Talk:Douglas County Courthouse

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles

Disambiguation

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

Requested move (restoring original setup)

I request move of "Douglas County Courthouse (disambiguation)" to "Douglas County Courthouse". To do this requires first moving "Douglas County Courthouse" to "Douglas County Courthouse (Omaha, Nebraska)". These two steps undo the two moves in other direction implemented by another editor unaware of how disambiguation of historical places works in wikipedia. This was discussed with the editor at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation pages with all red links but one and at the editor's talk page. doncram (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Against~~ - This page has only one actual article listed so it is not a true disambiguation page; it should either be deleted or moved to a set index article called something like Douglas County Courthouse (list) where citations should be added for those entries that remain without articles. Abtract (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is only one Wikipedia article with the title "Douglas County Courthouse", so it is the primary topic. Create the other article(s) first, and then discuss whether the Omaha one is still the primary topic (it might still be even then). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although replacing the {{disambig}} template with {{SIA}} to avoid hassles from disambiguation purists may be the more prudent approach. Ideally, the project behind creating/expanding NRHP articles would establish some general standards for set index articles on such ambiguously named registered historic places. older ≠ wiser 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there are now three articles. --Ebyabe (talk) 19:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)222[reply]
Support - change my vote now that there are three articles (I don't know how to strike my previous vote, so if someone wants to ... ) Abtract (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous opinion crossed out. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to correct DAB page. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move restoring original setup was implemented. doncram (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NRHP

Why is it helpful to say whether a building is listed on a dab page? Surely it is more helpful to add a short description such as "a historic building" as specified by mos:dab? Abtract (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"A historic building" is vague. There are many types of historic buildings. Describing these as listed on the NRHP is both more accurate and informative, and is also within the dab guidelines of providing a "brief description". older ≠ wiser 12:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it doesn't describe it at all, it says where it is listed which is not a description and is meaningless to non-Americans. "Historic building" on the other hand is a description and will have meaning to all readers. Remeber this is a dab page (against my wishes but that's what consensus says) and dab pages are to help people find the page they seek not to inform them of listings - whether a building is listed is imaterial in their search. imho. Abtract (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't agree with you either. The description "historic building" is unnecessarily vague. Being listed on NRHP is the main reason that these buildings are significant enough to merit mention in an encyclopedia. The page explains (briefly) what NRHP means, which should be more than sufficient for readers to understand that they are historic buildings. older ≠ wiser 13:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have too much else on to continue this beyond saying that you are forgetting that this is a dab page not an article. Enjoy. Abtract (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what that remark has to do with anything. Dab guidelines do not require that the descriptive phrase be so short as to be meaningless. older ≠ wiser 15:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there's been a history of attempts to completely delete NRHP disamb pages, precisely b/c there was nothing on the page to indicate the notability of the listings. I know I started adding the NRHP info to try to prevent that. --Ebyabe (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely my point ... NRHP is only there in order to get round the dab page rules! It certainly doesn't help readers. Abtract (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how does it not help readers to identify the primary reason that the items are mentioned at all in the encyclopedia? It is certainly far more helpful than some ambiguously vague mention of being a historic building. older ≠ wiser 17:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Also, we're not trying to get around rules. We're trying to improve things, honest. And isn't it guidelines? Please, everyone, remember assume good faith and ignore all rules. Thank you. --Ebyabe (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me another example of a listing being quoted rather than a description? Abtract (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "a listing being quoted rather than a description"? older ≠ wiser 18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]