This discussion took place in 2004 and 2005, do not change it.
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 Re x 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)
Wik was correct to remove the addition of Karl Shnörrer, as it was in violation of our disambiguation policy. —Eloquence
let
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)
The article title should be Schnorrer, not Shnorrer. Three respected online dictionaries indicate that the correct spelling is schnorrer.
Bartleby lists shnorrer as "Slang Variant of schnorrer." Merriam-Webster says "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary," and suggests schnorrer. The OED 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!
Currently protected.
Tim Rhymeless
(Er...let's shimmy)
00:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
And again. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Schnorrer recently survived vfd. See: Talk:Schnorrer/Delete -- Wile E. Heresiarch 18:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Considering that two editors of this article cannot compromise, I am asking the Wikipedia community to vote on three seperate versions of this article. Please vote on all three version, and then we'll stick with the version that has the most consensus. -- "DICK" CHENEY 01:48, 13 May 2004
Is there a way to vote for "none of the above"? Awolf002 23:33, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
But this does not allow that "most consensus" can go to that choice, and so one of the three page versions will always win, right? Awolf002 23:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how a version with a majority of opposition can be considered to have "won" anything. This isn't an official poll, anyway. Cheney hasn't even followed the guidelines at Wikipedia:Polling guidelines. anthony (see warning) 23:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Okay... I will call it a "straw poll" in my head... Thanks, and it is time to "vote"! Awolf002 23:55, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
As seen here. This version is a compromise that links to Karl Schnörrer in the body of the article.
Support
Oppose
Neutral
As seen here. This version makes no reference to Karl Schnörrer at all.
Support
Oppose
Neutral
As seen here. This version makes a prominent disambiguation towards Karl Schnörrer at the top of the article.
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Wik said in his page:
Sorry, but I think this is valid assumption that one might seek Karl Schnörrer via Schnorrer link list. I for one searching for someone with o-with-dots I am always entering o-without-dots since only way of optaining the ö character would be copy and paste or using character table in Windows. For me using Schnorrer to find Karl Schnörrer is as likely as using it to find Shnorrer. Since both are wrongly formulated search queries they are equals. This page shouldn't be even created IMHO. Przepla 19:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Searching for a page on Karl Schnörrer by typing in "Schnorrer" may be unlikely, for some value of unlikely, but I think searching for the word schnorrer by typing in "schnorrer" (or at all on this site) is about equally unlikely, especially when you consider that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. anthony (see warning)
Ah, but you mistake me for another, who thinks this page is worthwhile to begin with. I agree that this article is basically a dictionary definition, and probably should be deleted, to begin with. Shall I list for deletion? john k 23:00, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Wik is correct on this matter. The disambiguation policy is quite clear:
Whether or not this particular article is important is irrelevant. The purpose of disambiguation is to deal with pages which would otherwise have the same title. This is not the case here, hence no disambiguation is needed. If people want to search for "Schnorrer", they should click "Search", not "Go", which should then include a redirect from "Karl Schnorrer". Granted, the search is disabled, but this will change very soon. As the policy states, disambiguation is not intended as a replacement for the search.- Eloquence *
The purpose is to deal with pages which might otherwise have the same title. It is quite common to refer to people by their last names, and it is also quite common to drop "the little dotty thingies" from the top of vowels. anthony (see warning) 19:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I've added Wik's opinions in the poll, which I think are abundantly clear from the history of this dispute, and should be taken into account. If anyone wants to raise some point of order with respect to this, I will happilly let them consider that I have used up my "vote" to do so. In any case, wikipedia:polling guidelines doesn't discourage recording of opinions expressed elsewhere within a poll, and doing so happens from time to time on other polls without it causing a massive problem. They're only advisory, anyway. Martin 00:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
This whole vote seems rather invalid, as the terms of it were never discussed beforehand. Unless consensus is reached, I'd consider it meaningless. anthony (see warning) 19:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
One of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars (in my opinion) resurfaced today -- I can't count how many reverts over the ridiculous disputed Karl Schnorrer link. I don't know whose version I protected, and I don't care ( m:The Wrong Version). I have to go, so abuse/slander/allegations of impropriety can be left here or on my talk page, but really I just hope everyone can be calm enough to either talk this thing through or let it go. That's my two cents. Jwrosenzweig 19:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Protected again. This is too silly to discuss. People, do something useful instead of wasting your time! <K F> 21:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected. If people want to squabble over a disambig, let them, block the worst offenders, and let Wikipedia get on with being a wiki. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected again. This time for some reason there wasn't even a protection template, though it was recorded on WP:PP. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 02:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Unprotecting again after six days. Locking up our wiki isn't the way to handle problems like this. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 19:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
At least we've taught our vandal not to use username anagrams... -- Fire Star 19:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
This discussion took place in 2004 and 2005, do not change it.
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 Re x 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)
Wik was correct to remove the addition of Karl Shnörrer, as it was in violation of our disambiguation policy. —Eloquence
let
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)
The article title should be Schnorrer, not Shnorrer. Three respected online dictionaries indicate that the correct spelling is schnorrer.
Bartleby lists shnorrer as "Slang Variant of schnorrer." Merriam-Webster says "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary," and suggests schnorrer. The OED 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!
Currently protected.
Tim Rhymeless
(Er...let's shimmy)
00:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
And again. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Schnorrer recently survived vfd. See: Talk:Schnorrer/Delete -- Wile E. Heresiarch 18:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Considering that two editors of this article cannot compromise, I am asking the Wikipedia community to vote on three seperate versions of this article. Please vote on all three version, and then we'll stick with the version that has the most consensus. -- "DICK" CHENEY 01:48, 13 May 2004
Is there a way to vote for "none of the above"? Awolf002 23:33, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
But this does not allow that "most consensus" can go to that choice, and so one of the three page versions will always win, right? Awolf002 23:44, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure how a version with a majority of opposition can be considered to have "won" anything. This isn't an official poll, anyway. Cheney hasn't even followed the guidelines at Wikipedia:Polling guidelines. anthony (see warning) 23:53, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Okay... I will call it a "straw poll" in my head... Thanks, and it is time to "vote"! Awolf002 23:55, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
As seen here. This version is a compromise that links to Karl Schnörrer in the body of the article.
Support
Oppose
Neutral
As seen here. This version makes no reference to Karl Schnörrer at all.
Support
Oppose
Neutral
As seen here. This version makes a prominent disambiguation towards Karl Schnörrer at the top of the article.
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Wik said in his page:
Sorry, but I think this is valid assumption that one might seek Karl Schnörrer via Schnorrer link list. I for one searching for someone with o-with-dots I am always entering o-without-dots since only way of optaining the ö character would be copy and paste or using character table in Windows. For me using Schnorrer to find Karl Schnörrer is as likely as using it to find Shnorrer. Since both are wrongly formulated search queries they are equals. This page shouldn't be even created IMHO. Przepla 19:12, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Searching for a page on Karl Schnörrer by typing in "Schnorrer" may be unlikely, for some value of unlikely, but I think searching for the word schnorrer by typing in "schnorrer" (or at all on this site) is about equally unlikely, especially when you consider that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. anthony (see warning)
Ah, but you mistake me for another, who thinks this page is worthwhile to begin with. I agree that this article is basically a dictionary definition, and probably should be deleted, to begin with. Shall I list for deletion? john k 23:00, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Wik is correct on this matter. The disambiguation policy is quite clear:
Whether or not this particular article is important is irrelevant. The purpose of disambiguation is to deal with pages which would otherwise have the same title. This is not the case here, hence no disambiguation is needed. If people want to search for "Schnorrer", they should click "Search", not "Go", which should then include a redirect from "Karl Schnorrer". Granted, the search is disabled, but this will change very soon. As the policy states, disambiguation is not intended as a replacement for the search.- Eloquence *
The purpose is to deal with pages which might otherwise have the same title. It is quite common to refer to people by their last names, and it is also quite common to drop "the little dotty thingies" from the top of vowels. anthony (see warning) 19:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I've added Wik's opinions in the poll, which I think are abundantly clear from the history of this dispute, and should be taken into account. If anyone wants to raise some point of order with respect to this, I will happilly let them consider that I have used up my "vote" to do so. In any case, wikipedia:polling guidelines doesn't discourage recording of opinions expressed elsewhere within a poll, and doing so happens from time to time on other polls without it causing a massive problem. They're only advisory, anyway. Martin 00:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
This whole vote seems rather invalid, as the terms of it were never discussed beforehand. Unless consensus is reached, I'd consider it meaningless. anthony (see warning) 19:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
One of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars (in my opinion) resurfaced today -- I can't count how many reverts over the ridiculous disputed Karl Schnorrer link. I don't know whose version I protected, and I don't care ( m:The Wrong Version). I have to go, so abuse/slander/allegations of impropriety can be left here or on my talk page, but really I just hope everyone can be calm enough to either talk this thing through or let it go. That's my two cents. Jwrosenzweig 19:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Protected again. This is too silly to discuss. People, do something useful instead of wasting your time! <K F> 21:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected. If people want to squabble over a disambig, let them, block the worst offenders, and let Wikipedia get on with being a wiki. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 10:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected again. This time for some reason there wasn't even a protection template, though it was recorded on WP:PP. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 02:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Unprotecting again after six days. Locking up our wiki isn't the way to handle problems like this. -- Tony Sidaway Talk 19:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
At least we've taught our vandal not to use username anagrams... -- Fire Star 19:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)