Talk:Bootleggers

Should be a redirect

 * Regarding this version


 * Bootlegging and Bootlegger both point to the dab page Bootleg, yet this page, Bootleggers, points to a two entry dab page of its own. Doesn't make any sense to me, and a 2 entry dab page is against policy anyway. It should either be a redirect to the only article with this exact title, or it should be a redirect to Bootleg, using hatnotes to the alternate use. MickMacNee (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Bootleggers has other uses that do not relate to Bootleg, and so should have a disambig page. I have reverted, and added a See Also for the "Bootleg" sense. Sabin4232 (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You cannot have a two entry dab page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think there might be a way to fix this, rather than unilaterally setting up a redirect? The last version I saw had three items, not two. Some vandal removed one of the items from the list before you re-added the redirect. Would it not be more appropriate to first attempt to add content to the DAB page, rather than deleting everything for a redirect? Last I checked, adding useful content is preferable to removing useful content. Thanks. Sabin4232 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You would have to ask at the disambiguation project. I don't think even the example above is a legal dab page, as it only has one direct blue link the same or similar to the search term, the other two being merely loosely related as a synonym, and non notable web address. MickMacNee (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as an unwavering unjustified "No". Thanks for your time. Sabin4232 (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)