Talk:Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)

Old Natchez Trace

[the discussion here, until point marked below, was while this was Talk page to "Old Natchez Trace". It was then moved to "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)"]

(begin section copied from User talk:Doncram) You recently created a disambiguation page that seems inappropriate. These really shouldn't be separate articles and is probably better treated under the existing Natchez Trace article. This is a single old road from Mississippi to Tennessee. --Polaron | Talk 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Polaron, and I converted Old Natchez Trace to a redirect. There is one "Natchez Trace", aka "Old Natchez Trace," not a bunch of different roads by the same name. Creating the page was a good thing, though, as there was a need for an Old Natchez Trace page to help people find the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I restored and extended the disambiguation page. Am copying the above comments to Talk:Old Natchez Trace and will respond there. --Doncram

(end section copied from User talk:Doncram)

To respond, first, I want to say that i appreciate, i guess, the attention paid to my contributions. I guess it is a compliment, that my edits are being watched. It is not possible that you two had this disambiguation page on your watchlist, because it is a new article. I hope y'all enjoy checking out all my new articles! :) --doncram (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but I DON'T check all of your new articles. (I don't care that much about you.) However, I do have your talk page on my watchlist. I looked at your talk page after I saw the words "Old Natchez Trace" appear in an edit summary on my watchlist (for an edit to your talk page, as it happens). Since I happen to live in one of the states in which the Natchez Trace is located and I have previously done a modest amount of work on related articles such as Grinder's Stand and Leiper's Fork, Tennessee, I made note of your interest in the topic of the Natchez Trace. --Orlady (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, I currently think there is need for disambiguation, as there are 7 separate NRHP listings with "Old Natchez Trace" in their name. It is not currently appropriate, in my view, to redirect this to the current Natchez Trace article. I note that the Natchez Trace article has a partial infobox about one of the NRHP listings, but it provides little if any other detail about it, and it does not provide any coverage whatsoever to the multiple others. I also don't expect that adding 6 more NRHP infoboxes to that one article is appropriate. And it may or may not ever be appropriate to cover all 7 NRHP places, which are current places, in the article about the historically important Natchez Trace. So for the time being, at least until the Natchez Trace article is better developed with use of the NRHP documents for these places, I think it is best to keep this disambiguation page, towards helping readers and potential editors find what they want. --doncram (talk) 01:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Although you may not be familiar with the name from any context other than entries on the NRIS database, the Natchez Trace is a well-known historical wilderness road (between Natchez and Nashville) that is commonly called "Old Natchez Trace" (for example, in the first sentence on this National Park Service webpage). Thus, if a person is searching Wikipedia for "Old Natchez Trace," it would be helpful to point them to the Natchez Trace article. One National Register listing covers the entire length of the Trace in Alabama and Tennessee. The other National Register listings with identifiers such as "Old Natchez Trace (170-30)", all but one of which are in Mississippi, may be for discrete segments of the Trace that were deemed sufficiently well-preserved to be eligible for listing on the Register, or some of them may turn out to be archeological sites. The associated Natchez Trace Parkway and Natchez Trace Scenic Trail are National Park Service-administered units, and the Park Service explains the general situation of the historical recognition of the Trace as follows (on this page):

"More than 180 separate segments of the Old Trace have been identified within the Parkway’s boundaries and represent 97 miles of the historic route. Additionally, more than 356 archeological sites, 36 cemeteries, and 21 National Register properties, including Civil War battlefields, historic inn sites, and historic houses are located on or adjacent to the Old Trace." (See [1] for a slightly more detailed version of this paragraph.)

I strongly object to the current language of the disambiguation page, which says "Old Natchez Trace may refer to any one of six distinct places listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, all of which presumably relate to the historic Natchez Trace trail." The "distinct places" assertion is arguably wrong (these are segments of the Natchez Trace, not unrelated places as the "distinct places" terminology suggests) and the "all of which presumably relate to" language is a clear indication that the author has no clue and is making things up (i.e., WP:OR). This type of language does not belong in Wikipedia.

Furthermore, I believe that there is a primary use of "Old Natchez Trace", and it is the Natchez Trace (not the NRHP listing names for particular segments of the Natchez Trace -- and not any of the various local roads in the region that are named "Old Natchez Trace"). I do not find it credible that a user would search Wikipedia for a string like "Old Natchez Trace (132-3T)" or the other similar strings found as identifiers in NRIS. However, it is credible that someone interested in seeing whether Wikipedia has an article on an NRIS entry like that one should be more satisfied with an article about the Natchez Trace in general than with a disambiguation page that doesn't point to any articles with specific information -- particularly if the Natchez Trace article indicates that there are many National Register properties associated with the Trace (citing that NPS paragraph that I quoted above).

I see that you consider the current Natchez Trace article to be inadequate. I agree that the Natchez Trace article leaves a lot to be desired, but I think the best way to address its deficiencies would be to improve the article, not to create disambiguation pages pointing users to other nonexistent articles. You note that the NRHP infobox in the article (added by Einbierbitte in 2007) includes the location, refnum and listing date only for one listing action (it's the listing for the entire length of the Trace in Alabama and Tennessee, although that might not be entirely clear from the stilted wording of the "location"). Can't the infobox be expanded to also include refnums and listing dates for listings in Mississippi related to "Old Natchez Trace"? --Orlady (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

PS - NPS Focus has nom forms for 5 of the 7 NRHP listings that Doncram is concerned about, including all but one of the "discrete" sites. Three of these listings were for short sections of the Natchez Trace located at interpretive stops (i.e., parking areas with historic marker signs) along the Natchez Trace Parkway. Another was for a short section that was affected by an Alabama state highway. The fifth is for a section of the Natchez Trace plus an archeological site.at the location of a Choctaw Indian agency that was located along the Natchez Trace. In all cases, the listing was done in connection with the Natchez Trace Parkway, and I got the impression that the site was listed in order to justify some sort of expenditure on it. IMO, treating individual interpretive stops on the Natchez Trace Parkway as separate encyclopedic topics would be absurd, particularly considering that about the the only information that the nom forms have regarding the individual sites is how much of the site was being mowed regularly as of the mid-1970s. --Orlady (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no way I could put things better than Orlady has, so I'll just say that I agree entirely with her. This should be a redirect, not a disambiguation page. Perhaps Doncram's issue could be worked into the main NT article somehow, but I'm not even sure that is necessary or warranted. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The present disambiguation page frankly looks horrid. Not just the redlinks but the whole idea that we should take a single entity and shatter it into articles on fragments of the trail. The most common use of the terminology (probably more than all the others combined) points to Natchez Trace. I would guess better than 95% of readers would expect to find the article Natchez Trace not this present page. In my judgment there is just no question that the redirect is appropriate. Redirect says concerning the purpose of a redirect page,

More specific forms of names (for example, Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union redirects to Articles of Confederation).

And from the WP:Disambiguation page,

Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the term should be the title of (or redirect to) the article on that topic. If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or redirect to a different disambiguation page, if more than one term is combined on one page).::It seems clear that both current guidelines and common usage demand the redirect.

Now, tt might be acceptable to create the page Old Natchez Trace (Disambiguation) and include a hatnote at the top of the Natchez Trace article but a reader should be taken Natchez Trace as the primary topic. The redirect is best. JodyB _talk 10:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate Orlady's use of sarcasm and patronizing tone towards me here, nor do i appreciate her posting to WikiProjects Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi to stir up the her idea that there is contention and an opportunity for editors to weigh in on behalf of the Natchez Trace in some way. It seems premature to call for reinforcements, as if there is an irresolveable impasse over the new creation of a disambiguation page, and as if this is an AFD on the disambiguation page. And it seems to egg on other editors to arrive and use insulting language about a simple disambiguation page.

If the goal is to improve the Natchez Trace article, then perhaps discussion should happen at Talk:Natchez Trace, about how to proceed, and to share links to NRHP documents that might be helpful in that. I don't happen to think Orlady's interest is in improving the Natchez Trace article. Nor is mine right now; I am currently trying to set up sensible disambiguation in Wikipedia relating to NRHP places.

About disambiguation of terms relating to "Old Natchez Trace", it seems pretty obviously necessary to allow for disambiguation in Wikipedia. As noted in the dab page already, there are 7 NRHP-listed places with Old Natchez Trace in their name. These are specific listings of the National Register, which are mentioned in National Park Service's NRIS database and perhaps other webpages, and they will be mentioned in multiple private websites that carry NPS information, including www.NationalRegisterOfHistoricPlaces.Com and ArchiPlanet.Com. It is possible/likely that some readers arrive at wikipedia looking for information about one of these. Also, given that there are also apparently multiple separate current roads named "Old Natchez Trace", mentioning those seems appropriate too.

For the record, it seems to me pretty obviously unhelpful for Orlady to attempt to intervene by redirecting the current disambiguation page, and to erase the dab items so far set up. I notice the Natchez Trace article has not one mention of "Old Natchez Trace" as a term in its text (the term shows up only in the incomplete NRHP infobox in the article). As a basic, level 101 principle, it seems inappropriate to redirect a term to an article which does not give any information about the term.

Depending on how the Natchez Trace article develops, it could possibly eventually become a sensible destination for "Old Natchez Trace" as wp:PRIMARYUSAGE for the term. In which case moving the current dab page to "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)" would be appropriate. However currently it is not. And, argument here on the level of whether or not the term "Old Natchez Trace" should be disambiguated at all in Wikipedia seems, well, to use a loaded term, really stupid. --doncram (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Natchez Trace" and "Old Natchez Trace" are the same thing. Your disambiguation implies that "Old Natchez Trace" refers to NRHP listings, or different sections of the road. This should be redirected to the main article. Bms4880 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all the above editors. This should clearly be a redirect. Station1 (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, it is rather unbecoming to accuse another editor of malice for posting on a WikiProject talk page. You know, this discussion might just be of interest to those people who actually live in the states the Trace runs through. Further, her initial actions are perfectly in line with the spirit of WP:BRD. You were bold in creating the disambig page, another editor disagreed and redirected, and you should have immediately ceased and began discussion. You are taking offence that someone has challenged you on this, which is nonsense. This is a discussion as to what is more appropriate: a disambig page or a redirect. So far, it seems most folks believe a redirect is appropriate here because the disambiguation page might give readers the wrong impression regarding the Trace. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno; you'd probably eventually judge differently if you followed through all the history here. Why on earth is Orlady still following me around, and butting in on an unrelated other discussion today, too. And I did begin discussion, I created this very talk page and started this discussion thread in which you are commenting. I have no idea what you could mean, about the disambiguation page giving readers "the wrong impression" about something. The only wrong impression that is important to avoid here, is that "Old Natchez Trace" always, invariably, refers to the entire historical Natchez Trace trail, when in fact it sometimes refers to one of several segments given that name by the National Register, or when it refers to a street, etc. Frankly, calling a preserved section "Old Natchez Trace" seems meaningful to me, as a relatively clear implication that the place is current, and it preserves a section of the original trace. Like calling a preserved post office "Old Post Office", as many NRHP places are named, conveys that a building is in fact no longer a post office, and that the term is being applied now, to a current building with that former use. By the way, I don't see it documented that the original Natchez Trace was ever called the Old Natchez Trace.

And now, one of the editors just replaced the disambiguation by a redirect again. On a point of process, that is wrong, in my view. If anything, someone should be making a requested move proposal and suggesting a move of the disambiguation page to "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)" and to assert in the proposal that one article should get primaryusage status. It was and is rude, IMO, to attempt to erase the disambiguation which was set up, when, whether you like or not, "Old Natchez Trace" has multiple meanings. It is just a fact that some readers can be looking for some of the separate, specific stretches of the trace that are NRHP-listed and are duplicatively named "Old Natchez Trace" by the National Register. I'll comment in a proper wp:RM process, which would bring in some other views, if someone does start that. However, I think it would be better if O or H or someone actually developed the Natchez Trace article better, before making a proposal along those lines. --doncram (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

OK... I count six experienced Wikipedians, four of whom live in the region of the Natchez Trace and one of whom is a disambiguation specialist, who have opined that this page clearly needs to be a redirect to Natchez Trace. On the other hand, one experienced Wikipedian disagrees and is now saying that it was a violation of Wikipedia process to implement the consensus that was expressed on this page. Sorry, but I can't see any violation of process here. --Orlady (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Old Natchez Trace" refers to the original Indian footpath later developed into a colonial road. The sites listed on the National Register (particularly in Miss.) are the ones where the original roadbed has been confirmed. This original road is what the Natchez Trace article refers to. The "Old" is simply used to distinguish it from the "New Natchez Trace", which refers to the Natchez Trace Parkway. The "Old Natchez Trace" name is definitely commonly used for the original road. --Polaron | Talk 23:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

[the above discussion was while this was Talk page to "Old Natchez Trace". It was then moved to "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)"]

Gotta hand it to Doncram for managing to get the last word in this discussion by moving the page at issue from Old Natchez Trace to Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation), thus making it appear that all of the prior history and this discussion had focused on that page clearly called "disambiguation"), then making Old Natchez Trace into a redirect once again. --Orlady (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly recommend that this page either be deleted as created against consensus or taken to AfD. Doncram's actions here are highly inappropriate. You can think we're misguided all you want, but going against consensus is going against the core of Wikipedia collaboration. — Huntster (t @ c) 11:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Those last two complaining comments are nonsense, or verging on that, in my view. After Polaron's comment, I myself commented and explained that I was responding to the "will" expressed above, from those rounded up by Orlady and/or following my Talk page, and conceding that i would not insist upon getting uninvolved others' opinions about the primaryusage question, via a wp:RM discussion. That is, I gave in, allowing "Old Natchez Trace" to redirect to "Natchez Trace" as several of you wanted, giving the Natchez trace article as wp:PRIMARYUSAGE. My comment got lost i guess; i thot it had entered and displayed but it did not display. It is nonsense, in my view, for Orlady to further claim that I have made anything appear differently than just what it is, and it was/is not my intention. I'll insert labels above to make the record more clear. And, in order to preserve the edit history of the disambiguation page, i indeed moved the disambiguation page rather than copy-pasting it. That is indeed the correct procedure which would have been followed by an administrator closing a requested move discussion. It is uninformed about what disambiguation is, for it to be further argued that there should be no disambiguation of the term "Old Natchez Trace". There are in fact multiple meanings/usages of that term, given on the disambiguation page. Seven different meanings are to refer to seven separate NRHP listings of exactly or very close approximation to that name, for example. --doncram (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not uninformed at all to say there should be no disambiguation of Old Natchez Trace - in fact, just the opposite. As other have said, Old Natchez Trace is Natchez Trace. The various segments listed on the data base are parts of the Old Natchez Trace. They are not separately notable; they are notable only because they are parts of the Old Natchez Trace, which has an article. There is next to nothing to say about the separate listings, and none of them have separate articles, nor should they, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Dab pages full of redlinks that do not disambiguate articles have no valid purpose and should not exist. Station1 (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is just great, adding to the confusion of non-disambiguation-focused editors who were rounded up by Orlady. Station1 and I both are pretty active disambiguation editors. Station1 disagrees with the consensus of editors at WikiProject Disambiguation, about whether disambiguation pages having mostly red-links (but supporting bluelinks) should be allowed. It is an abstract point for the editors here, but the consensus of dab editors now seems to be against Station1 on this point. Fine, i'll start a stub article or two to address Station1's concern, anyhow, despite it not being valid by consensus of dab editors. --doncram (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I do not consider myself a "disambiguation-focussed editor". Second, I do not disagree with the consensus at WP:D or MOS:DAB - just the opposite. Third, the editors on this page seem pretty smart; I seriously doubt they're "confused". Fourth, your dab page consists of all redlinks, not "mostly". Fifth, the consensus is not against me, nor I against it. Sixth, please do not mischaracterize my "concern" and then pointedly create a content fork stub, especially after you asked about adding something to Natchez Trace on its talk page and Orlady and I both agreed with you there that that's the appropriate way to go. Station1 (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, there's no end of contention. I didn't know there was any response to my question at Talk:Natchez Trace. I did suspect there would be no happy resolution, that no matter what was done about covering the NRHP places named "Old Natchez Trace" there would be opposition. It's all opposition to anything now. Yes, i did create a couple stub articles, to respond to your complaint here. Now the dab page does not violate your preference that it should include some primary bluelinks, anyhow. I'll read and may respond to your comments at Talk:Natchez Trace now. --doncram (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered why you are involved in so much contention? Perhaps it would be better not to label other editors or mischaracterize their remarks (purposely or not I do not know). To be clear, it is not my preference that the dab page contain some bluelinks. It is my preference that it not exist ("there should be no disambiguation of Old Natchez Trace"). It is my preference that you not create pointy stubs ("none of them have separate articles, nor should they"). Once again, the reason is that Old Natchez Trace is one thing, not many. I hope that's clear. Station1 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am involved in some contention here because Orlady stirred it up. I think it was hugely unhelpful for Orlady to begin by redirecting a new, valid disambiguation page that i had created, and to call for reinforcements to have a big ole fight about it, when the only possible disagreement could be about whether "(disambiguation)" needed to be added to the page title or not. Orlady knows that disambiguation of these several topics is basically appropriate. It was inappropriate to redirect the topic to the Natchez Trace article, given the state of the Natchez Trace article, which did not mention or explain the term being redirected. If the first redirect was okay as one bold move a la wp:BRD, then it was inappropriate to escalate it after that was reverted. The situation could have been addressed without contention if Orlady wanted to develop some appropriate material and discussed it gradually.

Sure, labelling other editors is often/usually not helpful at all. But note i included you and me both as "pretty active disambiguation editors", i.e. being disambiguation-focussed, meaning that you and I follow and participate in discussions at WikiProject Disambiguation and at dab guideline pages, more so than do the other editors who have commented here, and there is no disparagement meant by that. Please tell me, how would you like to be referred to. Orlady referred to you as a disambiguation expert or something nice like that. Do you want me to refer to you as a disambiguation expert? Do let me know. :) About whether you are in synch or not with the consensus of dab editors, well, let's just disagree here. If others are seriously interested, they can go join / read up on the dab discussions.

And, repeating the claim that "'Old Natchez Trace' is one thing" does not make it so. "Old Natchez Trace" is the exact name of one NRHP listing. "Old Natchez Trace" plus a short parenthetical expression is the name of several more NRHP listings. It is the exact name of various streets in Alabama and Mississippi. Ergo, "Old Natchez Trace" is more than one thing, to different people and for different purposes. --doncram (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Modern roads named "Old Natchez Trace"

I suggest that the statement about "any of various current roads named 'Old Natchez Trace'" should be removed from this page. I suspect that the only source for this statement is a remark I made above. When I googled "Old Natchez Trace", I found a couple of real estate ads for houses on a road by that name. Presumably these are (like the Natchez Trace Parkway) modern roads that follow (or are close to) the route of the Old Natchez Trace. Thus, they aren't really separate and distinct from the Trace. Furthermore, there are no articles about these roads, nor have I seen a shred of evidence that any of these roads is notable.

I would remove that entry myself, but I am hoping that the apparent owner of this page will see fit to do so. --Orlady (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, first, for some of the other editors that you rallied to comment here: you do agree that the disambiguation page is helpful and necessary. You agree that all the other items on the page are appropriate and helpful. But, you have just one complaint, about the mention that various current roads have the "Old Natchez Trace" name. I think it would help if you would clarify to other editors whether that is substantially the case. You have one or more editors convinced that great wrongs have been done here, while you yourself know that the disambiguation is reasonable, and there was/is only a valid question whether the dab page should be at "Old Natchez Trace" or located at "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)".

To complain about wp:ownership now, after your inviting TN, MS, AL editors to come get involved, and your explicitly invoking and encouraging their ownership by praising their local knowledge, seems a bit absurd. You want to turn on ownership when you think it will help rally supporters to your view. Yet to accuse me of planning to exercise undue ownership in the formatting of a dab page, too.

About the roads, I did indeed believe and rely upon your earlier statement, that there would be numerous roads of that name, and I further believed there would be multiple sources supporting your statement. Quick look in Google maps finds at least two, in Franklin, TN 37069 and in Santa Fe, TN. And yes there are realtor listings like this house at 1735 Old Natchez Trace, in Franklin, TN. I think it is pretty well acceptable to mention the fact that there are such roads. I think that helps readers. I don't think it's something that important, either way. --doncram (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, please do not misinterpret the fact that I did not delete this page as indicating that I agreed with its creation. In fact, I think it is a useless page that should not exist, but I am tolerating it because (1) I think it's probably harmless (I don't expect many users to look at it) and (2) I have observed that you will do whatever it takes to get your way at Wikipedia, and it's not worth my time to battle with you over the existence of such an utterly meaningless page.

I invited the participants in the Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee wikiprojects to comment at Talk:Old Natchez Trace (which is now this page) because I saw no point in limiting discussion of the page to the three people who happened to be aware of the brand new page you had created. I thought the discussion would be most productive if it involved people who had knowledge and interest of the topic. I guessed that people engaged in building articles about the 3 affected states would be likely to have either knowledge or interest, so I posted notices on the the talk pages of those Wikiprojects. I hope that you understand why that was a far better idea than having an unproductive shoutfest between two or three people.

As for the roads, I'm disappointed to see that you don't grok why they don't belong on a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages exist to provide paths to different Wikipedia articles that could, in principle, have the same title. WP:DABNOT points out that they should not be lists of dictionary definitions or links to pages on sister projects; I presume that it is supposed to go without saying (or reference to WP:NOT) that they should not be lists of trivial items likely to be found in phone books or street directories. --Orlady (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well you didnt find anyone with any knowledge of the topic that was relevant to anything decided so far here, except perhaps bearing on whether to add "(disambiguation)" to the dab page name or not. I believe no one rounded up added anything substantial to the Natchez Trace article or to any mainspace article. The only constructive mainspace work so far has been what i've created in this dab page and a couple starter articles and what Orlady added at several NRHP list-articles. Thas has basically a waste of their and our time so far.

About the multiple current streets named "Old Natchez Trace", like i said i didn't care much, and as you have seen i did not include a red-link or seek to create an article about any such place. So i let Polaron delete that and this little discussion topic should be over. thanks. --doncram (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

covering where the trace is accessible today

[section title inserted later]

I am thinking of making a list of sites where the Old Trace is still accessible with short descriptions of each and incorporating it into the main Natchez Trace article. These would necessarily include the NRHP-listed sites. Once that is done, I think it would be best to redirect the NRHP names for these sites to the relevant section in the Natchez Trace article. I will make sure whatever independent content that is in the already existing articles will be added to the appropriate site description. --Polaron | Talk 15:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Late-comer I may be, but here's my opinion. As an NRHP interested user/contributor, I would NOT appreciate being redirected from an NRHP list about somewhere specific I were going to visit to an article about the road in general which does not even mention the specific site I was looking for. Polaron's suggestion, immediately above, makes sense to me. In the meantime, could we name the article "Old Natchez Trace (NRHP disambiguation)" so that an NRHP focused user such as myself would not be redirected from a specific site name to the general article without any explanation? Lvklock (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a misconception here -- namely, that Wikipedia articles about NRHP listings exist to help people plan their travel to listed sites. There are two fallacies here: (1) Wikipedia is not a travel guide, as discussed at WP:NOT. (2) NRHP listings are not necessarily an indication of touristic interest. (In the case of sites owned by federal agencies, such as these, listings often are done in connection with agency responsibilities to comply with National Historic Preservation Act requirements.)

Anyway, a person looking for visitable segments of the Trace would be advised to follow the Natchez Trace Parkway, rather than using this list. Not only is the parkway lined with historic markers (according to sources), but the specific Trace segments in Mississippi and Alabama were listed because they are places where motorists can park their cars and go look at the trail. --Orlady (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a subsection header. Covering where the trace is accessible today is indeed a decent topic for the Natchez Trace article. However i doubt that it will be appropriate to include, in the Natchez Trace article, the level of detail that is included in the current version of Old Natchez Trace (310-2A) or what could be suitably included in other articles on NRHP-listed places. So, Polaron, if your purpose is to add good info to the Natchez Trace article, or to create a good separate article like someone else suggested on the topic of all the NRHP places and/or where trace accessible otherwise, combined, by all means go ahead. If your real purpose was then to eliminate the "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)" page from existence i don't think that your work will justify that. It will still make sense to have the disambiguation pointing to where multiple places of the name "Old Natchez Trace" are to be covered in wikipedia, even if it is then pointing in some cases to sections in other articles. To respond to Lvklock, i think the disambiguation at "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)" will naturally stay put and we will not need to invent a separate (NRHP disambiguation). --doncram (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Converted this to an article and renamed it "Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places". Plenty of room for expansion. Station1 (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I respect the boldness of someone going ahead and creating the article Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However it seems wrong to move the disambiguation page to that name, and to lose the edit history of mainspace page and of this Talk page to that title. I restored, and somewhat amended, the disambiguation page, and copied the newly created text to that name. Note the content of that new page is currently as much written by me as by anyone else, because it includes moved-in text from two articles I had created. So I hope no one minds that the few additional edits of pasting in are not shown in the edit history of the new article.

I suppose discussion about the role of this disambiguation page should continue here, hopefully in new appropriately named discussion sections below. --doncram (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I mind. Cut-and-paste moves are not allowed for a reason. I moved the page precisely to keep the edit history and this talk page once the disambiguation page was removed. By doing this cut-and-paste the edit history of Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places no longer shows my edits merging in content from the two stubs for GFDL purposes, or previous edits on this page that I used as a base. And by creating a new talk page there, you make it very difficult to ever move this talk page, which should be kept as a record once the dab page is removed. The whole point of the move was to get rid of this dab page and replace it with an article containing actual info about the entries. How will you fix this now? Will you request a histmerge? (For the record, I don't necessarily recommend that, since it would cause some admin a big headache for little reward, but technically it probably should be done). Station1 (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

About parks and other items

[this section written while this was Talk page to "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)"]

There's now battling to remove mention of state parks and the Federal parkway from the dab page. These are links to actual articles, and I think they are relevant to keep in. If y'all want to argue, could you argue here, and could we get others' views and come to some consensus. Please stop removing from the article. Please discuss to consensus here. I know some of you may not like it, but could you please defer to me a little bit as the recent creator and builder of this dab page. Orlady has accused me of having undue ownership already, but sometimes also it is appropriate to defer to a contributor to an article. For gosh sake, i did create the article and have endured a lot of useless attack already. It would simply help save wasted edits back and forth if you would agree to let a current state hold, and discuss your remaining/new complaints here. If/when there is a decent articulation of a remaining issue, I myself will be glad to seek regular dab editors' opinions. I'd prefer not to waste their/our time until there's some satisfactory statement of the issues here. Or, you are free of course to edit war, instead. --doncram (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps to help the discussion, the items under review are:

• • "Natchez Trace Parkway, which may also be known as "New Natchez Trace", a 414 mile parkway in three states"
  • "the Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail, 62 miles of trail along the Natchez Trace Parkway"
  • "Trace State Park, also or formerly known as Old Natchez Trace Park, Belden, Mississippi"
  • "Natchez Trace State Park, Tennessee, a park on the site of a western spur of the historic trace"

Offhand i think it helps readers to have these mentioned in the dab. I believe it is possible/likely that someone looking for "Old Natchez Trace" could be interested in finding their way to one of these. How to present them in perfect compliance with dab guidelines and practices is a fine topic for discussion however. --doncram (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DABNOT explains why none of these items belong on a disambiguation page for "Old Natchez Trace", as follows:

A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. For example, Baltimore Zoo is not included at Zoo (disambiguation) because people outside Baltimore would not readily identify it as the "Zoo", and including all zoos in the world in the disambiguation page is impractical. Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi".

Consistent with that guideline, I am deleting your re-addition of these items forthwith. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

About the Trace State Park one, another editor is disputing the mention of "Old Natchez Trace Park" as a bolded alternative name in its article, though acknowledging it appears in Google maps / google. I think if it is the name given in Google maps then it is, de facto, an alternative former or current name of the place. I expect that if more extensive sources were found and used to develop the currently short stub article, that it would emerge that was a former name. And, by the Google maps, it is documented well enough currently that the place is in fact called "Old Natchez Trace Park" by millions of google users. This is all a bit ridiculous; i tend to think editors battling here are expressing personal grudges or something, because otherwise it does not make sense for there to be all this interest. --doncram (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page. The parkway, the national trail, and state parks are not called as "Old Natchez Trace" plus all of them are already linked from Old Natchez Trace so there is absolutely no reason for them to be here. --Polaron | Talk 15:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, everyone, is that all your considered arguments. Orlady's choice, stated here clearly enough, is that she wishes to edit war in the article. I think i made a reasonable request that you stop and discuss here instead of edit warring in the article. I dunno how much i want to keep entertaining this, but I will restore the dab page to the most recent version that i edited. For others it will be blurry who is edit warring; when these things go on like this (and Orlady and Polaron and I are well practiced from getting-towards-a-year of argument elsewhere on mostly unrelated matters) everyone including me looks bad to uninvolved outsiders. Orlady, a valued contributor and administrator in Wikipedia, can revert if she wishes and make it more clear this is a personal grudge match. Or someone supporting her in pursuing a grudge match can do that, if you wish. I personally would rather have the dab page show the proposed language including more, so that others can see and comment and perhaps refine that, rather than removing and making it harder to see and discuss. --doncram (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as the topic of edit warring has come up: Doncram, by my count, you are the only contributor to this page who has had 3 reverts in the last 24 hours (several of us have done multiple edits in sequence -- I count those sequential edits as one revert). In fact, you have had 3 reverts in about 12 hours, so there is plenty of time left to get to 4RR.

Consider this to be a 3RR warning -- and please think about what you are doing and what your motives are. Do you truly believe that a person looking for information about "Natchez Trace State Park" (or any of several other terms you have added here) will be looking under the term "Old Natchez Trace", will be unable to find what they need at Natchez Trace and will come to this page for enlightenment? If so, why haven't you added Natchez language, Natchez, Mississippi, or any of the other terms at Natchez to this page? (Lest there be any confusion, I am not suggesting that they belong here.) Have you read WP:DABNOT recently? --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, you are highly involved currently and previously, over the last year at least, in contention with me, involving both personal attacks and, to some degree, legitimate disagreements over content issues. You yourself violated 3RR in previous disagreement with me, at another article where you followed me. This was covered in a 3RR violation report. You may notice i restored and revised the disambiguation article just now. I also copy-pasted the newly created combo NRHP list-article to the name chosen by you or someone else. That is a fine article to have, probably, but it does not obviously supplant the topic of disambiguation of the term "Old Natchez Trace".

This here is a contentious article/topic now. If you or someone else wants to eradicate disambiguation of the term "Old Natchez Trace", that should be done by an orderly process, using AFD and/or requested move processes established for those purposes. It is not necessary to force your way by edit warring and it would be especially unwise for you, Orlady, to use administrative tools in some fashion towards getting your way. ---doncram (talk) 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your disambiguation page is unnecessary. The NRHP properties should be listed on the Natchez disambiguation page, regardless of the "Old" adjective. They all refer to the same subject. Bms4880 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What Natchez disambiguation page? Natchez Trace is an article not a disambiguation page. Hmm, maybe you mean, literally, Natchez, which is a disambiguation page. Unless you want to redirect "Old Natchez Trace" and possibly also "Natchez Trace" to that page, and make it a combo dab covering all these terms, I don't agree and don't think uninvolved editors would agree. The term "Old Natchez Trace" is quite different than "Natchez". Readers who search on the term "Old Natchez Trace" should be able to find their way to the several NRHP places and other places named that, probably best by use of disambiguation at "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)". And this dab needs to be mentioned in hatnote disambiguation at "Natchez Trace", if "Old Natchez Trace" redirects there. To Bms4880, i invoked your comment at Talk:Natchez Trace but i may have misunderstood you, could you please clarify there perhaps. --doncram (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

new disambiguation presentation issues

The creation of a new list-article covering the 7 NRHP listed places may be a good development, but doesn't eliminate role for disambiguation of the "Old Natchez Trace" term. How to handle disambiguation items regarding those NRHP places properly, here on "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)", depends on whether the list-article is stable. If there are separate articles on each of the NRHP places named "Old Natchez Trace" then the dab page is different, for example. It is not clear if a combo list-article without separate articles will prevail, or whether there should be separate articles about some of them. Perhaps decisions should be deferred to editors actually developing material about the NRHP places, however. Some question about that can't be answered until some NRHP materials are requested and obtained.

So anyhow, can y'all hold off on revisiting this disambiguation page's purpose and the exact format of proper entries here on the dab page, for a while, please. Chill! --doncram (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you come from Alabama with a banjo on your knee?

Now that I've gotten your attention (because my edit summaries haven't...)...

One of the factoids that is being propagated through the growing number of articles about Natchez Trace ephemera is an assertion that there is a National Register listing for "Old Natchez Trace" in "Colbert County, Alabama, and Lawrence, Hickman, Wayne, Williamson, Lewis, Davidson and Maury counties, Tennessee". I believe this to be erroneous.

This appears to refer to NRIS 75002125, listed 5/30/1975, described as extending "from AL/TN border to US 100 in Davidson Co." The Davidson County in this context is in Tennessee. (It's Nashville's county.) The reference to US 100 isn't clear (according to this highway website, the number was never used), but the northern end of the Natchez Trace Parkway is near Pasquo at Tennessee Route 100 in Davidson County. The other end of the listing is the "AL/TN" border, meaning the Alabama-Tennessee border. Since that's an east-west border that the Natchez Trace crosses in an almost due north-south direction, I can't see any possible way that the stretch of the Trace between that border and Davidson County could pass through Colbert County, Alabama. Furthermore, I notice that the NRHP list article for that Alabama County does not include "Old Natchez" anything.

I'm hoping that I won't be reverted again after the next time I remove the references to Alabama from the growing number of references to this item. Is that too much too hope, in view of the information provided above? --Orlady (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're asking here at Talk page. Yes it is an issue, because there is a reliable source on this matter, the NRIS database, which states the listing is in Alabama. There are typos and other kinds of misstatements in NRIS, but it is usually very very reliable (tho not perfect) on the counties in which listings lie. Counties have very well defined, well known borders, and nomination preparers are asked very specifically to provide this info. Been through this before with Polaron on some Waldo House in Connecticut, at the border between two counties. The NRHP document for the listing (not yet requested AFAIK) will clarify it for you. Of course for the Waldo example it turned out some part of the property extended across the border. Only times i have seen county information to be wrong, is when county borders have changed leaving NRIS information, once accurate, no longer so. So the Alabama part is sourced and with 99% or so certainty will be borne out in documents that can be obtained. No source saying it does not extend into Alabama. So keep the Alabama info in place, and we should certainly collect the NRHP document. --doncram (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

P.S. For most cases where a county/state boundary stone, or "Beginning Point" of a survey, is itself NRHP-listed, it is listed in both/all three counties/states at that point. In some cases the boundary stone is reported in just one of the counties/states. It is not possible to predict, if the end point of the Natchez Trace was defined to be a stone at the state line, whether it would be listed in the county/state beyond. I know nothing of the particulars but wouldn't expect a trail to be defined that way, so offhand i expect a portion of trail is in the other state. --doncram (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But, i did think it was included in the Alabama county listings, not finding that now in fresh Elkman county-table output for Colbert county. Still, let's just get the documents rather than speculate. --doncram (talk) 03:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, according to one Elkman system inquiry, the Alabama portion named "Old Natchez Trace" with nothing else is included in NRIS but with listing status "DR", which stands for "DATE RECEIVED/PENDING NOMINATION". It has refnum 76002300 and "Other names: 302-308-2C". It has the same exact name of listing but the different refnum indicates it is different. With that listing status it is not included in Elkman county output. So, actually this looks like my mistake. It is not the 99% certain case of county accuracy for something actually listed in the National Register; the indication is instead that in my comments above, and before, I relied on my new program accessing NRIS data which did not pay adequate attention to listing code in the data. Whatever this 76002300 item is, it seems now separate from the NRIS 75002125 item. So, I don't think it would much change anything else argued about in recent days, but I do now concede the 75002125 listing does not extend into Alabama. Sorry, my bad. :( --doncram (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

dab treatment for 7 places named Old Natchez Trace

In repeated edits such as this edit, User:Station1 has removed itemization of 7 specific places which are named "Old Natchez Trace" or close variation from this disambiguation page. I have restored the mention of all 7 NRHP places, perhaps a couple times now, in the process of doing other revisions/development of this dab page.

Station1, could you please stop and explain your view, and wait for some consensus, rather than merely making drastic deletions of material from the dab page. I will acknowledge that i am not expert about disambiguation policy for this circumstance, and I expect I will have to learn from other disambiguation editors about what is the proper treatment for the circumstance. The current circumstance is not stable though, and it seems that editors are acting more with malice than with actual wish to build the wikipedia properly. It seems on the one hand that one or more editors are trying to shoehorn coverage of the 7 NRHP places into one article, and then for Station1 to use that as excuse to eliminate mention on the dab page of the 7 places. Station1, could you please state your views about what is proper treatment, here, IF the 7 nrhp places, although distinct and separate places, are covered in one list-article. And how does that change if one or more have separate wikipedia articles, in addition to being covered in that list-article. To me it seems that either way the 7 places can and should be mentioned in the dab page, even if each item links to a section of a list-article. I acknowledge i am not sure how this is to be properly formatted, but that is my basic sense.

Station1, notwithstanding my unwillingness to believe you up front, could you please bear with this and explain your position, and discuss. If we could communicate some, i am hopeful we could nonetheless clarify facts and issues and eventually have it be productive to obtain others' uninvolved views. I strenuosly object to the deletion of all 7 NRHP items having "Old Natchez Trace" as their name. --doncram (talk) 05:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will try to explain. The purpose of a dab page is to quickly redirect readers to the article they are seeking when there is more than one article on WP that would (or could) have the same name except for the technical impossibility of that happening. The consensus here is that Old Natchez Trace is Natchez Trace and should redirect to that article. The consensus is also that the segments listed on NRHP are simply parts of the Natchez Trace and as such, if they need be mentioned at all, should be mentioned in the Natchez Trace article, or, to avoid undue weight in that article, in a content fork or daughter article, which is called Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Since there is only one article Old Natchez Trace plus one article Old Natchez Trace segments listed... which is referenced directly from the former, there is no need for a dab page. Everything is in those two articles, nowhere else. The redirects that are Old Natchez Trace (XXX-XX) (NHRP listings) all go to the same article so do not disambiguate anything and logically do not require a dab page - it would be like having a dab page for one entry: it just doesn't have any logical use. If someone were to search for Old Natchez Trace (XXX-XX) (however unlikely that may be), they would wind up at Old Natchez Trace segments listed.... (where they will also learn about Old Natchez Trace (YYY-YY) etc.). If they search for Old Natchez Trace, they wind up at Natchez Trace (where they can go on to Old Natchez Trace segments listed... if they choose). Whatever the case, though, they would not need a dab page. I hope that explains it. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding here, though you have also deleted the material in the dab page, which seems to contradict your stated position. If your position is that the dab page should not exist, then you should cease editing in the dab page and allow it to be, and to be improved. If you edit in the dab page, then it seems you are accepting the existence of the dab page. It does not seem fair for an anti-dab page editor to be confounding editor(s) trying to construct decent disambiguation. It seems like bad faith editing, for you to be fighting about content within something you want to delete anyhow. Are you pushing, bad-faithedly, to make the disambiguation look silly and inconsequential, so that others will agree it should be deleted because it looks silly? If you want it deleted, say so, but let me and others take our shot at developing it properly, so that a decent version can be considered by others. And, either way, please stop with deleting the hatnote link from Natchez Trace to here.

If you are simply opposed to having the disambiguation, and if things cannot be talked out here to some consensus, then you should plan on opening an AFD. However, I further wish you would refrain from that for some time, so that relevant materials can be collected and relevant articles/material written, first. I myself developed 1 or 2 NRHP articles. A big gap is info about the big Tennessee NRHP listing, which requires getting an offline document which takes some time. There's no urgency to implementing your wish. There was/is some legitimacy to creating the disambiguation, which has led to creation of some articles and material already.

I don't agree that a non-primary disambiguation page like this is now, which can only be reached by readers finding a disambiguation hatnote at a different page where "Old Natchez Trace" redirects, has primary purpose like u describe. The purpose of a dab page like this, actually, is not about quickly redirecting readers, it is about providing fewer, more deeply interested readers with links to other articles and article-worthy topics (red-links perhaps) that they could be looking for. There are fewer such readers, but some will be arriving looking for a specific NRHP place that they have seen mention of at www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com or another source. Please continue here. Thanks. --doncram (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I share Station1's view that the disambiguation page should not exist. The topic of the Old Natchez Trace is covered in Natchez Trace, which is the proper place for users to find information (or links to other articles) about the various National Register sites, recreation areas, and other aspects of the Trace. There is no purpose in treating this as a disambiguation issue. I have thought about taking the page to AfD, but I currently expect that the disambiguation page will die a natural death by the time this long-winded discussion (and associated editing party) runs its course. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

dab treatment for parks

The second issue still seeming in contention is what is proper dab treatment for the 4 parks items. Some editors have removed these items; i do object as I believe that some/many readers searching on "Old Natchez Trace" are interested in finding out about places such as these where they can visit or learn about parts of the old trace. The parks articles themselves are not all well-developed and it is not clear what they each contain. It does seem reasonable that some readers could be looking for the park that is actually named "Old Natchez Trace Park", for example. So mentioning it on the "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)" page should be okay. Please note another editor, Bms4880, is arguing in another section above that all places named "Old Natchez Trace" should be included into the Natchez disambiguation page, so it seems unreasonable to disallow places having much more nearly the same name, from appearing in the same page.

However, does the issue amount to this: Some editors object to the formatting of the parks items, as not seeming fully compliant with regular dab items. However, if these items were presented under a "See also" section, they would be okay with that.

If it would settle this to move those items to a See also section, I would accept that, too. And to have a moratorium on promoting them back to regular dab item status until some decent work developing the parks articles is completed. However, i object to what seems like vandalism removing decent, useful information. --doncram (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Disregard that comment. I confused the Natchez disambiguation with a (non-existent) Natchez Trace disambiguation. Bms4880 (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

None of the parks would be named simply Old Natchez Trace. We do not put partial title matches on dab pages, or they wouldn't be dab pages, they'd be long and confusing search indexes or something else. The parks are already referenced from See Also sections of Natchez Trace, where they belong. Station1 (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

One is named "Old Natchez Trace Park"! Others contain parts of the old trace. It is simply not true that dab pages, in practice, do not include "partial matches". I'll look more at official dab guidelines. But is your objection fully addressed by just putting those items into a "See also" section? And, with 7 NRHP places and 4 parks mentioned, this is hardly a long and confusing dab page. It is not even a page that casual searchers will find; they will be redirected to "Natchez Trace" first. --doncram (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction: One of the parks apparently used to be called "Old Natchez Trace Park" -- at least that name is in the GNIS database (added in 2003) and is on Google Maps (as one of two labels on the park), as well as some other websites that pull data from GNIS. I haven't seen any sourced information on the park's name history, but it's now "Trace State Park."

Regardless of the facts regarding that park, partial title matches such as that one do not belong on disambiguation pages (for comparison, note that topics such as "New York City Ballet" do not appear on New York City (disambiguation)). --Orlady (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

to name, or not, the 7 NRHP places of this name

In recent edits, i added specific mention of the 7 NRHP places of the name "Old Natchez Trace", and 2 editors removed it. Disclosure: the 2 editors and I have been in contentious editing situations elsewhere, previously. I hoped / thought the previous contention has been settled; i hope it does not come in unduly here.

Here, as in my disambiguation work on NRHP places nationwide, I am trying to provide for readers the appropriate info for them to find their way to articles about NRHP places. It seems clearly helpful to readers to identify the specific places that are covered, currently, in one list-article about the segments.

Note, disambiguation guidelines cover cases where there are set index articles and corresponding disambiguation pages. Just because there is a set index article, does not mean there is no need for disambiguation. wp:SETINDEX gives example of Signal Mountain, where there is List of peaks named Signal Mountain and also Signal Mountain disambiguation page. If anyone can point to specific disambiguation policy/guidelines bearing on this clearly, please speak up.

Please discuss here. --doncram (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For pete's sake, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a soap opera, and this isn't about personalities, whether those personalities happen to be Doncram, Polaron, Orlady, Acroterion, Station1, or the man in the moon. (OK, I will admit that it's clear that you became obsessed with the Natchez Trace when you discovered that Polaron and I disagreed with an edit you made, but that's your problem, not mine.) WP:DABSTYLE is pretty darn clear in saying that links on disambiguation pages shouldn't be piped. Among other things, that should tend to tell you that a single page should not be linked (and piped) 7 times on one disambiguation page. A disambiguation page has the simple purpose of directing the reader to the correct specific article. Providing 7 verbose links to the very same article is decidedly unsimple -- and exorbitantly unhelpful. --Orlady (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You are making a soap opera, yes. As you know i have been disambiguating the NRHP places. Your occasionally following and finding a random edit of mine to dispute verges on wp:harassment. One edit i made was creating disambiguation at Old Natchez Trace, a previously unoccupied article name which you promptly disputed in favor of redirect to Natchez Trace. It was reasonable for me to set up disambiguation there, but I have conceded that "Old Natchez Trace" can be a redirect. But, there still are 7 NRHP places of the Old Natchez Trace name, which need/deserve disambiguation, at "Old Natchez Trace (disambiguation)". Why on earth you are disputing that, I do not know. You are fully aware that there are readers and editors consulting the www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com webpages and finding, for example, listings like the "Old natchez trace" in one Alabama county, that they want to find out about. A disambiguation page provides that info.

There is nothing that helpful at wp:DABSTYLE. It does not address this case specifically. It links to EXCEPTIONS about the rule that you claim. Orlady, you have misunderstood disambiguation style guidelines and are not an authority that I can listen to easily about this. For example, not long ago you were riding my edits and converting, incorrectly, one or more deliberate see-also types links from disambiguation pages to other disambiguation pages by links to redirects at "Name (disambiguation)". Your edits, which avoided the redirects by links to "Name" directly, actually contradicted wp:INTDABLINK. That's one basic way you've shown to me, anyhow, that you don't know disambiguation guidelines.

In this case, there are 7 legitimate topics which all could be separate wikipedia articles, and there are readers arriving looking for them. It is random and perhaps temporary that the 7 NRHP ones are covered in one article currently. I would be happy to split them out to separate articles. What is in the list-article now is 7 separate sections on each one (although not with section headers at this moment). I will refine the NRHP article on Old Trace segments so that individual section headers can be linked to, and revise this dab page once again. Just stop with hassling me on this and everything else you follow me around about, to find supposed faults, please. --doncram (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Signal Mountain is a legitimate dab page because there are four separate articles about four separate unrelated topics each of which would naturally be titled "Signal Mountain" if the other three didn't exist. If List of peaks named Signal Mountain (analogous to Old Natchez Trace segments listed on the National Register of Historic Places) was the only article, or if only one other article named "Signal Mountain" also existed, that dab page would not exist, just like this one should not exist. Station1 (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)