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 was Delete all. Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 June 5.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Blue-necked

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Partial title match lists. They aren't dabs and they aren't valid list articles. See also:

--JHunterJ (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same kind of partial title match list:

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as partial title match lists, as nominator. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since you are the nominator, I have line-struck your "delete" vote as redundant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorrad (talk • contribs) 14:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the nominator is not prohibited from !voting, I have unstruck my comment. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no need or reason for these pages to be deleted. They are useful disambiguation pages. Gorrad (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:MOSDAB#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: "On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name" -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. None of the articles are ambiguous with the adjective. older ≠ wiser 14:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all These bird are known as the "blue neck" in the short form. The Wikipedia rule is: "If there is disagreement about whether this exception applies, it is often best to assume that it does." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote says "keep all" but your explanation only (possibly) applies to Blue-necked. But your explanation really only indicates that they should be added to Blueneck, and then only if your claim that they are known as the "blue neck" can be added to the articles where the other Wikipedia rules of reliable sourcing and verifiability can be applied. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we should also keep in mind the eventual impact of deleting or not deleting this: readers who enter "blue-necked" in the search box and hit "Go" (or Enter) will land either on Blue-necked or on a search results page. In this case, since there appear to be no actually ambiguous articles, the search results seems to better serve the readers, and that will only come up once the partial-title match list is deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Blue-necked, Blue-ring, Blue-rumped, and Blue-spotted, as per JHunterJ's valid objections, immediately above. This isn't the way partial title searches for articles are accomplished on Wikipedia; we really need to keep to our consistent, longstanding policy on this. Ohiostandard (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above two. David V Houston (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per JHunterJ – I don't see a reason to change the longstanding guideline about partial title matches. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The AFD was closed as delete by Kurykh on 18 May 2010 [1], but per the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 5, I have restored the deleted articles for the time being and have relisted this AFD for another seven days discussion. –MuZemike 02:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Longstanding consensus, and with the advent of the pull-down search option, a timewaster for readers. Abductive (reasoning) 06:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above, Boleyn2 (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, agree with Abductive in particular. Shadowjams (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Longstanding consensus is exactly the opposite of what Abductive suggests. There have already been two discussions about disambiguation pages of this type and both lead to the preservation of the pages in question. These two discussions can be found here and here. These four pages are disambiguation pages listing animals. Birders in particular commonly refer to birds by their "colour-part" names alone, therefore there is a need for disambiguation. Disambiguation pages do not require reference sections; written sources demonstrating that "colour-part" names are employed for a given bird may be difficult to find, but the employment of such names is a widespread convention that is not restricted to specific birds but is generally applicable. Dusky, List of things described as painted, List of things described as pied, The Lurking, List of titles with "Darker" in them, List of placenames containing the word "new", List of places beginning with Costa, Designated, and On wheels are not comparable to these "colour-part" disambiguation pages because the others are partial title matches while the "colour-part" names are not; they are terms used independently of any further title. The pull-down search option is insufficient to perform the required disambiguation for two reasons. The first reason is that not all the options will be listed. This is because there are too many entries to fit in the pull-down menu (there are 14 entries on Blue-spotted) and also because some of the entries start with "Blue-spotted" and others start with "Bluespotted" and, depending on whether the space or hyphen is included or omitted, a user will be presented with only the article titles that do the same. The second reason is because the pull-down menu provides no context; disambiguation pages provide a short summary of each article that has an entry, but this is not possible in the menu. "Colour-part" disambiguation pages play an important role on Wikipedia that cannot be performed by the pull-down search option. Neelix (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The pull down menu seems to ignore hyphens. For example, typing blue ring yields Blue-ringed octopus, Blue ring anglefish, Blue Ringtail, Blue-ring Danio, Blue-ring topsnail and Blue-ring. It even sorts the list by popularity, so the topmost is, of course, the venomous octopus. Abductive (reasoning) 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "problem" of the pull down menu presenting different results between bluespotted and blue spotted can be approached in several ways. First, if the usage in the real world always is Bluespotted stingray, then that's what people will type. If Bluespotted stingray and Blue spotted stingray are both used, then create a redirect. Worrying about people who have typed only Bluespotted and not kept going with grouper or whatever is underestimating their intelligence. Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other problem with relying on the pull-down menu to perform the functions of a disambiguation page is that many users search Wikipedia in ways that do not make use of the pull-down menu. This occurs on slow computers, many handheld devices, and external search engines. Neelix (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per JHunterJ and Abductive.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per JHunterJ and Abductive; these are not useful, let alone necessary, and instead only get in the way of valid searches. postdlf (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per JHunterJ and Abductive. While it is true, as stated above, that birders and similar use colour-part names, they do so not as "a widespread convention" but only as informal shorthand, in contexts where there is little or no likelihood of confusion, and thus no need for disambiguation. Two birders might, say, refer to "the blue-necked" (jacamar), as distinct from, say, "the white-chinned" (jacamar), when there is no ambiguity, but they would be most unlikely to refer to "the blue-necked" (jacamar) in situations where there was the possibility of confusion with the blue-necked lory. The argument that there is a need for disambiguation fails to recognise that colour-part names are only used in restricted contexts; in a wider context they are not used independently of the rest of the title. - Jimmy Pitt (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.