Talk:Palin/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Consolidated and clear discussion

The above sections are quite confusing because it's unclear what "support" and "oppose" mean in certain contexts and there are multiple proposals flying around. Let's try to make clear what our options are and what people think. The way I see it, there are two independent choices to be made.

Palin should be:

1. A disambiguation page
2. A redirect to Palin (disambiguation)
3. A redirect to Sarah Palin (with hatnotes)
4. A redirect to Michael Palin (not sure anyone has suggested this but included for completeness)
5. A redirect to Sarah Palin and a disambiguation link from the Sarah Palin article to Palin (surname), with the intention to re-visit this decision beginning January 1, 2009 (in the event that "Palin" hits begin to normalize)

Independent of that decision, the disambiguation page (wherever it lives) should be:

A. Ordered alphabetically
B. Ordered with Sarah Palin first and separate, then alphabetically
C. Ordered with Sarah and Micheal first and separate, then alphabetically

If I've left off options, please add them. Oren0 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For completeness -

D. Shorter, including an entry for List of people with surname Palin, to where all the people would be moved.

--AndrewHowse (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

  • My major preference is choice 3 since Sarah Palin gets over 100x the traffic of the other pages. If that's not an option, then I'd support choice C at the very least. There's nothing unencyclopedic about listing popular pages first: see for example Mercury or Mars (disambiguation). Oren0 (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 3, and if not B or C (don't really care which). My reasons are Usability (Make the common case fast, and it seems to be about 100x as common) and Policy (I read the Manual of Style on Disambiguation pages to support B or C.) Hobit (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 3 because it allows most readers to get to the relevant article in one-step. If not A (I always prefer ordered lists!).--Regents Park (count the magpies) 18:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 1 (Palin as disambiguation), with option C to place Michael and Sarah on top. While Sarah is currently popular, we have to avoid recentism and what might appear to be a US-centric bias. (We should not presume a pressing need to redirect; it would be better to keep the present disambiguation page and see how things are once the current rush to read about SP dies down.) --Ckatzchatspy 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The page as it presently stands is not, in the strict sense of WP:DAB, a disambiguation page. See MOS:DABSUR - "Persons who happen to have the same surname or given name should not be mixed in with the other links". If there were several Michael Palins, or Sarah Palins, or Ezekiel Palins, then a dab page would be needed. It might be better named List of people with surname Palin and the See also section could then make up Palin (disambiguation). My 2c would be to redirect Palin to List of people with surname Palin, and add a hatnote to the list to point out the dab page for anyone looking for the report or the settlements Palín. --AndrewHowse (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • (ec) 1, A or C (with C preferred). We have two people called "Palin" who are more notable than the others, and that's what disambiguation is for. Redirecting to Sarah Palin would be very recentist and would demonstrate a strong pro-US bias, and we are supposed to be a world-wide encyclopaedia. Pfainuk talk 18:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 3, A. Right now most searching "Palin" are looking for Sarah Palin. However, on the dab page, there should be no preferential treatment. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 1 - There is no clear primary topic in relation to this name. Sarah Palin may be the current top search on the internet, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be swayed by the fickle internet searches of the masses. Palin has only been on the scene for a few weeks, there is no way to know what her long term notability will be. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    Do you have an opinion on A, B, C, or D? Oren0 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry. A per the same reason for supporting 1. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Shouldn't this move request be listed on WP:RM? It would certainly expand the number of editors that can voice their opinion on the matter. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment My preference is not represented by any of these, demonstrating a flaw in this process as well. Here is what I think should happen:
I think that is basically 3 and A with the surname stuff thrown in (which is likely, given what others have said above is the standard thing to do). Put another way, you've just described what I think I was !voting for (other than the ordering). Hobit (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I was trying to indicate with 3 and A. Oren0 (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, folks: I get a little miffed when people try to put words into my mouth. Let me be clear that I am not "voting" for option 3A. I'm not even voting, as this whole decision thing comes across as a farce so long as the available options lack desirable outcomes and are designed to suit and attempt to legitimize certain outcomes. This whole discussion reeks of a POV twist to get a consensus preferred by the person who set up the voting mechanism. When it comes to voting, I don't like dealing with "stuff" just "thrown in", whether it's a likely conclusion or not. I like things explicitly spelled out, and as it stands, 3 does not explicitly spell out a desirable conclusion for me. It may be closer than the others, but it's also not exactly what I think the right thing to do in this situation is. There's also nothing about a 3A decision which sets up guidelines for "us" to re-visit the decision at a definite point in the future, once this whole Sarah Palin thing has an opportunity to die down. If I just go and say, "Oh, me too! 3A just like Hobit and Oren0!" the important nuances of what I believe would be an optimal solution are completely lost.  X  S  G  06:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You know what? I apologize. Oren0 did invite us to add other options, so that's precisely what I'll do. That whole rant about legitimizing an unfair process by voting would only be an important point if there were no mechanism to have people add other suitable outcomes.  X  S  G  06:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Smiley.png. I really tried to list all of the options I'd seen presented before. I'm really not trying to inject POV here, I just got confused about what people were supporting/opposing above. Oren0 (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 1 as I've said before. Why do we even have 2 still in there (not that anyone has supported it)? It's not supported by any style guideline and as far as I'm aware isn't common practice and there isn't even any reason for it. As for the other thing A or C are clearly the only options here as I've mentioned before, I still don't see any point for B, if we're going to decide Sarah Palin has priority we should just redirect rather then being half-assed about it. I've looked through some of the examples provided previously and none of them appear to give priority to a single person (without any other no name enteries) without a redirect. If forced to choose, I would give C a slight priority over A. I presume C means Michael and Sarah alphabetically (and seperate). P.S. Where is the 100x traffic figure coming from? Don't tell me people are really trying to resolve this argument using the traffic in a few days after her selection? May be we really should redirect Spears to Britney Spears every time she has another meltdown as a sarcastically suggested elsewhere. I'm a regular at ITN, does anyone want me to start monitoring news items and see if we need to change our redirects? (yes I'm being farcical but also partly serious since if we are really going to be deciding our redirects based on traffic days after a major news event, we should be consistent about it) Nil Einne (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 1 A (second choice: C), and I'd appreciate it if the ridiculously obvious POV pushing would stop. Just look at the many who have commented above agreeing that this should be the dab page. Btw: Redirecting to Palin (disambiguation) is completely out of the question any which way. Something like that is never done. Either this is the dab with Palin (disambiguation) redirecting here, or Palin (disambiguation) is the dab with this page redirecting somewhere else. The same rationale so many have cited still holds true: It's recentism, it attributes undue weight, and judging from the most recent attempts to redirect, it's also POV pushing. I oppose all of this on the strongest possible terms as violating the encyclopedic spirit of this project. Please leave it be, or alternatively, open an official RfC to bring the issue to community-wide attention. user:Everyme 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I asked above, but what POV do you think people are pushing? And also, what makes any of these views a violation of the encyclopedic spirit of the project? McCain and Obama, for example, are redirects to the presidential candidates. Do you object to that also? Hobit (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for providing a prime example of non-encyclopedia-related reasoning. user:Everyme 12:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I realize this is asking a lot, but any chance you could answer the questions? Hobit (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 5A. Definitely 5A.  ;)  X  S  G  07:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 1 because hatnotes at Sarah Palin would be ugly. B to help the current flurry of people looking for Sarah Palin. Revisit that at the beginning of next year. A and C are ok too. --Apoc2400 (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 1C, see my previous comments for why. Bob talk 08:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • 1C, although I have no major objections to A or B. olderwiser 12:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the above consensus

Nearly all responses at Talk:Palin#Discussion advocate either redirecting to Sarah Palin or separating out the prominent entries. This is a compromise for now.

Wow. I for one see a lot of 1's above. Imho that would more accurately translate to something along the lines of "Nearly all responses are against redirecting to Sarah Palin." user:Everyme 02:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What a farse. It's been alphabetical for several days, now, so let's let it sit as is for a few more days, but I'm thinking it's time to get ArbCom involved...  X  S  G  05:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom? Ah, you're joking. user:Everyme 05:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
By my count, 11 people (myself, Hobit, Regents Park, Ckatz, Pfainuk, CrazyC83, Nil Einne, XSG, Apoc2400, Bob Castle, and Bkonrad) above chose as their first priority a redirect to Sarah Palin and/or ordering the prominent entries (or just Sarah) separately. The only people who expressed a choice that is not one of these two are Bobblehead and Everyme. The only other response is AndrewHowse, who offers no opinion regarding ordering. How am I misrepresenting the consensus? Oren0 (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Nice try. Ckatz, Pfainuk, Nil Einne, Apoc2400, Bob Castle, Bkonrad are clearly stating that they do not think this should be a redirect ro Sarah Palin. Together with Bobblehead and myself that makes eight people who explicitly say 1 and argue that Palin should remain a disambiguation page. How does that translate into "Nearly all responses at Talk:Palin#Discussion advocate [...] redirecting to Sarah Palin"? Your tactical manoeuvre of throwing together all responses that are not for dab AND alphabetical is quite ridiculous and transparent. Fact is, the majority is against the redirect, and as a group, we are more or less indifferent whether this should be sorted alphabetically or whether Michael and Sarah should be at the top. Combine that with This is a compromise for now. and I get the feeling you're trying to game consensus here. Please stop it there. I'm fine with the page as it currently is ("1C"), but any further attempts at redirecting to Sarah Palin will require dispute resolution. user:Everyme 06:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You're the one whose deceptively excising a key part of the summary. Counting people who are for a redirect and alphabetization on the dab page as being for "your side" is deceptive also. Nearly everyone recognizes that it should be easier for people who type "Palin" to find Sarah Palin one way or the other. You have no problem with 1C, nor do I. That's why it's a compromise, as I said before. Oren0 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I "deceptively excised" is the purely descriptive part of your edit summary "Move Michael and Sarah to top." What else did I "deceptively excise"? It's right up there in full. Whom of the above discussion participants who is for a redirect am I counting towards "my side"? None that I see; as opposed to yourself who are counting people who are against a redirect towards "your side". And while you're at it: You are the only one undulging in deceptive behaviour here. I'm just calling you on it. As to compromise, what about the "for now" part of your edit summary? user:Everyme 07:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This is going in circles. You asked: "How does that translate into 'Nearly all responses at Talk:Palin#Discussion advocate [...] redirecting to Sarah Palin'". But you left out the end of the summary: "or separating out the prominent entries" There's no denying that most people support one of those two. You can argue that I shouldn't be counting those together, but my summary was entirely accurate. As for "whom of the above discussion participants who is for a redirect am I counting towards 'my side'?", I'd point you to: "as a group, we are more or less indifferent whether this should be sorted alphabetically or whether Michael and Sarah should be at the top." This is only the case if you count people who made the preference for alphabetization assuming that the page was a redirect, which is unfair to count. As for "for now," read it to mean "until a consensus develops to something else." This whole argument is fairly pointless until and unless the state changes. Oren0 (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry for not making myself perfectly clear; blame it on me not being a native speaker if you want. Fact is, you lumped together everyone who isn't BOTH for keeping the dab here AND for having the dab sorted alphabetically. That's an argumentative sleight of hand if I've ever seen one. And yes, your summary was accurate, only the reasoning behind it was (and is) laughable. Yes, most are for redirecting AND/OR for having Michael and Sarah at the top of a dab. True, but also a funny way of interpreting the outcome of above discussion, as opposed to, say: "most are against redirecting <---- PAUSE FOR SEMANTIC GAP TO SETTLE IN ----> most are for putting Michael and Sarah at the top". Most are against redirecting, period. Why you would then even mention the redirecting aspect in your summary for that edit escapes me. But it betrays... let's call it a willingness to interpret consensus the way you prefer it, sacrificing neutrality of judgment, commonsense and facts along the way. This is going in circles because you continue to refuse to get the point. user:Everyme 07:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Everyme. We need an arbitrator in here. One that doesn't play tricks with voting mechanisms. I no longer trust Oren0 for this purpose despite his claims that he has no POV. So if ArbCom isn't the group to intervene when Wikipedia Administrators are playing POV games while claiming not to, which group is?  X  S  G  18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The next step in dispute resolution would be an RfC, if that fails we could request informal or formal mediation. Arbitration is only the very last resort, and at this stage there is no chance they would accept this as a case, especially since they have no authority (and regularly decline cases on that basis) to judge over content issues. However, as long as people on "the other side" accept the current compromise as a valid solution and don't keep trying to push for a redirect, I'm happy. user:Everyme 08:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Surname list, not disambiguation

This is a surname-holder list, not a disambiguation page. See WP:MOSDAB and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. If it is not at the base name, then it should not be moved to Palin (disambiguation), but rather to Palin (surname) or Palin (name). -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrespective of that it will be moved elsewhere iff this page were to be made into a redirect to an article, the validity of which is in considerable doubt. user:Everyme 06:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars

OMFG this has to have been the biggest storm in a teacup I have seen for some time, beats most AfD debates hands down for sheer pointlessness. I am sitting here with a nice cup of cocoa on a chilly night and chuckling away. Someone please summarise it for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"There was a fairly strong consensus based on good reasoning, but some just kept fighting." ? user:Everyme 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(sigh) I started to read but my eyes glazed over, guess you are right but.....(various expletives substituted here)...gosh I am speechless...well I am not as I am writing this, oh actually I suppose I can be speechless and tap away on the keyboard in silence...hey that is what I do all the time here...oh time for a coffee I think. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:D enjoy your coffee, you've earned it! user:Everyme 06:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal

This page could use some refining. I propose we split it into the following categories:

  • People with the surname Palin who are really super prominent people with extreme prominence
  • People with the surname Palin who are prominent but not really-super-prominent prominent
  • People with the surname Palin who are prominent only if you're into sports
  • People with the surname Palin who are prominent only because they were executed by Australia under unusual and prominent circumstances
  • People with the surname Palin who are prominent only because they married a really super prominent person
  • People with the surname Palin who are possibly somewhat prominent but should be investigated to make sure they really are prominent after all and not just promoting their art

Just a joke, please don't bite me. :) --JaGatalk 06:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

:D Thanks for that, direly needed! Everyme 08:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The current situation is inconsistent and may be perceived as biased. Observe that there's a Biden (disambiguation) page, but if you search for just "Biden" you go straight to the page for Joe Biden. I don't care which way the higher-ups resolve the situation, but kindly treat both candidates the same. Either send "Biden" searchers through their disambiguation page OR put "Palin" searchers straight through to Sarah Palin. Richard David Ramsey 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard David Ramsey (talkcontribs)

It isn't comparable; there does not appear to be anyone else by the name of Biden who is notable in the way that Michael Palin is. --Ckatzchatspy 21:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem is not whether two people are "comparable" (a matter of judgment) but whether the treatment by Wikipedia is consistent (which it self-evidently is not). To get to one candidate, you have to go through a disambiguation page; to get to the other, all you have to do is to put in the surname. There's just one Palin that >90 percent of users right now are looking for. Change the default on searches for "Palin" to Sarah Palin at least until after the election. Richard David Ramsey 00:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I can understand your perspective, however Wikipedia is being consistent. Let me clarify: from your perspective, Palin should redirect to Sarah Palin if Biden redirects to Joseph Biden. This is a very narrow view, however, taking only two surnames into consideration. If you look at the multitude of other surnames (or to be even less narrow, surnames which are also words), you'll find that the surname redirects to a particular person only if the person is of a significant amount more notable than anyone else sharing the surname. With the surname Biden, there are no other comparably notable Bidens to Joe Biden. With Palin, there are two comparably notable Palins, Sarah Palin and Michael Palin, and so they appear on a disambiguation page to which Palin points. Seriously, pick any surname other than Palin and Biden and you will see that Wikipedia works this way. Try Bush and Cheney or Quayle. Try Clinton and Gore. Try Carter and Mondale. Of all of those, only the last one redirects directly to a person's page, because Walter Mondale is the only notable Mondale. Wikipedia is very consistent about this. Please remember that Wikipedia is in no way a political tool; it is an informational tool, and it would not be informational for Wikipedia to assume that all people searching for 'Palin' necessarily meant Sarah Palin.  X  S  G  02:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Wikipedia is very consistent about this -- but the general principle you describe is appropriate. olderwiser 02:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well explained, XSG. Everyme 16:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate, XSG, your appreciating my perspective, your expressing yourself with intelligence, and your informing me that I have a "very narrow view"; I have much to learn, but truth is the narrowest thing knowable. At least it cannot be substituted by anything which is not truth. I have been in at least 30 countries, have lived twice in Michael Palin's native U.K., enjoy reruns of Monty Python, speak more than one language, and do not believe that we are speaking the same language. The issue is not whether Wikipedia is a "political tool"; that allegation originated elsewhere. The issue is whether Wikipedia is PERCEIVED as adhering to NPOV. The discussion indicates that a number of users have a problem with the current path to the Palin page which most users seek. Just make Sarah Palin the default Palin page and bypass the disambiguation page--until after the U.S. election.
That's reasonable, isn't it?
In the meantime few people are going to know about the discussion explaining the relative difference between Michael Palin and Beau Biden. It would be "informational for Wikipedia to assume" that >90 percent of people searching for "Palin" necessarily mean Sarah Palin, in the current context until the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Richard David Ramsey 04:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, please don't take it that I was saying that you have a very narrow view in general. I was saying only that the position that Wikipedia is inconsistent because the surnames "Palin" and "Biden" don't appear to be treated equally is a narrow perspective of Wikipedia. You, I am certain, are much more broad-minded.  :) Your suggestion to make Sarah Palin the default Palin page until after the U.S. election is one that I have espoused above, however the challenge with it is that Wikipedia isn't really supposed to be temporal in this way. If we were to do this, we would also be showing that there may be a U.S. bias. I think it would be more appropriate, perhaps, to make "Biden" redirect to the Biden disambiguation page until after the elections. This seems equitable between Biden and Palin and would be far less contentious. I'll give this a shot!  X  S  G  06:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You know, XSG I just wanted to say I absolutely agree with you. It's not biased of Wikipedia to have Palin go to Disambiguation whereas Biden goes right to Joe Biden... It's like you said - people need to take a wider perspective. Pip (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of broadmindedness, I move to amend the modest proposal so that Wikipedia will treat Sarah Palin & Associates as consistently not on top. Currently Wasilla, the town of which she was mayor, is the default for searches on Wasilla. A link exists, however, for Wasilla (god). Wasilla the god has been around a lot longer than Wasilla, Alaska, has more international meaning, and peradventure has disciples who could become offended and contentious (and woe betide us if the deity is). While you're at it, and in the interest of avoiding British-centrism, resteer searches for Thatcher so that Maggie Thatcher can undergo disambiguation with James Thatcher and Thatcher, Colorado. This change will have the additional merit of increased consistency in defaulting to politicians and other prominent people (Biden, McCain, Obama, Michael Palin, &c.) who are male. Richard David Ramsey 16:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC
(unindent) You're welcome to make what changes you like, especially so long as the changes are made "in good faith". Perhaps not all of your changes will stick, but if so, make use of the relevant Talk page. You'll note that Thatcher is a disambiguation page that also has James Thatcher and Thatcher, Colorado, among a few dozen other options. I think it's appropriate that Margaret Thatcher heads the list, however, and this doesn't necessarily indicate a British-centric perspective. I don't quite get the "who are male" point, though. Was this an attempt at mocking?  X  S  G  01:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd say it was a pretty plain parotting the same old sexism strawman. Sounds like the typical Republican Kool-Aid drinker. Don't feed. Everyme 16:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Everyme: I'm for Obama but also for consistency. I haven't drunk Kool-Aid since before you were born. Wikipedia should treat Biden and Palin alike. The lack of objectivity, in that they're being treated differently, is evidenced by your casting expressions like "parotting" (sic) without being able to spell. Richard David Ramsey 23:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the redirect at Biden back to Joe Biden. See my rationale at Talk:Biden; anyone is welcome to request an RfC there, esp if it's based on laughably misdirected, non-project-related hypercorrection. Everyme 17:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right. You're a bastard. But you're right. :) No need for an RfC. Everything is as it should be.  X  S  G  19:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
:) Everyme 20:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My sense of the discussion is that two editors feel they WP:OWN this rather small part of the world, and arguing with them is fairly pointless. Hobit (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Too cryptic for my taste, I can't figure out whom you're talking about. Anyhow, why not give it a shot by presenting new, unrefuted arguments. Or alternatively, try to accept the validity of the given arguments. Everyme 22:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I've tried. You either repeated the same response over and over, didn't respond, or deleted my comments. That's given me the odd idea you aren't interested in constructive communication. Hobit (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Everyme has been heavy-handed, but no matter which angle I come at the issue, I'm convinced that what he has to say makes sense. The information in Wikipedia is by its very nature supposed to be apolitical (WP:NPOV), and everything I've tried to change here and on Biden has been with the intention of equalizing Wikipedia's appearance of NPOV, but by bypassing guidelines that have been put in place in order to avoid POV. If I'm trying to bypass POV restrictions, perhaps my edits, while under the guise of being NPOV, are actually POV.  X  S  G  02:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
A concise and precise explanation of the entire situation, kudos. Everyme 12:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if he's right (which I don't think he is). If you can't engage in reasonable discussion on the topic and rather just insist that "I'm right and this not open for discussion, you've got a WP:OWN problem. Hobit (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Neutrality and accuracy own all of Wikipedia. Where I see a need to hold up that basic premise, I am indeed not perfectly tolerant or overtly patient. Again, if you think it's necessary and useful, you may request an RfC at any time to gain input from the wider community. Everyme 13:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You've already _had_ an RfC on the issue involved. The issue I'm raising is your behavior. I happen to think you are wrong on the issue here, but it is a minor one. The outcome of the RfC was "While I can't issue any binding resolutions, I ask User:Dorftrottel to do the following: Dorftrottel/Everyme is strongly encouraged to be civil in discussions, and to understand when comments may not be taken right. He is asked to show courtesy, and i also asked not to edit from IPs where it can be avoided. Furthermore, based on the comments listed, I encourage anyone who deems it necessary to request a civility sanction at the appropriate noticeboard if his attitude does not improve." Hobit (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
This is hardly the correct venue, but I think you are well aware of that. The user-RfC on parts of my behaviour (namely, being impatient with and aggressive against people who I think are stupid and who imho more or less inadvertently harm the encyclopedia) is completely unrelated to the 100% valid arguments I have used here. And just for the record: ownership was never an issue IIRC, and it's mainly a fighting term popular among idiots who have no arguments and then stoop to aimless and endless bickering and personal attacks in lieu of pursuing what they actually know is a lost matter because reality just happens to be in the way of their fantasies. The fact that I vigorously demand Wikipedia pages to strive for accuracy and neutrality is rooted in unacceptable behaviour like yours. So there, that's what you get for baiting me.
Now: If you want, open a content RfC, which is what I was most obviously talking about, and not a user RfC because all this has nothing whatsoever to do with any bad behaviour of mine. Bring arguments to the table and/or explain how my reasoning is faulty. And lastly: Frankly I don't care whether you get the point or not, put up or shut up. Everyme 20:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Taken to user talk pages. This, IMO, is all about your lack of civility. Hobit (talk) 21:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
That's such a useless personal attack. You are deliberately trying to divert the attention away from your lack of rational arguments. Everyme 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be in alphabetical order

This page just isn't objective at all, it should either redirect to the recentist's preferred subject, or it should be alphabetical. Splitting it up to cater to people who cant pick out the name beginning with S in a list of 8 people is just nonsense, and in my experience completely non-standard. As an aside, should McCain not win the election and this is still not made alphabetical, are we then saying she is on a par with Michael Palin, who as a CBE is on a par with the likes of Richard Attenborough, Michael Caine. The current page layout is an unprofessional fudge, the original poll should have only been between alphabetise or sarah. MickMacNee (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Largely agree. That said, given the vitriol in this (rather trivial) discussion, a bad steady-state is perhaps the best. Hobit (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Without starting this argument again, there are numerous examples of singling out prominent people in this way, see for example Bush, Cheney (surname), and Clinton. Oren0 (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Bush? Irrelevant, a normal db page. Clinton and Cheney, not even comparable. MickMacNee (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm with Hobit here. Your points are spot-on, but our (semi)stable status quo is a feasible compromise for now. As to November 4: if McCain doesn't "win", the issue will probably be revisited at some point, but I guess it may happen in a far less vitriolic way then. Everyme 05:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

"Rm potential nonsense without an article (* Palin Syrah, an organic wine)"

The removal that carried this summary was appropriate -- except for the summary: the reverted editor was entitled to better treatment, and is hereby exonerated. The wine is almost surely real (tho IMO obscure), and the coincidence has been noted -- in fact, on a page of the Anchorage Daily News that is cited by WP (tho for reasons other than the wine). If someone writes an article stub on the wine, it should be listed on the accompanying Dab under "See also", until and unless the deletion process turns it back to a rd-lk. The removed entry clearly was not nonsense, and the facts (not to mention WP:AGF) disallow insinuation that anything even remotely approaching vandalism being involved.
--Jerzyt 17:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I should indeed have performed at least a simple Google search, which I admittedly didn't. The near-homonymity struck me as being indicative of nonsense. Looks I was wrong, so apologies to the original editor and thanks to Jerzy for noticing and bringing this up. Everyme 12:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for full alphabetization?

I think it's pretty evident that Sarah Palin's search popularity is going to fade from this point, at least for a few years. At what point does it make sense to alphabetize all Palins together rather than singling out Michael and Sarah? I'd suggest that we wait for a week, but I'd really like to base this on more objective criteria like the number of searches for each Palin. Can objective statistics be found?  X  S  G  04:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question: http://stats.grok.se/LOL T/C 04:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! So, if I were the kind of guy who planned on monitoring things continuously, I'd suggest that an article should be set apart from the rest when it receives in excess of 1k hits a day for five consecutive days, and that it should be removed from being set apart when it receives less than 1k hits a day for five consecutive days. But that'd require a bit of active monitoring, and frankly my numbers are arbitrary (though not capricious).  X  S  G  06:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Todd Palin

According to Todd Palin search stats and Michael Palin search stats, Todd Palin has been more "popular" for over two months, which constitutes as "short term" as does Sarah Palin. As such, for the sake of uniformity, Todd should be treated equally to Sarah and Michael on this surname page, otherwise it would appear that we've been treating Sarah Palin specially to which I must object.  X  S  G  19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Fully agree with XSG. It's not our place to speculate on the notability and certainly not on what readers are looking for when they search for "palin". Everyme 19:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Sarah Palin's popularity is due to her VP run, and will quite likely remain for some time - especially if she remains involved in the Republican Party on a national level. On the other hand, Todd's popularity is clearly because of Sarah, not because of his own notability. That is not speculation, as demonstrated by the AfD and subsequent deletions. (It is hardly "special treatment" to distinguish between the vice-presidential candidate and the spouse of the vice-presidential candidate.) We have to use some judgement based on real-world factors, not just numbers. Otherwise, we'd be rotating people in and out of the "spotlight" on a regular basis, which is not good practice. --Ckatzchatspy 22:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Dab-Cleanup

A colleague removed my CU tag, summarizing

this page has had so much discussion and scrutiny already; if you're going to tag it, please list specific complaints on the Talk page.

As my summary stated, my intention was for Dab-CU, which was the logic of placing the CU tag below the {{surname}}, in the fashion of at least the {{disambig-cleanup}} one. I recall noting the set-index designation, which failed to tip me off bcz i seem to recall a contrast between given-name pgs (not Dabs) and surname ones -- i won't fault myself for being behind the curve on that, since the template's docn still uses the phrase Dab page. I forgot that nothing explicit (but only the presence of Dab'g apparatus that seems unsuited to a non-Dab surname page) suggests that the page is still a Dab, as it began and has been off and on thru the campaign. So my response was delayed by my desire to respond temperately to what seemed to be insinuations that the hard times such as this page has seen could excuse a Dab from the Dab guidelines, or that summarizing specific deviations from the requirements for Dab pages would be worthy discussion prior to correction. Glad that mistake of mine is out of the way!
That being said, the only faults i find in the accompanying page as a Palin surname page have nothing to do with the controversy here: they are Dab elements that act as clutter to a surname page, and responsible editors have presumably been putting up with them from not knowing where else to usefully put them. The answer is onto a Dab page: a Dab page is needed, and a Palin surname page is not a Dab page for the title "Palin". On any other surname page, i would remove the Palin Report and the irrelevant See-also entries (or keep, but byp the Rdr on, Paling, if there were evidence for it being a related rather than just confusable surname); Syrah Palin (if an article were plausible) would be another example of an entry i'd copy to the Dab but remove from the accompanying page. Here, i leave that to others.
I hasten to add (lest it seem relevant to the controversy) that a Dab list of names serves a different purpose than a surname list: people looking at surname lists are likely to know several of the given names already, and when you know them, alpha order is the easiest way to find them. In contrast, the Dab for a surname has, as most of its raison d'etre, users' remembering of the surname but not the given name (If they knew the given name, they'd go straight there.): the single most useful piece of additional knowledge they are likely to have is some approximation of the time period of the persons' activity and thus of their lifetime. In theory, i'd like to see us standardize on putting them in reverse chronological order (users are more likely to be looking for the living), but chrono is intuitive and fairly objective.
Hopefully no one will be offended by my moving the accompanying surname page to Palin (surname) and building the Dab on Palin; it's what i've always done before -- all the most prominent bios with the surname are of more interest than the surname per se -- and i have trouble imagining the exceptional case that would make me do otherwise.
--Jerzyt 08:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried to do that once and got my hand slapped for it. Best of luck.  X  S  G  19:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
A disambiguation page really shouldn't include a list of people by surname unless they are very commonly known by their surname alone. MOS:DABNAME indicates:
Persons who happen to have the same surname or given name should not be mixed in with the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g. Elvis, Shakespeare). For short lists of such persons, new sections of Persons with the surname Title and Persons with the given name Title can be added below the main disambiguation list. For longer lists, create a new Title (name), Title (surname) and/or Title (given name) page.
Pages only listing persons with certain given names or surnames who are not widely known by these parts of their name otherwise are not disambiguation pages, and this Manual of Style does not apply to them. In such cases, do not use {{disambig}} or {{hndis}}, but {{given name}} or {{surname}} instead.
So, in general I agree about splitting off longer lists of surnames from disambiguation pages. But in this case, I'm not sure that there is much benefit to be gained by producing two separate, relatively short, pages that serve extremely similar functions. After splitting off the surname content, all that would really remain here would be an entries for Palin (surname), the Palin Report 1920, and see also links to Palín (disambiguation) and Paling (disambiguation). Some would inevitably insist on including Sarah Palin and Michael Palin (a full one-quarter of the current list of names). Unless the name content were going to be extensively expanded, I'm afraid I don't see much benefit to separate pages. olderwiser 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • XSG's hand should be apologized to, at least by all who slapped it without qualification as to why. Whatever else was going on, a correction was needed for the illegitimate conversion of a Dab page into something else. It is crystal clear that Dab pages never have prose beyond the one or occasionally two stereotyped lead sentences, unless disambiguating requires saying something that can't be got across with just a sentence fragment; in practice, i've never seen such an exception (and i clean up a lot of Dabs). My impression, based on years watching Dab-page practice evolve, is that surname pages became a recognized page type precisely in order to accommodate discussion of surname origins without burdening the Dabs with that (and with discussion of etymologically related surnames, which are usually not liable for confusion with the surname in the title, with how trades were passed down within lines of descent sharing the the surname, and, in some cases, on and on). But i could be wrong.
    --Jerzyt 08:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go so far... I tried to move the page to Palin (surname) in the midst of fierce debate over the proper handling of this page with respect to the announcement of Sarah Palin as a VP candidate. My actions may have been perceived as being politically-oriented when in fact I was attempting to work toward a Wikipedia standard which apparently doesn't yet exist. In the interest of NPOV, I figured it could wait until after the elections. Judging by the state of the page, now, I'd favor trying again... it appears that all the political fuss over this page has disappeared.  X  S  G  20:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record, my intent in removing your cleanup tag was exactly what I stated in the edit summary: this is a page that has gone through many, many versions and been the subject of much argument, and coming in after a version has been more-or-less finalized and saying, "Hey, this page should be changed but I'm not going to say how" is really unhelpful in such a situation. I saw no obvious discrepancies between the page's current format and the guidelines for disambig pages, mostly because, as you say, this is a surname page and not a disambig page. "Please point out exactly what you think should be changed" is not remotely the same as "Let's just ignore everything that should be changed." I can't quite tell from your post whether you did come to realize the intent of my comment (and if you did, I'm not sure why you felt the need to write about other things that were not my intent). Propaniac (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I try to hard to be clear, and have again been confusing. Yes, i came to realize the intent of your comment before posting here. I didn't intend to suggest your intent or action was improper, and i went into all that only bcz i realized, 3 days later, that i'd probably raised anxieties not only for P., but for others as well, by my mistaken and misleading CU tag, and i hoped to relax those anxieties.
    No, they are not remotely the same, unless you had noticed my summary when you were reverting, or considered why an experienced editor would put a cleanup tag as the lowest visible markup on the page, or knew that a surname page (which can complement a Dab) cannot stand in where Dab'n is called for. I was mistaken in my original certainty that you understood my issue was that (what i at that point mistook for) a purported Dab didn't meet Dab criteria (as you would have if one of those three possibilities were true). And my making that mistake explains what delayed me in acknowledging your summary and giving the reassurance that i believed i owed. But none of that is your fault, and i made it happen.
    --Jerzyt 08:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see any consensus for this move, and I think it was inappropriate to do without more input here. The extra level of indirection seems silly when Palin now has two things, a link to the Palin Report 1920 which is just outside of stub range and likely gets very little traffic, and a link to Palin (surname) which is effectively another dab page. The current state of the pages is unacceptable IMO but I'd rather not move war about it so let's see what others think. Additionally, you knew this was contentious as it was tried before and therefore you should've gone through WP:RM. Oren0 (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Oren. It seems incredibly unhelpful to have a two-entry disambiguation page, only one entry of which is actually a legitimate entry -- Palin Report 1920 is at best a see also on the page. olderwiser 19:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, two entries does not a dab make. Instead, I changed it so Palin redirects to Palin (surname) with ... what do you call it ... a headlink? ... to Palin Report 1920.  X  S  G  21:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why did you undo yourself? That was perfect. Oren0 (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • But then I realized that this makes handling of Palín (disambiguation) and Paling (disambiguation) awkward, so I reverted myself. I'm open to alternate proposals, but frankly, I maintain that surname information doesn't belong on a dab page and dab information beyond a single link doesn't belong on a surname page.  X  S  G  21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Now you've reverted my self-reversion. I'm cool with that. Is there a need to disambiguate between the Palín municipalities and folks with the surname Paling?  X  S  G  21:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've redone what you did with a hatnote added at Palín, though I'm not sure how someone would accidentally type the diacritic. If we want to do the same for Paling, we can. Oren0 (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If Palin is not a disambiguation page, there is little point to having it redirect to Palin (surname). The surname article should be moved back to the base title until such time as there is an actual need to have a disambiguation page. olderwiser 22:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Per the lack of consensus for the move, and the fact there is no agreement as to the "surname" option, the original page has been restored at Palin until this discussion concludes. --Ckatzchatspy 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I hereby designate the discussion concluded. Consensus is to move the surname content to Palin (surname) and to keep Palin as a disambiguation page for other Palin-related non-surname content. **poof**  X  S  G  06:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Well whaddaya know! Over two months have passed, now, with no further discussion. Now can we move on with the surname page move?  X  S  G  05:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Ummm... no?!? As per my note above, there is no consensus for a move and no agreement on the surname option. --Ckatzchatspy 06:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Swedish Noble Family Name

Once upon a time, Palin was listed in the article of the list of Swedish noble family names. That article went through an AfD which resulted in a keep and a determination to trim some of the fat. Palin was some of the fat. It would be useful to find a source for the inclusion of Palin as a Swedish noble name so we can provide a source in this article. Otherwise, I think it ought to be deleted as it has been contested.  X  S  G  05:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, the Swedish noble family name database does not list Palin or have an entry #2237, presently. Perhaps it did once.  X  S  G  05:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed priorities in aftermath of election?

I would like to ask whether interest in Sarah Palin has dried to a trickle, and whether it would now be appropriate to have Palin lead to Michael Palin. All the discussions of notability, and a vast bulk of wikipedia enquiries, would surely have been predicated on a NPOV possibility that she would become vice president. Without getting into it too much, her national career seems to have taken a huge setback. Moreover, and more importantly, the article on Michael Palin is far broader in its scope, with far more objective encyclopaedic knowledge about an enduring cultural icon (versus a flash in the pan, lascivious feeding frenzy). How interested, for example, are people in Lloyd Bentsen, or Geraldine Ferraro, now? This may need to be a debate had after the 2012 election, just so that my assertion of Palin's current unimportance could be seen as more than POV, but I think perhaps there is adequate Republican discussion about Palin to conclude her enduring political unimportance. 203.97.98.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC).

IMO, there will continue to be enough traffic to the Sarah Palin article to keep the current format at least until she leaves public office. Her visibility increased after the nomination, and is not likely to return to the previous level for years. Especially not with the continuing pro-Palin and anti-Palin efforts making the news every week or so. Celestra (talk) 00:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
In light of recent news, she sure does a good job of ensuring this, doesn't she?  X  S  G  21:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that except in the US and maybe especially Alaska Sarah Palin does not really make the news. In the rest of the world, especially the English speaking world, if people search for Palin they are more likely to be looking for the Python. In the long term I would expect Sarah Palin to be forgotten along with any other failed vice-presidential candidate while Palin's contribution to Monty-Python especially is likely to continue to be of enduring interest for many more decades. Billlion (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)