Talk:Flanders (disambiguation)

After checking with many other references sources and (printed and online) enclyclopedia, I've updated the text as the older definition was quite biased by the historical meaning, the county of Flanders, and did not properly distinguish all actual meanings, and as that historical bias did not seem appropriate anymore in a contemporary, and moreover, internet-based encyclopedia as Wikipedia. Rudi Dierick, 2 Aug. 2004
 * Hi Rudy. I have reverted your edits. I think it is far better to keep the disambiguation page as small and synthetic as possible. More detailed information could be inserted into the Flanders article. --Edcolins 21:25, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

If there is a Flanders (county) page (I think that the text is in the main Flanders as well) it needs a link here. --Nk 14:48, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Category:Cycle types" should not be here
"Category:Cycle types" should not be here. It should be on the specific page for the Cycle type in question. Duckbill 10:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A bicycle constructor operating in *which* Flanders?
You have:


 * A bicycle constructor operating in Flanders, see Flanders (bikes)

Using the unqualified term "Flanders" in a disambiguation page for "Flanders" kind of doesn't get the baby bathed. This entry needs a re-write. I can't fix it without significant research. This should go back to the original author. I'll remove it for now and it can be reinstated when it's better.

Duckbill 10:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Buchanan
He is on this page because of his alleged resemblance to Ned Flanders. Therefore, it is only natural that Ned is covered on this page as well. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The fictional character is covered by the surname page. Anyone looking for the baseball player due to the nickname can find him, though this could perhaps also be treated on the surname page since it is at best a partial title match. But there's no need to link to the character simply because it is mentioned as the source of the nickname. older ≠ wiser 03:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Townland
Indian Flanders only links to Arauco war because it is the valid blue link that is used. Similarly, in case of the Irish town, the only link that is relevant is County Londonderry so we must link to it. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, Flandes Indiano is both a partial title match and a foreign language dictionary gloss. It does not appear to be discussed in the Arauco War article. It is only mentioned in the title of one reference. I'm not sure that is reason enough for disambiguation. County Londonderry makes no mention whatsoever of Flanders, which is why the link to List of townlands in County Londonderry is necessary. older ≠ wiser 03:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, Flanders is not on that list either, nor does it appear anywhere on Google search. As for the baseball player, I moved him to the surname page. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Flanders is on that list. The list could be better sourced, but it does not appear to be made up. See here and here. I'm OK with moving the baseball player. older ≠ wiser 03:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but the subject is still not even remotely notable to ever become an article candidate, let alone a working article. The redlink does not belong there. Period. If you want me to abide by the guidelines that you provided, please do the same. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In your opinion perhaps. The tendency is that most geographical entities eventually get articles. The entry does clearly satisfy WP:DABRL, so there is no real reason to remove other than you just don't like it. older ≠ wiser 04:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion, but according to the guideline: "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." It's a small townland that has virtually no mention anywhere (other than just existing within a very long list of small townlands, most of which will never get articles of their own either), and is pretty much as far from WP:N as it can get. Why do you have to invoke the "you don't like it" fallacy? How can I possibly not like it? Until you pointed out the .gov.uk link I didn't even know of its existence. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What you or I know or don't know is rarely a good indication of anything. It is your opinion. I prefer the opinion that eventually an article will be written, as is being done for many of the most obscure geographical entities imaginable. The guideline states That you think the topic unnotable because you are unfamiliar with the topic means nothing. older ≠ wiser 04:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't read my response, did you? You completely ignored the second sentence: There are not nearly enough sources that would cover the topic's notability. Is it just me or is that what makes a topic worthy (or unworthy) of its own article? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I did actually. That sentence is where your opinion comes in. I'm of the opinion, and the trend on Wikipedia, is that even the most obscure geographical entities do eventually get articles (or in some cases become redirects to a section of another article). older ≠ wiser 11:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

How can lack of sources possibly count for opinion? Even if I humor you here for a moment, best case scenario is that the Flanders, Bovevagh, County Londonderry (if anything, we should include the full name, shouldn't we?) article will end up being a redirect to List of townlands in County Londonderry, which is the only article that currently points to the townland. In other words, your best hope is for a WP:CIRCULAR ref. By all means, find a couple of secondary sources that can shed some light on the subject's notability (and keep in mind that we're aiming for a full article, not a paragraph), and prove me wrong. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That you are unaware of any sources and that you are therefore of the opinion that no sources exist is already clear. But like I said, that is your opinion. The matter of what the name should be is a separate matter entirely. There is no need for including extra disambiguation in the title unless it is necessary, or if there is an applicable naming convention that specifies a particular form. Again, it is merely your speculation that the only possible target for a redirect would be the list of townlands article. The target might be an article on the Bovevagh parish. That's really irrelevant at this point. The point is that even most obscure geographical entities frequently end up with articles. Many editors don't like these two-sentence geo-stubs, but they are pretty routinely kept when brought up for AfD. I have no interest in researching townlands in Ireland. Point is that it is purely opinion that an article or meaningful redirect is impossible. older ≠ wiser 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your games are really annoying, do you know that? When you research a subject and nothing comes up, it's not an opinion. It's a fact. I actually tried to find sources, and found nothing. This has been stated in this conversation at least five times. Of course everything is possible, but the probability of a standalone article (even a stub) about that particular townland is close to zero; repeatedly contesting that statement without backup is counterproductive. Again (and again, and again) – you are most welcome to prove me wrong. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This is hardly worth prolonging as we obviously are not going to convince the other. The only fact that you know is that you did not find any sources. So what? It remains nothing more than your opinion that it is unlikely that an article can be written. older ≠ wiser 02:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Considering everything that has been said multiple time throughout this thread, your latest statement is utterly ridiculous. I already mentioned WP:POINT, but I'll mention it again, as that statement is tantamount to bashing your head against the wall. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Right back at ya. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I am firmly in the eventualism camp. You appear to be somewhere else. older ≠ wiser 15:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, you're firmly in the demagogy camp, as you're still firmly refusing to back up your statement. Words are meaningless without proof. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already explained -- the trend on Wikipedia is for even the most obscure geographical entities to get articles. There are numerous little articles about places in Iran or Burma or wherever that had other editors taken the view you have would never have had an article. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Och... Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)