Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names similar to Mick


 * 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   delete. Will provide deleted content for use on other pages upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

List of names similar to Mick

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Was prodded "pointless list; places that need this list should list the elements directly" at 17:51, 19 November 2012‎ by User:JHunterJ.
 * Or, convert into a template, and replace each incoming link by a transclusion of that template?, to save having to update every copy when another name is added to this list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Like this? Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Or, leave out the hide/reveal feature and transclude a plain asterisked list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. JHunterJ (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. List the pages normally on pages that require them, varying as needed (there would be little need to include MICS on the Mikki page, for instance). The savings of "having" to update every copy is not a burdensome expense. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Template-ify. Having to update every copy IS burdensome, I have had to do it several times in this sort of case. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to contact me in this sort of case, and I'll do it, since it's not burdensome to me. See also MOSDAB for recommendation to avoid templates on disambiguation pages; if I found a disambiguation page with the template, I'd continue down the path and bring the elements from the template directly into the disambiguation page (and filter them as needed -- the MICS/Mikki example above; a one-size-fits-all approach is improved by tailoring). See a similar recent discussion about formatting-assist templates at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 40 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge without redirect to Mick's See also section, as is usually done. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I have already merged the entries that appear relevant to Mick (omitting, for example, MICS). -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case, delete that sucker. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Template-ify - a good idea; more conventient for navigation: less mouse clicks. And navigation is indeed necessary here: it is hard to remember who is Micki and who is Micky. An a alternative approach would be to merge them all into a single page, them this page will naryrally go. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The template is not more convenient for navigation; it's more convenient for some editors, but the usual "See also" list with "Micki" and "Micky" (or a merging of those two pages) is convenient for navigation, with no additional mouse clicks, but I wouldn't merge all of the pages listed on this list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification: it is more convenient compared to what we are discussing here. "See also" will do nicely, but it has maintenance problems inherent to any "content forking": there are many reasons why it is good to have only one copy of the list. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And there are many reasons why one list doesn't fit all places. MICS is no more similar to Mick than Mice is similar to Mick. MICS should be linked from the MIC page, but not from the Mick page. Disambiguation pages (again) benefit from "See also" entries that are actually close to the ambiguous title, not longer lists of things that are close to the title along with things that are close to things that are close to the title, let alone things that are close to things that are close to things that are close to the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sounding similar to another name is not a reason to be included in a list. J I P  &#124; Talk 06:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see why this trivial information is remotely worth keeping - at the very most, some information on the Michael disambiguation page about the shortened names may be worth having. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or template-ify. Sounding similar to another name is important in disambiguating. Often people confuse a name with a similar name or get spelling wrong. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's your second !vote in this discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Grumbling comment :I find lists of people by first name riduiculous, but apparently it is impossible to break the tide of John/Jon/Ian/Ivan/Johann/./. listpages, so introducing these "Same-name-only-mutated" templates may be a good idea. Can someone devise some common template for first name "etymology clusters" such as I see, e.g., in Smith-surname? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as we don't use them on disambiguation pages, or as long as it's acceptable to replace them with curated "See also" lists specific to each disambiguation page. If it's for use in surname list articles, that would work. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongest Delete I hate these pages people create to boost their create-counts. Also, it's covered elsewhere. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete it's conceivable that wikipedia could do phonetic disambiguation, but that would require significant consultation and investment in IPA skills. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2012 (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.