Talk:Shnorrer

Any hope of reaching a consensus here? Or maybe following the 3-revert rule? Pakaran. 04:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is no need to list Karl Schnörrer on this page since his name is spelt differently from Shnorrer, therefore disambiguation is not needed. Maximus Rex 04:47, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's confusingly similar, I think a note should be there. But let's see what happens with the vfd first. Anthony DiPierro 04:48, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why is this page protected? To make absolutely sure it cannot be expanded or otherwise improved? <KF> 18:52, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Because any troll can provoke an edit war on any page he wants, and have the page semi-permanently protected. --Wik 19:37, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Wik, I don't understand your answer. <KF> 19:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Edit war. --Wik 19:52, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through the whole edit history one by one, and all I can say is that the two (three?) of you are behaving like three year olds. And this is not meant as a compliment ("unspoiled by adulthood" or whatever). If an edit war is about controversial subjects such as abortion, Palestine or freedom fries, that's bad but understandable. But this?

And by the way, it's sepArate. <KF> 20:16, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is indeed not understandable why trolls like Anthony are given a free rein here. --Wik 20:23, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

From vfd

Wik was correct to remove the addition of Karl Shnörrer, as it was in violation of our disambiguation policy.—Eloquence

And you were wrong to make an edit to a protected page. Anthony DiPierro 22:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Misspellings can be listed in a separate section 'Common misspellings' or 'see also'." Wik was incorrect for removing the text referring to Karl Schnorrer (it wasn't an addition, it was in the original). He should have changed it to "see also" or "common misspellings." At the very least he should have pointed to Wikipedia:disambiguation on the talk page. BTW, this thread should be moved to the talk page. Anthony DiPierro 22:37, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Shnorrer" is not a misspelling of "Karl Schnorrer". It's a misspelling of his last name. There's only a need to disambiguate if there's a substantial risk of confusion, which is not the case here.—Eloquence 02:35, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Fine, so do you want me to redirect to Schnorrer? That would be dumb. I think there is a substantial risk of confusion. And there needent be a "substantial" risk of confusion, only a "real" risk of confusion. Anthony DiPierro 02:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If the main content is deleted a redirect would be fine. Otherwise Karl Schnorrer shouldn't show up on this page at all.—Eloquence 03:17, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

If a redirect is appropriate, then a note on the page is appropriate as well. Anthony DiPierro 03:37, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. Wikipedia articles are not search indices. Disambiguation is a must, pointing out possible misspellings is a courtesy, creating redirects from virtually unique names to the articles about a person (Chomsky) is a convenience, but cluttering pages with non-disambigauting name index content is not desirable at all -- we do have List of people by name already for that purpose. When a convenience becomes a distraction, it's better to get rid of it.—Eloquence 04:38, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

It seems we disagree at a most fundamental level. A note at the bottom of the page is not a distraction, and it is a convenience. How about a vote: Should this page mention Schnorrer or not? Anthony DiPierro 04:43, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Since the original page is of questionable validity, let's look at an analogy: Would you want to add a link to Antoine Alexandre Barbier to the page called Barber? I think such a link would be distracting from the content of the barber page, where I expect to read about that profession, and find links to relevant related pages -- reading about all articles which might have some similar word in their title distracts me from this goal. I have no problem with holding a vote on this, but one should keep the precedent in mind that this might set.—Eloquence 04:53, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose such a link, but I think it's of less use than this one. My bet is that such a precedent has already been set. I'll look for one. Anthony DiPierro 04:56, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, the closest I could find was Santa Clause, though I actually believe that one is a mistake. Some oher mispelling notes are on pitta, sterling, stirling, stamford, Eiffel, and brest, but I'm done looking. I'm going to sleep. Anthony DiPierro 05:22, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

let

From VfD

• Shnorrer -- slang definition. No-One Jones (talk) 04:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Move to wiktionary, and maybe send Wik along with it? Or are we allowed to do that? Pakaran. 04:45, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree with Pakaran on both counts. Anthony DiPierro 04:46, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment about Karl Schnorrer moved to the talk page. Anthony DiPierro 22:40, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Since when is "slang definition" a reason for deletion? Just as with the term shlemiel, a whole (sub-)culture is hiding behind shnorrer. Read Leo Rosten's book(s) before putting such words on VfD. And of course there is also a novel by Israel Zangwill entitled The King of Shnorrers. <KF> 12:36, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wiktionary is the place for slang definitions - Texture 15:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Agree, delete. Bmills 15:31, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Wow, great arguments you've got here. I'm impressed. By the way, could you refer me/us to that part of Wikipedia policy where it says that slang has no place in Wikipedia? Because if that's true, I'll nominate Baseball slang. <KF> 18:39, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not the slang part that's a problem. It's the dictionary definition part. See Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. Anthony DiPierro
    • Oh, that's fine with me. So let's nominate Baseball slang, which consists solely of dictionary definitions. <KF> 22:44, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Apparently you didn't see Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not. Anthony DiPierro 22:57, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
    • Believe me, a cryptic reference to another page that contains lots and lots of ideas, guidelines, rules, etc. is not (let me repeat this: not) an argument. You seem to have three other "arguments" at your disposal which you use in a random fashion: "dictionary definition", "slang", and "encyclopaedic" (see Baseball slang below). <KF> 23:06, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
      • Once again. Brash fighting on the delete page. Shnorrer is an entry entirely devoted to a definition of a word (let's ignore "slang" here). That violates the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" on the page that Anthony mentions above. Baseball slang is an encyclopedic entry that talks about how slang has affected American language, and then lists examples. Now, it is perhaps not the best written prose, but it is encyclopedic, not a straight dictionary entry. Move Shnorrer to wiki- dictionary, and delete. Lyellin 00:52, Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • I wasn't making an argument. The argument is already made at Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I've never used "slang" as justification for a deletion. As for my use of "encyclopedic," I think regular contributors will know what I mean. If you don't, I encourage you to stick around for a while and see. There's a lot of shorthand notation that goes around on these pages. I'm sorry if I was brash. Anthony DiPierro 01:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Over time I think this could become an extremely encyclopedic article on a cultural archetype that has a lot more behind it than a simple dictionary definition. --Alex S 01:07, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wiktionary. KF: The Baseball Slang article isn't very good, but falls into the "lists" category (which is my vote below). Tempshill 01:44, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: literary term. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:16, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • No comment on deleting but if it does stay it should be spelled correctly: schnorrer, which gets about 44,000 Google hits (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Schnorrer&btnG=Google+Search) compared to a few hundred (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Shnorrer&btnG=Google+Search) for the unusual one in use in this article. Jamesday 04:24, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Important cultural term. 131.130.181.71 16:10, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Deleting this term could be seen as an anti-semitic act by some. Wikikiwi 21:17, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

If Schnorrer is going to redirect here, the disambiguation notice is needed. This makes a lot more sense than having a whole separate page just to disambiguate this from Karl Schnörrer. Angela. 21:42, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

• Agreed with your first sentence. But schnorrer shouldn't redirect here. anthony (this comment is a work in progress and may change without prior notice) 21:44, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The article title should be Schnorrer, not Shnorrer. Three respected online dictionaries indicate that the correct spelling is schnorrer.

Bartleby (http://www.bartleby.com/61/40/S0354050.html) lists shnorrer as "Slang Variant of schnorrer." Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=shnorrer) says "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary," and suggests schnorrer. The OED (http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/00215513/00215513spg1?single=1&query_type=misspelling&queryword=shnorrer&edition=2e&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=00215513spg1) automatically redirects to the listing for schnorrer.

Google shows 33,600 hits for schnorrer and only 380 hits for shnorrer.

Once the page is properly titled, then the article title will be identical to the surname. Will that require a disambiguation page or notice? Not necessarily. We have seven articles about people with the surname Carpenter, but carpenter makes no mention of them. Goldsmith is about the profession and does not mention Jerry or Oliver. I've put some more examples on my talk sub-page User_talk:SWAdair/Surname_disambiguation. SWAdair | Talk 10:46, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We need to have a link to Karl Schnörrer from Schnorrer!