Jump to content

Talk:Faggots (novel)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Cutting to talk

", with particular emphasis that Faggots is "sex-negative.""
That needs a source, as it seems the portrayal of lifestyle that was negatively received.sinneed (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"highly satirical"
I think that needs a source as well. sinneed (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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} Move to Faggots (novel) & redirect Faggots to Faggot. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been moved without general discussion, which I (obviously) oppose. The page title "Faggots" serves our readers best as a redirect to Faggot, which mentions this novel; the novel itself is far from the primary usage of the term "Faggots", and the previous situation of the respective pages had persisted for four years, which is not a good situation for moving without discussion. I am open to hearing other viewpoints, of course, but I'm disappointed that the editors who moved this did so after they were advised to seek discussion, without seeking discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - there is nothing else that is called "Faggots" thus the novel is the primary topic. There are a number of things that are called "Faggot" which is why Faggot is a dab page. Our readers are served perfectly well by the head note on the novel's article directing them to the dab. Would've been nice, BTW, seeing as how you're so disappointed about the lack of discussion, if you had notified those who participated in the previous move discussion about this one. Otto4711 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that discussion was closed as "wrong venue", I didn't think it was needed; it was not meant to exclude anyone from the discussion. Having said that, since you object, I've added a notice there. As to your general point, I think readers who search for "Faggots" are more likely to be looking for the material found at Faggot than they are to be looking only for the novel. Of course, a large portion of those readers might also expect a redirect directly to Homosexuality or similar, but (I'm sure) anyone commenting here considers that obviously inappropriate. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Otto4711, there was no previous discussion of the move. There was a discussion of whether or not this should be discussed at ANI. The answer was "wrong venue".sinneed (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Redirect to Faggot as faggot can refer to a lot of different things and Faggots is a plural of Faggot LetsdrinkTea 22:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport Restore the old redirect. The arguments for the move already done without discussion seem specious. It is very normal to redirect the plural to the singular.sinneed (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)On review of the hit history most kindly unearthed by 199.125.109.126, I don't find substantially more hits for one or the other. Thus, to my thinking, wp:Disambiguation indicates the book should have its title as the article.sinneed (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly normal to redirect a plural to a singular, if there is not something named in the plural. For example, Johns doesn't redirect to John because there are things called "Johns". Threads doesn't redirect to Thread because there's something called "Threads", even though someone typing threads in the search box might not be looking for the TV movie. Again, the novel is the primary topic for Faggots and it is no more of a hardship for someone looking for, say, Faggot (slang) to click on the hat note than it is for someone looking for the novel to click on the item from the list at Faggot. Further, since we now have assisted searching Faggot and its various dabs will come up before Faggots in the search box. Otto4711 (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is certainly normal to redirect the plural to the singular. That said: there are special cases where that will not be the most common usage. This is not one. Old book, very dated. 198,000th on Book bestseller list at Amazon.sinneed (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name another usage of the plural that is more common than the novel and isn't simply pluralizing something at Faggot. Where the novel ranks on Amazon's sales is so amazingly completely irrelevant that I'm embarrassed for you for bringing it up. Otto4711 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simply pluralizing something at Faggot" is the most common use, of course. That's why "Faggots" should point there. I'm not sure why you want to exclude it from consideration, but at the very least please recognize that other editors do not want to exclude it from consideration. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. To reiterate: there is nothing else named FAGGOTS. The novel is a PRIMARY TOPIC. Articles should bear the names of their subjects in the absence of some compelling reason not to, and in the absence of anything else that is actually named Faggots Faggots should point to the novel. Otto4711 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."

Accepting that this book is "well-known" and "much more used" than other uses of Faggots, it would make sense to use this as the article, with a see-also at the top. I can't agree, and don't have any other immediate ideas of why this should be used instead of a redirect to Faggot. Well-known I could possibly agree to, but "much more used" I can't see. Possibly a request for an admin to pull the stats on hits on Faggots and hits on Faggots (novel), but I don't see the need.sinneed (talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed. This is the name of the novel and we have a redirect at the top for anyone who needs to find any of the other uses, none of which are faggots. If other notable works need to share Faggots then revisit to what the best way to serve our readers would be. As is our policies are pretty clear regarding article names, as there is only one article names Faggots there is no reason this article can't be here with a hatnote to help those looking for similarly named articles. -- Banjeboi 02:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It really would not serve anyone's purpose to move it back, as it would become a redirect to a disambiguation, meaning that people looking for the pejorative term or the novel would both have to click on something, and those looking for homosexuality would still have to click twice (there is no link from the dis page). As to the stats, there were 685 views of faggots (novel)[1] in February, vs. 607 for faggots.[2] The page was moved on March 17, 2009. Faggot was viewed 15,933 times,[3] with over half of those looking for faggot (slang),[4] gay[5] or homosexuality.[6][7][8][9] 199.125.109.126 (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support plural to singular redirect, as it is likely something other than this book is being searched for. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per Cars, Cats. Cars (film) is much more well-known than Faggots (novel) (thus, many more people searching would expect the redirect to go to the film), but Cars still redirects to Automobile. Same thing with Cats (Musical)/Cats/Cat. Both go to the same place that the singular does, rather than a perhaps more well known other use. -M.Nelson (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but rather than redirecting to Cats (disambiguation), it redirects to Cat. If there was only one "Cats", the redirect would still be to Cat, not to the one instance of Cats. No matter how many "Faggots" articles exist, rather than Faggots redirecting to the sole "Faggots" or to "Faggots (disambiguation)", I believe it should redirect to Faggot. I hope I've made my point clear; it's easier to visualise in my head than to explain. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand exactly what you're saying; I just think it's wrong, that's all. Otto4711 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good case could be made for using cars as a redirect to cars (film), and cats a redirect to cats (musical), as it certainly appears that most of the people who are typing in the extra s are really looking for cars and cats. See the corresponding spike, for example, in page views on the 16th for cars[10] and cars (film)[11] 199.125.109.126 (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A closer comparison may be Adverbs, which redirects to Adverb, and not to Adverbs (novel). The novel does seem to be the only thing called simply "Adverbs". -GTBacchus(talk) 23:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we only had articles for things that we've all heard of, the project would be very small indeed. If someone is looking for the bundle of sticks, they are likely to, upon typing F-A-G-G-O-T in the search box going to select either Faggot or Faggot (disambiguation). If they do happen to go on to type the S then they will get back to Faggot by clicking the hat note. No one has yet suggested that there is anything other than the novel that is possibly a primary usage. Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of that last reply is a non sequitur. Nobody is arguing for deleting the article; the only question is whether it is the primary use, and that question is determined precisely by general familiarity. I do not find it obvious that most readers will type the singular form of nouns when searching. If I want to know something about adverbs, and if I'm unfamiliar with Wikipedia's naming conventions, then I might look up "adverbs". -GTBacchus(talk) 23:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We do not have one single primary usage here, but we do have two extremely high use usages that dwarf this usage, but happen to not be at the plural form at their article names. Though WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is addressed by its language to the situation where the other competing usage articles are at the same name, and we do not have that exact situation here with other usages being at their singular forms, the intent of the policy is to direct users who are linking to a name to be taken to the most likely correct target of their search. Here we should not be elevating the letter of the policy over the substance. The vast majority of people searching for faggots are going to be looking for either bundles of wood or the pejorative term for homosexuals and not this novel. A google search of <Faggots "Larry Kramer"> returns 12,900 web results, 167 news results, and 372 book results. Coming up with a search that excludes false positives for the wood variety is difficult but, for example, the probably far too restrictive search <faggots sticks fire> returns 27,600 web results, 517 news results, and 774 book results, and the pejorative, using <faggots homosexual>, returns 289,000 web results, 3,880 news results, and 1,208 book results. Thus the majority of those searching for faggots are going to be surprised when they reach this page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, Google hits are hardly substantive bases for decisions. Second, unless you're in the minds of the people searching, how can you possibly pretend that you know what they're looking for? Third, your argument does not address the simple fact that we have prompted searches and the notion that someone searching for a bundle of sticks is going to stop typing after FAGGOT. This idea that people are too stupid to distinguish between singular and plural is just flat-out bizarre anyway. And even if it weren't, maybe our policies and guidelines shouldn't be catering to morons. Otto4711 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the opening line of the very page you cite, geared toward deletion discussion, shows why search engines which are useful but often undefinitive tools for establishing notability by naked results, are excellent tools for establishing commonality of usage and appearance of terms: "Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is...". On your second point, you're hoisting yourself up by your own petard; right back at ya. I actually think your third point has some merit, though your underlying assumption is that people use the prompts to choose a topic a high enough percent of the time that it cancels out or significantly reduces those who don't. I'm not so sure that's the case, and I doubt either of us have any statistics on how often the prompts are used rather than ignored or rendered moot by flying fingers. Your fourth point makes the false assumption that it is incorrect and stupid for people to search for the plural forms of nouns. Our naming conventions are in many cases an imposed and artificial system. It's true that many other encylopedias likewise use the singular form in title, but there's nothing inherent about the singular form verses the plural form that makes it bizarre or idiotic to imagine an article might be at the one over the other. Quite the opposite, an argument can easily be made that it is illogical that so many articles are at singular titles when, for stylistic reasons, they begin with a plural description, e.g. the first sentence of Bird starts: "Birds are". You say in the post above mine, "No one has yet suggested that there is anything other than the novel that is possibly a primary usage." I am saying it. The plural form of the pejorative usage—not incidentally, the common word this very novel takes its title from—is orders of magnitude more common. The search results I posted above understate the matter because the necessary use of a limiter words in the search cut off a massive number of result. This is going to be closed as no consensus I expect, but the result of that will be that this article will be often visited by people looking for something else, and that is exactly what the relevant policies seek to avoid.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals)#Redirects seems to favor leaving it here as well. -- Banjeboi 03:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you reckon? I read that, and it seems to lean towards redirecting plural to singular. Besides, isn't it better to ask whether that rule makes sense to apply in this case, rather than applying it without asking? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It states it rather clearly - If you make a page title which is a plural, always consider making a redirect from the singular to aid linking. This is particularly important because Wikipedians tend to assume that the article title will be in the singular. This article title is a plural ergo a redirect from the singular should redirect here. -- Banjeboi 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What? Now you're arguing that the singular Faggot should redirect to the plural? How about when we have an article on the singular? Should Adverb redirect to Adverbs (novel) which is the only thing on Wikipedia called "Adverbs"? Should Slacker redirect to Slackers? Heart to Hearts? -GTBacchus(talk) 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not arguing about anything. I'm simply pointing to what our naming conventions state to do when an article is about a plural. We're here to serve our readers and not every case has to be handled in the same rigid manner. I'm simply not swayed that users that are searching for faggots are somehow disadvantaged if the don't get taken to the exact content they think should be there. Our systems of hatnotes and disambiguation pages is generally intuitive and organic enough that I believe most users find what they are looking for and I simply don't see this article - the one article titled at the plural with a clear hatnote to the disambiguation page - as upsetting this system in any profound way. I think it actually follows the spirit. Once a second faggots article appears we can revisit the issue. -- Banjeboi 13:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, I think I see what you're saying. When you create a page with a plural title, the guideline suggests redirecting from the singular. This is not a simple answer though, because the very same guidelines suggests, when you create a page with a singular title, redirecting from the plural.

              Such a guideline clearly does not address what to do when the singular and plural are both articles in their own rights (e.g. Freak/Freaks; Door/Doors; Faggot/Faggots; etc.). Naturally, you're right that this one page - which is not the only case of its kind - will not upset the system, no matter what we choose to do.

              However... I think that there are probably good reasons to choose to redirect some plurals to singulars, to leave others independent, and to redirect everything in various permutations. Those reasons have not yet been made clear, and that is the entire point of my making these lists. Maybe... just maybe... It's entirely proper to have Faggots be an article about a novel - despite the existence of the singular, and also appropriate to have Adverbs point to an article about a part of speech, despite the existence of the novel, which is the only thing called "Adverbs".

              If there does exist a good reason for distinguishing those two cases, then I want to know what it is, because I might end up applying the same principle somewhere else later. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural does not redirect to singular

Singular form has its own article

Singular form is a dab page

Plural redirects to singular

Plural is a unique proper noun, singular is an article here

Plural is a unique proper noun, singular is dab page

Plural is a unique proper noun, singular and plural redirect elsewhere

Plural is borderline unique

Relevant?

Redirects to dab pages specific to plural forms

Other

  • Again, there are other things called "Cats" in the plural, "Cars" in the plural, "Stars" in the plural. There is nothing else called "Faggots" in the plural. Otto4711 (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can make comments inline, or refactor the list to make it more useful, and to reflect what you're saying. I already have heard your point about there being nothing else called "Faggots", and I'm willing to be very attentive to that point. Are you willing to engage in this exercise, and help find other, more relevant examples? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

The purpose of these lists is not to count how many examples we can find on each "side", or something silly like that. I'm curious whether there is a good reason to redirect plural to singular in some cases and not in others, so I'm curious to see whether some kind of pattern emerges. Whatever else people see in there... cool. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GTBacchus, while I appreciate the amount of effort involved here, it looks like a good case for a more general discussion on the point that we agree exists. For this specific case, I think it might be a distraction. I think it would do better as a discussion on the Village Pump or on the MOS discussion page. Of course, my opinion for this page is already a matter of record. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's worth bringing to a wider audience. I have got a reason for doing this here, however. I suspect that there exist good criteria to separate two cases: redirecting the plural to the singular, or pointing it to a unique proper noun. I've never thought about this issue before (in hundreds of page moves), and I'm curious about it. If something clear emerges from this list, and we can say, "Ah, we'll do it one way in case ABC, and another way in case XYZ..." - if something like that happens, then we could apply it to this article now. I think I indicated support for the move above, but I ultimately don't care about this page. I'm interested in the principle of the thing, and when I see a particular case, my instinct is to find a relevant principle, and go ahead and apply it.

It's also not so much effort. It's kind of fun - try typing in a few common nouns, and see what comes up. What I've learned so far is that neither "side" can claim that their interpretation of our guidelines is applied consistently. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, now it's much easier to ask: is a strict reading of the disambiguation page really always appropriate? If so, is it really true that Goats should redirect to Goats (webcomic)? If not, then what's different about this novel? What is the actual reason to keep the page here, if we're not going to claim that the principle should be followed in all cases? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Well, hell. I really messed up that last edit. Can someone tell me how to reverse it?

Okay, fixed. Sorry for the commotion.

Culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant

Re the now-closed Requested move discussion, and in case this ever comes up again, it is erroneous to describe Faggots as a "little-regarded novel" as GTBacchus did, or to imply that it's obscure. On the contrary, the novel is a culturally, historically, and aesthetically significant portrait of a now-vanished world. "Faggots" was notable at the time and remains notable because it accurately and vividly portrays the peak of "fast track" gay life, immediately prior to its termination by the AIDS epidemic. Kramer's maniacally detailed descriptions of drug-fueled hyper-sexuality are taken from his direct experience of 1970s gay New York, and his characters ring true because they're thinly disguised friends and acquaintances. Upon its release "Faggots" was banned by New York's only gay bookstore, surely a measure of its notability. According to the same WP topic, the book "became one of the best-selling gay novels of all time," and "has never been out of publication and is often taught in gay studies classes."

"A book of major historical importance-the first contemporary novel to chronicle gay life with unsparing honesty and wild humor." —Erica Jong

"There are few books in modern gay fiction, or modern fiction for that matter, that must be read. Faggots is certainly one of them." —Tony Kushner

"His uncannily foresighted novel Faggots appeared in 1978 just as the AIDS virus flooded whole wings of the American bloodstream; now its Swiftian portrait of an all but vanished subculture stands as that culture's visible memorial." —The American Academy of Arts and Letters May 1996 Victimofleisure (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Faggots_(novel)&oldid=1198479916"