Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disambiguations

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Disambiguations. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Disambiguations|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Disambiguations. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Disambiguations

[edit]

Dying for Sex (disambiguation)

[edit]
Dying for Sex (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well, the prod template has been removed by Mast303, so now I am forced to nominate Dying for Sex (disambiguation) at AfD.

The original reason for the prod, namely that a hatnote suffices in lieu of a disambiguation page per WP:ONEOTHER, still applies. GTrang (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSC 2025 (disambiguation)

[edit]
MSC 2025 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This disambiguation page will no longer serve any purpose soon. As Draft:MSC 2025 will be accepted, a WP:HATNOTE would be set up for the two pages and so it feels that the dab, with only two entries, would be useful. ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 20:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

प्रधान मंत्री

[edit]
प्रधान मंत्री (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From what I can ascertain, I'm guessing this translates to "Prime Minister". It certainly isn't plausible that it means "of Nepal" and "of India" with the exact same spelling, which would make this an invalid dab page. Also, are article titles in different alphabets even allowed? I suspect not, but MOS:FOREIGNTITLE and WP:TSC don't explicitly cover this. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orechová (disambiguation)

[edit]
Orechová (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page is not required. WP:G14 declined by @Pppery: with edit summary "Decline G14, does not apply (at least the feminine form of Orekhov (surname) counts as a valid second entry). There is no use of "Orechova" at Orekhov (surname). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derekh

[edit]
Derekh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This purported disambiguation page is an incomplete list of articles containing the word: all entries are WP:Partial title matches. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this page inhibits Search Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FECN (disambiguation)

[edit]
FECN (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

new dab created with a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and one other: 1. creation against WP:ONEOTHER "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed", 2. WP:DIFFCAPS - says to use hatnotes - so we have a WP:PT (allcaps) and only a capitalisation change - so per MOS we use hatnotes. This was already setup as anticipated, but one editor is insisting on a dab and reverting best practice per both 1. 2. Widefox; talk 22:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump tax bill

[edit]
Trump tax bill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a proper disambiguation page: descriptive titles are a big no no. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bidding stick newspapers (disambiguation)

[edit]
Bidding stick newspapers (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary dab page per WP:DABFOREIGN and WP:PARTIAL, and since the term "bidding stick" doesn't appear in any of the titles (at least not in English). CycloneYoris talk! 01:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I used "bidding stick" in the title because its a English wiki and they are different words/spelling for bidding sticks used. the most common is Budstikke. Budstikke is a name for several newspapers, and is also the word for bidding sticks. it is also mentioned in the bidding sticks section named "newspapers". article creators many times add something to the beginning as not to conflict with eachother like having "Budstikke" in the name JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theres also Budstikken and bidstikka, both meaning bidding stick. JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think even that many articles can be confused with each other with this. not only do they have the same name in the title but the way some of them are separated is not absolute of what can be searched for. plus theres names that is one letter off for wp partial. even ignoring that theres serveral with Budstikke in the title @CycloneYoris JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know I may have added some that may or may not be appropriate afterwards but it should not poison with the others to doom
I fear that you haven't looked closely enough into the dab and how its connected. but mainly just the "bidding sticks" as a name JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


  • oh also importantly it is put in after the name at the very beginning of the paragraph of a lot of the articles saying "bidding sticks" for as a name for the news paper.
its just "bidding stick newspaper" wouldn't show up but "bidding stick" will
the ones that don't are likely incomplete and might need that added.
these include pages that are studs and I didn't make them nor the bidding sticks page nor the newspaper section where it is mentioned and talked about where it can be helpful. JamesEMonroe (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This page does multiple things
  • clears up ambiguity between articles containing the same name: mostly "Budstikke", but theres also others like "Budstikken"
  • some of these names are extremely close to each other and can easily be mistaken for each other, they are one letter different while the same word grammatically different or they contain the same word and have in the beginning somthing relating to the newspaper like, its location or author, some have it in its title however the Budstikke is likely the most remember part of the newspaper. the newspaper and subject wouldn't be called bla bla Budstikken, it would be Budstikken as often these are local papers and don't need to differentiate
  • There's articles with the same title word Budstikke is a redirect to bidding stick, however it is the name of several newspapers (on its own should be enough to warrant it)
  • Connect newspapers with the name Budstikke or similar name, these can be confused and you cant link all these possible ones in article linking without this, users can first hand see the ambiguity, and articles like it grouped with multiple of the same name or similar. this page is and can be linked on these articles to help with disambiguation. this can be used as a hatnote atop to lead to multiple articles with the same name or similar name. no other can do this and too many to add a hat note on top
  • its the topic of the section newspapers of the bidding sticks section and could disrupt it
  • it informs and educates users of it ambiguity and topic.
  • I used bidding sticks to not be language specific and it can be more easily identified and associated in the bidding sticks section which many of these newspaper articles link to. there's also multiple languages, even with it primarily being Norwegian, not all use the same spelling.
  • while not its purpose, its a collection of newspapers where "bidding sticks" is used as a name and its small enough for hat list to fit in a dob, and not be over huge, I extensively looked for each one

. however people researching might only have in there head that the newspaper they are after is named after that item in that way but might not know of how it would be in a title in Wikipedia

JamesEMonroe (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it cant be a redirect as there's none with that exact name
there's no over encompassing to merge it with, this is the over encompassing page for these articles
its too small to be a list or information, and its primary function is to lead to articles, but i think ill be able to add info for it to meet article criteria if it means saving it, but I really think its better off as a dob

I gave reasons for its naming but a name change could be vaild.

its a unique situation I feel with the naming, and I hope people can see that JamesEMonroe (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • More can, and are added. there's many newspapers with this name of sorts, most don't have wiki pages or notable enough. but there are notable ones and ones on this wiki that I can link together with this, regardless if they are Norwegian. A name change could limit this which is what i fear and i think its interesting concept enough to see them all together, but its way better then deletion. Also I really don't see how WP:DABFOREIGN applies at all. JamesEMonroe (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per what I said, and how it doesn't break those.(if I am allowed to vote). if consensus says otherwise for it to be removed, then in some compacity save it. ie soft delete instead of delete or draftify or preferably something else. JamesEMonroe (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear delete for several reasons: The topic should be covered at Bidding stick#Newspapers and only there. It's unfortunately out of place and not valid as a disambiguation page. "Bidding stick newspapers" is not at all a valid encyclopedic topic, it's just a matter of unrelated newspapers sharing the same name. "Bidding stick newspaper" is an entirely novel concept based on one person's interpretation of names, and are never written about as a topic in e.g. a scholarly setting. PS. James E. Monroe, for the future please condense your AFD replies - your contribution above is hard to read, mostly due to being too long and having a non-uniform formatting, but also grammar mistakes which seem to stem from rushed writing. Geschichte (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, @Geschichte Thank you for your fast feedback to get consensus moving.
    as far as a "novel concept" by one person, I will do some research on the matter to give sources please give me atleast beginning of next week to provide them and source them. I will look into it, but I don't think it is true. it certainly wouldn't be me.
    Also I didn't create Bidding stick nor Biddingstick#Newspapers and I didn't create any of the newspapers wikipages
    (PE: no, I'm not saying I cant edit other wikis that I haven't made, in cause you thinking that)
    if you mean as a term, it can be morphed into anything, I am not creating a term or concept here (at least not my goal to), I am creating a DOB. if i pour blue paint on something like a box, is it not permissible to call it a blue box? The reasoning for the name of the dob is what I stated, the name could be decided by the wiki community of course. I connected two words which are true, together that are uncontroversial for the dob name like calling a box that is painted blue a blue box. (unimportant, but to state the intent as it seems to be misunderstood -these are rhetorical questions ~bad ones :p~). anyways you can suggest a better name.
    "it's just a matter of unrelated newspapers sharing the same name" isn't that still important to distinguish between them? since they are so close in naming. need for disambiguation
    Also do you have to suggest the full nuclear option for it then to draftify or userify, or even with another possibility? is there a particular reason?
    (bolding is meant to be relaxed and for readability not yelling)
    will be back with you, hope all is well ^^ JamesEMonroe (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the name and description is not the point and can be changed. The point is to link the articles into a cohesive place that are named in that manner. for disambiguation. No term, concept or original research is to be created as per dob guidelines. Sources have stated the trend of naming, as well as other wikipedia, but I am looking currently for more scholarly examples for you if needed. The point is to be a navigational tool for names that are enough for disambiguation need (see discussion). the short info and description is meant to help navigation and give some little information that trace back to the link Wikipedia's, some inferable liberties I gave myself for explanation but are up to be deleted. and I would like for it description to be more properly worded by another editer
If its to be covered at Bidding stick#Newspapers it wouldn't provide disambiguation value for these articles, and stay as a concise complete cohesive list. it wouldn't be known for edits to use to for disambiguation, which before I helped with some editors were trying to fix by cited one similar article but there's multiple. and if that's to be decided then a merge after fixes and/or redirect is more order. however remember what I said. Many people wouldn't know to associate the two either, or that there's other articles named similarly. Putting it in the article would be larger then the contents in the article already, it also would be likely for redirects to be broken as to debloat the article. without a proper redirect it would be confusing of why in the user mind its redirecting to an object. I thought about the idea of merging after the afd but thought it would be bad for the reasons above, where it wouldn't work out, and seen other dob pages where that could be in articles, but weren't. Deleting it would prevent me from accessing what was in it aswell. Also I might be inaccessible for 2 days also if you could wait before forming destructive consensus in my absence(back got rescheduled). I shouldn't even be talking now with my work, my apoligies. JamesEMonroe (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider not writing any further comments in this discussion. Your comments are getting so long-winded, about 9,000 characters, that it gets impossible for people to follow. Geschichte (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, just saw this. also having the editor open hides and overrides things. JamesEMonroe (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
some links (what I have not what I am going to research but some of what I have). here is the Wiktionary: https://no.wiktionary.org/wiki/budstikke Wiktionary, and all the Wikipedia articles all point them to being different grammatical tenses of the word. I will try to cite something for this that's good but why do I need further justification then was given to them? if they said it why cant I. being different tenses I think that's enough for a connection. its grammatical changes by one letter
inter change of usage between and articles with a comprehensive analyses on them
this shows more connection and it as a trend, plus all wiki articles that I find says that they are connected, many newspaper variants have the "(the padding stick)" right in the beginning
Basically if I/it am wrong. you have a potientially large wiki investigate/clean up on your hands if i'm not mistaken. this would be a large
Extending far enough to getting everything to repeat what is said from Wikipedia like the toaster incident, ok thats exaggerated with the toaster but it does feel like it goes deep across wikimedia. websites that seemed to have copied wikipedia: https://muckrack.com/media-outlet/budstikka https://alchetron.com/Bidding-stick
https://www.srku.edu.in/read?s=Budstikka etc.
if this info is incorrect, everything says it, it's a research nightmare.
  • Yes "Bidding stick newspapers" doesn't seem to be labeled elsewhere especially since most info is not in english or cared about in the english speaking world. it is suggesting that Budstikke translates to Bidding stick
in English an dis the substitute ( accord to other wiki articles, Wiktionary). So I substituted it, since its an English wiki. it could be renamed Budstikke (newpapers) or (media) idk. would exclude not Norwegian newspapers though, maybe bidding stick (newspaper). it was to categories those traits.
  • No I havent added information that cant be inferred outside of Wikipedia, and no I am not doing a "translation list" or my own research. Still my information may of inferred incorrectly or badly worded i'm only human (or assume knowledge).
  • no you do not have to agree to my explanations or descriptions. neither any of the ones beyond the name similarities connections here or on the dob, this is a disambiguation issue. Also not every link or category I added for it. this also isnt saying that you should not agree or it shouldn't be added, just it doesn't necessarily have to be
  • From information from wikipedia/wikimedia, (yet to get elsewhere) -> Yes(if Wikipedia is 100% correct outside my edits) Budstikke and Budstikka Budstikkian are of the same word and are recognized as such, nothing showing otherwise. example “Budstikka” is the definite singular form of the noun “budstikke” in modern Norwegian Bokmål. see wikinary,
  • Budstikke is already a redirect to bidding stick in Wikipedia, but it is used in the name of newspapers we know and is many times labeled as such on respective wikis
Opinion (assuming): Since its essentially the same word, That has a one letter difference it is disambigious between them, especially when they are different newspapers. Some also had previously a different grammatical form of bidding stick with their title. Their name grammar form when being refer to outside the title could differ leading to ambiguity.
its seems like "the bidding stick form" might be how some are referred to as. it does make sense though for Budstikke. these are often local papers and seeming dont have another newspaper with the same kind of name for their respective area.
Reguardless of everything, purely on a name bases with Budstikke containing titles should have disambiguation fixes
Re: Also I might be inaccessible for 2 days also if you could wait before forming destructive consensus in my absence. (back got rescheduled) I shouldn't even be talking now with my work, my apologies. (I had to add) [Sorry for long, I right long regardless of mental state and not meant be disruptive like mad edit warriors or argumentative, I like to spill out my ideas straight from my head, its just how I am, many times that turns into many errors :p.] JamesEMonroe (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as it stands, the article is stuck half way between being an article and a dab. Probably the best approach is to merge any factual information about the origin of the term to Bidding stick#Newspapers, and cut this dab page down to a simple list of blue-links of the Norwegian newspapers with no additional text. The reason is that a dab page is only there to help readers find the right article when there are several with similar names. A reasonable analogy can be found at The_Times_(disambiguation), which doesn't discuss why newspapers get called "Times" but does list an awful lot of newspapers that a reader might conceivably be looking for. Elemimele (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.
    for it being an article would be a big undertaking, technically the stubs are of mostly little substance that most linked articles could actually be merged, Though 1 or two might be of more importance and notability. but certainly some of them are questionable for notability and content amount. but it would help with size and difficulty to research. I think is could find info on why articles where made and how the trend started. having it as an article does reduce its capacity a bit to quickly see its ambiguity. Theres is information with this that could be explored that cant be with a dob too. Article though runs the risk entire newspapers (or links to them) being deleted for conciseness that dob doesn't have.
    for dob, I don't see why the other links couldn't be showed that aren't under the Norwegian section. I'm not saying keep the sections how they are, but the accessibility of the links in some capacity on the page.
    I agree that it does need to be cut down information wise and simplified, keeping its name help how its sourced like in bidding stick article. I think dates and location helps to show they are infact different though for text by link, but it doesn't require alot (plus it might lead them to hat they are looking for because there are mostly local newspapers
    I don't know if past names should be shown though also
    Keeping the name does help in a lot of ways and doesn't isolate it to being Norwegian. it could be changed to bidding stick (newpapers) and bidding stick (tool) or something.
    A simple list helps to quickly differentiate and compare, and see the ambiguity (and page purpose) right away JamesEMonroe (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, even if disambiguation is warranted, this is a bad title. The title implies that there is a primary topic for Bidding stick newspapers, which there is not. And even then, none of the entries would be ambiguous with the plural form in any case. And it is unclear whether any of the newspapers are commonly known in English by the translated titles. There might possibly be a case for a disambiguation page at Budstikke or Budstikke (disambiguation), but the present title is not appropriate at all. The suggestion to merge this content into Bidding stick#Newspapers should also be considered. older ≠ wiser 12:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I Agree. Although I don't see it as to much of an issue personally of bidding sticks being as a title relating to it even though it isn't used. maybe Bidding Stick (newspaper). Budstikke (disambiguation) could work as there is only one article that isnt apart of Budstikke, though as I said it doesn't allow room for its usage in other Scandinavian countries and norway centric and less referenceable, for its usage of bidding stick. but even with that it might be fine JamesEMonroe (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have said: yes, if this dab is kept (if we need one for "budstikke", it needs to change name. I'm not sure how many people go looking for Norwegian newspapers. Elemimele (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know Budstikka can be more notable as its a controversial right wing one, there's multiple tabloids on them, even research articles specifically on them. then there's another one that is referenced on the web a lot but doesn't seem too popular on Wikipedia. JamesEMonroe (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bidding stick All information in this article could be summarized and merging into the main article. Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: Looking at the definition of bidding sticks Wikipedia page does possibly suggest there maybe non newspaper versions of these words or word versions we don't know, I'm not well versed in Wikipedia searching for this nor Scandinavia entirely to find if something else exists that could be in the dob. but also possibly not JamesEMonroe (talk) 00:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is against keeping, but the issue is now whether to delete or merge this content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:39, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletions

[edit]

Redirects for discussion

[edit]

See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Disambiguations&oldid=1292255018"