Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limosa (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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Limosa (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title while the other entries here aren't valid. The AfD is issued after the PROD tag got removed. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete There are only two WP:DABMENTION-satisfying entries. A hatnote on Godwit will suffice. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Pppery, the disambiguation page has been updated and Limosa (magazine) has been created as a redirect mentioned in its target. If you're fine with it now, please change your vote so that I can withdraw this nomination. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and withdraw. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * , have you ever seen WP:BEFORE? :) In this case, you can e.g. see that Special:WhatLinksHere/Limosa_(magazine) has numerous links so it qualifies for inclusion. Why should we hide this from readers? --Joy (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Joy, have you ever noticed that all links of Limosa (magazine) in the main namespace are actually from the transclusion of European birding journals? That's not warranted per MOS:DABMENTION. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, but that gives you a hint that at least one other editor thought there was potential. I know it's easier to just do a huge mechanic cleanup, but sometimes it makes sense to look into these because they're indicative of something else. I just skimmed your list of 200+ prod's and found several situations that could be handled differently. --Joy (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. Unfortunately, it seems that nobody was willing to help check WP:ONEOTHER candidates in the last month after I tagged 200+ dab pages (of all 1,200+ candidates) with One other topic, although I have excluded ones resulted from vandalism. Thus, I believe PROD has to be used to draw more attention from our community. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the cleanup tags aren't going to be very effective within just a month at rarely visited pages. Especially in cases where there weren't even hatnote links to some of these. --Joy (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There is now a sourced mention of the magazine at Sovon, and a redirect there. Still no need for a dab page, a hatnote at the bird would do.. Pam  D  08:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I found another item in the title search with an existing redirect, a minor planet, just by scrolling through. There's also mentions of moths, but I'm not familiar with WP:PTM rules on scientific names so someone else should look at it. Spamming all this into a hatnote at an article that actually has a different title seems like it would be excessive. --Joy (talk) 10:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. Pam  D  13:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: adequate little dab page, too much for a hatnote. Pam  D  13:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep several valid entries, plus see also section. Boleyn (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2023 (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.