Talk:Glamour (presentation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Multiple issues[edit]

This article has multiple issues. Firstly and most importantly, I find it very difficult to work out what, if anything, this article is about.

Glamour seems to refer to:

1. the nature or appearance of a person
2. a watch or piece of jewellery
3. the surroundings of a 'glamourous' person
4. something that used to happen in early Hollywood
5. a spell cast by a witch
6. a supernatural object
7. an appearance of effortlessness (contrast with the cars and dress that people surround themselves with in the first section)
8. something that Virginia Postrel talks about
9. Sean Connery
10. the glamorisation of violence
11. flights on concorde

That and the fact that the entire article reads a bit like a disambiguation page, and is entirely based on a single source by Virginia Postrel leads me to think that this article does have multiple issues.

Richard Hock (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I just think you're probably reading the article wrongly. A glamour is a very concrete thing, and when you have multiple glamours, then you're glamorous. That's all this is.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I was exaggerating to make a point, this isn't all this is. We're trying to define something that is defined in multiple ways and probably not well anywhere very much.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk)
They actually have to improve your appearance though; you can't just stick on a hundredweight of makeup and rings as glamours and expect people to think you're glamorous.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Countable vs uncountable[edit]

  • "A Glamour"? "several glamours"? Is this correct English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.243.251 (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Addition: I find that "glamour" can be used as a countable noun in the sense of "a magic spell", but this is an obscure use and seems unlikely to be the meaning intended in these sentences. 86.152.243.251 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is actually correct English although the usage is slightly archaic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 05:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. In my experience, "glamour" is overwhelmingly more often used as an uncountable noun than as a countable noun. I think, therefore, that in the lead definition it would be more user-friendly to open with the uncountable sense, then introduce the countable sense with a suitable form of wording that reassures the reader that, no, this isn't a grammatical blunder. 86.150.102.78 (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC).
  • "A glamour" is not slightly archaic; it's positively strange. Moreover, the use of "glamours," the plural, is unattested in the OED. It does list an occurence of "a" glamour--in 1894. Thereafter, glamour is used as an uncountable noun, especially, as the OED suggests, in the "Hollywood" sense of the term, which this article seems to take as its main interest; just look at the OED's examples under 2.b. In short, I think that the title itself may not be so misleading (though I have serious reservations about this article), but the lead definition certainly is, and I would urge a rewrite of that section for grammatical reasons.Drmies (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
There you go then, 1894. It's not ungrammatical, it's just archaic.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I never said it was, and your somewhat flippant dismissal of my argument dismays me. 'Grammatical' is really not the point in this case--'weird' is. And implying that because someone said in 1894 means you can use it today in the same way is not correct. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Take this sentence, for instance: "Somebody wearing or otherwise associating themselves with several glamours..." One simply cannot have, in modern or in earlier English, several glamours--and to associate oneself with several glamours is even weirder.
A final point: if this Postrel person is so authoritative as to carry this entire article, shouldn't she be introduced in the article as an authority of sorts? (Simply wikilinking her is not rhetorically functional at all.) And has she not written on the topic? I really don't care for a single video as a source for a WP article. Drmies (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
She's not supposed to be carrying the article. Stub article is stubby. Note that she is listed as one of the authors in the reading list.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but it's been stubby for a while, and it would be nice if those authors in the 'reading list' (WP is an encyclopedia, not a textbook) would be incorporated into the article. Relying on only this one thing, this video, suggests that the subject is really inpromptu and doesn't carry much weight. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Article title[edit]

Further on the subject of the article title, "Glamour (presentation)" confuses the hell out of me. It makes me think that the article is about something other than the usual general meaning of "glamour" that everyone knows and understands. Does there have to be any disambiguation? If this article is supposed to be about said usual meaning (which in some places is hard to tell), then can't "glamour" just come straight here, with a link at the top to the disambiguation page? 86.137.136.135 (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

This article is pretty new, we expect that we will do that once it settles down- it's still a stub right now and reasonably contentious. A month or so ago the article at glamour was glamour (magazine).- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Glamour (presentation)Glamour — Move the article to the obvious title — - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. Just noting my support for the proposed move. The section above is pertinent; the proposed new title is far less confusing. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose And I also object to the move that you made. Glamour should be a disambiguation page (which is was until you moved it on the 16th). TJ Spyke 01:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that although it may be expressed in several overlapping and more or less synonymous ways, this word has essentially only one primary meaning, and this article is the one that is trying to cover these meanings. As such, this article should be at glamour.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The word may have a primary definition but this is not Wiktionary and it hasn't been shown that it's the primary encyclopedic meaning. — AjaxSmack 02:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Really? What, in your opinion, is then?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think there is a primary topic which is why it should be a disambiguation page. My view of "Glamour (presentation)" is similar to that stated by User:Pmanderson below. The Glamour (magazine) article is more encyclopedically relevant even if it is a derivative name. See Talk:Nice for a previous similar case. — AjaxSmack 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Advanced Wikipedia 1.01: the wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that means it contains articles which are about a topic, not necessarily a single definition (although that is very common). And so it's perfectly OK have to have an article on multiple closely related definitions, as here. What you can't do is have them only related by the name, because that's a dicdef. So, if a 'glamour' was a type of frog, then it wouldn't be here, and nor is the magazine. But if they're all largely synonymous, for example, appearance or perception related (as here), then it's absolutely fine to have one article on them that compares and contrasts them, and that's perfectly fine even if they have a different names. That's what encyclopedias do, that's precisely why encyclopedias were invented. Geddit?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I'll be a little more blunt, then. I can't even tell what the article is about except the dictionary definition of glamour and a list of people Virginia Postrel thinks were glamourous. The current title disambiguator doesn't help at all. — AjaxSmack 02:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
            • So what??? It's not a problem for a stub article; it's specifically allowed under WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, provided you don't use radically different definitions for the title. All I'm asking is that this article in the English wikipedia (as with several other foreign language wikipedias) that this stub article be put in the right place. So sue. It's not my fault if nobody else is helping improve the article and instead are arguing the toss about policies they clearly aren't familiar with on talk pages.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
              • That's not much of a case for this article being the primary meaning. As far as not being familiar with policy, read the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline, especially the part about a primary topic being "significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings." I don't see a recently created stub fitting that bill. If you have evidence (or even an argument) to the contrary, please advocate or opine. — AjaxSmack 03:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
                • In terms of traffic, they're about the same,[1] but Glamour (presentation) is about the original, primary meaning, whereas Glamour magazine is just a somewhat trashy commercial product that is named after the subject of Glamour (presentation). The presentation article is also much newer, and is probably still gaining link juice and references; and articles on other wikipedias have also now appeared. The magazine article is in fact very stubby in my opinion, and is utterly unreferenced.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
                • If you go to the German wikipedia, they have de:Glamour, which is like this article (only much older, 2005) and de:Glamour (Zeitschrift) i.e. Glamour (magazine). This is true of the French and Spanish wikipedias also. It seems to be more of a historical accident on the English wikipedia that it turned out like that, and it's probably harmful IMO.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Glamour is used to refer to a number of notable subject including the magazine. The dictionary term and it's notable significance (such as it is) is just one use. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think people say, 'I saw it in Glamour', they would say 'I saw it in Glamour magazine'. There's always a qualification. We didn't see any significant reduction in the amount of traffic to Glamour (magazine) when we moved it away from glamour for example.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment: up until 24 November last year Glamour was a redirect to Glamour (magazine) - I found that really confusing as I'd never heard of the magazine (when I think of glamour I tend to be thinking of something akin to a more material form of beauty). Incidentally, during this article's AfD, I went through all the references to Glamour and disambiguated them - there were plenty of links that ended up at the magazine article that should have been going to Dark Ages: Fae#Faerie glamour or to this article... Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Struck comment re: redirect. Turns out I wuz wrung. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that this article is trying to cover the primary topic that goes by that name; but the other articles with glamour in the title are always qualified, glamour magazine, glamour modelling etc. No other topic has real claim to the simple term 'glamour'.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose and mark as OR. This isn't even a single topic; it's an effort to bridge from glamour as magic to glamour as high fashion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Um... wrong, see above.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The term "Glamour" as an article title is ambiguous and should remain a disambiguation page. If anything, the magazine has a better claim to being the primary topic than a glorified dictionary definition. olderwiser 13:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I note you have invoked CSD G6 to delete the redirect, in the middle of a discussion. That's clearly and simply an abuse of administrator priviledges; you're attempting to deliver a fait accompli. Even if you think the balance is in the direction you favour, you're not supposed to vote and do changes before the discussion is ended, and you definitely shouldn't vote and make changes like that. It's not a big thing, but I'm going to have to complain about his on ANI anyway. How could you think this would be non controversial?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 14:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Up until you moved the page without any discussion and despite being fully cognizant that the move might be controversial, Glamour was a disambiguation page. I moved it back to the status quo until there is evidence supporting the change. olderwiser 15:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I honestly had no idea, several people had already supported moving the article to Glamour, and the changes I had made were easy to change to point to the disambiguation page if there had been any sign of controversy, but nobody made any changes so I decided to try to make it permanent. On the other hand, you had already read this discussion, and it isn't complete yet, and you've used your administrative powers to make changes that normal users cannot undo, while also engaging in the discussion. I'm sorry, but you're not supposed to act in that way as an administrator.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
All you had to do was change the redirect if you wanted to do that without using any admin powers; as it is, you've clearly crossed the line.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll take you at your word, although previous edits [2] indicate some awareness that the article about the magazine had previously been at the title Glamour and was subsequently changed to a disambiguation page. It is neither unusual nor out of bounds to undo undiscussed, controversial moves until resolution of a proper move discussion. olderwiser 18:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
You have a choice, you can either stick to non admin edits or use admin edits and not get involved. You can't do both.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
While I am unlikely to dissuade your mistaken impression that I erred, I don't believe there is in fact anything inappropriate about reverting undiscussed and controversial moves. olderwiser 20:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Fine, I was going to let it lie, but I'll have to reopen the case on WP:ANI; since you can't tell the difference between what you're allowed to do, and what you are not, you're unsuitable to remain as an administrator. You probably won't be desysoped over this unless you make a habit of it, but at the very least it sets a bad example to other sysops, and there is a crackdown on this kind of thing right now.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Comments.
  • If Glamour is to be a disambiguation page, then I propose we rename this article to Glamour (allure). (Or does anyone have another suggestion -- something better than the weak "presentation"?)
  • I also propose changing the disambiguation notes at the top of the page to read:
For other meanings, see Glamour (disambiguation). See also Style.
As far as I can tell, this article is meant to cover those aspects of glamour (allure) that are related to dress, so it doesn't seem right to say "For glamour in the sense of schools of dress, see Style". Also, Glamour magazine and The Glamour (album), for example, aren't "other types of glamour" IMO, so "For other types of glamour, see Glamour (disambiguation)" doesn't seem right either. Normally I would just do this, but since article organisation and coverage is being debated, I thought I'd raise it here in case it's contentious.
Matt 18:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.115.248 (talk)
I certainly think you can be stylish without being glamorous; glamour isn't about all aspects of dress.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Would be too generic, all pages in the entire wikipedia are about terms and concept.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Not all pages in Wikipedia are only terms or concepts — and few are exclusively so. And the two words are often used as disambiguators. There are Power broker (term), Evolution (term), Global village (term), Corn (term), Fat cat (term), Enlightenment (concept), Grey area (concept), and Hall (concept) just to name a few. — AjaxSmack 00:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't like glamour (term) much, but I prefer glamour (concept) to glamour (presentation) (which means nothing to me). How's about we change it to glamour (concept)? Can everyone live with that? Matt 86.152.243.174 (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC).
I'm happier with "concept" than I am with "term" ("term" makes me think of "duration"...) So support - I can live with Glamour (concept). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Nah. All articles are about the concept of something. (allure) or (presentation) would be better. Or ideally, lower case glamour to differentiate it from Glamour magazine.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer "allure" over "presentation", for much the same reason I'd prefer "concept" over "term" - less ambiguity. "Presentation" makes me think of some kind of marketing display. And don't get me started on the magazine - this article doesn't need disambiguating from the magazine, the magazine needs disambiguating from glamour... (Why yes, I am still annoyed that the opposes won ;-) )
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
They haven't.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, strictly speaking, no - but "no consensus" means that the move doesn't happen. I suppose the philosophical view is that is it doesn't happen yet. I'd like to think that with a bit of work the article would be the prime candidate for Glamour, in much the same way that Beauty is an article, not a DAB-page. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with you, formerly red flag. The core meaning is the one that this article is trying to cover, as far as I can see. The other uses, such as the magazine, are derived meanings. This suggests that Glamour should point directly to this article, which would conveniently avoid the need to find a disambiguation term that we all agree with. When I came here your proposed move was already overwhelmed with "oppose" votes so, rather feebly I suppose, I didn't bother to add my support, thinking the battle was lost. Matt 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.42.249 (talk)

I'm pretty sure that the word glamour predates the currently stated origin as a general term for occult learning and practices. It stems from a bastardisation of the word grammar. Citation is needed for that but I notice that your current evidence is particularly weak. Any decent online dictionary should verify my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.68.113.160 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cultural bias?[edit]

This article doesn't seem to reflect an international view of the subject (IMO).   ~E:modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)74.60.29.141 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)