Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Hiding talk 16:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Manual of Style (signpost articles)

Essentially duplicates the idea of disambiguation pages, and in simple cases redirects. Offers no benefits, but adds yet more complexity to the Wikipedia world! As it stands it has only 11 uses to date, these should be reformatted as disambig pages... I cannot find any discussion on the creation of this type of article in the WP:MoS discussion archives. I have removed the article from the MoS Style template plus put Category:Signpost articles up for deletion. Thanks/wangi 09:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The description states that signpost articles "are a lot like disambiguation pages, except that the target pages need not have the same name." This is a misunderstanding of disambiguation pages (which can incorporate synonyms and topics for which the applicable term describes a relatively minor element). As such, this setup is entirely redundant. —Lifeisunfair 18:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You've completely misunderstood the intent. As such I will re-word it and re-propose it. If I explain it right this time, it should be abundantly clear that they are very different from disambiguation pages (I regret saying they were!). Note that category is way way too overloaded to be useful anyway :). Pcb21 Pete 14:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lifeisunfair, unless someone presents a compelling rationale for this, which I certainly don't see. Not really instruction creep, just "confusion creep". Xoloz 01:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Confusion creep is annoying. Ashibaka (tock) 04:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it was not discussed and there is no need for it. Neonumbers 05:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there's a lot of confusion about "not pure dab pages" that can be avoided by simply not having them. Tedernst | talk 19:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's a damn sight more confusing to use disambiguation pages for pages where we are not disambiguating between things! Pcb21 Pete 14:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.