Talk:Pico Agudo

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2018. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

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

Mountains

This disambiguation page is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles

Keeping the disambiguation page Pico Agudo

The disambiguation page Pico Agudo is not to be removed, it is kept as there is a link to the Portuguese language Wikipedia. There are some features that are named Pico Agudo and it should be kept. This either be kept or to be merged into a section in the page titled Pico and move these to a section in that page and Pico Agudo becomes a redirect. Terriffic Dunker Guy (talk) 19:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, can you please explain why you reverted my edit as unconstructive? This page has only one valid entry; I have been clear in my edit summaries why the rest were removed, they don't meet the criteria for dab entries and send readers (like me) on a wild goose chase. The first one's blue link is even to a dab, although if the right link had been placed, it still wouldn't contain any mention of Pico Agudo. This is a completely invalid dab unless articles are created on them or sections/mentions in articles - in which case the dab could be re-instated with one click. Boleyn (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a valid disambig page. Because we can move forwards by creating valid stubs to turn the red links blue - they're all articles on pt:WP. But you'd clearly rather just keep reverting other editors to prevent this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case where strict adherence to the rules isn't constructive. If there are several equally notable peaks with the same name then a dab page (or a set index article, if you prefer) that lists them all (together with their locations) is better that a potentially misleading redirect to the one peak that we currently happen to have an article about. – Uanfala 12:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a disambiguation page, this is useless until someone actually bothers to create relevant content in English language Wikipedia articles. Disambiguation pages should not be a dead end with only one existing valid entry. Even a set index page would require references at a minimum if the page is to be of any use. older ≠ wiser 12:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Uanfala. If I were searching for information about this peak, this DAB will tell me that there are six different ones and where each is located. This is the best information currently available in WP and is useful. I would agree items should not be included in a DAB if they are not "valid" redlinks but all these meet standards for inclusion - they just need to get written. MB 14:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: all these meet standards for inclusion - they just need to get written -- but in fact these entries do NOT satisfy criteria for inclusion on a disambiguation page WP:DABMENTION I think is the lowest bar, which suggests an entry can be included if it is mentioned in another article which is linked. The term "Pico Agudo" is not currently mentioned in the linked articles for any of the entries (other than Pico Agudo (Sapopema)). Further, none of the other entries satisfy criteria for redlinks on dab pages, which suggests the term should be linked to in existing articles other than the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 14:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redlinks on dab pages also says don't include redlinks for articles that are "unlikely ever to be written", and "start an article for the redlink". These are articles that are likely to be written and can have articles. As Uanfala says, strict adherence isn't constructive - this DAB page is moving towards where we should be and is a productive step in getting there. We certainly should adhere to this standard for items unlikely to ever be written. MB 15:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"start an article for the redlink" is an instruction to editors who want to include the entry. In the absence of any navigable blue link with relevant content that supports the claimed usage, the entries are useless at best, and possibly spurious fabrications at worst. older ≠ wiser 15:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I were looking for information about Pico Agudo on Cape Verde, and searched for Pico Agudo, I would rather go to the DAB page and see that there was no article than be redirected to an article on a peak in a different country - which would tell me nothing about the place for which I was searching. I disagree that this is "useless at best". MB 15:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages are not an index of any and all sundry information. They are navigational aids intended to help readers find existing articles with information relevant to the topic. From WP:DAB Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. This doesn't say disambiguation is required for everything that might possibly exist in the world that might be known by a term. older ≠ wiser 15:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's some confusion here between what dabs do (direct readers to what we have on Wikipedia) and what search engines like Google do (give readers all information on that title). Also the information is unverified, so we don't know it's accurate. Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SIA

(it pains me to say...) I converted to an WP:SIA to allow editors to create articles without being restricted by MOSDAB. Despite there being 5 articles on pt.WP, for a dab page the articles need to be written on en.WP first before listing on a dab. With this is mind, converting to an SIA without sources allows them to be written, so the proviso being that they'll be created in a reasonable timeframe or the SIA could be challenged on notability and converted back to a dab as I said at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Talk:Pico Agudo Widefox; talk 11:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that this is better as a set index page. Red links are allowed by the MOSDAB where the place is mentioned in another article. There are places for article development, dab pages are not one of them. Redirects with {{R from subtopic}} are one way. Appropriate WikiProjects are another. This should be returned to a dab page. --Bejnar (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(see below)

2018

Sock evading creator - this still fails WP:V and dabs/SIAs are not for translation purposes, so the raison d'etre is flawed. Deletion seems best. Widefox; talk 14:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pico Agudo. --Bejnar (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew the AfD as I'd nommed it in error, having not seen the two valid entries (viewing this as a dab, which it currently isn't). The issue isn't about redlinks per se it's about valid dab entries, which the majority of these weren't (per 2017 discussion). I've tried to rationalise SIAs in general, but they're just a compromise, like this page. As an SIA it allows missing articles to be created by (projects), up to me I'd convert them all to dabs or real lists. Widefox; talk 22:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]