Talk:Hollywood District

changes

Hi Katr67. I don't object to your other changes, but reducing the three links to three NRHP list-articles (in Los Angeles, in CT, and in KY) to display essentially "listed on the NRHP" for each of them seems wrong. The links are required to meet MOS:DABRL policy. But displaying them that way makes it look like they will all link to one article about the NRHP program. I can't find the policy/guideline statement about avoiding surprising links, but it is a common argument in wp:RFD discussions that "surprising redirects" are to be avoided.

So I would prefer those three links to show as:

• Little Hollywood Historic District, Hartford, Connecticut, listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in Connecticut
• Hollywood Boulevard Commercial and Entertainment District, Los Angeles, California, listed on the NRHP in Los Angeles
• Hollywood Terrace Historic District, Lexington, Kentucky, listed on the NRHP in Kentucky

Then merely for superficial consistency I would somewhat prefer for the other NRHP ones to display in "listed on the NRHP in ___" format as well, but that does not really matter to me. doncram (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler for you to write three stub articles and remove the extra blue links all together? Katr67 (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually checking the NRHP list-articles, I find that there is already an article for the Los Angeles one, but it was pipelinked from the NRHP list. Have created redirect now so this one shows properly as a bluelink. Also the other two links, to be in more full conformance with dab guidelines, should point to the precise NRHP county or city-level list-articles which specifically to include those items, rather than to the statewide list-articles. And there was an omission error in the correct Kentucky county list-article, which i have now fixed.

So those two should be:

• Little Hollywood Historic District, Hartford, Connecticut, listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in Hartford, Connecticut
• Hollywood Terrace Historic District, Lexington, Kentucky, listed on the NRHP in Fayette County, Kentucky

and i am going to edit the dab that way right now. I won't mind if you want to further edit those, but i do want to get the underlying links right, at least.

About stub articles, i did create one already for the Hollywood Historic District (Homewood, Alabama) one, when i started the dab page. I felt that had extra need, to head off any confusion about the new redirect from "Hollywood Historic District" to this dab. In general with disambiguation pages and NRHP list-articles that i have set up, i have gone ahead and created stubs where there seemed to be some extra reason to do so. Other reasons are to capture a correction or a semi-complicated boundary increase that would be harder for others later to know what to do. But there are many editors who dislike short NRHP stub articles created from just the National Register database information (using Elkman's NRHP infobox generator). For these two, i guess i could go ahead and create stubs for them, if you really want, although it's a tradeoff against others' wishes. doncram (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hollywood District which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That discussion is now at Talk:Hollywood, Portland, Oregon. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)