Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danilo (disambiguation)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Danilo (disambiguation)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Someone created this by moving a single hatnote entry and a bunch of mononymous uses out of Danilo, and then we had Talk:Danilo where I pointed this out and stopped that. Looking for closure here. :) --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete The hatnote at Danilo should be enough that a dab for two links is not necessary. Reywas92Talk 17:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, unneeded WP:ONEOTHER DAB. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:07, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine as expanded. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 16:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and resolve with a hatnote. BD2412  T 03:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep after my expansion. A lot of footballers go by the mononym, there's one guy with the surname, plus the village. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, no. Mononymous usages of a given name are perfectly fine listed in an anthroponymy list. Having an anthroponymy list, and then a disambiguation page for the same thing that duplicates anthroponymy entries - is, frankly, inane. If we think readers are incapable of seeing mononymous entries in the existing list, reformat the list. What is this reader who is scrolling through the list of names, unable to find their Brazilian footballer in there, and then thinks "oh yeah, I'll abort what I was doing and scroll back to the start of the page and click the hatnote, it will be there!" I'm sorry, but I would have to meet such a reader first before I believe they exist. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored three footballers whose middle name is Danilo, which disqualifies them from the given name page. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Come on now, this is cherry picking. Might as well just mark the given name article as type=both or whatever and not do these trivial escapades. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Type=both includes surnames, not middle names. There shouldn't be any lists of middle names (though I do come across [and delete] those few examples I find in given name lists). Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even without the three middle name Danilos, a surname, a village and two good See also entries are sufficient justification for a dab page IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't understand how this argument is congruent. We should list middle names (and surnames) separately, but the prerequisite for disambiguation was mononymous usage? Also, see also entries can't be a justification for disambiguation pages per se. In fact if we look at the entries there, they are a WP:PTM as we don't have proof anybody refers to the culture as just 'Danilo' and a cognate given name (different Slavic language form), hence it's more appropropriate on the anthroponymy list. Let's just have a simple understanding that the main article is about a human name, and be done with it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have lists of middle names, period. And yes, mononyms routinely populate dab pages. Finally, the main article is about the given name. Middle names are not given names. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I see I need to be more explicit. How about you actually read about Portuguese names where it mentions nothing about middle names at all, instead it says they're given names and family names? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Portuguese name states "The law also establishes the maximum number of names allowed: up to two given names". So explain the deletion of José Marcio Danilo Pereira da Silva. In any case, the point is moot, as there are three other legitimate entries now. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So in that case it's a surname? In any event this clarifies the lack of point of splitting these off into a separate list. Should we expect the readers to distinguish given names from surnames based on mononymous usage? Seems like a big stretch. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. This page is necessary; keeping track of all these different players called Danilo gets confusing, and it can't be easily solved with a simple hatnote. I just added the Danilo I was thinking of (born July 1991). Cielquiparle (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Danilo Luis da Silva is already listed in the main page; as noted above, Joy [shallot] objects to those with both the given name and mononym Danilo being added to the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How confusing! Then surely there is no need for two pages. I guess I don't understand why the main Danilo page is a list page then, and not a disambiguation page itself, or a set index page per WP:SETINDEX...? Cielquiparle (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? An anthroponymy list is a set index article. Notice Set index articles. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Put Danilo culture and Danilo, Croatia in a hatnote at Danilo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Other topics besides a given name include a surname, village, and culture. Per WP:DABHAT:  That mononyms should go on the dab too, and there might not be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC either.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody refers to the culture as just "Danilo". It's just a WP:PTM. And the surname with a single holder is easily folded into the anthroponymy list. Why should the mononyms go on the dab if the anthroponymy list is the presumed primary topic? Do you have any argument for there not being a primary topic? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the worst case, if an entry is a PTM, it can be accessible via the DAB's "see also", per WP:PTM.—Bagumba (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the determination of whether a page is needed or not cannot be made based on supplementary sections like See also. That would be a slippery slope into all sorts of silliness. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There are now two surname entries, plus the village. Game, set and match. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The surname entries can trivially be folded into the anthroponymy set index article, as the etymology is presumably related. I suggested that two days ago but it was probably drowned out by us arguing the other weird point... --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The page has expanded from the original two entires since the time you !voted.  Can you reassess the current situation?  Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I maintain a delete/merge. Why does Danilo have to be restricted to first names only? Put the surnames and place in that article too. Reywas92Talk 18:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Reywas92: Thanks for taking another look. Surnames aside, there's still three other topics on the dab page. It is also linked from Danylo, and removing the dab would require replicating it's contents at Danylo. —Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't, why? Nobody refers to the village of Danilo as "Danylo", let alone the culture. You're grasping for straws at this point. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:DABMISSPELL.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What is this genuine risk of confusion or misspelling that isn't addressed by the exact same see also entry at Danilo since 2012? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep there are now three other relevant articles- 2 people with the surname, and the place in Croatia. That is sufficient to require a DAB page. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't we merge the 2 people with the surname in the article about people with the name? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It (now) looks like a pretty vanilla disambiguation page to me. Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, because people seem to be playing a WP:GAME of how to make what looks like a vanilla page in some sort of an effort to ignore the spirit and letter of our navigation-related policies. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you could point to the relevant policies, without using words like 'mononymous' and 'anthroponymy', I'll happily read them, and consider changing my "vote". Nfitz (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, this goes against the spirit and letter of WP:D. For example, it says one of the important aspects is 'ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily'. If we already have a list of human names (hence anthroponymy) at Danilo, what reason do we have to believe that a reader who is at such a list will naturally look elsewhere for humans with the same single name (mononymous use) or non-first given name or the same surname? Having slightly different lists with no clear distinction does not seem to be helpful for quick and easy reader navigation. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ...what reason do we have to believe...: The onus is on you to provide a reason for us not to believe a reader doesn't know what a given name is and would not know to follow a hatnote, defined by guideline WP:HATNOTE. For example, Joseph, a given name, is an existing primary topic, and has a hatnote to Joseph (disambiguation), which itself lists Joseph (surname) and other mononymous Joseph's.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying they don't know that, I'm saying it's an implausible scenario that they will want to be clicking on the hatnote to get to this redundant list. For example, see the stats at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Danilo - the link to the village (which has been in the hatnote all this time) is recorded at just ~4% and not nearly at the top of the list. The case of Joseph is hardly comparable as there the given name article has a huge amount of entries, and the surname has no less than 67 entries. Per WP:NAMELIST, that separation is warranted. But for 2 extra entries...? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep no benefit to deletion, potentially WP:USEFUL. Meets criteria for a mixed dab and surname page. Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think these latest edits are actually making navigation better. You added a link to the surname into see also of the given name article, yet there's already a hatnote at the top. Likewise for adding Danilo's with ordinals to the disambiguation - the meaning is still the same as mononymous uses of the given name. At this point it feels like we're looking for ways to salvage the disambiguation page, instead of just doing away with the complexity. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to comply with WP:D. Lightburst (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.