Talk:St. Elmo Historic District

Deleting this pag
I guess I am going to have to take this thorugh AFD, but I should't have to, as the rules on DAB pages are clear on this. DAB pages are only to list actual articles. SInce there is only one article about this title, no DAB page is needed. While it can be debated which historicla district is the primary topic, a simple hatnote on the TN page is suffient to direct people to the other page. The MOS also states that a DAB page is probably not needed for only 2 articles. - BillCJ (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two actual articles about places named "St. Elmo Historic District". One, yes, includes about a bit more than strictly just the Colorado one.  Since neither is primary, it is not proper to have this redirect or be the non-Colorado one.  I am not at this moment checking, but i believe that MOSDAB does not prohibit having a DAB page for just 2 places of the same name.  You are misinformed, i think.  And, what is your goal?  If it is to have St. Elmo Historic District redirect to the non-Colorado one, I will certainly oppose that vehemently and I think you will not win, because there is no primary location.  If you agree there is no primary location, and that each has to include (City, State) disambiguating phrases in their names, then why fight to remove helpful disambiguation page that lists them both?  Sorry, but I sincerely think that further dispute on your part here will amount to causing wasted time, energy.  You don't otherwise know me, but I am devoted to preserving appropriate disambiguation for NRHP places.  If you must, however, you are entitled to open an AfD, which I strongly predict will conclude with No.  Again, I expect this will be a waste of time and will not improve the wikipedia. doncram (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, you are certainly incorrect in suggesting in your edit summary that MOS justifies ur removal of WikiProject NRHP class=dab banner from this Talk page. You are also not a member of Wikiproject NRHP and you have no business disputing what are the articles within the scope of the wikiproject. doncram (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * About the scope of dab pages, they can include redlinks (not actual articles), per MOS:DABRL. And, common sense and probably various MOSDAB sections which i am not looking up for you now, suggests that a dab page can mention plausible search targets for wikipedia readers that do not have separate articles.  I have certainly observed many hundreds if not thousands of dab pages that do, and those being dab pages which appear to have the acceptance of active disambiguation page editors (rather than merely being non-compliant, unstable new dab pages). doncram (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, my goal is to have the page you moved form here restored here, which you did unilaterlally, and without seeking any consensus. (Nothing wrong with that per BOLD, but it was still undiscussed).

The bottom line is, we don't need a DAB page for two articles; since one has a differnt name, this name is open for the other one. A hatnote is sufficient, and it always was. I'll take this to AFD, and see what happens. If the page is deleted, then the project tag issue is moot. I won't remove it again, but I still believe you're wrong here per the relevant MOSes, which I won't look up for you either. - BillCJ (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)