Talk:Sarah's Cottage
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
primary usage?
editHey, i notice a negative tag about this disambiguation page was just placed on it, with suggestion in tag itself and/or the edit summary that one usage is primary (wp:PRIMARYUSAGE), but it's not clear to me which one that is supposed to be.
So in my view both usages are obscure, so it is in fact appropriate to have a disambiguation page covering them both. In my opinion, you can have hatnotes at both of the articles if you like, or not, but the disambiguation page is useful. Please advise otherwise. --doncram 03:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Primary usage is the earlier article (23 Sept 2008), hence Sarah's Cottage, Isle of Man (I am not seeing that this was renamed from simply 'Sarah's Cottage'). An editor who is now showing as admin (unchecked the history as to when this privelege was added) created the dab-page much later (27 April 2009), then (and still) linking initially to a redirect.
Sarah's Cottage (TV series) is now linking to a section-only (was added only as an uncited, one-line paragraph, original research 26 April 2009) not an article per se, then was converted into a headed section when, presumably, something online became available, six years later. I haven't read through it, too much down-time until I am reclined in front ot the TV with laptop - need a picture in picture and wireless keyboard!
I know from long term surveilling an admin on (both) Wikipe/media that dab pages have to show three links to be (firstly) justified/kept - so I knew this, I didn't have to research it, but as yet, I haven't researched if dab pages are intended to link to (historically) redirects, then for six years an uncited sentence, and eventually a small section of an article differently-entitled? Useful or not, it's incumbent on me as a good wikipedian to template - that's what it's for, and it's better to be bold now rather than later and forget.
Often I intend to do things, then forget, then have to search with a bit of difficulty. Just found that a problem editor whom I suspected was socking in 2016 was blocked - unclear why, so I now have to refresh my memory before enquiring politely why the block is indeterminate. I regret the OP has inferred the templating to be "negative" - it's just editing within what I perceive to be 'expected' of an editor.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)