Talk:Accoutrements

Tagged for clean-up, 10th March 2010

No reason was given for the tagging, but I assume it's because it reads more like a dictionary definition. I've tidied it so it meets the guidelines, but none of the bluelinks mention the word Accoutrements and one (equipment) leads to a dab. Boleyn2 (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the tagging, and with your assessment. NOTADICT, nor a thesaurus in this case. The lack of need to mention the word, and the lack of a WP topic for which it would be a reasonable candidate as title, makes this a speedy candidate under {{db-disambig}} which reads in relevant part

it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title

I'm removing the entries, without activating the template until there's been a little more time for anyone who gives a damn for the accompanying Dab page to notice why it's about to evaporate like, hmm, the last gasp of a black hole.
--Jerzy•t 16:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• It seems relevant that Accoutrement, had a VfD, nominated 3 minutes after creation and described at its talk page as follows:

This article was redirected as a result of a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 00:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• I believe an article about accoutrements should be created. Accoutrements can be accessories to attire, aswell as military implements and home decor. Further description is nessisary and the redirect to clothing should be removed. Lucky 23 20:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically:

_ _ The request for the questionable plural title represents that 7-month, <100-edit, colleague's nearly unsupported disregard for the VfD result. (BTW, that colleague strains their expectation of receiving AGF, by insinuating (implausibly) that the VfD discussants were so stupid as to reject "Accoutrement" without having also implicitly rejected "Accoutrements" for the same reasoning.)
_ _ The diffident discussion (versions of "can be expanded", with only the creator's claim hinting at how, and without efforts to do so; nominator neutral despite saying "I honestly don't see how it could be expanded") resulted in "Keep", construed by closer as conversion to a Rdr to Clothing which was consented to by silence.
_ _ The support that "Accoutrements" did eventually find a year ago was tacit, in the form of one editor who converted that Rdr to a bad Dab. (Several more did edit it, but only to the extent of bypassing Dabs & other obvious single-technical-fix edits; only Boleyn fixed even the completely objective Dab-guideline violations.)

The Keep result involved the claim that expansion was possible but 3 minutes was inadequate time for it (which is pretty silly when VfD/AfC has over and over led to rescue of a worthy topic's article in those 5 or 7 days). One now has to suppose that those discussants would change their view on expandability in light of 4.5 years' failure to expand it beyond a couple more dictdefs. The generosity of delaying the speedy deletion is increased, rather than decreased, by the fact of a previous deletion discussion: this is not a summary execution, but recognition that the second chance granted in VfD was a waste.
--Jerzy•t 18:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggest soft redirect

I suggest changing this to a soft redirect to wiktionary such as in Green fingers. Problem solved. I will do this if nobody objects. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Relatively uncontroversial. If anybody objects it can always be undone and the discussion can commence. Polargeo (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Expand on my rejection of speedy deletion

My initial rejection of the speedy was correct for several reasons. Please read Template:Db-disambig. Firstly the page is not an Wikipedia:Orphan therefore the template should not have been used. Secondly even had it been an orphan it fulfilled neither criteria 1 or 2. It failled criteria 1 because it is not called Accoutrements (disambiguation). It failled criteria 2 because it did actually disambiguate. Therefore the request for speedy was doubly incorrect. Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)