Talk:East Main Street Historic District

cleanup tag
I notice on my watchlist that a cleanup tag was added to this article by another editor. This and other dab pages that include red-link NRHP items might all get cleaned up by a bot, sometime, which would refine the supporting bluelinks for each red-link item. There's a botrequest in for this, anyhow. I don't happen to think it helps to call for manual cleanup, as that would be tedious and not add very much, IMHO. --doncram (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgetown East Main one
An editor has repeatedly visited to remove an item, "* Georgetown East Main Street Residential District, Georgetown, KY, listed on the NRHP in Kentucky", from this dab page, with cryptic edit summaries. (The item showed currently as a red-link.) I restored it again now, now placing it in the "See also" section for variety's sake. I have no idea what the editor's objection is. Is the editor's objection that the editor thinks it should be in the See also section, instead? Then why remove it.

Could the editor please explain his/her views for discussion, rather than edit warring about this. Removal of substantial content is, well, negative. To me, it seems sneaky and wp:POINTY and other bad things to try to remove material and hope it doesn't get noticed. --doncram (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It was removed by two different editors, by each only one time, because the redlink is not linked from any article and the bluelink makes no mention of the topic. Both editors cited MOS:DABRL and linked to it. Station1 (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, i did think both removals were by one editor. Thanks for replying and giving explanation with two component reasons.  That is helpful so I don't have to guess what is the objection.  I gather the objection was not about placing in See also or not.


 * If the reason was just that the supporting bluelink (to the statewide Kentucky NRHP list) did not show a red-link, I would object to the removal because there are many items on this dab page with the same issue. Articles need to be created for them all, or the supporting bluelinks oughta be refined, or they all are technically not in compliance with picky practices and/or guidelines about disambiguation, I understand.


 * Clicking on the redlink item and then "what links here", i see that currently it is not linked from any article. That is most likely an indication that an NRHP list-article that should link to it, should be revised.  There are typos or other minor differences such as usage of a hyphen vs. usage of an ndash within a name, which can cause the relevant NRHP list article to fail to link properly.  Please don't simply remove any NRHP item from this or any other dab page.  Please either research the situation and resolve it more substantially, or raise the issue at the dab Talk page.  Protocol-wise, i guess it would be okay to remove an item to the Talk page, or to leave it in place and ask about it at the Talk page.  But I doubt that consensus of disambiguation editors would approve of simple removal of NRHP items, as it has been pretty widely held that the NRHP items are valid wikipedia topics.


 * In this case, I proceeded to look for the specific NRHP list that should link to it. First I look up Georgetown, Kentucky and find it is in Scott County.  Then i look up the Scott County NRHP list in the supporting bluelink to the KY statewide list, finding it at National Register of Historic Places listings in Scott County, Kentucky.  And i see that the item does appear there, however it is pipelinked to an article that was created in 2008 but named as "Georgetown East Main Street Residential District (Georgetown, Kentucky)".  The article name included the "(Georgetown, Kentucky)" unnecessarily.  An editor mistakenly thought the (City, State) appendage was needed.  So the remedy is to move/rename the article to remove that appendage, and to update the Scott County NRHP list, which I will do now.  Hopefully that will resolve this.


 * Your or other dab editors' Talk-page identification and/or actual fixing of other cases like this would be appreciated. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)