70.49.127.65 (talk) |
70.49.127.65 (talk) No edit summary |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:::::Good idea, for now. If the Cav keeps on winning (especially if she goes overseas and keeps winning) we'll be back one day! Interesting that the Title Case version still doesn't show up in the auto text search box. [[User:The-Pope|The-Pope]] ([[User talk:The-Pope|talk]]) 14:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
:::::Good idea, for now. If the Cav keeps on winning (especially if she goes overseas and keeps winning) we'll be back one day! Interesting that the Title Case version still doesn't show up in the auto text search box. [[User:The-Pope|The-Pope]] ([[User talk:The-Pope|talk]]) 14:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Requested move: Black Caviar (horse) → Black Caviar == |
== Requested move (4): Black Caviar (horse) → Black Caviar == |
||
{{requested move/dated|Black Caviar}} |
{{requested move/dated|Black Caviar}} |
Revision as of 03:25, 23 June 2012
![]() | Horse racing Start‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
|
![]() | Australia: Sports Start‑class Mid‑importance ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Pointless
I undid the change in target of Black Caviar. If consensus is against having the horse be the primary topic of "Black Caviar", then consensus is against having the horse be the primary topic of "Black Caviar". There is no point in not moving the article but retargetting the redirect. Move the article if needed, but there is no point in having any "base name title" redirect to "base name title (qualifier)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- I read the situation as there is no consensus in either way. If this was a discussion in reverse, ie the horse was in "possession" of the primary title case topic then I couldn't see how a 4-5 !vote would lead to any change. Obviously as the last proposer of a move my view is clear, and I do think this recent close is unnecessary disambiguation, but it is a more technically correct position than having the roe have all the redirects, including those in contravention of our MOS. The only reasonable IAR explanation for the strange redirects is to have things both MOSCAPS compliant and still have the "auto fill text in the search box" benefit as described above. The-Pope (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- But having the horse article at "Black Caviar" and the redirect to the food at "Black caviar" and the redirect to the horse at "Black Caviar (horse)" would also be MOSCAPS compliant and still have the auto fill benefit. It's exactly the same arrangement of titles and eventual articles that the failed move above proposed. (I agree with your view, but if the closing admin read the consensus as against it, then the consensus is against that arrangement.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- And what you described was exactly as per my proposal. Do all redirects show up in the auto fill text search box? Currently I only get "Black Caviar (horse)" and "Black caviar" showing up - "Black Caviar" is NOT offered as an option. If we did what you and I both suggested, would the (horse) show up in the drop down list? I just reverted your edit back to the "Black Caviar" redirects to "Black Caviar (horse)" but "Black Caviar" still doesn't show up in the list, only "Black caviar" and (horse). Very strange. Not sure what to do now, do I leave it what I think is better, which is how Mike Cline left it after the RM close, or how JHunterJ left it. The-Pope (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- But having the horse article at "Black Caviar" and the redirect to the food at "Black caviar" and the redirect to the horse at "Black Caviar (horse)" would also be MOSCAPS compliant and still have the auto fill benefit. It's exactly the same arrangement of titles and eventual articles that the failed move above proposed. (I agree with your view, but if the closing admin read the consensus as against it, then the consensus is against that arrangement.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Requested move (4): Black Caviar (horse) → Black Caviar
Black Caviar (horse) → Black Caviar – Parenthetical disambiguation should be used only when natural disambiguation is "not possible," according to WP:PRECISION. The capitalization of "Black Caviar" the horse distinguishes it from "black caviar" the food, so that is not the case here. Kauffner (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Supporting material
- Black Caviar is a currently a disambiguation page with only two topics, the horse and the food. WP:TWODABS suggests that one of the two should be primary. If there are only two topics, the secondary can be handled with a hat note on the primary topic page. For readers looking for material on the horse, a DAB page adds an extra click. For those looking for the food, the article they seek remains one click away under either setup.
- If you google "Black Caviar" -wikipedia, 19 of the top 20 results refer to the horse, so this is the topic the most likely to be sought, whatever capitalization.
- Whatever the primary topic, WP:PRECISION allows for disambiguation by capitalization, with Red Meat vs. red meat given as an example. So "Black Caviar" can be the horse, "black caviar" the food, and there is no conflict.
- "Black caviar" is not an idiom that refers to a kind of caviar. Caviar may be black or gray, but the varieties are not normally distinguished by color. So the current setup is misleading. Caviar is "the eggs, or roe, of sturgeon preserved with salt".[1] Black caviar is "the harvested roe (eggs) of a mature sturgeon fish."[2] In short, the word "black" is redundant, at least if the referent is food. Kauffner (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Survey
- Support as before (previous move requests are in the archive). See WP:PRECISION and its example Red Meat/red meat. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. How many times do we have to have this discussion? Powers T 17:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm an Australian, as excited about Black Caviar (horse) as any other, but I recognise that this is a classic case of recentism, as well as horse racing/Australian centrism. Most of the world's population is not excited about horse racing, most are not Australian, and in ten years time even those who are over-excited now will have another hero. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. Invalid argument. Most of the world's population couldn't care less about the NBA, but that doesn't stop Lebron directing us to LeBron James. Tigerboy1966 00:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yes, see Lebron (disambiguation). Jenks24 (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support the horse is the only topic that should be referred to with both first letters capitalised. The fish eggs can have the lower case version. The eggs didn't even have any black related redirects until the horse came around. It has nothing to do with "excitement", just grammatical accuracy. The-Pope (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Can we do that with capitalisation and lack of it? i.e. create two different paths? Sounds like a good solution to me. HiLo48 (talk)
- Do you mean have Black Caviar as the horse and have black caviar redirect to caviar? Because that's what this proposal is suggesting. Jenks24 (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Can we do that with capitalisation and lack of it? i.e. create two different paths? Sounds like a good solution to me. HiLo48 (talk)
- Support This seems a bit silly to me. Caviar is often black, but I can't imagine that anyone that anyone would type "Black Caviar" into the wikipedia searchbox if they weren't looking for information about the racehorse. Can we have a bit of common sense about this topic? A hatnote at the top of the Black Caviar article directing misguided gourmands would surely suffice. see Red Rum for a rather obvious analogy and The Tetrarch for another. Tigerboy1966 00:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Clear primary topic of the capitalised version and per WP:PRECISION it is perfectly acceptable to have articles at different capitalisations. Jenks24 (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Support per Red Meat/red meat and Red Rum. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose this has been proposed and rejected three times, see Talk:Black Caviar (horse)/Archive 1. The previous arguments seem to still stand. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)