 | This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles | |
|
I've read W:MOS:DAB#Red links many times, including this line: "If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included." The Tamil film is linked in the blue-linked article from the entry, Tamil films of the 2000s. I'll admit this stretches the meaning of "mentioned", but it's as much mention as the other film gets in the Amanda Peet article. Why didn't you remove that one? In any case the entry should not be summarily removed entirely. It should, at least, be included as an unlinked entry.--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I agree the other red link should go too, but as I was reverting your addition and was trying to stop the creep of dab pages getting unnecessarily longer, it was only yours that got removed. I really can't see the point in listing things that there is no article for, it just makes the list longer and harder to read.
- If you hadn't added the link to Tamil films of the 2000s then it would not be referred to anywhere else. I think it would have been better to unlink it there. There's still no information to refer the reader to! Rich257 (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
- I didn't add the link; I dabbed an existing link. I find these red links for topics that will inevitably have articles to be worthwhile for building webs that will be useful later on. The two examples on this dab page have scanty connections at the moment, I agree, but I've worked on pages with several identical titles and links all over the place in other articles. The choice is to either go around unlinking titles that will often be relinked ambiguously by other editors, or to systematize the links and build What links here webs for each red link. I also think that including red links encourages article creation. And including a mention of some kind for something with recognized notablility—a feature film, in this case—when it's allowed within the guidelines, seems preferable to ignoring it because it doesn't have an article yet.
- As for the length of the page and its navigability, dab pages can be made clear and useful through good organization and uniformity. Tossing out valid entries that reflect and encourage the growth of Wikipedia just to keep pages shorter seems like a poor trade-off to me.--ShelfSkewed Talk 17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
