Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York State Route 399 (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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

New York State Route 399 (disambiguation)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

orphan disambiguation page with no ambiguous Wikipedia articles to disambiguate JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  —JHunterJ (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not needed until the proposed route actually comes closer to reality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that it actually was built, and is now US 9. Maybe New York State Route 399 (Westchester County) would be a better disambiguator? --NE2 23:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why this page was created to begin with. NY 399 originally redirected to Interstate 487, which was fine since that was the most recent and probably most prominent alignment (not truly sure whether it was actually signed as such or was proposed, but that's not the central point of my argument here). What I would have considered doing was to simply add a hatnote to the I-487 page saying "NY 399 redirects here, for the old NY 399 see X" since I'd imagine most readers looking for NY 399 would be looking for the Hudson River Expressway-related alignment. I'd delete this personally and add the dablink to I-487's article (or at least add it as a commented out line until the other article is made). –  T M F 23:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to New York State Route 399 and keep as a valid disambiguation of two topics. Someone linking to NY 399 will want to know which one to fix the link to point to. --NE2 23:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two ambiguous topics is not a valid disambiguation. Two Wikipedia articles are needed before a disambiguation page is needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in my experience, and not by common sense. Two topics that will have articles are all that is needed, to prevent future cleanup work. --NE2 01:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Where are you reading this? — CharlotteWebb 06:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:D: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles", not "possible Wikipedia article titles" or "future Wikipedia article titles". As ever, the future Wikipedia can provide the dabs needed in the future. This "future cleanup work" is good and desirable, not something to be avoided by unnecessary "present pre-cleanup work". -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move per NE2. The disambiguation page also helps establish the proper title for the future article. This is important as unfortunately it's not possible to redirect to page that doesn't exist yet. Links pointing to the ambiguous title need to know which red link is the correct target. As neither of them currently exist, 399 is no more likely to refer to one of these highways than the other, i.e. there is no primary topic. — CharlotteWebb 06:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is only one article, so it is the primary topic (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "... much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia", emphasis added). You can use red links to link to articles that don't exist yet; redirects to non-existent articles are unnecessary. Wikipedia cannot put all articles in their proper titles to account for every possible future article. Moving articles from titles that were correct to titles that will become correct in the future is a task for the future. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Think about it a bit. If we don't have this disambiguation page, how will we know what form the future article title will take, so we can link to it? --NE2 12:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Think about it a bit more. Once someone links to it (using whatever form they want for the future title) in a Wikipedia article, that article can be the blue link in the description for addition of the red link. But until then, you're trying to solve a problem that hasn't occurred yet. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's likely to be more than one article linking to it, and having the disambiguation helps match them. --NE2 13:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist yet. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears you're trying to ensure that said problem does arise. In any case there's no easy way to tell how many articles contain links which are meant to refer to the same topic despite being written differently. I'm not sure there is any clear naming convention for former state-highways belonging to an uncertain range of years. While dealing with a wide variety of educated guesses will be tedious either now or later, more of the links will follow the same pattern if the desired title is listed in plain sight on the disambiguation page. Having the disambiguation page will also help editors to notice which articles are missing yet, thereby hastening the day on which you can stop worrying about all this. — CharlotteWebb 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to New York State Route 399. The disambiguation page needs to still exist in order to direct the reader to the appropriate NY 399 (even though a link does not exist for one yet), but the "(disambiguation)" does not need to be in the title as New York State Route 399 does not redirect to one of the articles. Dough4872 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is contrary to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since the current primary (only) WP topic for "New York State Route 399" is Interstate 487. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I need to remind you that Wikipedia isn't exactly a reliable source for such linguistic claims as what a particular term primarily refers to. We should, as closely as possible, follow actual real-world usage rather than attempting to dictate it based on which article was written first or which topic is most interesting to us, etc. — CharlotteWebb 21:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:PRIMARYTOPIC isn't about what the non-Wikipedia primary topic for a phrase is; it's about what article is about the primary topic on Wikipedia for a phrase. And yes, Wikipedia consensus is exactly a reliable source for that, since it's the only source. But FWIW, which article was written first is not a determinant of primary topic; if and when another article comes along, there's nothing preventing it from being the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that ignorance is often a factor and that many topics will be unforeseen. However when we have a very good idea of which articles will be needed, we should build around this. It is unproductive to revert backward and conceal our present deficiencies, then revert forward again when the articles are created. — CharlotteWebb 02:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it is apparent that there was another NY 399 at one time, I'm going to have to agree with NE2. I say Move. DanTD (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder what the primary topic on Wikipedia for Georgia is [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] --NE2 23:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if editors were trying to create Georgia (disambiguation) before there were two articles to disambiguate. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm, good question Skull of a beef.png . I know it's a rhetorical one but since you asked, the disambiguation page did precede the second article by one minute, . — CharlotteWebb 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, effectively at the same time, which is a fine application of the need for disambiguation. The editor who was about to create the second article correctly created the disambiguation page just in time, not in advance for some hypothetical future neeed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - With only two entries, one red-linked, I don't see the need. IMO a hatnote on the existing article suffices. The comparisons with Georgia are moot, IMO. It's very likely that someone would type Georgia into a search box and not get the article they expected. The likelihood of that happening with a highway that doesn't even exist is much smaller. In other words, Georgia is a mainstream article, a former and future highway are niche articles likely to only be read by those interested in roads in the area.Dave (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If anything, the non-existing article is more likely, since, if I'm reading the article correctly, the existing article was not actually built as NY 399. --NE2 07:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. If someone would just create a stub for that redlink, we wouldn't be having this argument.  =)  Powers T 12:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I thought of that, but I don't have the sources. --NE2 13:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done - I trust you'll stop this silliness now? --NE2 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd help add sources, but I don't have any maps that actually show a NY 399 in Fulton County. The only maps that show it are in the possession of User:Mitchazenia, and he apparently quit USRD. –  T M F 19:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that you (NE2) have dropped the silliness of trying to disambiguate Wikipedia articles before there were ambiguous Wikipedia articles, yep, I'll continue to go with the disambiguation guidelines. Changed my !vote below. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You could always try thinking for yourself. — CharlotteWebb 14:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Common sense is "it takes two articles to be ambiguous". Glad you finally agree. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, is there anything you won't misrepresent? — CharlotteWebb 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. With just a redlink and a redirect, there is nothing to disambiguate. Even if an article is created for the redlink, the redirect can be covered by a hatnote and the dab page remains unnecessary. And while it's not the most solid argument, waiting for articles before using dab pages is the way things have always been done (it is one means by which we get users to the information we have as quickly as possible). Dekimasu よ! 01:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it? Our manual of style page on disambiguations specifically mentions redlinks and how to show them on a dab page.  Powers T 12:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You show them along with a blue link in the description that leads the reader to the existing article which, while not exclusively about it, at least identifies the subject and needs to be disambiguated. Not the case here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - a redirect would be circular. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the NE2 has stopped the earlier silliness of trying to dab things that weren't there and provided a second stub article to be disambiguated. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then let's remove the tag, close this board, and get it over with. DanTD (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed my !vote, but since there are other "delete" !votes, I can't simply close this "board". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2009 (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.