Talk:ATV
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Edit notice
[edit]User:Alexf I'm not seeing the need for this⋅Template:Editnotices/Page/ATV which isn't correct about redlinks - they are allowed per WP:MOSDAB, and duplicates the normal dab editnotice which links to the do's and don't and MOS. Widefox; talk 23:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Widefox: Are you are saying that MOS:DABRED is incorrect and that we should allow in the list every item for everything that resolves to ATV, regardless of notability or if it ever will have the likelihood of an article? Ok then, I give up. Lists will fill with all kinds of redlink crap to non-notable names. For the record, I strongly disagree. Go ahead. Good luck maintaining the encyclopedia. -- Alexf(talk) 01:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Alexf DABRED is correct - a red is OK as long as it has a blue which includes the red in that article. It's maybe about 1-5% of dab entries but they are allowed. This is documented more succinctly at Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. Dabs just follow the articles, so if there's needless reds in articles then suggest normal editing to deal with them/remove them, then mirroring that in the dab would be normal procedure I'd say. Widefox; talk 12:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you know a redlink will never become an article, you should just cut tot the chase and delete it. Even if there is a guideline that hypothetically could allow the redlink to remain temporarily until such time as other editors are aware of the fact that it will never become an article.
This is why we have the snowball clause.
If you were uncertain about whether or not it is a plausible redlink, then you could fall back on following the lead of other articles, since WP:DABRED says it's permissible. It says this is the only circumstance when you may have a redlink in a dab page. It doesn't say you must keep the redlink in the dab page if other articles point to the redlink, and it doesn't say you must delete all examples of the implausible redlink before you delete it from a dab page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Dennis Bratland those cases are not my objection. The template warns "Attention editors! No red links." which is not correct per DABRED. The template isn't even needed as it duplicates the correct dab editnotice which does correctly say red links are allowed iff ..(link to Wikipedia:DDD) "Don't include red links that aren't used elsewhere. ... An entry with a redlink must also include a blue link that mentions the term being disambiguated."
- Widefox; talk 09:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you know a redlink will never become an article, you should just cut tot the chase and delete it. Even if there is a guideline that hypothetically could allow the redlink to remain temporarily until such time as other editors are aware of the fact that it will never become an article.
- User:Alexf DABRED is correct - a red is OK as long as it has a blue which includes the red in that article. It's maybe about 1-5% of dab entries but they are allowed. This is documented more succinctly at Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts. Dabs just follow the articles, so if there's needless reds in articles then suggest normal editing to deal with them/remove them, then mirroring that in the dab would be normal procedure I'd say. Widefox; talk 12:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Satisfies Speedy Delete CSD T3 "Templates that are substantial duplications of another template" Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 January 12 Ping Alexf Dennis Bratland. Widefox; talk 10:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Move page to ATV (disambiguation
[edit]Please move page to ATV (disambiguation) and make it redirect to All-terraim vehicle, much better because ATV stands for All-terrain vehicle.