Talk:MWC
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
@GB fan: I wasn't sure about retaining the redlink, but it seemed a substantial subject that will very plausibly have an article in future. Unfortuntately, I can't figure out your reasons for deleting it. Does your edit comment have a typo? "not known by MWC by itself" is unparseable to me.
Per MOS:DABRED, "a red link should only be included on a disambiguation page when a linked article (not just other disambiguation pages) also includes that red link." Triceratops includes "MWC" as a red link, so it seemed like it qualified. It's wikilinked as an abbreviation, but to me that argued more strongly for including the abbreviation on the dab page.
It's not my horse in the race, but I considered the issue and thought it was worth keeping. Could you explain better your logic for reaching the opposite conclusion? Thank you! 23.83.37.241 (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- To answer this we need to start with the reason there are disambiguation pages. Disambiguation pages are to direct readers to pages that are about ambiguous titles. All entries on DAB pages must link to a blue link that either can be known as the DAB page title or contain content that in some way discusses the page title.
- In this case Museums of Western Colorado is known by MWC and if there was an article about the museums then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Since there isn't an article, we need to have a blue link that discusses the museums. You linked Triceratops. Triceratops does have a link to the museum(s) (piped as MWC) as part of a designation for a Triceratops. No where in the article does it actually discuss the museums. If a reader was to click on the Triceratops link from this page they could search the article and not find out anything about the museums. It isn't helpful at all.
- My edit summary could have been clearer. What I was saying is that the link to the museum(s) was not in a statement about them at all but about a Triceratops and it is not known by only MWC, it is known by MWC 7584.
- The bottom line is that there was nothing helpful in that entry that a reader could learn about the museums. If you have any questions let me know. ~ GB fan 10:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)