Talk:Red Clay (disambiguation)

Paring entries

The manual of style for disambiguation pages specifies that entries that have the disambiguated term as only part of the name should not be created. This is somewhat awkward in this case, since only one of the six current entries qualifies, and no format seems to be ideal. However, I don't think that we want to just leave things out of order without marking, as it would sit as bad example, encouraging further unqualified entries on this and other DAB pages. If there's precedent for this situation, please inform. In the meantime, something should be done rather than nothing. ENeville (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If your surmise is correct, then you should be nominating this for deletion because the proposed result is not a disambiguation page. I suggest that your surmise is faulty and this is a case where ignoring rules is preferable to simplistic adherence to rules that are not entirely appropriate for the circumstances. older ≠ wiser 02:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion is one of several possibilities that would seem reasonable to me, but not the only one. Regarding your edit comments of 02:53, 23 December 2008, and 20:49, 29 November 2008, the argument that exceptions are valid can be made in every case; what distinguishes any one of the additional entries as cases for exception here? Also regarding your edit comments, I suggest that the use of pejorative terms such as "blind", "mindless", and "stupid" is not productive. ENeville (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious we disagree. Wikipedia is not rules-based. Guidelines exist to provide general guidance, not to dictate every possible eventuality. When following rules produces nonsensical results, as in this case, an exception is warranted. older ≠ wiser 13:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed guidelines based, the point being to have a consistent presentation of information for ease of access, particularly for a referral page as a dab. What is "nonsensical" about the results in this case? More pertinently, what is more sensible about having non-ambiguous entries listed as if disambiguated, rather than under See also? Perhaps a page listing articles starting with "red clay" would be fitting? ENeville (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines exist to be helpful. When following guidelines to the letter produces nonsensical results, that it a very good reason to ignore them. It is nonsensical to have a disambiguation page for a primary topic in which the only terms listed are in a see also section. older ≠ wiser 03:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't address why it would be more sensible to list unambiguous page titles as if they were ambiguous, but rather seems to argue for deleting the page. As I said initially, I'm not excited by any of the options I see available in this case. However, we already have enough of a problem with people inserting unambiguous entries on dab pages without having another example full of exceptions to mislead people.

Acceptable possibilities I see:

• Edited to MOS:DAB standards
• Moved to List of red clay articles (or such)
• Marked for cleanup
• Deletion

Perhaps there's another? ENeville (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP:IAR and leave well enough alone. older ≠ wiser 01:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Leave well enough alone" seems like the antithesis of the spirit behind IAR, not to mention Wikipedia generally. ENeville (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

How so? Following the letter of the rules results in a bizarre disambiguation page where all the entries are in a see also section. Seems that is precisely what IAR is about. WP policies and guidelines are not prescriptions that anticipate every eventuality. older ≠ wiser 21:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

I third opinion was requested at WP:3O, an informal process to resolve disputes between two editors. Have reviewed MOS:DAB, in particular Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Examples of individual entries that should not be created and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Lists. This disambig page is precisely the thing that is to be avoided, as none of the other entries are known only as "Red Clay", but by their full names. For the alternative suggestions: "Move to List of red clay articles" is just renaming a disambig page, while "Mark for cleanup" also does not accomplish anything. The option I recommend is that this page be nominated for deletion and be considered by a community debate, if needed. Thanks! (EhJJ)^TALK 00:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is an option if given due process. However, at least one of the entries, Red Clay Consolidated School District, is explicitly indicated as being known as simply "Red Clay", while the others arguably do merit inclusion. Streams such as Red Clay Creek are regularly included on disambiguation pages. The others, while in a longer disambiguation page might be clearly unacceptable, on shorter disambiguation pages, similar entries are routinely included. older ≠ wiser 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

While deletion is not by default ideal, in my opinion, in the interest of resolution I have so nominated this article. ENeville (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The result of deletion discussion was keep, so I will readdress the issue of what is best for the article. Specifically, for a third time, what makes including partial title matches as if disambiguated an improvement over listing them in See also? The advantage of excluding them from disambiguted listing is that it avoids conditioning people to expect such entries there, which facilitates maintenance of dab pages generally, thereby making Wikipedia easier to use. ENeville (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)