This redirect is within the scope of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to state highways and other major roads in the United States. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.U.S. RoadsWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. RoadsTemplate:WikiProject U.S. RoadsU.S. road transport
I contest the designation of this article as a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page is used when a title is ambiguous. "Ambiguous" means that it might refer to more than one topic. The title "U.S. Route 15-501 in North Carolina" refers to one, and only one, thing, namely the concurrency of those two routes in the state. The fact that there are two articles that discuss aspects of this single concept does not make the title ambiguous. I'm not suggesting that the page be deleted or renamed or anything else, just that the {{disambiguation}} template be removed from it. I note in the history that User:LittleWink attempted the same thing a couple of months ago, and that User:BDD and User:Washuotaku have reverted such edits. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating {{disambiguation}} and {{dabconcept}}. The former is a standard template that's supposed to be present on all disambiguation pages (unless a more specific version is used, such as {{hndis}}). It should only be removed if it's replaced with a more specific dab template or if the page ceases to become a dab. {{dabconcept}}, on the other hand, is a suggestion/request to convert a plain dab into a broad-concept article, like those described as WP:DABCONCEPT. My revert didn't concern the former. LittleWink's edit wanted to convert this dab into a broad-concept article. And on the merits, I don't disagree; at AfD, I voted to keep the actual article. But the AfD closed with a ruling that the title should only be a dab. But in this case, that would be tantamount to recreating an article deleted at AfD.
You removed the {{disambiguation}}, so that's a slightly different issue, but it was still right for Washuotaku to revert you, because this is still a dab, like it or not. Again, I'd be happiest with an article about 15-501 like we had prior to AfD. I just don't think that article would stand much of a chance at a second nomination. Unless you want to take on a complete rewrite, we should abide by the previous decision. --BDD (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the AfD decided that there's no such thing as 15-501, probably because the voters have never been there. So it's a dab between Routes 15 and 501. It's a silly solution, but you can't just pretend this page isn't a dab. Maybe take this up with the closing administrator. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what did your change accomplish but to create a stub? If you're interested in defending this title as an article, just revert what was there before AfD. It's really not bad. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the article would only duplicate information listed for US 15 and US 501; we do not treat the same special relationship to other highway concurrencies in the state: NC 24/NC 27, I-73/I-74, and US 19/US 23 to name a few. I would prefer the 15-501 article be deleted before gaining it full article status again, if the current compromise isn't allowed anymore. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a lame argument, and "Other stuff doesn't exist" doesn't strike me as much different. As between BDD and Washuotaku, I tend to agree with BDD; the current setup duplicates the description of the route in two different articles, which seems useless. But I didn't come here to get involved in that issue. My only concern was with the use of a "disambiguation" template for a title that plainly is not ambiguous. Both of you are arguing reasons why the title should or shouldn't have an article associated with it, but neither of you are addressing the fact that it is not an ambiguous title. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 23:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no ambiguity here. The title refers either to one topic (if there is one) or none (if there isn't). This page is a list article, or an article about the (possibly erroneous) idea of the overlap of roads, or completely needless, but it isn't a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused. Are you saying the roads might not overlap? That they do is both true and verifiable. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's a possible conclusion, based on your note that "the AfD decided that there's no such thing as 15-501". There being no such thing as 15-501 or there being such a thing as 15-501, either way there isn't ambiguity. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
