This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
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
Is this tag really necessary? There will possibly be churches named St. Anne's Episcopal that could appear on this page that are NOT listed on the NHRP, so it doesn't seem perfectly appropriate. Besides, two dab tags makes the page look messy, and certainly doesn't seem compliant with MOS:DAB. SlackerMom (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. It is used in the NRHP project for tracking, article creation, etc. Yes, there is a place for others. We have found it helpful to separate NRHP listings which are notable by definition from others which may or may not be notable. Otherwise NRHP redlinks will get deleted. MOS:DAB is should, rather than must. See the section on Break rules. clariosophic (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the reason redlinks get deleted is if there are no articles in Wikipedia that refer to them - therefore there is no reason for them to be listed on a dab page. If what you are trying to do is create a list of notable places, then maybe you should be creating set index articles instead of dab pages. That way you could list every church in the world to your heart's content, and the redlinks would be left alone. SlackerMom (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have it wrong. Redlinks are articles waiting to be created.In the NRHP project. There IS a reason to have them. because they show the proper disambig name to be used, etc. I am not interested in listing every church in the world. Set indexes are another matter because they can contain names that are more than just X church. That is not the issue here. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Best wishes, of course! In fact, it is the dab page that can contain names that are more than just "X church", whereas the set index article would be limited to items within the set. I am basing this statement on the information at WP:SETINDEX which indicates that a set index is a list of of the same things that have the same name. The example given there is List of peaks named Signal Mountain, which seems to me exactly the type of thing that would be useful to your project (for example List of St. Anne's Episcopal Churches or List of churches named St. Anne's Episcopal. It is a far-fetched example, but if there were someday an article about a book named "St. Anne's Episcopal Church", then a link to that article would belong on this page. While that may not be likely with this title, it certainly could happen with something more common, such as Christ Church, for example. I do understand the idea of redlinks being articles waiting to be created, but as such, they have a quite tentative place on a dab page. They are generally only listed if there are current links existing on their "What links here" page and there is a blue link in the entry for further information. This is not required in set index articles. I realize that indexing-type pages are useful to a project such as NRHP, but I don't think disambiguation pages are the best solution for your needs, since there is long consensus on the MOS:DAB guidelines. Dab pages are not the best place to "save" a redlink for future use, since it will always be in danger of being culled by a dab editor (I'm not the only one). I'm not opposed to breaking the rules when necessary in specific cases, but if this is going to be a general approach taken by the NRHP project, it would be better to change the rules with consensus. SlackerMom (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i am in WP:NRHP too and I agree with SlackerMom that there is a problem. The "NRHPDIS" template is no longer accurate as a description of the article, once one other notable church is added to the list. Why have it at all? I don't understand its value. On the other hand, having all the NRHPs listed in this and similar disambiguation pages is helpful to the WP:NRHP project. We already have big "SET INDEX" lists, like List of Registered Historic Places in Illinois. The problem is, in many of those lists, our records show simply [[St. Anne's Episcopal Church]], so they all point to this disambiguation page, not to [[St. Anne's Episcopal Church (town, state)]]. Having the disambiguation page in place helps us keep clear on what names should be used, once articles are being created.
Possible solution: wp:NRHPers should just create the stub articles for each of the NRHPs in the disambiguation list. Then delete the NRHPDIS template. No red-links for NRHPs = no problems, right? doncram (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i created the last stub article, so there are no red-links. Now, Clariosophic, would it be okay to drop "Churches on the National Register of Historic Places" and "Other", and drop the NRHPDIS? Given that there are no red-links that would be subject to deletion. doncram (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
