Talk:Misfortune

Requested move 12 March 2016

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: pages moved; there is no clear primary topic. Wow, what a lengthy discussion to read. The amount of passion raised by move requests for "ordinary everyday words" continues to amaze me. I'll keep the recently created Italian link Sfortuna redirecting to the folk tale. Some observations: In the Italian wiki, it:Sfortuna is a general article about bad luck, superstition, the unfortunate, jinxes, misfortune, etc. English Wikipedia doesn't seem to have an equivalent article, as I see no wikidata link to English. Nor is there an Italian version of our Misfortune folk-tale article. This is listed as number 149 of 200 in the Italian Folktales list. The Italian equivalent, it:Fiabe italiane, has no link for #149. So they don't even feel it's important enough to include an article about it, much less make it the primary topic. wbm1058 (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The Italian folk tale "Sfortuna" collected by Italo Calvino is not the majority meaning of misfortune. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - OP seems clear. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We have no article on the dictionary definition of "misfortune." Nor should we, as WP is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. This is why we have prominent links to Wiktionary. Of the topics on the disambiguation page actually called "Misfortune", there are only three articles, two of which were created today. So the current article is the de facto WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by usage, and likely has more long-term significance than the Chekhov story or the 2005 novel. No need to change the status quo. Dohn joe (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "de facto WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" for a topic as broad as something like 'misfortune'. Seriously, broad dictionary terms like this should NEVER have a primary topic and are nearly always disambiguation pages. In ictu oculi is dead on. Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Rename the Italian topic, it is clearly not the primary topic. The primary topic is luck, for which we already have an article -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks. FWIW the same misreading of WP:NOTADICTIONARY above is responsible for misfortunes and toil and dissonants redirecting to non-charting pop albums. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. One thing I've thought of though, per the guideline to have english name articles, would it not be better for the Italian folk tale to be named "Misfortune (folk tale)" instead? Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: No problem, I have amended template to English title. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Insertcleverphrasehere - please have another look at WP:NOTADICTIONARY. We only give blue links to encyclopedic topics. Most words in the dictionary are redlinks here (competence, refocus, quite, etc.). "Misfortune" would be a redlink if if weren't for encyclopedic topics with that name. Dohn joe (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it... Twice. What you are misunderstanding is that In ictu oculi and I are NOT saying that "Misfortune (word)" should have its own article, but rather that there is no topic here that is at all even close to a primary topic over the concept of "bad luck". In other words, when someone says "What is misfortune?" they do not respond, "An obscure Italian folk tale", they say "its bad luck". Nothing in WP:NOTADICTIONARY says that we should pick the least obscure encyclopaedic option and pretend that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Your argument falls apart for another reason, in that the primary topic for Misfortune is actually "bad luck", or Luck. In no way does WP:NOTADICTIONARY apply here. Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But the concept of "bad luck" does not have an article on WP - because it is not an encyclopedic topic. "Misfortune" does not even appear in the Luck article. As things currently stand, the folk tale is the most encyclopedic topic called "Misfortune" in this encyclopedia. Dohn joe (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not how WP:Primarytopic works.

QUOTE: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term."

When the reader searches for 'misfortune' they are definitely not highy likely to be searching for an obscure Italian folk tale. Honestly, how can you consider that this italian tale is the primary topic? Even irrespective of the 'luck' argument, it is not "more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", so your argument is moot. Look here: no mention of the italian tale on the first page of google books, there is not a snowball's chance in hell of convincing anyone that the folk tale is the primary topic here. Insert CleverPhrase Here 01:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword, though, is topic. Things that are not encyclopedic topics cannot be WP:PRIMARYTOPICs. Dictionary uses are not encyclopedic topics. That's the difference. Dohn joe (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I wrote? NOTHING in my last post was about the dictionary term. You know that for a given title there is a possibility for there to be no primary topic, right? (when there isn't any topic that sticks its head far enough out of the sea of mediocrity). Even apart from that, "bad luck" as a concept certainly is a 'topic', even if it doesn't have its own article or section in the Luck article, (which it arguably should). Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much more explicit I can be. Let's just see what others say at this point. Dohn joe (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could be a lot more explicit, especially considering that you just keep parroting the same argument, all the while ignoring my question of why you consider the italian tale to be the primary topic, even though it doesn't even show up in a google books search. Hell it doesnt even come up when you search for Sfortuna. Ignore WP:NOTADICTIONARY and prove WP:PRIMARYTOPIC with any kind of evidence. It is very frustrating trying to mediate with someone who quite clearly just doesn't know when to admit that they are wrong. At this point, unless you bring some actually evidence to the table to support your primary topic assertions, I am going to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - here we go. There are currently eight topics called "Misfortune" on the dab page:

Misfortune (the folk tale article)
Misfortune (Chekhov story)
Misfortune (Wesley Stace novel)
"Misfortune", more commonly "Banish Misfortune", traditional folk song recorded by Richard Thompson and others
"Misfortune", song by Goo Goo Dolls from Jed (album) 1989
"Misfortune", song by Yukmouth from West Coast Ballin', Vol.1 2003
"Misfortune", song by SNFU Composed by SNFU ...And No One Else Wanted to Play 1984
"Misfortune", (Ne bozhim gromom udarillo), song Modest Mussorgsky 1877

Of these, the folk tale is the only article with pageviews, and so passes the usage criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The only other potential contender for the long-term significance criterion is the Chekhov story, but considering it had no article until yesterday, that criterion is a wash at worst. So the folk tale has usage and long term significance. And your Google Books search really doesn't tell us anything besides "misfortune is an English word" - what we would need is a search of things actually called "Misfortune". Dohn joe (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that, rather than being based on actual interest, it only gets page views because it has the base title "Misfortune"? Its a chicken and egg situation. If you had actually looked at the GBooks link, you would have seen that many things came up that were actually named "Misfortune", including the Wesey Stace novel, which was the first result. I also did a google books search for the italian "Sfortuna" (and here), which came up with no more than the primary source and a couple of passing mentions. I'm wondering how this article even satisfies WP:GNG and probably will nominate it for deletion when this move request closes. In no way does this article qualify as being "more likely than all the other topics [of that name] combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term", which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC requires. Insert CleverPhrase Here 01:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: I'm afraid you will not get far citing "more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" to Dohn joe, he is absolutely convinced that for every word singular or plural there must be an album, manga, anime, TV series which is the "primary" (by which is misunderstood "top") "topic" (by which is misunderstood title). See Talk:Parachutes (album) Talk:Bookends (album) and dozens of similar repeated RM discussions. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm not so jaded yet... but he is certainly committed as he broke 3RR on this article already (arguably). Whatever, all you can do is cite the relevant guideline and walk away... Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, if you could explain the 3RR violation, I'd appreciate it - I don't see it, and it's something I try to avoid. Second, on the substantive side, I only argue for a primary topic when I think there is an actual primary topic. In ictu himself has seen me argue for dab pages. In this case, the problem is, even if 90% of readers are looking for the meaning of "misfortune" when they type it into the search box, what does that get them? We don't have an article on the meaning of "misfortune". Which means, the best we can do for them is get them to Wiktionary. We can do that with a link to Wiktionary on the dab page (which we have), or with a hatnote on the folk tale article (which we have). So those readers are already being taken care of the best we can. In the meantime, isn't it better to get the rest of folks to one of the two actual articles about something called "Misfortune"? It's also worth noting: the folk tale article has been around - at the original title - for 10 years. The dab page didn't even exist until last year. Dohn joe (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the change to the lede of the dab three times, not that i care much, there was other stuff being changed at the same time, sorry for bringing it up.

Now let me be very clear. we do not choose primary topic based on what article has 'been around the longest', nor do we invent a primary topic if there isn't one, which is what you seem to be suggesting. The guidelines are clear on this: (WP:DAB). When there is no primary topic, we don't just pick one, we make the base name into the dab page and disambiguate all the others. Thats how disambiguation works. Insert CleverPhrase Here 15:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not suggesting any of those things. I'm saying that there is a primary topic here - the folk tale article. The longevity issue was only meant as evidence of that - for nine years, no one else had bothered to write an article on anything else called "Misfortune" - there was nothing to disambiguate against! Another way to look at it: if not for the folk tale article, for all those years Misfortune would have been a redlink. Maybe Cuchullain explains it better below than I have up here.... Dohn joe (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ping Jenks24 who previously moved this article

Support Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, that doesn't mean that it must under no circumstances at any time behave like one. I don't think people looking for the Italo Calvino-collected story would be affronted by being faced with a list of options. The primary topic argument being put forward here only applies if we must choose a single article as primary topic. It would seem reasonable that the term misfortune goes to disambiguation with a link to the article on luck and a list of things called misfortune. As a user, it's what I would expect to happen. I also notice that the story doesn't have an Italian page, nor is the story mentioned on the long Calvino articles in Italian or English, so I have a feeling that the story is too obscure for a presumption of primary topic. OsFish (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. For one thing, the Chekhov story is virtually always called "A Misfortune", not "Misfortune". I've revised that article to eliminate the error. I also removed from this dab page several other items that weren't mentioned in the linked article or any other article I could find, or aren't actually called "Misfortune". This leaves only two articles that are actually called "Misfortune": the fairy tale currently at Misfortune and the Wesley Stace book Misfortune (Stace novel); there are also 2 obscure 1980s songs that are mentioned on other articles, without any other information. Everything else is called "Misfortunes", which isn't ambiguous per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Per WP:NOTDIC we don't have an article on the dictionary definition of the word "Misfortune", and so it doesn't concern us here.

I don't see any evidence that the novel or other topics titled "Misfortune" challenges the fairy tale as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As noted, the Stace novel was created only a few days ago, along with the mistitled Chekhov story, so page view statistics aren't yet available. I'm open to changing my mind if other evidence is available, but until then the status quo should prevail.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one claimed that "the novel or other topics titled "Misfortune" challenges the fairy tale as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC". Nor does anything about this move request claim anything of the such. Rather it argues that the fairytale can't establish WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the rest of them. If you want to argue for the status quo, then you necessarily must put forth some evidence that the fairy tale actually is the primary topic. Currently I've seen none, in fact I don't think that "Sfortuna" even qualifies WP:GNG and will likely fail AfD. Insert CleverPhrase Here 13:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, the folktale is the only topic here that has *any* article view statistics (800 views in 90 days). I don't see the point in sending the reader to a dab page when there's barely anything else to direct them to, and no evidence that they're looking for any of the 3 other topics to begin with. And are plenty of sources for the folktale, particularly when we consider Italian.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like i pointed out above, the page views are a chicken and egg situation. People search 'misfortune' searching for either the dictionary term, or searching for Bad Luck and they end up at the fairy tale because it is there. Lets not pretend that anyone cares about an obscure italian translated folk tale. Where are these plenty of sources? The folk tale doesn't even have an Italian page, but even if it did, the article is about the english translation of the Italian tale. When there is no primary topic, we don't invent one, we make the base name into the dab page and disambiguate all the others. Thats how disambiguation works. Insert CleverPhrase Here 14:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, clearly some proportion of readers are looking for something else. But the dab page only has 296 views in 90 days (half of which have come since this RM opened), so it's not as if readers are coming to Misfortune and then going to the dab page to find a different article. Additionally, we have no evidence that they're looking for any of the three other topics, the songs are even more obscure and the book article was created to recently to tell. And if any readers are looking for the dictionary sense of "misfortune", or any other topic not covered on Wikipedia, they're not helped by going to the dab page any more than an article. That said, if after a few months the novel (or any other topic) challenges the page views for the story, or other evidence appears that readers are being misdirected among the existing ambiguous topics, I'd support a move then.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess at this point it comes down to whether you consider page views to be an accurate gauge of primary topic. Personally, I don't, and i think that a much better primary topic for the subject is "Luck" (after the addition of a "Bad Luck" Section, which has been suggested), and I can't see how a folk tale could be considered the primary topic given the lack of google book search coverage I've shown above. I mean, just look at a standard google search for [[1]] shows that this has no coverage, well, anywhere. The only secondary source I've seen is in: Calvino and the Age of Neorealism: Fables of Estrangement, and even that is no more than a trivial mention in a list of Calvino's works. Insert CleverPhrase Here 21:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand that. Frankly it wouldn't bother me if this moves, it's not a particularly well known topic. But I think the level of ambiguity is overstated looking at the handful of other things we actually cover on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request relist to get a broader selection of editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Relisted. Insert CleverPhrase Here 09:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: with the Stacey novel and many other likely hits, (including "A Misfortune" etc, as many readers "know" not to search for "A .." or "The ...") it seems unlikely that in English wikipedia the Italian story will be the primary topic for the word, and unlikely that there is any primary topic. PamD 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strangely there was no redirect from the original title of the story, Sfortuna, until I created it just now - an incoming link to fix if this move request is successful, but seems a necessary missing link. PamD 12:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support with an entry for (Bad) Luck right at the top. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We are an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. sst✈ 13:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We are an encyclopedia. bad luck is encyclopedic, we have an article on luck and no one has proposed to delete it for being a dictionary entry. The primary topic of "misfortune" is bad luck. It clearly isn't the current article, since as people have already shown, it isn't very prominent in Google Books or Google Scholar. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Insertcleverphrasehere. A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term is pretty convincing on this point. Whatever the primary topic for this title is (and there probably isn't one), it certainly isn't the Italian poem. Let's use a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE here. — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "[T]he concept of 'bad luck'... is not an encyclopedic topic" is about the most moronic statement I've seen today (and I've been following the Republican primary). It's a theme that runs through human history, psychology, society, and literature -- encyclopedic enough for you yet? Yeah we're not a dictionary, as we have our hands full enough already, but shrieking about that as if it's some sort of important main goal for the project, to be dead certain that we never ever overlap with the prerogatives of dictionaries... it's tiresome. We're an ordered collection of useful information. If that includes a little bit of dictionary work, the universe will survive. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per arguments above. Term misfortune (as in bad luck) worthy of an article. Spirit Ethanol (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Obviously not the primary topic for a common word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2016 (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.