Talk:St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Speedy delete discussion

This shouldn't be deleted even if the articles don't exist they will. I will be writing the Sycamore, Illinois one soon enough and every single one of the red links falls under the NRHP WikiProject so please just leave this, it took forever to do so don't delete, the project will need it and it will save work down the road. Thanks.A mcmurray 16:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If this list is meant to be comprehensive, it isn't. There's a St Mary's church not two miles from me that's not listed. If it's not comprehensive, why just have a list of random churches without pages? Copy the wiki text somewhere on your computer and re-add the links as you create the pages, but this isn't the sandbox, and a disambiguation page with exactly one working link is precisely what the speedy criteria says should be deleted. NipokNek 14:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your statement that work will be lost if this gets deleted, I timed how long it took me to copy this to Notepad and save the text on my computer (simulating what I would do if I had put a lot of work into a page and thought it might go away.) It took 38 seconds. NipokNek 14:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. I intend to. Don't delete this. Add the link for your church, it's a wiki. I continue to contest this speedy deletion. This page hurts nothing by existing and can be added to, there are probably hundreds of disambiguation pages on Wikipedia that aren't entirely comprehensive, that's the idea of the wiki, it's always being improved. I don't believe the rules should not be adhered to in this case. Anyway if you want to be technical the crtieria say "points to one page" this "points" to more than one page, it's just that several of them have yet to be created.A mcmurray 15:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Making the user sort through 24 links to find the only one that works is VERY disruptive, and borders on a denial of service attack on the wiki. Bringing up the subject of comprehensiveness was my way of trying to justify keeping so many red links. If this was a complete list, an argument could be made that it should stay as it is, but since it is simply a random collection of non-existant pages, it should go. NipokNek 15:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Oh give me a break. Have you even looked at my contributions list. Don't start threatening me. There is no need to be a jerk. I still contest this, we are obviously not agreeing, and won't so what do we do now.A mcmurray 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't a threat. Anyway what's more disruptive, clicking on a link and going to an article you weren't looking for or clicking on a link and finding out the article doesn't exist? How is that an attack? That's a bit rash and unjustified I think.A mcmurray 15:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Also is the St. Mary's near your house notable, all of these are in their affiliation with the National Register of Historic Places.A mcmurray 15:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we both just enjoy a nice cup of tea and wait to see what an Administrator decides about this page? NipokNek 15:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm down.A mcmurray 15:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You do realize the easy solution is to write an article about a second church, thus creating the need for a disambig page? Assuming, of course, that the majority of these churches are notable in the first place. Resolute 16:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They all are. I realized but I am working on Connected farm right now. I suppose I could take a short break.A mcmurray 16:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

OK folks, cool heads and all that.

First off, these are all notable, since they're all on the National Register of Historic Places.

There are other similar pages, like St. Mark's Church (disambiguation), St. Peter's Church, St. John's Church, not to mention the courthouse pages, etc. Should they all be deleted too? Isn't that what disambig pages are for, listing multiple notable things with the same name? On the National Register, there are numerous such cases. This is why the National Register WikiProject is creating these disambiguation pages. It's like step one. Then they can be used as a reference for creating the actual articles.

There have been some pages like this where the redlinks were simply unlinked. That would be the easiest solution, I guess.

I do speak from experience, btw, as I've created a crapload (I believe that's the technical term) of these type of disambig pages.

On a side note, what is with delete-mania? It seems like people are putting delete requests (and especially speedy delete requests) in right and left. Wouldn't time be better spent creating content, rather than trying to destroy it? I've not put in a delete request for a potentially useful article, ever. I almost did recently, but then thought better and at least created a stub. But that's just me, color me wacky. -Ebyabe 16:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the disambiguation pages should say, explicitly, that the list of churches includes just churches on the National Register. Or, it should say that it's a generic name for hundreds of churches around the world and that the ones listed are notable for some reason. As long as there are links on the NRHP list pages that point to "St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church", these disambiguation pages are useful, even if they include redlinks. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the NRHP bit to the article, which I usually do but have been wondering if I should. As for the bit about 100s of churches, while I agree in principle this is why I explicitly worded the first sentence the way I did.

St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church or St. Mary's Catholic Church can refer to the following

Which has a significantly different meaning than:

St. Mary's Roman Catholic Church or St. Mary's Catholic Church refers to the following

Just thought I would offer a bit of explanation why I changed one thing but not the other. Thanks for everybody's input and I hope that NipoNek sees that it was a good faith edit.A mcmurray 17:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still having my tea. :) NipokNek 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Six weeks later...

Well, I've finished my tea, and here we are with the exact same three hastily created stub articles and 20 odd redlinks. Now, can we civilly discuss removing them? NipokNek 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the new version. :) Thanks to whomever changed it. (I'm too lazy to look you up) NipokNek 22:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

While I really don't understand why it matters so much that this rule be enforced on what is obviously part of a very active Wikiproject, I can also live with this. IvoShandor 22:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It were me. We (the NRHP Wikiproject) have been creating these, b/c there's so much of this kind of thing on the National Register. You can see on the What links here link what I mean. This is one of the more serious ones, but there's lots others. Figure to at least create disambig pages for all these, since it's gonna be quite some time before there are even stubs for all these. It's not really critical, I guess, for the links to be there, as such. As long as the disambig page remains, that's the importantest thing. Cheers! :) --Ebyabe 23:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the links don't matter, they can be added, but it would be foolish to remove this page. IvoShandor 04:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)