Talk:Penpol

Edit revert

[1] @Crouch, Swale: you misunderstand: the redlink needs to be present at the target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud: MOS:DABRED says "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should be included on a disambiguation page only when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link" and "To find out if any article uses the red link, click on it, and then click "What links here" on the toolbox on the left side of the page.". It doesn't seem to say that there must be a redlink in the blue linked article but only seems to say that (1) there must be a mainspace link (List of United Kingdom locations: Pe-Pen#Peno-Pens) and the topic be mentioned in the blue link (which Penpol is). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: I think your interpretation is a stretch. It's clear to me that if a disambiguation page entry contains a redlink and a blue link, that redlink must appear in the article at that blue link. Why wouldn't it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should it matter if the article that has the redlink is the same one as the one that's linked in the description? As far as I know, the requirement for the presence of a redlink anywhere is there so that the decisions around that redlink (to link or not – notability, how exactly to link – naming conventions) are shifted away from editors of dab pages and unto editors of the topics concerned. Given that the editor who has introduced this link is, as far as I can see, within their area of topical expertise, I'd trust them on the notability and naming issues. In such a case it's not even relevant if the redlink is found anywhere at all. – Uanfala (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

To be quite honest I'm not sure if Penpol merits an article or if it should just be a redirect to Chycoose since even though it is an ONS BUA it does actually look like its part of Chycoose not the other way round but either way its fine as a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I created the redirect since it's in bold in the lede (similar to Point, Cornwall). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes the debate here moot, maybe it merits an article buts its fine for now as a redirect. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Uanfala: it boils down to MOS:DABMENTION. Don't use a redlink in a disambiguation page entry if it doesn't appear in the article. Simple. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The point of DABMENTION is for the topic to be covered in the linked article, not the exact literal term that could otherwise serve as the title of the potential article. – Uanfala (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)