Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 5[edit]

Utah Territory's At-large congressional district[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Article restored. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dispute among two editors on if to keep the redirect. All information on redirected article is included in targeted article, plus targeted article has more information... Case of "Sub-topics which are described or listed within a wider article." Other editor says, "Please see other Territorial delegations from other districts. The format I've been editing is consistent with those." Bgwhite (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article. I see no reason to have merged the page into the list-article about Congressional delegations from the state of Utah. The main argument for deleting the article and redirecting it seems to be that it currently doesn't have a lot of content that isn't also in the list article. However, it is reasonable to expect that more information will be found to expand the coverage of this Congressional district, similar to other Wikipedia articles about obsolete Congressional districts in former U.S. territories that later became states. --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to the stand alone article. I also agree to restore the article to the stand alone article rather than link to a redirect to the United States congressional delegations from Utah as it now sits. The stand alone article keeps the same general format as every other United States Territorial delegation list. The editor that has created the redirect has failed to show any examples of redirects that illustrate his format point. I suggested a better place to use United States congressional delegations from Utah is to use as the redirect from Utah's congressional districts as is currently listed........Pvmoutside (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to the stand alone article per discussions above. We have articles about other territorial districts. This article may someday expand to include greater information, too.—Markles 00:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore stand alone article per Markles and Pvmoutside. We need to be consistent and there are articles for all of the other territorial at large districts.DCmacnut<>
  • Restore to standalone article. Article could be expanded to include history, maps, and other detail that would not be present in the article to which it is being redirected. See Oregon Territory's At-large congressional district for an example. --Esprqii (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

U.S. House or Representatives Committee on Agriculture[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was linked only from Richard Pombo; link was removed; it is an implausible typographical error that nobody would ever make. Anomalocaris (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

National Historic District[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Disambiguate. If there are remaining issues remaining with the wording (though there does seem to be general consensus), that should be handled at the dab's talk page. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "National Historic District" as a coined, incorrect phrase, used in some practice out in the world by some local nonprofits and others not hip to the correct terms. I cleaned out all usages of this term in wikipedia in 2007 and set up this as a disambiguation page, but was then overruled by a redirect to National Register of Historic Places being set up. I see now that 50 or so usages have crept back in, facilitated by the existence of the redirect. What is meant is either National Historic Landmark District or Historic district (United States) perhaps. Propose revising all the current usages and deleting the redirect. doncram (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Whether it is "correct" or not, the term is used... and is thus a viable search term. Thus, having this term redirect somewhere is appropriate... the only question is where to point it to. Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it is a made-up, false term, a coined phrase that sounds like something official, when it is not. Having a redirect facilitates the term being used in Wikipedia. I propose removing the redirect. A possible alternative, not my preferred, would be to make it a disambiguation page as i had set up in 2007, because any links to it will be flagged and attacked by disambiguation-focused editors. However the disambiguation page would itself probably have to say the term is an invalid term which should not be used in wikipedia, and that rankled an editor in 2007. So i prefer deleting the term, and having an edit summary for its removal point to this RFD discussion as a record. --doncram (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the previous disambiguation page was:

National Historic District is a term that has been used loosely in some wikipedia articles, but which should not be used for United States sites. There is no such official term for the United Sites, although it may be a term in some other country. Perhaps what is meant is:

And Historic district (United States) is now another alternative. These options should be considered in the editing to remove mention of "National Historic District" from wikipedia now. --doncram (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... You may have to explain in more detail, for those of us that are not familiar with the terminology of the topic area... I know that the NRHP lists "districts" ... so what is the correct terminology for these districts? Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace redirect with a disambiguation page. I agree with Doncram that the redirect is problematic, not only because it is a bit of a Wikipedia neologism but because it is very US-centric. The disambiguation page should be recreated, but it needs to be properly set up (which the version that Doncram describes above was not) and it needs to be global in its scope. The correct term for the concept that Blueboar appears to be trying to use this redirect for would be "National Register of Historic Places historic district".
    Note that the topic of the article historic district (United States) is not limited to National Register historic districts, as the article also discusses state and local historic districts. Thus, even if this were a US-specific encyclopedia (which it is not), that article would not be a good target for a "National Historic District" redirect. The article historic district also is US-centric, as the specific term "historic district" seems to be strongly associated with the U.S. That article could be revised and expanded to incorporate more discussion of the correlated concepts and terminology used in heritage preservation efforts in other countries, such as "historic areas"[1] and "historic landscapes" in the UK. [2] --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - I have created a model page for consideration. It's still too US-centric and would welcome suggestions to fix this. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for boldly starting that. I've edited your page a bit, including making the addition of a Canadian item. Now that National Historic District has been repurposed as a disambiguation page, the discussion of it in WP:RfD may seem odd, but I think it makes sense to continue it here rather than restarting it elsewhere. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the drafted disambiguation page unfortunately gives a Wikipedia approval for a bogus phrase. A quick google search now, just like in 2007, turns up only bogus, incorrect usages by local newspapers and local nonprofits who don't know what they are talking about. For example, the first hits on "National Historic District" are: 
The Fort Worth Stockyards National Historic DistrictThe area's many shops, restaurants, night clubs, rodeos, stock shows, historical landmarks and events.
www.fortworthstockyards.org/ - Cached - SimilarGet more results from the past 24 hours
Bentonsport Iowa National Historic District in the Villages of Van ...Bentonsport was thriving when the state of Iowa was born, and still retains the atmosphere of years gone by. Welcome to our village . . . where you can ...
www.bentonsport.com/ - Cached - SimilarFairmount National Historic DistrictLocated in the heart of Fort Worth, Texas lies the largest historic neighborhood in the southwestern United States. Fairmount, with more than one thousand ...
www.historicfairmount.com/ - Cached - SimilarGaslamp Quarter - San Diego, CA 92101 - A National Historic ...A National Historic District and Entertainment Destination. ... and our beautiful Victorian National Historic District ...
www.gaslamp.org/ - Cached - SimilarWelcome to Shenandoah at WarSep 20, 2010 ... The Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation works to protect 10 battlefields in the National Historic District through land and ...
www.shenandoahatwar.org/ - Cached - SimilarIrvington neighborhood now a national historic districtNov 2, 2010 ... The neighborhood joins 14 historic districts across the city also listed on the national register. The honor also could put the district and ...
www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id... - Cached

These are not reliable sources that there is any such thing as a proper noun "National Historic District"! There is no correct use of the phrase! There is no WikiDictionary definition of this, because it does not exist!

The current drafted disambiguation page is:

The term National Historic District is an unofficial designation that may refer to a historic district, heritage district, historic area, or heritage area.[citation needed]

In Canada
In the United States

It is false, there is no unofficial designation of this name. Who says it may refer to any of those things? Please provide some reference! It would be wp:OR on our part to go forward with an assertion like that, that the phrase means anything. I appreciate the effort taken to come up with a disambiguation page, but I don't believe it works. I think it would make a bad contribution, would become the top Google hit, that Wikipedia proclaims that there is such a thing.

If there is a page in wikipedia on this topic, i would rather it consist of original, accurate research, instead, stating something like:

The term National Historic District is a false phrase that is erroneously used by several non-profits and local newspapers, when they meant to refer to a historic district listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or some other type of historic district. Examples of such poor reporting include:

  • The webpage of the Fort Worth Stockyards, which claims incorrectly that it is a "Fort Worth Stockyards National Historic District".[3]
  • The webpage of Bentonsport, Iowa, which claims it has a "Bentonsport Iowa National Historic District",

[4]

  • [insert some more pathetic examples here]

However, that would be a poor Wikipedia article, and should not appear in mainspace either. Perhaps a subpage of WikiProject NRHP could be used to debunk the term. But the term needs to be deleted from everywhere it has crept back into wikipedia, including deleting of the redirect, IMO. --doncram (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are aware that your recent creation at National Historic District was a piece of junk unworthy of an encyclopedia, Doncram. I don't know what to say about text like the following, other than to tell you I reverted your entire essay:
"The term National Historic District is a term that appears in some inaccurate local newspaper articles and uninformed, unreliable webpages, in referring to some historic districts that are listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. There do exist official historic districts of various designations in various countries (see Historic districts for more information. However none of them use this proper noun term. There is no official page of the U.S. National Park Service or its National Register of Historic Places program which uses this term."
To address your concerns, I changed "may" to "might" to eliminate any impression that Wikipedia is giving people permission to use this term, and I changed "unofficial" to "informal", not that I'm sure why you were offended by "unofficial." I don't know what-all came over you to cause you write that stuff, but (whatever the cause) I suggest that you refrain from editing while you are under its influence. --Orlady (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the drafted disambiguation page; you don't care to try to work with an essay-type article with sources which I was sorta trying (though clearly conveyed here i would not like it either). Okay, fine. I reverted the page to being the redirect in place for several years. You can call my half-hearted try whatever you want; i call the drafted disambiguation page as trash not worthy of wikipedia either. Do let's discuss here. My proposal is to delete. I am progressing through the Wikipedia articles that link to this page and deleting their links to it. --doncram (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Bridgeplayer has restored the content that Doncram deleted. --Orlady (talk) 03:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine. I inserted a "Disputed" tag, as that page's assertion "The term National Historic District is an informal designation that might refer to a historic district, heritage district, historic area, or heritage area." is either false or speculative, original research. It's bogus. Of the Wikipedia articles which i have visited to remove the phrase from so far, what was meant is a "historic district that is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places". In wikipedia usage (which will all be eliminated anyhow) it does not mean any of those other things that the current page asserts it might mean.
And, I will post notice of this discussion at WikiProject Disambiguation, to bring some disambiguation experts into the discussion. Hopefully they will comment on the suitability or not of Wikipedia having a dab page coining a new phrase, with no entries on the dab page that are valid in terms of being legitimate synonyms for the bogus phrase. --doncram (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Seeing that more than 50 Wikipedia pages linked to National Historic District and that "national historic district" (in quotation marks) gets 415,000 ghits (not all of which actually include this term, but many of which use the term as a proper noun), I believe Wikipedia can provide substantial value to users and contributors by retaining this title as a disambiguation page that will help contributors and users find the article that best matches the topic that led them to the page. Furthermore, although the term is a misnomer, I notice that the term does appear on some official US government websites, such as this BLM site about a Nevada historic district and this website about a proposed National Park Service grant. --Orlady (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been removing links to the term from articles, articles which i find uniformly to be among the most shoddy, awful Wikipedia articles about NRHP-listed places, showing many additional failings, written apparently by wikipedians particularly uninformed about historic districts. There is not one article which refers to a place in Canada, or to a local historic district, so two of the elements of the proposed disambiguation page seem completely false: there is no known usage of the term refering to either or them. Soon there will be zero links from Wikipedia mainspace. --doncram (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: There are now zero mainspace Wikipedia pages linking to this term. None of the ones i fixed (by removing the term) referred to a place in Canada, or to a local historic district, or to a National Heritage Area, so 3 of the 5 suggested terms on a disambiguation page have no support. The two "official" pages suggested by Orlady are for a Bureau of Land Management page and for a Department of the Interior page that show oblivious, bureaucratic indifference for the correct terms used by the National Park Service and the National Register of Historic Places. So what? Do you want for a wikipedia page to condone and promote an incorrect usage that shows up in some local nonprofits and some relatively out-of-it other government agency references? I don't believe there is reliable sourcing for the topic to be included in Wikipedia, and there is no need for a disambiguation page on the topic. --doncram (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, hypothetically that could be good. But, what would appear on the disambiguation page? There are no usages of this term in Wikipedia. No possible item on a disambiguation page would be a valid target. The suggested disambiguation page includes just items that one or two editors guessed might be meant by an uninformed editor. Note that for disambiguation pages that you might be familiar with such as Masonic Building, Masonic Temple (disambiguation), and Masonic Lodge (disambiguation), there are valid entries to be included on those pages, which are places that actually have that proper noun name. If a reader clicked on one of those entries, they would go to a page showing that proper noun term. In this case, there are no Wikipedia articles that a reader could be taken to, which would use the term.
So for !votes like this in favor of a disambiguation page to be considered, I think the voter needs to be more specific about what disambiguation page they think would be valid. --doncram (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current version of National Historic District disambiguates without editorializing. --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To reply, the current version, now with "disputed" tag restored, is, with numbers for reference inserted:

The term National Historic District is an informal designation that might refer to a historic district, heritage district, historic area, or heritage area.

In Canada
In the United States

However, every entry on that proposed disambiguation page needs to be deleted from it. For (1), (4), (5), i challenge anyone to find any usage of the term in that way, in past Wikipedia usage or in any website out there. I assure you I did not find any such usage within Wikipedia while i was removing other usages. So I hope it should be consensus-clear that those items should be removed from the page. For (2) and (3), the reader would be directed to articles that do not use the term, and it would condone usage of the term by editors in other articles. I don't think that is helpful. --doncram (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to write a graduate dissertation in support of a disambiguation page. However, I will respond regarding item (1). There are some "historic districts" designated as "National Historic Sites" in Canada -- for example, there are several such on List of National Historic Sites of Canada in Nova Scotia. None of the Nova Scotia historic districts is currently the subject of an article that uses "Historic District" in the title, but it is very reasonable to think that people might call any one of them a "national historic district" for the same reason that the various U.S. historic districts are sometimes given that designation. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help people find information they are looking for, so it is reasonable for the page to list all pages that are plausible destinations for someone looking for information about the topic "national historic district." --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC) And regarding item (4), it turns out that there is a U.S. National Park Service National Heritage Area that has the official name Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District.[5] It doesn't appear to have an article, though. --Orlady (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About (1), I don't think your argument that conceivably someone might make the mistake, when no one ever has done so, is enough to include the Canada item in any disambiguation page. At most, have a See also section pointing to the Historic district article, which can/should cover historic districts in many countries.
About (4), i think may have found another stray, isolated case of a local nonprofit positively choosing to adopt a name that includes the phrase, like the Fort Worth Stockyards case. Or another case of some nonprofit webpages being in error, even in their own view. To be charitable, we could say the Fort Worth Stockyards apparently chooses on its own to call itself Fort Worth Stockyards National Historic District, when in fact there is a historic district listed on the National Register under a different name. We could accept that they can name themselves whatever they want, which is different than accepting their making a false claim to be part of some national program that doesn't exist. The Shenandoah nonprofit behind Shenandoah at War seems to self-identify its area, which is NOT NRHP-listed under any name that i can find, as a National Historic District, but that seems like an erroneous usage, which we do not have to accept. If in fact they choose to name their own National Heritage Area as "Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District" (which is not entirely clear to me that they do), we could accept that also. That [6] webpage is inadequate to show that there is a place named "Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District". It appears to be a bad webpage about some "Shenandoah Valley Battlefields" area, containing no information, with a stray, disconnected phrase "National Historic District". There is no content to the page and no author apparent; it is an "NPS stub" that appears unreliable.
So, perhaps there could be a disambiguation page listing nonprofits that have actually included the term "National Historic District" in their own name, with a "See also" section pointing to the National Register and to the historic district article? --doncram (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that you will be writing a long letter to the National Park Service castigating them for the "bad webpage" about that Shenandoah national heritage area. I'm sure it will help you win friends at the NPS. In the meantime, since you are not convinced that the site truly uses that name, you can verify it by looking at the pull-down list of National Heritage Areas on http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/ --Orlady (talk) 20:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find your sarcasm not to be funny, rather it seems obnoxious and personally-oriented. Orlady, your cumulative editing history following me around and contending as you do has amounted to wikihounding -- following an editor with intent to undermine their experience -- at times. You are aware of my perception of that, yet you continue. You play fairly successfully with what are the clear limits of editor behavior. Don't be a jerk again here in this discussion. Why choose to be that way?
About errors in NPS webpages, I have indeed corresponded with the NPS about other of its webpages which led to their making corrections. You have yourself bitingly dismissed the accuracy of various NPS webpages in the past. It's no big deal that, among their thousands of webpages, there is a stray page with no valid information, which cannot be relied upon as a valid source, like there is no big deal that stub articles in Wikipedia exist. But I do see now that there is a Word document listing the National Heritage Areas fairly officially, available by link from here. Thanks for pointing me near to that. --doncram (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are on the wrong track here... the simple fact is that the term "National Historic District" exists. It is used, whether that usage is "correct" or not. People are going to see that term in sources, and they will come to Wikipedia to find out what it means. This means we need to account for it in some way. The question is, what is the best way to account for it? Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this recent use, referring to the Beckley Courthouse Square Historic District. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, an incorrect usage by a local newspaper. I know of local newspaper claims that some local building is a National Historic Landmark, when it is not, when it instead is merely listed on the National Register. We don't change the National Historic Landmark article to state that it has sometimes been mistakenly thought to be something else. There are indeed a good handful of incorrect local usages out there, which should not be introduced into wikipedia. --doncram (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Redirects and disambiguation pages help people to find articles. If the term is out there, people are going to come looking for it, and shouldn't be left high and dry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to think a dab page listing the few odd nonprofits that include "National Historic District" in their own name, could be okay. With clear conveyance that the term is not the name of any official program of any national government. How about something like:

National Historic District is a phrase used within the names of several nonprofit organizations, including:

  • Fort Worth Stockyards, whose webpages call it "Fort Worth Stockyards National Historic District"
  • [any other explicit examples]

See also:

--doncram (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of this discussion has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#RFD about what is now a disambiguation page, National Historic District and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Historic sites#RFD about what is now a disambiguation page, National Historic District and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#National Historic District as a phrase. --doncram (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NHD section break[edit]
Those links show incorrect usages within the NPS, which has its own disagreements within itself. Those same type of NPS webpages, written by NPS editors or consultants to be reader friendly and informal, were rejected as being valid sources in a previous long debate of whether Wikipedia can use the term Registered Historic Place. That debate concluded with renaming all the NRHP list-articles to use the term "National Register of Historic Places listing" instead. The informal nature of these webpages is clear if you examine them. For example one mentions "Roosevelt National Historic District" when what is being referred to is the NRHP-listed Roosevelt Lodge Historic District at Yellowstone National Park, in Wyoming. I don't think it is a reliable source for suggesting that "Roosevelt National Historic District" exists as an alternative name, or for asserting that there is any "National Historic District" program. They might add up to supporting a disambiguation page statement that in informal usage, the NPS has sometimes referred to historic districts listed on the National Register as being "National Historic Districts". --doncram (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably correct that these are technically "incorrect" or "informal" uses by the NPS, and I would probably agree that National Historic District would not be a good article title. But the point is that the phrase is used and redirects need not be the correct or formal name; they are merely navigation aids to get people to where they can learn the correct name. For example, there are often redirects from misspellings or incorrect punctuation. Station1 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Doncram's analogy to "registered historic place" (a term that does not currently appear on any NPS website) and "registered historic places" (a term that does show up on a few NPS websites), the issue was whether or not Wikipedia articles and categories should treat "Registered Historic Places" as an official term and a proper noun. This informal/nonofficial term was largely (but still not completely) expunged from article titles, text, and category names, but it was retained as a redirect -- for essentially the same reason that "National Historic District" needs to be retained as a disambiguation page. --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after i have created several articles, how about the following as a disambiguation page:

National Historic District is a phrase used within the names of several nonprofit organizations, including:

  • Fort Worth Stockyards, which is listed as a historic district on the NRHP, whose webpage calls itself "Fort Worth Stockyards National Historic District"
  • Bentonsport, Iowa, which is listed as a historic district on the NRHP, whose webpage calls itself "Bentonsport National Historic District"
  • Fairmount-Southside Historic District, Fort Worth, Texas, which is listed as a historic district on the NRHP, whose webpage title, in a possible typographical error, calls itself the "Fairmount National Historic District", while the webpage body names itself the "Fairmount Historic District"
  • Gaslamp Quarter, San Diego, which is listed as a historic district on the NRHP, whose webpage describes itself as "A National Historic District and Entertainment Destination"
  • Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District, a National Heritage Area which is not listed on the NRHP, and which is the only National Heritage Area whose official name includes the word sequence "National Historic District"

The phrase has also been used within certain informal webpages of the U.S. National Park Service, and in local newspaper stories, to refer to historic districts that are listed on the NRHP.

See also

This could be refined, but I think it is good in that it does not condone use of the phrase while it does not outright state anything negative about it. It also does not erroneously suggest that there are common other usages where in fact there is not. --doncram (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not for a disambiguation page for the term National Historic District. These are almost all partial title matches and do not belong on a dab page, which is meant for readers looking for an article that is or could be titled simply National Historic District. No one would be looking for the Fort Worth Stockyards under that title or expect to find an article about the Gaslamp Quater by linking to it. We need only to redirect to the National Register of Historic Places or have a short dab page listing only those articles that could conceivably be mistakenly titled National Historic District, in other words articles about the concept, not specific locations. Station1 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that 4 of those specific entries are just partial title matches, and the Gaslamp Quarter one is just an example of one published instance of the incorrect usage. However, I think any resolution here is going to have some drawbacks, whether being a technical violation of disambiguation page current policy/practices or something else, like giving undue acceptance to an incorrect term. The idea to provide a dab like that, though, does serve to convey that there is no general "National Historic District" term and I don't think it very important not to violate the general practice of avoiding partial matches. I basically oppose having a dab page on the proper noun term because it gives acceptance of the term, and we should not be providing that acceptance.
I dunno, do you think a new short section in the National Register of Historic Places article should be created to cover the term (and that it is occasionally used/misused, etc.)? If that would be created, and if it would survive in that article, then I would agree that could be the target of a redirect. I'll mention this idea at Talk:National Register of Historic Places#National Historic District. --doncram (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, we have _lots_ of reliable sources saying there's a general "National Historic District" term. Just because it's not an official designation of the NRHP doesn't mean it's not in use. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the key... while the NRHP does not use the term, other people do. The NRHP is not the be all and end all of historic preservation. The fact that the NRHP not use a term does not mean that those who do use it are in "error" (and usage of the term is not a form of heresy - to be stamped out and wiped from the face of the Earth) Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, could you name any such reliable sources? I don't think any of the local newspapers, the local nonprofits, or even the several informal NPS webpages are reliable sources about the term. Just because you have several instances of a typo or grammar error being used, that does not make it part of the English language. Wikipedia should not be performing the original research of saying that a term has been used enough to now become part of the language. There is no source unearthed in this discussion that documents that it is a term satisfactorily enough to rely upon as a source in a Wikipedia article about the subject. I suggested elsewhere that the NRHP article could be adjusted to mention the term, but i hesitate to make that adjustment, because there is no adequate source.... To quote wp:Neologism:

Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead.

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.

I think there should neither be a regular article about this term, nor a disambiguation page. I am not aware of specific policy statement regarding dab pages on neologisms, but think that creating a dab should not be allowed as it is a back-handed way to introduce a neologism into wikipedia. --doncram (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Station1 as redirect or dab. "National Historic District" is, and has been, a commonly used term in the United States referring to historic districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Irregardless of whether it is an official term of the US National Park Service or not, it appears in literature and sigage of many local historic societies and municipalities (see here, or just do a Google search), clearly without instilling widespread confusion, panic, and lawbreaking. These are the organizations that themselves are often the ones that applied for the NRHP status for these districts, and are not unfamiliar with official terms, but apparently more resilient to punctiliousness. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I did that same Google search, and found the top hits to be the pretty lame local nonprofits which i included in the draft dab page consisting of partial matches. I don't think any of those show that there is a National Historic District program in the U.S.; they just are several instances of the same typo. --doncram (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you pls. be more specific about what you are suggesting? Since you are half-suggesting a redirect, do you mean that as a redirect to National Register of Historic Places, or somewhere else? (I just note, the Shenandoah Battlefields case is one where the area termed a "National Historic District" is not NRHP-listed. Otherwise, all of the specific cases i've seen turn out to be historic districts listed on the NRHP, though some of them are further designated National Historic Landmark Districts. So all but one case covered, so far, is a U.S. place listed on the NRHP.) Since you are half-suggesting a dab, which drafted one of those above do you mean, or what content would you suggest? There are different editors who accept one version of dab but oppose the other versions, already. If no dab can be agreed upon, I would prefer we delete the page entirely, which was my original proposal. --doncram (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: By my tally, 7 people have participated in this discussion. Six of those people support keeping the page in some form. Only one (Doncram) supports deleting it. The fact that the six people who support keeping it in some form have not stated universal agreement regarding the exact form and content for the page is not a reason to the delete the page. Although it's still early in the discussion process, the best conclusion for this WP:RfD might be to close it early as "No deletion" and reconvene at Talk:National Historic District to resolve any remaining questions about the form and content of the page. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I perceive you as intentionally negative towards me personally, i.e. as personally biased, and I think you should not be closing this discussion. This is an open decision process advertised in a couple places, within the RFD medium that will eventually bring an outside judgment basically on the merits. Moving the discussion -- which i think has been somewhat productive -- would just put it somewhere with fewer participants where personal biases unrelated to the basic topic would likely have more sway. Deciding upon anything-but-what-doncram-originally-suggested would accomplish a side goal, perhaps, of publicly dissing me, but is not a solution.
I'd rather come back to considering what is a more complete solution here, whether that is a specific redirect (say to a section of the National Register of Historic Places article which could be created now), or whether that is a specific dab page, or whether it is deletion of the redirect/article as i had originally proposed. --doncram (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't personal, Doncram, although I don't think anyone can prevent you from interpreting it that way. And I never suggested that I would so much as consider closing the RfD myself. --Orlady (talk) 03:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate without editorializing. The term is used, regardless of pointyheaded notions of correctness. Goal is to help readers find what they are looking for. older ≠ wiser 02:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What specific language for a disambiguation page do you suggest (or what version can you point to as seeming acceptable to you)? What about wp:Neologism which i quote above. Wouldn't a dab page on the term be a back-handed way of introducing a neologism into Wikipedia? --doncram (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a term has been used since at least 1987, I really don't think you can claim it as a neologism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in the definition of neologism that says an occasional mistaken use in 1987 and some others since, means that the term has entered the English language. Show me a dictionary definition, please, or any reliable source discussing it, as a term. I'm sure many people over the years have misspelled "occasional" as "occaisional", say, but that does not put the latter into the language. The topic term is not even in Wiktionary. The example you point to is another local newspaper usage. You wouldn't go further to suggest that the term would be valid for a regularly Wikipedia article now, would you? I think if it is a neologism, not even defined anywhere, then there should not be a dab for it. This reminds me of a lot of debate about "Masonic temple" and other terms, where it was argued that if the term does not exist as a Wikipedia article, then there could not be a "List of" article about instances of that, but several parties commenting here were on different sides there, vs. where they are here. --doncram (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support a separate article for "National Historic District" (nor a stand alone "List of National Historic Districts")... as I don't think the topic is notable enough for its own article. But, as has been pointed out to me on several occasions, dab pages and redirects are not articles, they are navigational aids. The simple fact is, the term is used, and seems to be used relatively widely. Thus we must account for that usage. If this were used purely to refer to NRHP listed historic districts, I would say a simple redirect would be in order. Since it appears to be used to refer to national historic districts as well (in Canada for example) a then a dab page is in order. Question... would it be acceptable to have the dab page not capitalized... appearing as: National historic district so it did not seem to be an "offical" proper name? Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i would appreciate that, i.e. not capitalizing, as helping to prevent the idea that that wikipedia is endorsing/recognizing some formal term. To keep the record straight, I don't think there have been any examples given (within Wikipedia or outside Wikipedia) where anyone mistakenly used the term to refer to a Canadian historic site, though. --doncram (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to rename the page with the lower-case name, then retain National Historic District as a redirect to National historic district. Right now, the lower-case version is a redirect to Historic district (United States), which is inappropriate because that article is not solely about nationally designated districts. --Orlady (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I missed something above, all uses of National Historic District (with one possible exception, Shenandoah) refer to places listed on the NRHP, and there are no known uses of national historic district other than one incoming link (University of New England Portland campus, which might or might not be a NHRP district). Therefore National Historic District should probably redirect to National Register of Historic Places, or, if not, be a dab page at the more often used capitalized title with national historic district redirecting there. Station1 (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different view from Station1, a disambiguation-skilled/focused editor. Just noting, there is not consensus among "all other parties besides Doncram" here, as one editor seemed to want to suggest further above. There is no dab page proposal which has consensus so far, by my tally. --doncram (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I went to the trouble of Googling for "national historic district Canada" (not in quotation marks), and at or near the top of the results list I found the Stephen Avenue National Historic District in Calgary, said to be "ne of only three National Historic Districts in Canada,"[15], the Medicine Hat Clay Industries National Historic District,[16] the Battle Harbor National Historic District,[17], and "National Historic District" tours in Annapolis, Nova Scotia.[18] This underlines the need for this to be a disambiguation page that includes the possibility of non-U.S. topics -- not a redirect to a U.S.-specific topic. I'm restoring the Canadian and "other nation" entries to the disambiguation page. --Orlady (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another redirect target option is Property type (National Register of Historic Places)#Historic districts, which is a section about U.S. NRHP-listed historic districts only, which seems to cover all the known mistaken uses of the "National Historic District" term besides the one Shenandoah Battlefields odd case. The Historic district (United States) article is indeed about a broader set, including the NRHP-listed ones but also state and locally designated historic districts. I revised the "Property type (National Register of Historic Places)#Historic districts" section just now to mention that some of those are National Historic Landmark Districts, towards making it be a suitable target for "National Historic District". I am not sure, but will this do for a redirect target, along with dropping any dab page? --doncram (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern is that someone searching for information on "National Historic District" will end up at some appropriate article. If a redirect will work better than a dab, I have no objections. If a dab will work better than a redirect, I have no objections. My only objection would be to a complete delete of the term. Blueboar (talk) 01:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I think that's the consensus I see above. Station1 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the redirect method because that sanctions use of the bogus term in wikipedia; a dab will lead disambiguation-focused editors to root out those uses. And, the first use in a dab should point to historic district listed on the United States National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the only target that actually describes historic districts listed on the U.S. NRHP. If it's agreed that will be kept (i noticed it was deleted perhaps unintentionally in an edit about something else, and i just restored it), then i am okay with the dab. This discussion was productive. Thanks! --doncram (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not care whether the term is "bogus" or not ("bogus" is a matter of opinion, not fact.) The term may not be "official", there may be a better, more accurate term... but the term itself exists. Because the term is used by sources beyond Wikipedia, we have to account for it in Wikipedia. We have to "sanction its use" in Wikipedia... the only question is how to do so. Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

End of part one[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to End of Part One. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is diverting users away from the primary 'End of Part One' article and leading them to a page about a specific 'Wet Wet Wet' album. The primary article already contains a disambiguation link to the album. Mrstonky (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_5&oldid=1138577238"