Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
== coverage level: mention of NRHP and see also mentions of related-name places ==
A non-logged in editor has twice deleted material from this article, including at first deleting even city, state mention, which I considered obviously unhelpful. In 2nd deletion, editor just removed NRHP mentions and all of the See also items about Oconnor-named buildings. Thank you for reducing down the scope of disagreement here.
However, I returned the article just now to the previous state, and ask for discussion. This is subjective, and I suppose the standard is not absolutely clear, about See also mentions and about NRHP-mentions. However, the precedent in many thousands of similar dab pages is that NRHP-mentions, or English listed building mentions, or similar, are standardly included. This provides something good: clarification that the dab page items are notable, that not any place ever having an Oconnor live there should be added. And the use of See also items is helpful and widely used too. I don't think that a change of both of these practices should be implemented on just this one dab page, and I would be open to having a general RFC and general discussion. I would like to ask that you, whoever you are, don't battle on this one dab page and then take it on to another and another and so on, but rather participate in a better process that we should discuss here.
I would appreciate if you would identify yourself, too. If you are editor Nyttend, I think you should admit that. It would be relevant for this discussion, either one-on-one or for a general discussion, for me and others to know about the nature of previous interactions. With editor Nyttend in particular I have tried hard to have decent discussions on several different vaguely similar formatting type topics, only to find the experience frustrating. I will back these remarks up if necessary with diffs. It just could require more effort to document past behavior and tendencies, to inform a current discussion, if that is you Nyttend. --]]] 11:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation
coverage level: mention of NRHP and see also mentions of related-name places
A non-logged in editor has twice deleted material from this article, including at first deleting even city, state mention, which I considered obviously unhelpful. In 2nd deletion, editor just removed NRHP mentions and all of the See also items about Oconnor-named buildings. Thank you for reducing down the scope of disagreement here.
However, I returned the article just now to the previous state, and ask for discussion. This is subjective, and I suppose the standard is not absolutely clear, about See also mentions and about NRHP-mentions. However, the precedent in many thousands of similar dab pages is that NRHP-mentions, or English listed building mentions, or similar, are standardly included. This provides something good: clarification that the dab page items are notable, that not any place ever having an Oconnor live there should be added. And the use of See also items is helpful and widely used too. I don't think that a change of both of these practices should be implemented on just this one dab page, and I would be open to having a general RFC and general discussion. I would like to ask that you, whoever you are, don't battle on this one dab page and then take it on to another and another and so on, but rather participate in a better process that we should discuss here.
I would appreciate if you would identify yourself, too. If you are editor Nyttend, I think you should admit that. It would be relevant for this discussion, either one-on-one or for a general discussion, for me and others to know about the nature of previous interactions. With editor Nyttend in particular I have tried hard to have decent discussions on several different vaguely similar formatting type topics, only to find the experience frustrating. I will back these remarks up if necessary with diffs. It just could require more effort to document past behavior and tendencies, to inform a current discussion, if that is you Nyttend. --doncram11:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
