Talk:Gilbert House

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

National Register of Historic Places

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

Requested move[edit]

I request moving Gilbert House (disambiguation) back to Gilbert House. This would undo harm done by User:Remember the dot who changed Gilbert House to be a redirect to Page-Gilbert House, instead. Because that editor had incorrect beliefs, since discussed and reversed.

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]

red-links[edit]

(inserting section break. the article was moved, so this discussion is no longer about the move doncram (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The move has been made, but the NRHP redlinks in the article keep getting removed. Reasons for those links have been provided in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages with all red links but one.--Orlady (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss here is the proper place, please. Abtract (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is occurring at the other location because it is not unique to this article, but is a general issue related to the National Register of Historic Places. Please don't insist on balkanizing the discussion of general issues. --Orlady (talk) 15:34, 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]

I don't know what guideline you are following (WP has been known to be internally inconsistent), but I note that MOS:DABRL discusses the inclusion of redlinks that appear in other articles. The links on this page that you have been hiding are redlinks on pages such as List of Registered Historic Places in Columbia County, New York.
Also, please consider Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Break rules, and consider that these redlinks are used on disambiguation pages for historic properties because this practice has been shown to prevent creation of complex messes. --Orlady (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of red-links on disambiguation has been discussed recently in a proposal to ban them, discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Red links on disambiguation pages. That proposal was rejected. It is and continues to be proper style to include red-links in disambiguation pages. doncram (talk) 01:19, 23 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]

IT IS EXPLICITLY PERMITTED BY MOS STYLE THAT RED-LINKS ARE ALLOWED. There is no need to ask for breaking rules to allow red-links, it is breaking rules (or policy/guidelines) to delete red-links. See MOS:DABRL, and see discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation? and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Proposed text for MOS explicitly allowing red-links. doncram (talk) 06:49, 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]

Thanks, JHJ. Please let's continue this general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation?. As i say there, i do understand what you are saying about some redundancy being okay, and then i make further alternative suggestions. Let's continue there. Thanks. doncram (talk) 22:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set index article[edit]

I have changed this page so that it is now a SIA which is more suitable and should solve all the problems. Abtract (talk) 15:54, 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?

Please explain how you regard this to be better. Could you please take note of the general discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation?. Perhaps this discussion should best be continued there. doncram (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]