Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mont.


 * 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   no consensus. This is a style issue, really, not a deletion issue. The question should be worked out on the relevant MOS and project talk pages and any consensus can then be implemented editorially.  Sandstein  18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Mont.

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Should be included in disambiguation page "mont" (without the period)--which I've already done, BTW, by copying Doprendek (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect Speedy delete - now duplicates material at Mont. Possibly created by mistake. Stalwart 111  04:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, it consistently gets a small number of page views, so a redirect to Mont is probably best. Stalwart 111  05:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect - no need for a separate page, but no harm in keeping as a redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Further comment: I've read the comments posted subsequent to my original message concerning the botanical author abbreviation, and they haven't changed my view. It's true that some users who are specifically interested in botany will know that "Mont." with a full stop is supposed to mean something different than "Mont" without it, but we have to design disambiguation pages for all readers, the majority of whom won't have a clue that this is a distinction that makes any difference.  The whole point of disambiguation pages is that the reader arrives there because they didn't know exactly how Wikipedia titles the article they are looking for, so combining likely variant search terms on a single page is more helpful. The botanical author abbreviation can, if necessary, be given more prominence on the combined Mont page than it currently enjoys.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as dab page or revert to redirect to the botanist: botanical author abbreviations, sometimes including full-stops, are a particular case. eg Mack. redirects to Kenneth Kent Mackenzie and not to the dab page at Mack. I don't know whether the abbreviation of the US state, with full stop, is notable enough to merit inclusion in a dab page, but I just checked the first parallel I could think of: Miss. redirects to Mississippi. It looks to me as if we have two specific uses of "Mont." which are probably both notable enough to be a redirect. As they coincide, we need this dab page. It might be useful to add a "See also" from this dab page to the dab page at Mont. Pam  D  15:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking further, Kan. and Mass. both redirect to US states rather than to the dab pages at Kan and Mass (disambiguation), so there seems ample precedent for US state abbreviations, with full stop, to go direct to the state article, just as there is for the botanical abbreviations with full stop to go direct to the botanical author, so this dab page is appropriate as the equivalent of two redirects for Mont.. Pam  D  09:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see exactly where you're coming from. But if Mont. redirects to Mont and in doing so retains its disambig value, does that present a big problem? What I mean is, if someone types in "Mont." for a specific reason, they will be directed to Mont where that to which they would otherwise have been directed is listed anyway. Just as if someone typed "Kan" (no full stop) instead of "Kan." (with). The disambig Kan still lists Kansas (as it should). Really, Kan. should go to Kan rather than straight to Kansas, in my opinion. It's a bit Ameri-pedia. Stalwart 111  10:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just like Cal. goes to Cal (disambig) and Wash. goes to Wash (disambig), rather than California and Washington (disambig anyway). Stalwart 111  10:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The US state abbreviations are a distraction, really. There is a long-established international convention about specific abbreviations being used, in taxonomic descriptions, for specific botanical authors. See List of botanists by author abbreviation (G–O). It is much more useful for a reader looking for Mont. to be directed to Camille Montagne, either by a redirect or by a small dab page including only Montana, than for the redirect to go to Mont, where the botanist would be liable to be deleted by a well-meaning editor who couldn't see why they are there, and the reader would struggle to find the botanist among people whose unabbreviated surname is "Mont". So either we revert to the redirect to Montaigne, abandoning the Montana redirect, or we keep this dab page as is. To delete it and redirect to Mont would be positively unhelpful. I'm not a botanist, just a generalist retired-librarian wikipedian, but I will drop a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants where the botanists hang out to invite experts to chip in. Pam  D  13:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand. Yeah, if they have a particular take on this then by all means, they should be asked to chime in. I'm just not sure that many people are going to type in "Mont." looking for a particular individual rather than one of the other things "Mont." might abbreviate. But a, Mont. redirects here, for other.. -type note could resolve that. I suppose this all comes down to what people think would best serve WP readers. Stalwart 111  14:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect. No need for a small extra dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as dab. Author abbreviations are extremely useful when writing articles. Authorities are an integral part of species names, and importantly so. But almost no one cites the full name of the author - they just go with abbreviations, and these abbreviations exist in (somewhat) standardised forms. While most people know that L. is Linnaeus, far fewer people would know to whom Mont. or Aubl. or Roem. refer. And it's not the easiest thing to find - you can query the IPNI database, you can search List of botanists by author abbreviation...but if you're writing an article that includes a couple dozen synonyms, each with their own author, it's a huge time saver to be able to simply throw up the square brackets and use page preview to figure out who the author is. When you're faced with a long dab page, it forces you to scan the page, possibly look at a couple candidate articles, before figuring out the right one. It can be a substantial time cost...and like most people, my time for Wikipedia is fairly limited. So speaking an an editor, I would strongly support keeping pages like this one. As for the redirect - I doubt that many people looking for Mont are going to type Mont. A few, yes, but adding the full stop generally requires conscious action. Guettarda (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, yeah, but in this case there is a very real possibility the reader is looking for something other than that author, including any of the things currently listed at Mont - especially (but not limited to) Montana where that specific punctuation is more commonly used. But we really shouldn't have two disambig pages for the same text, based entirely on a single full-stop. If that was the only thing potentially represented by "Mont." then, no worries, but there's a whole list at Mont and I don't think it serves anyone to separate one or two out on the basis of an industry-specific shorthand. Stalwart 111  21:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your "very real possibility": no-one will add a full stop unless they intend it, and no-one seeking one of the other entries at Mont would include the full stop in their search or their link. The botanist and perhaps the state are the only two uses of "Mont.", and there is well-established practice of linking those botanical abbreviations, with full stop, to the botanists concerned - just check any of those in the list. Pam  D  22:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, but most of those do not require any disambiguation at all. Take the two mentioned above: Aubl. might be a useful redirect but it does not conflict with anything at Aubl (the unpunctuated version goes to the same article). Likewise Roem. and Roem (though when typed, that goes to ROEM and redirects to an article about a radar array). For fun, I just created Finl. which doesn't conflict with anything at Finl. Stalwart 111  23:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mont as there is no benefit to the encyclopaedia in having parallel dab pages when one will do. The entry for Montana is already on the target dab page so it will entail adding exactly one entry to a dab page that is far from overloaded. Nobody will be inconvenienced and some people may benefit by not having to view two dab pages to view the article they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Really, thanks for telling me I'm nobody, that content creators are nobody. Here's a partial synonymy of Roupala montana, in the taxobox (I think it's about half). All of those authorities should be linked, when I have the time. Being able to throw square brackets around those names and find the links really makes a huge difference. If it goes to a short dab page, like this one, it increases the work, but it's likely that I can see the entire page through the pop-up tool I use (lupin's, I think??). If I have to search through a long dab page, well, that increases the work, and the time, and the frustration, immensely. So the more moves people choose to make like this one, the harder it is to actually create content. Why the hell people insist on "fixing" things in ways that make editing harder, that improve readability trivially-if-at-all, I'll never know. But I realise that content creation runs a distant second to consistency in this site and, after all, it's not like we're here to write an encyclopaedia or anything... Guettarda (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I appologise that I have offended you, but that comment was written before you or anyone else had expressed any reasons why two dab pages would have any benefit over one. Most of my work on Wikipedia is related to helping readers find the content they are looking for, and so I naturally approach things from the perspective of a reader rather than an editor and my view is firmly that what benefits a reader is of greater importance than things that are convenient for an editor. I use Lupin's popups myself, and a test of less than a minute shows that in this case the entire dab page is visible in the preview without even having to click a "more" link, so you will not actually be inconvenienced at all. I have tried googling to see what uses in the real world "mont." actually gets, but almost all I get (even without personalised results) is Mont Blanc and Mont Orgueil. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's because Google ignores punctuation in searches. So it's all the more important that Wikipedia provides a more sophisticated search system where "Mont." leads to the botanist! It's not just editors, the reader of a botanical article might want to check which botanist the taxonomic name was attributed to. Pam  D  08:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to know who the botanist is, they will follow the link to the botanists article as now. Whether Mont. is a disambiguation page with two entries, or a redirect to a disambiguation page with more entries is irrelevant to this usage as links in the articles should not lead to either. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge Mont and Mont., with Mont. remaining as a section redirect to that section of Mont. With respect to botanists, there is only going to be one for whom Mont. represents the correct nomenclature, and that is Camille Montagne. There should be no incoming links from Mont.; if they are created, they should immediately be fixed to point to Camille Montagne (unless they are intended for Montana, or are actually intended for some meaning of Mont, unpunctuated). bd2412  T 13:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, as there's now a dab page at Mont. there should be no incoming links. It was previously quite OK for there to be links to Mont., aimed at the botanist. The editor creating that dab page over an existing redirect should, as per the "Move" instructions, have followed up any existing "Mont." links intended for the botanist and piped them to the botanist (or any for Montana, for that matter). In other cases, like Mack., where there is no conflicting abbreviation, it's perfectly OK for there to be links to that redirect - see example at Kobresia simpliciuscula where we see "(Wahlenb.) Mack.". Pam  D  17:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It should not be a section redirect as the US state and the botanist will be in different sections of the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not have a section titled ===Mont.=== with a section redirect there? The page is short enough that it will be clear to see. bd2412  T 17:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that's contrary to how disambiguation pages are organised on Wikipedia and would mean duplicating the link to Montana and anything else rendered as "Mont" and "Mont.". It would also serve to lengthen the disambiguation page, which is precisely what Guettarda is arguing against. Thryduulf (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. If anything this disambiguation page draws attention to how any link made to it needs disambiguation, which a redirect (being an automatic blue link) won't do, causing people to just assume the link goes to the relevant page. Circéus (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Eh? Disambiguation pages are blue links just as much as redirects to disambiguation pages are. Links to both are shown in the whatlinkshere and (AIUI) are treated equally by various disambiguation tools (if they aren't then the tool really needs to be fixed to do so). Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Thryduulf. For most editors, disambiguation links and disambiguation redirects show up as blue links. For editors using a skin that calls out disambig links, it does so whether the link is a direct link or a redirect to a disambiguation page. bd2412  T 17:40, 13 January 2013 (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.