Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boston Massacre (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 delete. Sandstein 18:44, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Massacre (disambiguation)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do we really need a two-item disambiuation page here? Qwirkle (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add hatnote to relevant articles. We don't need such a short dab. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the poor formatting with Boston Massacre linked up top in bold is misleading, it's actually a three-term disambiguation. -Inowen (nlfte) 21:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more it isn’t, nor should it ever have been. Can you give any proof that this term is widely used for the Marathon Bombing? Qwirkle (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: Just a heads up I added the Marathon Bombing one back. I google searched "Boston Massacre" 2013 and came up with more than a few articles calling it the Second Boston Massacre. I did !vote delete on this, and if it does get deleted, I recommend adding the Boston Bombing article to the hatnote at Boston Massacre, since it's possible people might try to find the Boston Bombing article by searching our site for Boston Massacre. Cheers, cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DABPRIMARY: The primary topic is the one reached by using the disambiguation page title without the (disambiguation) qualifier... Since it is unlikely that this primary topic is what readers are looking for if they have reached the disambiguation page, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended that the link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence. (emphasis added) Boston Massacre is the primary topic, and thus should not be in the list but be a bolded item at the top. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwirkle: It was poorly formatted, with the bold term also linked. @Cymru, your analysis about the proper form of disambiguation pages is not correct, as I have read it. The disambiguation page has to have the main meaning of the term, in the list with the other terms. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: my comment quotes directly from the page. Per WP:DABPRIMARY, if the primary topic is hosted at the name of the topic [minus the (disambiguation) qualifier], it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended that the link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence.. I don't know how more clear it can get than a direct quote. I will change it back to keep with guidelines. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cymru: PS: Whoever wrote that doesn't know what they are talking about, and is probably trying to destroy Wikipedia in some way. Look at any few disambiguation page and see if they omit the main topic; they really shouldn't. Also people don't arrive at pages just from the main topic page, there are several ways that people arrive at disambiguation pages. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:20, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: Nowhere did I suggest omitting the main topic... Nor did my edit ever remove the main topic. Point to me where I said that, or where the guideline page said that. These guidelines are agreed upon by the thousands of editors who have contributed to forming community consensus. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cymru: I honor that you were referencing someone else's writing, and that that writing which was of poor form did not come from you Cymru. You should not reference it, you should bring it up at the policy meetings and point out how it is flawed. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Inowen: How is a Wikipedia guideline that has been around for years that has the backing of community consensus reprehensible? Of note, it doesn't say to leave out the primary topic, as you seem to be convinced it does. And the place to raise an issue with a guideline or policy is on its talk page, not in an AfD. Also, FYI, referring to me as "Cymru" means you're calling me Wales. I am not a country. It's cymru.lass. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment at the guideline page. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Disambiguation_form. Please continue this discussion there. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Could be handled by hatnote as it was until recently, or by this dab page. Note that dab page is MOS-compliant as I type: leave it that way. PamD 10:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Removed the marathon entry per MOS:DABMENTION. Disambiguation of the baseball rivalry can be handled with a hatnote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, add information to the marathon bombing article covering the "Boston Massacre" use, and after that add the entry to the disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
. One primary topic + one baseball entry - one entry not called that = delete per WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and amend hatnote at primary topic. I agree with Clarityfiend and others. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I'm not sure that a hatnote is even necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:07, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.