Talk:Crystal Palace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This 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.

deletions by Ewlyahoocom[edit]

User:Ewlyahoocom deleted several entries here. I reverted that. Was there a good reason for it? And what does ivory tower have to do with this? DirkvdM 08:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Crystal Palace Laughlin doesn't have any page at wikipedia (and maybe it's also been shut down?) and isn't mentioned on the Laughlin page, so at best it would be a redlink (and redlinks don't belong on disambiguation pages). There's also no mention of any "Crystal palace" on the New Brunswick, San Antonio, New Mexico, or Sydney (or 2600: The Hacker Quarterly) pages. And then there's part of a dictionary definition at the bottom. None of these should be on this disambiguation page. (Ivory tower was a partial replacement for the dictionary definition.) ...(continued below) Ewlyahoocom 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Why wouldn't a redlink belong on a disambiguation page? It says a certain meaning of a word exists, which is useful info for an encyclopedia. Where else would one put that info? Then again, if you don't like the red, you don't have to make it a link. It's not a link page, it's a disambiguation page. Of course, if the subject does not merit or doesn't yet have an article of its own, it would have to be dealt with elsewhere, such as in this case in the place where that crystal palace is to be found, as is done with several entries. Deleting a meaning of a term just because no separate article has been written on it yet seems a bit silly to me. Note that I am an inclusionist. :) DirkvdM 08:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation_pages)#Redlinks says "[l]inks to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject." These have been redlinks for a long time and there's little reason to suspect any new pages are going to be added for them -- unless you, as an inclusionist, are going to take this opportunity to add new pages for them. But I don't know if something should be considered notable just because it isn't included. I, as a mergist, would prefer you, at most, include that information on their respective city pages so the information can at least be vetted by the people that know those towns best. Ewlyahoocom 09:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I misused the term 'inclusionist'. I was talking about preserving the information, whereas these terms are about whether this should be put in a separate article. But that doesn't apply here. It's about in which 'article' it should go. Now this is not really an article but a disambiguation page. But if people look for a certain meaning of 'crystal palace' it should be mentioned here, so they can find a link to the city where that variety of crystal palace can be found. (Now if there is no article yet on that city that complicates matters, but there is an article on Laughlin, Nevada, so I added that link.) Of course, the info should also be put in the article on the city, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted here. DirkvdM 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, so then aren't we're in agreement: that if the term actually appeared anywhere on the target article then it can be included here -- but as long as it doesn't, then it doesn't belong here either? Won't the reader following the link to Laughlin (or Sydney, or New Brunswick, etc.) be confused when they find no mention there of Crystal Palace? And if the information is of so little note that the editors of those pages won't include it, then why should it be rotting over here all by itself? Ewlyahoocom 10:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
When I said I was an inclusionist I meant that I don't want to delete any info, provided it's true and relevant (is there a term for this? - additionist?). If something needs to be done with the info (such as include it in other pages as in this case) then one should do that or leave it for others to do, but not delete it. Of course I could just do that now myself, which would settle this, but I want to illustrate the principle. I see Wikipedia as a work in progress (and it will remain so for at least a few years). It is ok if things are not perfect at some moment because someone who notices this will correct it. Such as the confused 'visitor' you mention. That's the way Wikipedia works. No-one is a simple 'visitor'. Everyone participates. I often write things badly because I can't find the right words (I'm Dutch). Rather than decide not to include the info I concentrate on getting the info right so someone else can improve what I wrote. I just had a big fight over an article I wrote (Hiroshima (film)) where someone thought it was badly written and deleted half the article. In the end I got my way, and now the deleter has rented the film and has started editing in his own version. At least one other person has joined in, so I'm now at ease. I'll return in a while to see what they have done and then maybe change it around a bit again. That's the way Wikipedia should work. You don't have to get it right straight away. DirkvdM 08:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Once again I can only suggest you re-read the manual of style. In the bigger picture, why are you over here wasting time talking to me? As an inclusionist what you should be doing is voting Keep on every article deletion proposal. You can find lists at User:AllyUnion/AFD List and -- but hurry: 100's of articles are being deleted every day! Ewlyahoocom 10:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Eh? Did you leave out a smiley or do I misunderstand something? I already said that I used the wrong word, this is not about inclusionism but about preserving info. DirkvdM 04:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't care what you call it: there's hundreds -- maybe thousands -- of articles being deleted every day! These aren't merger proposals, and mostly this is information that exists nowhere else in Wikipedia. When these articles are deleted that information is gone with no trace that it ever existed. Don't you care about the preservation of that information, too? If you don't rescue the information at Bojo, Beta butterfly, Subbamma, Tim Shephard, Lumisoft, Wippit, Heartland Electric, Inc., Menopausal Helpline, How to become a car dealer, Raiden Fighters X, Cristy's Cake Shop, Five little speckled frogs, Walmarting, etc. then who will? (Did you even read any of the proposals or articles? Did you even look at the list?) Some of these articles will probably have been deleted before you even read this -- but's it not too late to save the others: if you act now! Ewlyahoocom 08:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so that's what you meant. Alas I only have one lifetime. This is just something I ran into, so I deal with this. Don't ask me to save the world. My little corner in it suffices. :) DirkvdM 07:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Then you're just a hypocrite ("When I said I was an inclusionist I meant that I don't want to delete any info...") wasting my time. I'm finished talking to you. Ewlyahoocom 08:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Eh? This discussion has taken a wrong turn somewhere. I though we were having a nice discussion and now all of a sudden you've started being, well, rude, really. Please explain what you mean. What makes me a hypocrite? DirkvdM 17:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
No reaction, so I'll re-revert and see what happens. DirkvdM 07:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting the Crystal Palace page to the Crystal Palace (disambiguation) page.[edit]

I've changed the Crystal Palace entry. It had been used to redirect to The Crystal Palace. The page now redirects to the Crystal Palace (disambiguation) page. As a resident of the Crystal Palace, London area, with a very good knowledge of the history of The Crystal Palace, I believe a search for Crystal Palace should lead to a Disambiguation page. Looking at the Disambiguation page it seem there is no need to put the word disambiguation in the page name. First time editing Wikipedia and not to sure how to move the Crystal Palace (disambiguation) history to the Crystal Palace page, or if this should be done. --Kelmorn 18:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

(continued from above)... That mostly leaves the other London based "Crystal Palaces" -- all of which seem to derive their name from the old building. And although Crystal Palace F.C. has the most links, the links to disambiguation page (about 80 links and 1 link), even the ones about football, mostly seem to intend to reference the old building (or the site of the old building (or the old replacement building? (or the site of the old replacement building? I admit: I do find the page at The Crystal Palace a little confusing))). But I'm not any expert on London or football, and I might even be misreading British English (or "sports" English), so if you tell me it needs to be the disambiguation page you probably know better than me. However, I will ask that you go through these remaining pages that link to this disambiguation page and disambiguate the erroneous links so they reference their proper pages. To get rid of the "(disambiguation)", since the move is obstructed, we'll have to have an Administrator do it: see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Ewlyahoocom 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
A term should ideally link to what most people will mean by it. And the 'experts' on this are, I suppose, people who live in the area. If, to them, 'crystal palace' is an ambiguous term, it should be a disambiguation page. But that should then remain in the title. In other words, I think things are fine the way they are now. DirkvdM 08:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

one more ..?[edit]

Please help me out, I strongly remember a scene (fictional or real?), where "crystal palace" was the code name of an air wing command center, perhaps during WWII? Thanks in advance! axpdeHello! 13:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Move this page?[edit]

Might it make sense to move The Crystal Palace to Crystal Palace and Crystal Palace to Crystal Palace (disambiguation)?

(And then the phrase The Crystal Palace at the beginning of the first mentioned article would be modified to say The Crystal Palace, with the word "The" not bold.) Michael Hardy (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)