Talk:Whisky Galore (novel)

	Scottish islands portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels Mid‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novel

The novel article should be at Whisky Galore, if that's the correct title. TheMadBaron 08:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be split into novel and movie articles. Clarityfiend 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The title of the novel doesn't include the exclamation mark -that was only added in the film title. Moves when splitting the novel and film have left this novel article with the film title. --JBellis 18:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this article has no references. Do we have any external references or documentation that shows the actual title of the novel? ●DanMS • Talk 19:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whisky galore in the copac catalogue: http://copac.ac.uk/wzgw?form=qs&id=07080282c38de8b0470bdb19f85b91a2acff83&au=&ti=Whisky+Galore&any=&fs=Search
- —Ian Spackman 09:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm, that helps a little... unfortunately the same source has Whisky galore (no exclamation mark) for one of the indexed copies of the 1948 motion picture alternately entitled, The tight little island, which is presumably Whisky Galore! (film) although the dates don't quite match either. I guess that's just experimental error. No change of vote. Andrewa 15:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the move. It would be good to have references, but it's better to have accurate unreferenced material than any sort of inaccurate material, and I'm quite happy to assume good faith on the claim that the book title has no exclamation mark. Also I dimly remember observing that from the credits of the film as regularly shown on Australian television. Andrewa 05:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as correct title of the book —Ian Spackman 09:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed from Whisky Galore! to Whisky Galore as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 06:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: not moved: no concensus after a month Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– The film has an exclamation mark, the novel does not, neither is particularly better known than the other, so we should treat each as the primary meaning of their spelling and use appropriate hatnotes. PatGallacher (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Ben Mac Dui 19:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A mechanical application of principles for the sake of applying principles, utterly blind to the needs of readers. How many of them have the requisite knowledge: that the film is named with an exclamation mark, and the novel is named without one? Let's look at the real world, folks. It extends beyond the limits of Wikipedia. Readers don't want a needless series of hatnote-hurdles; they want immediate access to the information they are seeking. Noetica^Tea? 00:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply The author of that last comment seems unaware of the current situation, which is that both versions of the name with and without the exclamation mark lead to Whisky Galore, a disambiguation page. I entirely agree that we should attempt to provide immediate access to the information people are seeking, and reduce taking them through hatnotes and disambiguation pages to a minimum. However the solution I proposed was an attempt to do this, which the current setup does not. PatGallacher (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The current situation is nothing like what you describe! Even if it were like that, how would the proposed arrangement help anyone at all, in any way?

Furthermore, if the current situation were complex in the way you describe, you would do well to explain it when setting up an RM discussion.

♥

Noetica^Tea? 00:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply again Sorry, but if you follow Whisky Galore and Whisky Galore! you will see that the current situation is exactly as I describe it, both lead to a disambiguation page. The change I am proposing would mean that many people, quite possibly the majority, would find themselves at exactly the page they are looking for. I am slightly surprised that this proposed move is proving controversial. PatGallacher (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, you did not say which two articles you meant. There are two titles under discussion above with an exclamation mark, and two without. I assumed that you meant the pair for which there is a proposal in your preamble: Whisky Galore (novel) and Whisky Galore! (film). You will perhaps understand that, because in your preamble you make no proposal for the fate of the pair Whisky Galore and Whisky Galore! Yes, one of these is currently a disambiguation page: Whisky Galore; and the other redirects to that disambiguation page. Now, here is one logically ordered and informative way to present what now emerges as your full proposal (if I guess right):

Whisky Galore → Whisky Galore (disambiguation)
Whiskey Galore (along with a bunch of others like it) redirects to Whisky Galore (disambiguation)
Whisky Galore (novel) → Whisky Galore
Whisky Galore! (film) → Whisky Galore!

Is that right? Better to be clear about all this.

For the record: I maintain my opposition to the proposed move. ☺

[Added later: Of course I am not endorsing or proposing any move, but merely showing how the proposed move might have been presented more lucidly.–N]

Noetica^Tea? 02:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – it's ambiguous enough that making it clear which it refers to is an advantage to readers. Dicklyon (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to Noetica's proposal as a reasonable compromise. PatGallacher (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What proposal? It looks to me like he just restated the proposal that he is opposed to. Personally, I think it's all good as it is, with titles that are ambiguous as to book or film going to the disambig page. Dicklyon (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, Pat. Now, how can we present ourselves as good communicators with the readers, if we do so poorly among ourselves? ♪♫♪? Noetica^Tea? 21:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The titles can be distinguished and the topics can crosslink through hatnotes. Benefits some readers while hindering none (currently all readers have to land at a disambiguation page and then click on the article sought, under the proposed arrangement some would not need to click through while others will still be only one click from their destination). With the moves, the disambiguation page would be deleted, not moved. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JHJ, what do you mean? If the move went ahead, wouldn't many readers be inconvenienced? Surely not everyone has a clue about that exclamation mark; many would have to work their way out of dead ends through hatnotes and the like, simply by not knowing the quite fortuitous punctuation. Who is inconvenienced by the present arrangement? More particularly, how are fewer inconvenienced under the proposed change than under the present arrangement? Surely there is an onus on those supporting the change to show how it is that fewer would be inconvenienced.

Is is not true that readers currently have to land at a DAB page. Whether through a Google search on "whisky galore" wikipedia (works well even without "wikipedia" in the search) or through entering "whisky galore" progressively in the Wikipedia search facility (top right of this very screen: try it now!), readers find all relevant Wikipedia articles presented lucidly and informatively, to select from. That would not happen under the proposed change.

Noetica^Tea? 01:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is getting pretty confused. Noetica's proposal does not seem much different from mine. I think what we are trying to do is reduce the number of links people have to go through to get to the article they are looking for.

Searching on Yahoo, entering "whisky galore wikipedia" does give you a dab page first, just "whisky galore" gives Amazon first and a page about gas and electricity prices second (!?!). Anyway, we cannot control the results of search engines, which are liable to fluctuate.

More fundamentally, I think it is fairly well-established that in cases of different versions of the same story with minor variations in the title this variation is enough to disambiguate. See e.g. The Sweeney and Sweeney!, and The Madness of George III and The Madness of King George, and the many people with very similar but not identical names. We can always use "about" in hatnotes, we ought to assume a basic level of intelligence on the part of our readers. PatGallacher (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pat, if there is confusion here it is a mere remnant of the confusion caused by your own careless expression. Read what has been said. You have misunderstood what has been clearly stated, above: I am making no new proposal. I am only filling the gaps in your own inadequate specification for the RM, and then affirming my opposition to that proposal. Please be more attentive, so that the time of editors is not wasted on sorting out meanings. I repeat, in new words now: What makes people who communicate so poorly in these RMs think they are competent to determine how Wikipedia communicates with its readers?

It seems that you have no interest in evidence about Google, by far the dominant search facility in general use. I recommend that you do take an interest in that, in future RM discussions.

Noetica^Tea? 12:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've read it again, I think I understand Noetica better, although I think this could have been expressed more clearly. Actually, I would treat "Whiskey Galore" and the like as a redirect to "Whisky Galore". I continue to back this proposal, although I understand some people's objections I think this approach if applied consistently would mean re-naming a very large number of Wikipedia articles, e.g. Oliver!, is the exclamation mark sufficient to distinguish it from Oliver? See Talk:Sweeney!, where an admin speedily moved "Sweeney! (1977 film)" to "Sweeney!", is spite of possible confusion with "The Sweeney". PatGallacher (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support per JHJ. Follows existing guidelines. ENeville (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Clearly in the interests of readers to maintain the existing disambiguation. If the rules say otherwise then they need to be tweaked. I'd suggest however that Whisky Galore! should redirect to the film, not the DAB, with a hatnote to the book. Unsure where the DAB is best to go. Andrewa (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be accepting half of my proposal, so why do you reject the other half? PatGallacher (talk) 10:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to clarify, this proposal is for two moves, and I oppose both of them. I thought that would be clear enough, but evidently not. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:PRECISION which is relevant to this case. PatGallacher (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be precise, but only as precise as necessary. I think that's what both sides are aiming for. The question is, how precise is necessary? Some of us think that the existing qualifiers are necessary, others don't. Andrewa (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In the last 90 days the novel has had 1408 views. The film has had 7628 views. So clearly the film is the article more users want. But the redirect Whisky Galore! (which goes to the dab page) has had just 114 views compared to 1220 for the dab page directly. To me this suggests that although people want the film they do not add the ! mark. I think that keeping the disambiguation page means a greater number of people get quickly to the page they want. It also ensures incorrect incoming links can be easily spotted and fixed, thereby increasing the number of people going to the correct page. Tassedethe (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What you have said constitutes a tenable case for treating the film as the primary meaning of "Whisky Galore" with a redirect and dealing with the novel by a hatnote. PatGallacher (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

The novel quotes extracts from a fictional travel writer near the start. There is the suggestion that this may be a parody of Alasdair Alpin MacGregor. Anybody know any more? PatGallacher (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]