Jump to content

Talk:Evita

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Evita (film))

Redirection proposal

[edit]

It is proposed (not by me) to redirect this page to Eva Perón. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Eva Perón#.22Evita.22 entry. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evitar, "to avoid"

[edit]

Next to no one is doing a search on the English language Wikipedia site for the spanish command form of the infinitive "evitar," "to avoid." It therefore makes no sense that this be at the top of the page. The vast majority of people who search for "Evita" are looking for either the musical or the historical woman. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 09:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is a disambiguation page, whose sole purpose is to guide the reader to the article they're looking for. The current first line, IMHO, does not belong at the top or the bottom, but should be removed. Is this a controversial opinion too, or is the discussion below more concerned with organization and indenting of the articles? --barneca (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a controversial opinion. Originally, "Evitar" was at the top of the page. I moved it to the bottom, and then pigswithwings reverted the page, moving "Evitar" back to the top of the page [1] with the edit summary/explanation being "edit summary does not describe changes made". Apparently, he was more concerned that I hadn't made an edit summary than whether "Evitar" belongs at the top or bottom of the page. (Note: While I hadn't made an edit summary, I did start this section for discussion on the talk page.) So, it's not that the inclusion or deletion of "Evitar" is controversial, but that apparently it was used as leverage for pigsonwings, once again, to monitor my editing. Frankly, I think the line could be deleted altogether and no one would care (so as as they make an edit summary that pleases pigswithwings, I suppose). Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. His username is "Pigsonthewing." -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, seriously, I get it. You don't like him. He doesn't like you. Will you two stop turning everything into a "him vs. me" thing. I've just commented on serveral threads here and at Eva Peron, trying to get the discussion to focus on content not people. Other editors here are trying to do the same. Please just delete that last paragraph (if you do, feel free to delete this comment too) and let go of your conflict. It hurts you. It hurts the article. It hurts the other editors here trying to get some work done. --barneca (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I was doing: trying to get some work done. Maybe you could request that this editor stop commenting on what I do, and I will do the same. I'm sick of it as well. Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barneca: Please do not attempt to speak for me. Your claim that I "do not like" Andrew Parodi is bogus, unfounded and unwarranted, and probably in breach of more than one Wikipedia policy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that have made an artform out of referencing all sorts of Wikipedia rules to the point where you are almost able to entirely block communication. It's pretty obvious that we aren't getting along. It's more than obvious. Now please find some Wikipedia rule I've just broken. Please, I beg of you, find a Wikipedia acronym and link me to it (with requisite condescending comment). Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, I take it you want "evitar" to stay? Could you explain why? --barneca (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it does no harm; yet may help our users. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But following that logic, we would have a page for every conjugation of every verb in every language... indeed, a page for every word in every language. But that's what a dictionary is for. Also, for those that like "official policy", according to WP:DAB, the sole purpose of a disambiguation page is guiding the user to the correct article. Quoting: A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. This little tidbit of information does not do that.
Also, that line was added recently (1/17/09), so for those who believe in "keep the status quo until a consensus is reached", or who believe in "information stays out until there's a consensus to include", it should go.
I don't suppose there are more than the 3 of us watching this thread, so someone could come along and break the logjam? --barneca (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but for the sake of peace, will concede the issue. However, the indentation should be restored. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

Note: It is possible that "evitar" was inserted as a joke by an anti-Peronist. There have been anti-Peronist jokes about this. It actually started during her life. In her actress days, one magazine became angry with her and refused to print her name, saying, "evita darte satisfacciones...." ("to avoid giving you satisfaction"), which was a play on her name at the time, Evita Duarte. At any rate, it's true that this was only recently added and therefore has never been an integral part of the disambiguation page. I think it should stay out of this article. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was inserted by Squeakbox, an editor with a long history of constructive editing. No need to cast aspersions. --barneca (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Interesting. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions

[edit]

This disambiguation page has twice been reverted , from:

Evita is a form of the Spanish word evitar which means to avoid.

It may also refer to:

to the less elegant:

Evita may refer to:

Evita is also a form of the Spanish word evitar which means to avoid.

though the first edit summary was "Hardly anyone is searching for the Spanish word "evitar." (whcih is an uncited claim, and makes no reference to the removal of the indentation and the second merely a snide comment. Prior discussion at Talk:Eva Perón#"Evita" entry is also relevant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to imply hierarchy, but there was no recognisable hierarchy there, and I've been unable to confirm that was a recognised style for disamb pages. It also doesn't seem obviously elegant to me with indents.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The soundtrack -of-> the film -of-> the musical is a clear hierarchy; the elegance is also in the opening lines of the first version. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept album was not subsidiary, indeed proceeded the musical, so you were forcing it; and as I say, it's non standard.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who you mean by "you", but the formatting was not introduced by me; it's been around for almost a year and left there for around 29 edits. I've seen indenting on many other disambiguation pages. the album may have preceded the musical chronologically, but was always a teaser for it (just as a single may be from, but preceded, an album); even if that were not the case, there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me as much as it seems to matter to others, but I agree with Andy that the original version (with indents) has a certain elegance, and more importantly, (again mostly IMHO) a clarity that the casual reader might find helpful. Were it up to me, I'd revert back to the indented version, sans the Evitar line. --barneca (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evita → Evita (disambiguation) – This page should be moved, and the term "Evita" redirect to Eva Perón. I'm aware of the musical, but the term "Evita" to reference Eva Perón predates it. Besides, it's a musical about Eva Perón, not about an unrelated fictional character named Evita. Cases of coined terms that reference certain people (such as Alexander the Great, Honest Abe, JFK or Che Guevara are either article names or redirects, regardless of the existenceof other works named that way.

Google Book results for "Evita" give 80.200 results. Google Book search for "Evita" minus the word "musical" give 77.000 results. Almost the same, meaning that almost all results for the word "Evita" are not about the musical. Cambalachero (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I would actually regard the musical as the primary meaning. Eva Peron would be a half-forgotten figure in the English-speaking countries if it was not for the musical. The other names mentioned are not comparable, since they are considerably better known figures than any work about them. PatGallacher (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Eva Perón which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 July 2017

[edit]
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 – while I grant that supporters, particularly Bearcat, bring a strong case, it was not enough to convince the opposition. No such user (talk) 09:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– The musical is probably the wp:primary topic. 70.24.247.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a good point above in noting that Evita -Peron -Perón -Argentina -musical renders about 559,000 results, and on the first page of those results there is a book on the film adaptation of the musical. "Evita" AND "Argentina" renders only 186,000 (about a 67% decrease). --Nevé–selbert 22:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. DrStrauss talk 18:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – "Probably the primarytopic" is not a sensible case. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no clear primary topic and the current setup allows easy indentification of incorrect incoming links. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a perfectly sensible case, even if the word "probably" might have been better avoided. I'm not sure that the current setup allows easy identification of incorrect incoming links, but this argument could be used in any primary topic discussion, so that doesn't get us very far. The musical is by some way the best known meaning, since in the English-speaking countries Evita is not widely used as a diminutive for Eva, and Eva Peron is known in these countries as just that, she is not widely referred to as Evita. PatGallacher (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This still doesn't feel quite right. I'd be open to evidence that the musical is the clear primary topic, but I don't think the searches linked above qualify in any way. Powers T 00:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This play is definetely the best-known meaning of "Evita" in the United States. Anthonyt31201 (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While I'll grant that some concern exists as to whether the musical or the former First Lady of Argentina would be the primary topic here, the fact that the musical is about the former First Lady of Argentina means that there's no major problem to resolve — a person who was typing "Evita" with the intention of getting to Eva Peron wouldn't be getting to an unrelated topic, but to a topic that has the name Eva Peron right in its own introduction. And on the English Wikipedia, a person who was typing "Evita" into the search bar would be vastly more likely to be looking for the musical (and/or its film adaptation) than for the biography of its inspiration anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose declaring the musical the primary topic - Statistics can say that the musical is the most popular topic of all topics using exactly Evita. However, the musical was based on the life of Eva Peron. Add that article, and you'll see that it's more popular than the musical and its adaptation(s). Also, while the musical is well-known, I didn't realize (or have forgotten) until now that the musical was also based on the 1976 concept album, which was also based on that Argentinian woman. The significances of those works derive from Eva Peron. Why not redirect "Evita" to Eva Peron instead? --George Ho (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Both the musical and the lady herself are important enough for neither to be a primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evita&oldid=1249913499"