Talk:Alice Anderson (disambiguation)

Proposed deletion of Alice Anderson (disambiguation)

 * Hi, This is my first disambiguation page and I would like your help in understanding why you have nominated it for deletion? I followed the link that was provided on my talk page, to "Per WP:2DABS", but it is still unclear to me. Thanks in advance for your input Jscarboro (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. The bit of WP:2DABS which is most relevant for this is: ''If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly...'' A hatnote is quicker and easier for readers, who can follow a direct link from Alice Anderson to the only other page on an Alice Anderson, rather than click to here, read it through and then click to the only other option. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it clear that Alice Anderson is the primary topic? It used to be before because this article didn't exist. A Google search on my end shows about equal results for both. I would move Alice Anderson to Alice Anderson (artist) and move this DAB page to the base title. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, At the moment it is the primary page and so this dab wastes readers' time; if anyone thinks these are malplaced, then page moves could be made, in which case a dab at Alice Anderson rather than this title would be useful. Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi and  Thank you both for your feedback. So I made both the hatnote,from the Alice Anderson page about the artist, which pre-dated the Alice Anderson (writer) page I recently created, and the disambiguation page. Oops, didn't realize it was a one or the other kind of thing. So that's one thing I learned out of this:). Then I guess the other issue is about who is more well known? If Anderson the artist is more well known, the hatnote should be kept and the disambiguation page deleted...and if they are equally well known, the disambiguation page should be kept and the hatnote should be deleted, is that right?Jscarboro (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If they are of roughly equal notability, then it should be discussed at WP:RM, with a proposal that the artist is moved to ALice Anderson (artist) and the dab is moved to Alice Anderson. Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Do you think this would be more of an "Uncontroversial technical move" WP:RM or a "Controversial move" WP:RM ? Looks like there are different protocols for each...Jscarboro (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I found that there are also other “Alice Anderson”s in various Wikipedia articles. At least one of these, the Breck Shampoo girl of 1937 Alice Anderson (1917-?}, is currently incorrectly linking to the article about the artist. Others are minor mentions and are unlinked, such as Alice Anderson (Guard, Captain) and the wife of Thomas Pennell II| Alice Anderson. Still, because it is a common name  with at least two notable examples I think retaining the disambiguation page is a good idea. Therefore I am removing the proposal to delete the article Jscarboro (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi,, thanks for your hard work finding these, I've added them to the dab. I think a change here would probably be best to go as a potentially controversial move, but it has a strong case. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, happy editing!Jscarboro (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Garage proprietor: revert query
On 26 August, User:Tassedethe reverted my 9 June addition (via a dynamic ISP) of the first female Australian garage proprietor — a woman who has been the subject of museum exhibitions — despite the fact that I provided several references to establish her notability. Surely a more constructive edit would be to create the relevant article and reword the disambiguation entry to link to whatever title you choose for said article. The use of disambiguation pages to draw attention to articles which should exist serves a legitimate purpose, provided references are included, and reversion seems counterproductive unless notability is disputed.

124.169.218.30 (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the purpose of disambiguation pages is not "...to draw attention to articles which should exist...". It is for directing readers to existing articles or content. You need to use Requested articles; you can submit your request, with references etc., there. Tassedethe (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)