it can be seen, the title of the page and the title of the entry is the same. My only consern is that there is a consistent style with DAB pages, and yes, I have had numerous discussions over them as it seems to be a common cause for confusion. If you wish to change this page into an article about 'Trams in Rio de Janeiro', which I agree would be a worthy subject, especially with the attention of the Olympics, I would encourage such an endeavour. I would also strongly encourge you to create it as a draft and submit it, so that others can make suggestions on how to improve it before it goes to mainspace. Best wishes and happy editing. David.moreno72 15:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. In my case the search term was precisely Trams in Rio (it should have been Trams in Rio de Janeiro but I was being lazy and counting on the searcher to complete it) and it wasn't academic. For once, I was actually using WP in the way we should all remember it is supposed to be used, as a reader not an editor, to find out about something I genuinely did not know about. And it did not give what I expected. It told me about the Santa Teresa Tram, but I knew what that was and it wasn't what I'd seen in the TV coverage. So I had to try other searches, and eventually (on Google, not WP) I found out about the Rio de Janeiro Light Rail. Once I had its name, it was easy to find on WP, but that isn't the user experience we should aspire to give our readers. It is all very well getting wound up about policy (and I don't dispute that is important), but it is nothing if we fail to deliver to our users. So we definitely need Trams in Rio de Janeiro to point at something; the only real question is what. In this case, I think a broad-concept article will work, especially as close reading of Santa Teresa Tram shows it contains history that is more general than that rather specific article. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Why bother deleting it It can be helpful in locating th two articles by a search. Peter Horn User talk 14:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This is now a redirect, everything above is moot. Peter Horn User talk 14:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)