Talk:Crouch
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Commander Keane in topic Use of redirects for placenames
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Requested move 26 September 2018
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
– There is no clear primary topic [[1]] specially given the common verb. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:35, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- My first thoughts are:
- No, it is not the primary topic.
- Accept, but why make the changes?
- The verb is irrelevant, WP:NOTADICT
- However, on reflection, neither of these two pages is particularly long, and unlikely to ever become so. The simplest thing would be to merge both pages under Crouch. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The verb refers to Squatting position which is a valid entry. We tend to have separate articles for surnames (unless the list is so small) and there is coverage anyway (there is not even requirement that there be any people at all WP:NNAME). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fair point about Squatting position, however you shoot yourself in the foot with "unless the list is so small"! WP:NNAME does say that a "properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list" but "Crouch is a family name." does not, IMHO, constitute any sort of an article. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes you're correct that at the moment the surname page isn't a valid article, I was pointing out that its possible to make it one, which I'll do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Fair point about Squatting position, however you shoot yourself in the foot with "unless the list is so small"! WP:NNAME does say that a "properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list" but "Crouch is a family name." does not, IMHO, constitute any sort of an article. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- The verb refers to Squatting position which is a valid entry. We tend to have separate articles for surnames (unless the list is so small) and there is coverage anyway (there is not even requirement that there be any people at all WP:NNAME). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:27, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support, no clear primary topic. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support, no clear primary topic. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Squat says crouching is another name for squatting. Not quite right. Crouch is a position for attacking. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Use of redirects for placenames
editI'd like to understand the reason for removing placename redirects. Until recently, we used this format:
- Crouch, Swale, Kent, England
Crouch, Swale is a placename recognised by Ordnance Survey hence the existence of the redirect.
I've added several such redirects to disambiguation pages over the last 5+ years and there's been no objection until now. I'd like to continue using the above format because:
- It does no harm. The reader will get to the right article with no noticeable delay
- When the time comes to create an article for this subtopic there will be no need to update this page, a step that can easily be overlooked.
I understand the need to reduce use of redirects in general, but in cases like this where someone has intentionally created one for a subtopic of a place, why not use it?
--Wire723 (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think using a redirect tricks the reader. I haven't had a look, but the Manual of Style should have some guidance on this issue.--Commander Keane (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Piped links can trick the reader, but if a redirect goes somewhere unexpected it's the redirect itself that should be changed.
- In these placename disambiguations I make sure the redirect goes to a section of the target article with the same name, or (more commonly) the reader lands at the top of the article and sees the placename in bold text in the intro. Neither seems deceptive. -- Wire723 (talk) 07:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- While it has downsides for suggesting we have a separate article MOS:DABREDIR and MOS:RDR does also suggest its a good idea. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think using a redirect tricks the reader. I haven't had a look, but the Manual of Style should have some guidance on this issue.--Commander Keane (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, so I looked at some of the Manual of Style documents and it seems I am out of touch. I did not consider MOS:RDR, which may be important given the Ordnance Survey status. MOS:DABREDIR's example of Eon (geology) closely follows Crouch, Swale. This surprised me as I strongly believe that not deceiving the reader is a top priority for disambiguation pages, and indeed in the template at the bottom of this dab page it says "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the title Crouch". I have no objection for the redirect to be used.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)