Talk:Favorite (disambiguation)

Seriously misleading

The article is seriously misleading in implying that favourite in the political/royal sense is merely a euphemism for mistress. Political favourites who acted as effectively Prime Ministers eg: Cecil, Mazarin, Richelieu etc deserve a decent article to themselves. Johnbod 04:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 12:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move (again)

The following is a closed 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.

The result of the proposal was page moved to Favorite (disambiguation).

This page should be restored as a redirect to Favourite as the primary meaning. In fact Favourite was at this page from its inception in March 2006 until it was moved in November 2007. The current contents should be once again reinstated at Favorite (disambiguation). Normally the US & UK spellings of the same word should go to the same article. See discussion here. Comments please? Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Poll

• Support as nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support makes sense. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Makes no senese. No reason to change it. TJ Spyke 05:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose In contemporary usage, there is no indication this is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  The only alternative, the sports/horse-racing sense, does not have an article. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. If there is no other primary topic, then there may be either this primary topic (proposal) or no primary topic (current).
  2. It's not a given that that's the only alternative. It could be (for example) that non-UK searchers are looking for the Internet bookmark article more than the favourite article. With the cut-n-paste move history, it's harder to analyze the traffic stats. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What links here supports Favourite as primary. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not always a reliable indicatior. When I edit a page (for any reason), I also fix any links on it so that they point to their intended target and I know others do the same thing. TJ Spyke 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Favorite and favourite are just US/UK spelling variations of the same word, so it doesn't make sense that they should go to two different places. If that is agreed, the next question is, Is there a primary topic? I see only two articles that could take the single word as their title, the current Favourite and the French submarine (internet bookmark is the primary use of the plural Favorites, which already correctly redirects there). Of those, I favor Favourite as being the most likely primary use, however hard that is to prove one way or the other in this particular case. Station1 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  Spelling variations may indeed go to two different places, such as Arse and Ass or Rumors and Rumours, just like number variations might (like the Favorite and Favorites you mentioned). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither are equivalent examples. "Arse" has only one meaning, but "Ass" is the animal in both engvars. Rumors and Rumours are proper nouns as titles, & obviously don't mean the same thing. Needless to say, Rumor and Rumour do go to the same place. Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they aren't equivalent to Favo(u)rite. But they are examples that contradict the claim that it doesn't make sense that US/UK spelling variations should go to two different places. The reason for the move is (only) that Favourite is the primary topic of "favorite". If that's true, it should be moved. If it's not, then it shouldn't. The datum that they are US/UK spelling variations isn't relevant. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The claim was "Normally the US & UK spellings of the same word should go to the same article." This is true. Your examples do not contradict this in any way. "Arse" and "ass" are not US/UK spellings of the same word, because both exist in UK English, with completely different etymologies and meanings. Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just took them from American and British English spelling differences, and "rumors" and "rumours" does still contradict it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1) Obviously without thinking about it at all. US "ass" is the spelling of two different words, one of which is spelt the same in UK English, and the other of which is not. 2) No it doesn't. Both of these are proper names, which would not otherwise have articles, there would just be "rumo(u)r". Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they aren't. "rumors" and "rumours" are US/UK variant spellings. On Wikipedia, each goes to a different article, in their cases articles in which they are used a proper names. However, the US spelling of "rumours" is "rumors", and the UK spelling of "rumors" is "rumours", so they are indeed US/UK variant spellings in the same way that "favourite" and "favorite" are. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think you don't read what anyone else puts. Once again:"Both of these are proper names, which would not otherwise have articles, there would just be "rumo(u)r"." As far as the articles say, both play and album have exactly the same title in both US & UK. That is why no disam page is needed for either. Johnbod (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I'm not reading it, it's that you're conflating the Wikipedia articles Rumors and Rumours (which have topics that are indeed represented with proper names) with the ambiguous strings "rumors" and "rumours", which as US/UK spelling variations that have different primary topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they go there as variant spellings of the proper names. Otherwise they would both go to rumor aka rumour. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, they go there are different primary topics of two strings that are variant spellings of the same word, "rumo(u)rs". The point is that US/UK variations has nothing to do with determining the primary topic of a string of characters. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's just disagree on that. Your examples don't make your case. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if we assume arguendo that there may be exceptional cases where US/UK spelling variations should wind up at different articles, why does it make sense in this case that "favorite" and "favourite" should be separate articles? I suspect someone would not expect to wind up at a different article depending on whether they add or subtract a "u" to the word they are searching for or linking to, in this case. Station1 (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The possibility is that, since Favourite is used in conjunction with royalty, and the U.S. has no royalty, that the primary topic for the U.S. spelling might not be the same as the primary topic for the UK spelling. No one is expected to add or subtract a "u" from their search string; the question is simply what someone searching on "favorite" might be expecting to find vs. someone searching on "favourite", and whether they're different. They might indeed be the same, and I have avoided casting a !vote here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is possible, but as I've said before, the US has no shortage of historians, and examples of US use are plentiful as here. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right: I assumed you were arguing against a move when in fact you weren't; sorry for that. I agree that the question is whether someone searching for "favorite" would expect to find something different from "favourite". As an aside, there are quite a few republics that use British English (e.g., Ireland, India, South Africa) and, if Wikipedia is to be believed, Canada and parts of Australia use both versions of "favourite" (not quite sure how that fits in). Station1 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The current set-up is more confusing than anything else, especially for users who use the spellings interchangeably and without preference in their spelling. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Just that this is the first time the move has been proposed (instead of just done or reverted). You should list it at WP:RM. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange you never felt that necessary! Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not strange at all: it didn't look like it needed to be moved when I visited the page because of the {{disambig-cleanup}} tag. If it does get moved, it needs to be actually moved (which will require an admin) so that the edit history goes with it, not just cut-n-paste-moved again. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The edit history is just as relevant here, in fact more so. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it's the history of the disambiguation page. If some of the history is relevant to the redirect, it will also require an admin to separate the edit history into the two articles. BTW, I believe your proposal is that this page be moved to Favorite (disambiguation) so that the base name can be made a redirect to Favourite. You do not want the disambiguation page moved to Favourite (clobbering that article). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

As above, this should be moved to "a redirect to Favourite", & yes the contents go to the existing disam page. I think it's clear enough for the admins. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Where should the contents of this page be? The contents are a disambiguation page. Your proposal is to move these contents to Favorite (disambiguation) (which is not an existing disambiguation page, but an existing redirect, and the only other edit history of the redirect is the result of cut-n-paste moves) so that this name "Favorite" can then become a redirect to Favourite. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rather than my suggesting that you change the proposal, do you mind if I change it to reflect those steps? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

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.