Talk:Queimada

Removed items

No article, no information, not even a mention:

* Queimada, Azores, a village on São Jorge Island

Essentially the same as the above, in that while it does have a mention, it is as one of 19 no-article, no-link, subdivisions of a municipality of 7,318 inhabitants (avg popn: 385!):

* Queimada, Portugual, a civil parish in the municipality of Armamar, Portugal

Ref to the snake by "Queimada" alone is unlikely, especially since most discussions of it will refer also the the island of that name which is its only habitat:

*The Queimada Bothrops (a.k.a. Golden Lancehead), a highly venemous pitviper species found only on Ilha da Queimada Grande

--Jerzy•t 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Points taken but:
1. at least two links (Portuguese postal codes and fregueses/civil parishes) to Qeimada. The links in those articles are going to lead ANYWAY to this disambiguation page, so there should be something for those links to refer to, even if there is not yet a page for the civil parish.
2. Google map turns ONLY Queimada Azores
3. Previous links to Quemiada (which I have proposed for deletion) was to the snake. If that is how people come into the topic, then I thought I should keep it here. Suggest you reconsider since the page is designed to ACCESS current topics rather than be, in and of itself, importsnt.

Cheers Ron B. Thomson (talk) 01:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ron; i hope you'll consider my reformatting of your msg helpful but of course you should revert it if you prefer.

Please clarify, if your refs to "Qeimada" and "Quemiada" are not, as i will assume for now, merely typos.
_ As to (what i have reformatted as) your pt 1, lks to "Queimada" and referring to the Port'ese place) (as opposed to unlk'd refs, such as the one i mentioned, to that "Queimada") should be converted to disambiguated titles, probably in this case either Queimada, Portugal or Queimada (parish).
(But editors linking sometimes to one and sometimes to the other can be a problem. If someone is willing to watch for other editors using a second or third title for the same thing, that's great, but it's such a thankless task that i recommend my own makeshift, WP:TPFR, where an entry like

-- which renders as

Queimada (parish)::used-by Queimada, Portugal::used-by

-- would provide a quick means of finding, from one version's What-links-here, that someone has thot of & used the other version. Fortunately, someone needn't even know TPFR exists, to notice, on the W-l-h of a page you're interested in, that there's a lk from the "Title pairs for future redirects" page, and wonder if it might bear looking into.)
Whether a given "red link" should be kept as a lk or converted back to plain text is a discussion that is often informed by whether a period of time as a red-lk turns it into a blue lk to an article, turns it into a blue lk to an unexpanded stub, or elicits no page. Some red links survive a long time, and others get changed back to plain text, sometimes with an explicit assertion that any page on the topic would be a long shot to avoid a consensus for Delete on [[wp:|AfD]]. I consider Armamar a retention-worthy article, but would be very surprised if more than two of the place's subdivisions ever have Keep-worthy articles, and unsurprised if none of them ever has even a stub; of course YMMV.
_ As to your pt 2, you may be saying that Google maps acknowledges the existence of the place Queimada, Azores but not of any other "Queimada", but i can't tell what significance you would put on that if it is the case. IMO Google-Maps results can be of interest in judging whether a place possesses article-worthy notability, but is neither necessary nor sufficient for retaining an article. IMO use by G-Maps of a spelling different from that of our article title for the same place obligates us to have either a Rdr from their spelling, or a Dab title with their spelling and at least a See-also entry to our article title -- if we have an article on the place in question. Perhaps you should say more about what you had in mind in pt 2.
_ As to your pt 3, i think you begin by saying that we did have some articles using "Queimada" to refer to the species, perhaps now corrected to lk to Bothrops insularis. If those refs were not all made by one misguided user, that's evidence favorable to an entry

Queimada, snake a.k.a Bothrops insularis

(As a separate matter, i have created an Rdr at Queimada Bothrops, whose absence i hadn't noticed, to Bothrops insularis -- or to Queimada Bothrops: see {{R from other name}}. I'm not inclined to undertake the task of looking more widely for evidence that "Queimada" sometimes means "Bothrops insularis", which i regard as a tough search better suited to a herpetologist.)
If, on the other hand, you are merely saying that editors have been using the phrase "Queimada Bothrops" or lk'g to "Queimada Bothrops", that is purely a matter for the new Rdr to address, not AFAI can see a Dab-related matter. Dab &/or MoSDab are clear that Dabs are not lists of phrases that include a given word.
I'm not sure what you mean by all of your pt 3, including your apparent ref to {{ProD}}; i do frequently say that a Dab is a means of navigation, and any content that happens to directly provide information does so only because it assists the user in Dab'ating, i.e., distinguishing which of our articles has the information they expected to find at an article whose title is occupied by the Dab (or by an article with a HatNote Dab that points to, for example, Fortinbras (disambiguation)), but i am not sure how to apply that sentiment here. Please feel free to make your point clearer to me.
--Jerzy•t 15:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to follow your arguement, but I am not always up on the various abbreviations and Wiki-terms you use.
- Whatever misspellings I have put in my message, the term/title we are talking about is "Queimada" which has various meanins (in and out of Wikipedia). "Quemiada" was someone's earlier attempt to create a disambiguation page, and I have tried to move items from it to this page, as well as following all the links to it.
- There is no article on Queimada, Azores, and there probably should not be, although the main airport for the island is at the village. However an encyclopedia can be helpful even without articles on every important/non-important subject, and if someone searches for "Queimada" they would note that it is a name for a village, and there is no article on it. It's just one extra fact that at some time might be useful. But of course it can be dropped if you really object.
- Someone has set up these two master lists of civil parishes and postal codes in Portugual, and turned each name (thousands?) into a potential link. Once someone creates an article by that name, the potential (red) link automatically converts to a real (blue) link, without anyone knowing it, and without anyone realizing that the two may be quite different. So when I checked "what links here" I found the civil parish of Q in both lists. They had earlier linked to the Gallician alcoholic drink (!) which is even sillier. My listing of the parish here on the disambiguation page was to give the reader, when he clicked on the civil parish in either list, some meaning to what he had clicked on. He finds that it is a civil parish and that there is not yet even a stub for it. I suppose one could go back and change the link in both lists, but I thought maybe it was better this way. Certainly since the civil parish is mentioned in several places (including Armamar, where there will be another link) some explanation would be useful here.
- As for the snake, there was or is a redirect from "Queimada Island Bothrops" already, so someone thought this was the way people would find the snake, and I thought it might be useful to have a direct link here to the snake, rather than to the redirect. I still think it is useful because someone might just know the snake as "Q" and not know how to proceed.
- As I said above, someone had created an earlier disambiguation page, but had misspelled the title as "Quemiada"; this disambiguation is a step to replacing the wrong page with a better one. The old page is tagged for uncontroversial delete in a few days.
- I would argue for at least keeping the civil parish and the snake as harmless but useful.
- Rereading your previous comments, I think you have already anticipated some of these points (and rejected them).
- Take care, Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]