Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Disambiguations. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Disambiguations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Disambiguations. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Disambiguations

[edit]

Martialis (disambiguation)

[edit]
Martialis (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was moved from Martialis (cognomen) for no good reason. The sole non-cognomen entry is a WP:partial title match. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and withdraw or speedy close: a discussion about what the page is called should not be at AfD. PamD
And I have now formatted it as a dab page which has a primary topic. PamD 07:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This DAB is clearly good as the previous page acts like a DAB Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment This is a mess. I have just discovered that @2003 LN6: "moved" the previous Roman cognomen page to the dab page by doing a cut and paste move, thus losing the past history (which shows its creation in 2001 by @Clarityfiend:. With the existence of Martialis (ant), the genus, and a bishop I've found too, this should clearly be a dab page but it should not have been created like that. I have restored Martialis (cognomen) to its version before that incorrect edit, but I now suggest:

  1. Withdraw this AfD
  2. Make a formal WP:RM to move that page to the title Martialis (disambiguation), preserving its page history
  3. Reinstate the edits I've made which format it as a dab page with a primary topic. PamD 12:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or another way would be to add the {{copied}} template to both talk pages, explaining where the cognomen stuff had been copied from - but in any case offering acknowledgement of the history of the page. PamD 12:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which I've just done. PamD 12:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations

[edit]
Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created after a page move. According to WP:D2D "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.". There is only one Wikipedia article with this wording: 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations and that page includes the two other links on this "disambiguation" page making this WP:CFORK and WP:REDUNDANT. Anyone searching for Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations will find that same information on 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations therefore the page should be redirected to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, the page which was renamed from Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit: since there seems to be a misunderstanding, 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations is not only about one set of allegations (1993), there is a lengthy section there about further allegations with links to all articles on Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

edit #2: Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links makes it clear that disambiguation pages are for similarly named articles, not for associated content in completely differently named articles, as is the case with the nominated page:

"These non-article pages exist to clarify and ease confusion in cases where two or more similarly named articles exist—for example, if two or more notable people have the same name"

Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations is not a disambiguation page, just a list of links forked from 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations the creator wanted to promote. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually ever redirect to templates like that? I've never seen that done before. Popcornfud (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never saw disambiguation used the way you want to use it here, for articles with titles not sharing even one word or at least the meaning of the word in the disambiguation page's title.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alligator_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_(disambiguation)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_(disambiguation) Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to a template? Not a good idea in my opinion. C F A 💬 23:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per comments below by Liz are enlightening to me. I still advocate this be turned into a redirect, but for redirect to what article, I don't know. — Maile (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is logical to redirect this to the article that has the same content and which used to Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations before it was renamed. TruthGuardians (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what the user expects that's what he will find after a redirect here as contrary to Popcornfud's assertion, '1993' is not only about 'the 1993' allegations. If disambiguation is not about the wording is there an example where not a word in the disambiguation page's title matches a word in the linked titles? Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This (and the edit to your initial post above) is disingenuous. The focus of the 1993 article is the 1993 allegations, hence the article title. There's a subsection at the end that summarises the later allegations, with links to the main articles about those allegations. Popcornfud (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you said it summarizes the later allegations Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations does the same thus WP:CFORK / WP:REDUNDANT. It's disingenuous to say that the 1993 article focuses on 1993 and the 490-words section about other allegations does not matter when they highlight the same allegations and links you want the user to find based on an arbitrary search term that is just one of many possible variations (Michael Jackson sex allegations, Michael Jackson sexual assault allegations, Michael Jackson sex scandals etc.) With this logic a page titled Michael Jackson's siblings could be created with this content:
Michael Jackson has multiple siblings.
Then we could call it a disambiguation page because when a user searches for "Michael Jackson's siblings" we don't know which siblings they are looking for. Such a page would be deleted because it would be a fork of Jackson family , redudant and not a genuine disambiguation page. Same is true here. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could simply redirect to the 1993 allegations and then just make that the general page for the allegations instead. Never17 (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or revert the page move so that the 1993 page goes back to its original title. PamD 20:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a redirect I agree with the nominator's reasoning. According to WP:D2D, disambiguation is necessary when a word or phrase might lead a reader to more than one existing Wikipedia article. Should be redirected to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, which exited first and have all of the same information already. TruthGuardians (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Move the 1993... article back to the base title. Either there are other non-1993 allegations on which wikipedia has content, in which case the dab page is justified (ie the "trial" article: not sure about the film), or the 1993 article covers all allegations in which case it should not have been moved and should be moved back. I know nothing much about Michael Jackson, but I do know that dab pages should be logical. PamD 07:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree both should not exist at the same time as there is clear overlap between them. MraClean (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations per the nominator and WP:D2D. or revert the recent page move of 1993 Michael Jackson's sexual abuse allegations per PamD. Someone searching for Michael Jackson sex abuse allegations or Michael Jackson allegations or any other variation of the subject will find all those articles in the search result on wiki anyway, don't see why there should be a dedicated page for the term "Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations".MraClean (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those pages should redirect to Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Popcornfud (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is there are no such pages and shouldn't be, it would be unnecessary. Anyone searching for any of those phrases, including Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, finds all three articles in the search results. There is no need for a new page just to show the same links which are the top results anyway. MraClean (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect It's WP:CFORK, it's just a shorter version of 1993's further allegations section and I never saw a dab page like this. Leaving Neverland is an article about the film with that title, this makes it look like that's where the accusers made the allegations. Should this page contain a link to an article about their original accusations in their lawsuit, if one existed? And if it did should then Leaving Neverland be removed from the list and if not should other films covering the same topic listed too? Then why stop at films, why not include links to articles about books on the same subject. This is not what disambiguation pages are for. 2BOARNOT2B (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You sure seem to have strong opinions on Wikipedia policies for an editor with only four previous edits (two of them to another Michael Jackson debate). Popcornfud (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's WP:PA, not an answer to my questions. I've been an editor since 2021, I just changed my username. You edited in far more Jackson debates than myself does that make your knowledge of wiki policies less accurate? I've seen countless disambiguation pages, there is nothing like this one among them. It has the same stuff as the Further allegations on 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations therefore WP:CFORK. There is no logic in why those 3 links should have a dedicated page. We could put the link and summary of every wiki article that has something about the allegations (Square One, Neverland Firsthand , FBI Files, Michael Jackson's Dangerous Liaisons, Michael Jackson's Boys etc.) say they are "associated with the Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations" but that is just not what disambiguation pages are for. As I see Robertsky says this is not a dabpage either, you changed the {Set index article} tag to {Disambiguation} after an editor pointed out that the titles are different thus WP:SETINDEX does not apply. You need similar titles to make this either a disamb or a sex index page. Those are the rules. 2BOARNOT2B (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After four years, I have closed thousands of AFD discussions and have never closed one, or seen an AFD discussion closed by another admin, that resulted in a Redirect from main space to template space. I don't think that cross-namespace redirects (at least main space->template) are permitted. If you are advocating a different redirect target article, like a main space article, please specify the article by providing a link to it, just don't just say "Redirect" without mentioning the redirect target article. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not covered by R2, but I don't think I've ever seen one in the wild. I think it would be strange to arrive at a template as a reader. C F A 💬 12:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several editors have suggested redirecting the broader title Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations to the more specific title 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, ie from a general to a more specific title. If the 1993 article is indeed the appropriate place to redirect the general title, then it should be moved back to that general title, from which it was moved, rather than leave a redirect from a general to a narrow title. PamD 14:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1993 article is not an overview page about all the allegations in general. The focus is the 1993 allegations, hence the title. I can't stress this enough.
    Read through the three different pages in question here (or just their leads) and I hope the difference in focus between them will be clear. Popcornfud (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You may stress that but it won't change the fact that there is a 490-words section for further allegations on 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations including the same links you want to promote with Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. All the later page does is cheerypick links you want to get extra attention. A user searching for the term Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations will find everything on 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegation. All he has to do is click on the same links there. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is immensely frustrating. Instead of responding to comments, the nominator is repeatedly updating their initial nom with "edits" supposedly "clarifying" things, which repeatedly resets the starting position of the debate in their favor. I do not, as the most recent edit alleges, wish to "promote" anything on Wikipedia. Please give this nonsense a rest. Popcornfud (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not reset the starting position as my position did not change at all. I put those edits there instead of in comments because I didn't want to spam the voting sections informing everyone about that policy. You started an RFC to change the title of the article only to create this one redefining what disambiguation pages are. Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not create the page Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations, which is under discussion here. That was created by @Robertsky. The previous page by that title was moved after a discussion which received no opposing votes. Almost everything you're adding to this debate is just untrue. Popcornfud (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You know well what I meant by created. Robensky merely moved the page after the RFC that you started following a sock puppet's proposal to rename the page and then it was you who built it along with the sock puppet and an editor exposed for using reddit to try to get more attention for the allegations. Otherwise what was untrue what I said here? Guitarjunkie22 (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if updating the nom is worse than WP:BLUDGEONING but it's useful to include all relevant policies behind a nom.Guitarjunkie22 next time please gather all your evidence before nominating.MraClean (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the 1993 article. Dabpages are about matching titles. In a previous edit where I accidentally linked to a disambiguation page I got an automatic warning from DPL WikiProject that "Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles." Titles here are entirelly different. If this page is not redirected then all links to Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations in all articles will be, by definition, a dablink. There are 5 expections under WP:INTDABLINK where intentional links to a dabpages is appropriate, none of it is true here. PinkSlippers (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep when I created this after the page was moved, it was intended to be a set index article, not a dab page. If there's any confusion, I apologize for that. – robertsky (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But this can't be a set index article either as Wikipedia:Set index articles list things only of one type and the same/similar names. There is a table on WP:SIA that clarifies this: How to tell whether the page could be a set index article: similar names / similar subject. The example of WP:SIA is Dodge Charger, where all linked articles have similar names. The footer of the the page you created also says This article includes a list of related items that share the same name (or similar names). . But Trial of Michael Jackson Leaving Neverland and 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations obviously are not same or similar names. MraClean (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the 1993 page as per nomination. The existence of this page serves no purpose whatsoever and should be redirected to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations. Wikipedia encourages editors to avoid redundant articles that cover the same topic. Instead, efforts should be made to improve and expand a single, comprehensive article, but the 1993 allegations article is already that. Wikipedia discourages "content forking," where content is split into multiple articles to present different viewpoints or variations on the same topic. Instead, different perspectives should be integrated into a single article, following Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. The existence of this article breaks with this. Finally, if there are multiple articles on closely related or exact same subjects that do not warrant their own pages, they may be merged or redirected. This helps prevent fragmentation of information across several minor articles. This article will only get redirected in the future anyway to prevent Wikipedia clutter. NE0mAn7o! (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations: there's nothing in the disambiguation page that's not in the that article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as proposed by nominator to the 1993 article. This is an interesting debate but as the page creator himself admitted above it was not meant to be a WP:DISAMB page He says it is WP:SIA, however the different article titles do not allow it to be a WP:SIA either, there is no wiki policy under which this page can exist. Keeping it would just create a precedent to create similar pages of arbitrarly selected link lists associated with a topic. The 1993 article is a good starting point for this subject anyway, it has summaries of the other allegations too.Mr Boar1(talk) 20:20, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHFD

[edit]
KHFD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looking at a web search, the airport appears to be the overwhelmingly primary topic. The disambiguation can be replaced by a redirect and a hatnote at the airport article (a previous attempt at redirecting the article has been reverted by the page creator). 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To the nominator, please provide a link to your proposed Redirect target article which should have been included in your nomination statement. At least that's what I think you are asking for, I'm not sure. Also, you didn't need an AFD to turn an article page into a Redirect. AFD is for proposing that articles be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the airport article, which was implied by the nomination. Also, I didn't feel like immediately redirecting a disambiguation page since it likely doesn't have a lot of watchers so figured to draw some attention to it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since I only just realised that @Bkonrad (who did not comment here) has added another meaning, it seems logical to just move this page to KHFD (disambiguation). 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but please don't just refer to "the airport article", please add a link to the specific redirect target article you want. If this discussion closes as a Redirect, the closer shouldn't have to go looking themselves to find out what you meant and could have mentioned in your original nomination statement. Many thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who cannot figure this out from looking at the page should not be closing this discussion IMO. And looking at the page should be done by a closer. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to WP:REDIRECT: "If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.[1]", citing an RFC. So it's not necessary, but according to that guideline when the article is contested some form of outside input is necessary and AFD is an option.
It does seem kind of like a requested move what with everyone talking about the primary topic and all: the thing I just quoted doesn't mention disambiguations?
Airport mentioned seems to be the Hartford–Brainard Airport.
I guess a {{redirect}} template could be added, and a KHFD (disambiguation) page could be created?
Support redirect on the grounds that the other options are the former name of a no-longer existent radio station and part of the code of another small radio station that doesn't actually have its own article. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other option would be moving this to dispute resolution but since it's already gotten started it seems like just procedural hassle. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and tag for clean up). The disambiguation page (as at the time of this comment) lists 3 legitimate uses. It would be difficult to assert a primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally, I could withdraw this nomination and request a move of the disambiguation page now. But I would say that an active airport is primary to a former callsign of a defunct municipal radio station and a municipal TV station (with 600 Google hits for "KHFD-LD" vs 88000 for "KHFD"). 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting.

Urbanavičius

[edit]
Urbanavičius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page with no valid links. There are no people with this name listed at Wikipedia. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red (slur)

[edit]
Red (slur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary WP:INCDAB. 2 of the 3 entries could be summarized by Red (political adjective), which itself redirects to Red#In politics. Meanwhile, Redskin or Red people aren't listed in Red (disambiguation), so its importance is unclear. I don't really see potential for a WP:BROADCONCEPT article. – sgeureka t•c 08:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly no consensus and discussion ongoing with lots of options brought up. Just a reminder that an AFD can't close with a Move closure, if that is what you want, choose Keep and then start a move discussion afterwards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poșta Veche (disambiguation)

[edit]
Poșta Veche (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant dab page. Poșta Veche links directly to Stângăceaua commune and the second entry does not contain this name at all. If it contained it, the solution would be a hatnote on the commune page, not a dab page. FromCzech (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

Redirects for discussion

[edit]

See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Disambiguations&oldid=1243535380"