Talk:Methodist Episcopal Church (disambiguation)

a past discussion
Hi, I fail to understand your reasoning in reverting my edit. There were 3 blue links on the page, as follows:


 * Methodist Episcopal Church (Crestline, Ohio)
 * Methodist Episcopal Church (Pierre, South Dakota)
 * Methodist Episcopal Church (Scotland, South Dakota)

So how can you say, "because there are no such articles"?

I think you also fail to realize that all of these churches are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and are thus notable. Yes, the talk page is the place to discuss this. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, all of those were created within the past few hours by yourself. I'm sorry I did not notice them before my last rrv, but then you did not draw any attention to them.  But notability pertains to whether a page should exist, not whether or not non-existent articles should be listed on a disambig.  If you create more such pages, and the consensus is that they are in fact notable (I have no position on the matter), then by all means add them here.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Clariosophic, in your reversion you went back to your last version, skipping over mine. The primary topic for this disambiguation page seems to me clearly to be the denomination, as it is highly probable that all these local churches had that name because they were the local congregation of the denomination.  So why wouldn't you list the denomination on the disambiguation page?


 * (ec) Oh yeah, and it was otherwise a list of redlinks the first time BlueMoonlet turned it into a redirect, and he might not have looked at the reversion. Since one of the valid purposes of lists is lists of topics to expand, I'm glad to see you creating the stubs now.  I don't object to having a disambiguation page act as a list of redlinks, but can we put the primary topic on it at least?  GRBerry 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did that when I restored the disambig. Is it acceptable now?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:28, 17 July 2008


 * That's fine. I'm sorry, GRBerry, that I deleted your intermediate edit. I didn't think it was necessary to have it in since the only way anyone gets to this article is through the dablink on the Methodist Episcopal Church which says to come here for individual churches. It doesn't hurt, though, to list it. If there is no objection, I'm going to put the redlinked ones back in, so that I and other NRHP projects members can create articles for them. Again all NRHP listings are notable and it is the goal of the NRHP project to create articles for all of them. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the presumption that all NRHP locations are worthy of inclusion. Can't say I argue with it.  Of course, now that you've created these new stubs, they also need hatnotes to the disambiguation page.  So there is no longer just one route here.  GRBerry 02:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur, and apologize for my second reversion, which was based on multiple misunderstandings. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)