Disambiguation
editSince the RfD discussion was closed with no consensus to delete, I propose to turn this page into a disambiguation page with mention of the Wikipedia policy as a selfref, see here for a preview. Cenarium (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Until an actual article is created about the software company (and the article shows that it has a reasonable chance of meeting our generally accepted inclusion criteria), I don't see anything to disambiguate. The acronym "WINAD" does not refer to Active Directory in any context that I can find. Disambiguation pages with only one outbound link are routinely turned back into redirects. Rossami (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- See [1] , also, [2]. Not meeting our inclusion criteria is not a reason to appropriate the name of something. It's a lack of consideration, if not selfish. Cenarium (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I stand corrected on the Active Directory context though I have to note that none of the current inbound links were written with that intent in mind nor were any of the historical links that I checked. A disambiguation page might be technically correct but it's not helpful to readers to force them to make two clicks when the redirect already points directly to the intended page. I'd be more open to the suggestion if it had been based on an observed need first.
The additional finding of the Women's Institute for Alternative Development is interesting but still not relevant to the discussion until someone writes the article about them showing that their group meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Consideration and selfishness have nothing to do with it. It's just the rule for disambiguation pages - perma-redlinks get removed from the page. The Manual of Style on disambiguation pages has more. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)- This redirect is a special case and should be treated separately. The use of this redirect for WP:DICT is antiquated, one more click is not a real problem, but WINAD has a lot of meanings outside Wikipedia. It's the very purpose of namespaces to differentiate between the article space/the Wikipedia space/the template space, etc. A disambiguation page with self reference is the best compromise I can think of. Cenarium (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- I stand corrected on the Active Directory context though I have to note that none of the current inbound links were written with that intent in mind nor were any of the historical links that I checked. A disambiguation page might be technically correct but it's not helpful to readers to force them to make two clicks when the redirect already points directly to the intended page. I'd be more open to the suggestion if it had been based on an observed need first.
- See [1] , also, [2]. Not meeting our inclusion criteria is not a reason to appropriate the name of something. It's a lack of consideration, if not selfish. Cenarium (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)