Talk:Outlaws

Crips/Bloods

The term Outlaw means that you were a Crip and now your a Blood, or you were a Blood and now your a Crip.

Crip? Blood? Huh? o.õ'As far as I know it means only Out-law, just as said in the article... 200.230.213.152 22:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro line

The previous introductory line—"Outlaws are persons...[etc]"—would be correct if Outlaws redirected to Outlaw, and this page were located at Outlaws (disambiguation). But as it stands, Outlaw is just one possible meaning for the term Outlaws and so shouldn't be in the top line. The first thing is not necessarily a bad idea, though. Should we move the page to Outlaws (disambiguation) and redirect Outlaws? ~~One thing to keep in mind is that "outlaw(s)" is also a common verb, and the Outlaw article doesn't cover it. But in disambiguating the incoming links, I haven't encountered any examples.~~--ShelfSkewed Talk 16:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page in this case, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 00:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outlaws → Outlaws (disambiguation) – Move to redirect to Outlaw, the clear primary topic per WP:PLURALPT. Frequently discussed in the plural, as in "if Foo is outlawed, only outlaws will have Foo". bd2412 T 18:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Improvement especially for mobile readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if they are not looking for outlaw, a rather minor topic for "outlaws" vis-à-vis the numerous topics on the Outlaw page. — AjaxSmack 00:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would propose that every single topic on the Outlaws page is an effort to evoke the image of the outlaw. bd2412 T 00:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sure that most are but that does not make outlaw the primary topic for "outlaws". WP:PTOPIC does not mention anything about derivative meanings or evoking images. And the traffic stats for just one of the Outlaws articles, Outlaws (band) with 10,118 pageviews in August, are greater than those of the outlaw article (with only 8079 pageviews). — AjaxSmack 01:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this one. There are over two dozen entries on the disambiguation page, that combined draw well more than the Outlaw page. In this case, usage outweighs long-term importance. Usage tells us that our readers are much more likely to be looking for one of the two dozen entries known as "Outlaws" than they are "Outlaw". (This is even taking into account the strong bias towards singular on WP.) Status quo is best for our readers. Dohn joe (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The outlaw article is a fancy DICDEF. On the other hand, a couple of the more important entries on the Outlaws dab page together are more notable meanings of "Outlaws". — AjaxSmack 00:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Necrothesp, by what measure is it primary for "outlaws"? — AjaxSmack 02:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you don't think that the plural of outlaw is the primary meaning of outlaws then I don't think it's really worth explaining. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so and have explained why above. "Clear primary topic" is not very substantive so I was hoping you could give at least some rationale for your position as well. — AjaxSmack 02:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll proffer an explanation. "Outlaws" have existed for as long as there has been a law for some people to choose to live outside, and their existence has affected the structure of every society in that time. Outlaws are in fact so significant historically that a number of sports teams have named themselves after the concept, and a number of films, TV series, video games, and other media have been made with the primary purpose of depicting the lives of outlaws. bd2412 T 14:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree with you in a general sense and I certainly agree it is the primary meaning of the singular outlaw. If this were Wiktionary, I would agree with you as to the relative importance of "outlaws" as a plural of "outlaw" vis-à-vis other uses. But as far as encyclopedic usage goes, the other topics together are at least as important as the plural. I have shown this with traffic stats above and it can be inferred from the content of the article which is a DICDEF plus various rather obscure and deprecated legal meanings of the term. I cannot imagine that a large majority of users typing "outlaws" as a search term are seeking an article that is viewed more seldom than a single one of the other Outlaws articles. — AjaxSmack 02:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I agree with Ajax on this. older ≠ wiser 10:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New TV Show

I see the links to the TV Shows called "Outlaws", and the Episode of Lost, but what about the new show called "American Outlaws"? I find it hard to believe that a single episode is more notable than a show with multiple seasons? --Macha Panta (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]