Actions

Talk

non-dab entries::Local

::concepts

Keithlaw::december    Small::cryptic    Local::local    Tedernst::digame    Really::links    Articles::entries

non-dab entries None of these entries belongs on the "local" dab page. They all have "local" in the name so could appear in the "see also" section, but none are ambiguous with the others. What to do with this page? Tedernst | talk 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with your sentiment ... but even the links I added are somewhat tenuous connections to the word "local." Is it better to have no page under Local? Or should we leave what's there now, since deleting the page will probably just lead to someone else creating a new page there down the road? My inclination is to leave it as is, perhaps by pruning the Astronomy links a little bit. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's probably fine to leave it, perhaps removing the astronomy category. You're right that someone will simply re-create. Not sure what should be here. Maybe a soft redirect to wiktionary would do? Tedernst | talk 22:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • That's actually a perfect idea. Put your redirect at the top of the page. I'll comment out the astronomy section for now. | Klaw ¡digame! 22:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
As Keithlaw just pointed out on my talk page, none of the entries on this page would logically belong at the title "Local" except, possibly, for labor unions. The astronomy entries are no more nor less misplaced than, for example Local Hero. This point was raised in the article's vfu some months ago (which is how it ended up on my watchlist), where it was decided not to just redirect to Labor union. I'll see if I can find the discussion in Wikipedia:Deletion review's history. —Cryptic (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see that, thanks. It's a shame that it wasn't linked right here to begin with. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The last version of the discussion is here. I misremembered the part about the redirect; maybe that was discussed elsewhere, or maybe I'm just deluding myself. (I can barely remember what happened yesterday sometimes....) Regardless, none of these articles really belong here; the astronomy articles aren't at all unique in that regard. A look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Local will show both that a redirect to Labor union is insufficient and that leaving the page as a redlink is impractical. Since a proper disambig isn't really possible, the only other options are a soft redir to Wiktionary or the status quo. Given the choice between a {{wi}} and a not-very-good disambiguation page with entries that don't really belong, but nevertheless point to perfectly good encyclopedic articles that might actually be what people came here to look for, I'll pick the second every time. The manual of style is a guideline, not a straitjacket. —Cryptic (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that a broad dab page is preferable to a {{wi}} page. My concern with the astronomy links - well, with the page as a whole - is that it's clutted. We don't have to hit 100% of the possible reader targets for "local;" 90% would probably be a pretty good goal. Here are the questions I would ask: Do we need all the Astronomy links? Is a user who types in "local" even remotely likely to be looking for the astronomy links (or Local Hero, for example)? I'm not picking on the astronomy section; it did strike me as a bit esoteric for this page. You've looked through the whatlinkshere page; since I'm feeling lazy, what did you see as a rough breakdown of the "correct" targets for Local? | Klaw ¡digame! 15:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I haven't looked at them all, or even nearly so; a lot are from Template:Subnational entity (which I see you've also found). I rather suspect that most of the remainder won't be satisfied by anything here except for the Wiktionary link (e.g., the link from Network computer or Jennifer Paige). I'll go through and null-edit the list to see what we're left with. —Cryptic (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not as lazy as I said I was. I went through maybe ten links, and none of them really should have linked here at all (so I de-linked them). That was really no help at all to the discussion. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Of those remaining, three articles refer to local government; three (closely-related) articles refer to a local political party (as a noun, like with labor unions); twelve use it in the sense of the nearby area; three refer to local people; and I dabbed one each to local call and local area network. —Cryptic (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say that "local" just shouldn't be linked on most pages. Doesn't really help us with the question we were discussing earlier, though. Thanks for looking into it. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Local sections
Intro   non-dab entries    Local DOT COM   

non-dab entries
PREVIOUS: IntroNEXT: non-dab entries
<<>>