Talk:Alph

This article was nominated for deletion on 2 May 2008. The result of the discussion was Resolved.

Untitled

Is tehre enough to say about this to justify its own article? Would it be ocay to have it just as a footnote in the Alph River article? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Alph River. --Loremaster (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

According to WP:DAB "Each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have exactly one navigable (blue) link; including more than one link can confuse the reader." That's why I removed the extra links. They should be removed again. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two problems with including Alfeios River and with how it has been included. 1) Whether Coleridge was referring to that river by "Alph" is speculation. He wrote Kubla Khan after an opium-induced dream. Academic speculation about what river may have inspired that name is fair material to include in the Kubla Khan article, with reliable sources, but not here. 2) Even if Alfeios River were to be included here, why should it refer to a greek god that the Alfeios River article itself doesn't refer to? If there is a reliable source, the link to a god can be added to the river article. Readers can find it there, they don't need to have the added confusion of it here. Disambiguation pages should be as simple as possible because they are just a place for readers to find the article they are looking for, not a source of information in themselves. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making this issue far more complicated than it already is. Furthermore, if you are asking some of these questions, it is obvious that you don't know enough about this subject to make absolute judgements and the edits that follow from them. --Loremaster (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not complicated to point out how to write disambiguation pages. Please read the guideline and fix the linking errors that I fixed and you reverted. Nor is it a complicated concept that disambiguation pages are not the place for speculation. Please remove the speculative link that I removed and you reverted. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* To avoid wasting time with this dispute, I've removed the dispute content from the page. --Loremaster (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]