Talk:Oak Hill

organization
This dab page of places was organized, like many others, by geography (by country). An editor removed that, losing distinction. Another editor naturally re-added country sections, but incorrectly. I am restoring the original ordering (and re-adding the one substantial addition since, a link to Oak Hill). Please discuss organization ideas here. To be clear, I think it is obviously helpful for readers to allow them to look up places by country. -- do ncr  am  15:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is only one entry not in the U.S. so geographic headers aren't needed. Your wholesale reversion restored redlinks, partial title matches, and entries with more than one bluelink, and removed Wisconsin, as well as generally making the page more difficult to read. Please gain consensus here before reverting to an old version. Station1 (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merger of state-specific dab page "Oak Hill, Virginia" to larger dab page "Oak Hill". The Virginia subpage is redundant, should just be a subsection in geographically-organized main dab page. There is some disambiguation policy now, I believe, that governs, and that dictates the merger. I propose that Oak Hill, Virginia should redirect to Oak Hill, a subsection for Virginia. -- do ncr  am  15:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to policy about "incomplete dabs". See Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation for some current discussion about it.  I don't care very much about this;  it should just be a non-controversial cleanup to effect the merge. -- do  ncr  am  20:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a merge is particularly helpful. Anyone searching specifically for Oak Hill, Virginia will find what they want more easily without having to go through a longer dab page at Oak Hill. All the buildings are already on both pages for anyone typing just "Oak Hill".  I wouldn't object to the four bluelink settlements being added to this page instead of the current "Oak Hill, Virginia (disambiguation)" entry if anyone thinks that's helpful. Station1 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO it is simplest to merge, have one version, rather than one version with all the NRHP-listed ones and some of the settlements (the bluelinked ones) vs. another with more settlement ones (redlinks now). With an implicit maintenance need for editors to add new articles to the one, when redlinks turn blue.  The current setup is confusing/surprising to readers and is harder to maintain than one geographically-organized stub, IMO.  Station1, it's not worth it to keep 2 versions, don't you agree? -- do  ncr  am  21:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with merge'. Oak Hill, Virginia is an incomplete dab. I don't think they would get lost here anyway. Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But since Oak Hill, Virginia had 3000 views last year compared to 5700 for Oak Hill, what would be the actual benefit to the reader of eliminating it? Station1 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Boleyn, it was numerous references in edit summaries i've seen about "incomplete disambiguation" that I was referring to. I think that the Virginia material is covered clearly, properly at Virginia subsection in this proposed version of the Oak Hill dab page.  Benefit to readers include helping readers find the Virginia ones more quickly when they type in "Oak Hill", rather than having to go there and then spend time, only perhaps to decipher that there must be a separate page for Virginia alone.  If they type in Oak Hill, Virginia they get right to the section.  This last version of dab page links to separate dab page but includes several Virginia places in the buildings section.  A reader would likely think that all Virginia places are included in the main dab, because many are.  I think every building is a place and hence there should be no big separation in the dab, which should be organized by geography for readers' ease. -- do  ncr  am  20:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)