Talk:Lord North (disambiguation)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... Lots of pages where the subject my be called Lord North and as such can use the alternative title via Lord North. --PBS (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC about including all persons titled Lord North in the disambiguation

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The editing guideline on disambiguation pages states that: This kind of (that is, double) disambiguation is relatively rare on Wikipedia. There are good reasons for that. Most especially is that, as editors, we should always be making the encyclopedia easier to read even at the expense of ease of editing. Despite running the full 30 days of a regular RfC, this discussion attracted only 5 editor's opinions. That is a small sample for assessing consensus, however, only one voice favored a double-disambiguation approach. Therefor, this is closed as no consensus in favor of creating a double-disambiguation path for holders of the Baron North title. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

---

Should this disambiguation list each and every Lord North, or merely direct users to the section at Lord North with the exact same information (as seen here).--Nevé–selbert 21:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The disambiguation page is sufficiently short, even with the list of all the Lords North we have articles on, that having the whole lot of them on there is no hindrance to navigation. On the other hand, having to click through the page on Baron North in order to get to any of the specific Lords North is a hindrance to navigation. So I'm in favour of listing all of the different Lords North separately, unless this page grows substantially from what it is now. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Each and every Lord North. Make it easy on readers. Don't make then have to click through two different pages (and possibly back and forth) to find the person they're looking for. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

  How lackadaisical can Wikipedia readers possibly be, DrFleischman? All it takes is an extra click and voila, there is a list there that should satisfy.--Nevé–selbert 00:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me the more appropriate question is, who's more lackadaisical, Wikipedia readers or Wikipedia editors? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I guess a compromise would be transcluding the list from Baron North to this page, which I might just about make do with.--Nevé–selbert 01:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem with that is several Baron Norths do not have articles and are presumably only mentioned in the Baron North page, which is already linked. This means they wouldn't be valid dab entries. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep all valid DAB entries per above. Since there is a DAB page, the DAB is short, and each Lord North with a page is a valid MOS:DABENTRY, there's no reason not to list them here and save clicks. I've previously added a hidden comment in the Baron North list section to update this page if any of the redlinks are created. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Remove redlinked Lords North. Perhaps when any of the Lords North who don't currently have an article get theirs (through the almost identical list at the other article), this page could be notified and the person pertained to would be added to the list. Until then, they may not be considered WP:Notable. Alt. Eno 05:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.