Talk:Coot (disambiguation)

elderly man
Thats great that the definition is in the the wiki dictionary, but that isn't obvious to anyone from the page, and thats why I came to the page. Are you saying it doesnt belong because there is no article on it? Then we have to remove all redlinks. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that it does not belong on this page, because:
 * There will never be an article for elderly man. But WP:D says Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title. This is a disambiguation page.
 * So the term will always be a dictdef. First, there is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Then there is MOS:DAB, saying Rather than including a dictionary definition of a word, create a cross-link to our sister project, Wiktionary.
 * Having an external link to the coot dictdef is not encouraged per MOS:DAB, External links should rarely, if ever, be given entries in disambiguation pages. the wiktionary template already links to all dictdef possibilities.
 * None of the current redlinks have to be removed, because per MOS:DAB, Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") should be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article can be written on the subject. I am confident about Ilyushin Il-22, Ilyushin Il-24 and Coot (vehicle), but not about either elderly man nor Coot (slang). I am going to revert now. If you still disagree, please read MOS:DAB carefully. If you have further questions, ask on this talk page before reverting, or start a new thread at WT:MOSDAB. Thank you. – sgeureka t•c 22:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, as a compromise, I have removed the red linked articles. That way neither of us have to be crystal balls, they can be added when they are created. However ... --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit biased, but I think the Il-22 should be reinstated. It is notable and the article is bound to be written at some point; even without it, I included some useful info. The Il-24 is a bit more iffy, but NATO thought enough of it to give it its own codename. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ilyushin Il-22 has a handful of incoming links (usually a sign that it will get an article in the near future), whereas Ilyushin Il-24 only has one (other than from this dab page). IMO, Ilyushin Il-22 should definitely be added back. I'm fairly neutral on Ilyushin Il-24, although I would personally list it since the other Coot-x airplanes are/will be listed. – sgeureka t•c 10:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles that contain non linked definitions
...There are many articles to ambiguous terms that contain non linked definitions:
 * Bum has a definition and the link to Wictionary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Dog (disambiguation)
 * Cow (disambiguation)
 * Crow (disambiguation)
 * There are hundreds if not thousands of disambiguation pages that don't follow MOS:DAB (yet). And unless those people who notice that something is wrong, don't add disambig-cleanup to the bottom, there is no way how the dab editors can find them at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup (that category once contained up to 400 pages when I was a wiki-newbie). – sgeureka t•c 10:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)