Talk:Snobs (disambiguation)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: rough consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Snobs → Snobs (disambiguation) – Per WP:PLURALPT, the primary topic of the plural term is the singular snob, a class of people frequently discussed in the plural. The other topics are comparatively obscure. --Relisted. Dekimasu よ! 01:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC) bd2412  T 01:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I stick my nose up in
 * Support justified by clear primary topic. Gregkaye  ✍ ♪  12:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I seriously doubt the primary topic for "snobs" is "snob".  Anyone entering "snobs" as a search term is much more likely to be looking for one of the uses on this dab page actually named Snobs than an encyclopedia article about the dictionary definition for "snob". Besides, if Snobs redirects to Snob, then what?  How do people looking for an article about a topic named Snobs ever find it?  --В²C ☎ 19:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Snob needs a hatnote pointing to Snobs (disambiguation). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So all people looking for the Snob article by searching with snobs will be taken directly to the Snob article. Great.  Do you estimate that will be of value to zero, one or two people per decade? In the mean time, while virtually nobody is helped by this arrangement, every one of the people looking for one of the Snobs topics by searching with, you know, snobs, will first be taken to Snob, from which they have to click on a hatnote link (only after they notice it) to get to the dab page at Snobs (disambiguation), where they have to find the link for their desired use of "Snobs", click on that, and finally get to their desired article.  Great.  That's just great. Way to put the reader first.  NOT.  This is exactly the kind of cluster-fudge our policies and guidelines are designed to avoid.  Doesn't anyone else see and appreciate this?     --В²C ☎ 01:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No, people searching for "snobs" do not get taken to an article. Internal searchers get this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=snobs&fulltext=Search
 * Titles determine the url, the hovertext, and the big text at the top, especially important in the print version where it is big, surrounded by white space, and often far removed from the lede text. The only people who will arrive on this page are people following an explicit link, manually entering the url, or foolishly following a "go to the top hit" link search option after having entered a very poor search query.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The proposal includes this: "the primary topic of the plural term is the singular snob". That means Snobs will be a redirect to Snob.  That means anyone entering "Snobs" in the Search box and pressing GO will be taken to Snob.  I don't know about others, but the only time I use Search rather than Go is when I know I only have part of a name.  But when I know the name of the topic I'm seeking, I just use Go, and because our titles generally follow naming policy and guidelines, that works well most of the time.  That is, it takes me to the article I seek when reasonably possible, and to the appropriate dab page when not.  The proposed arrangement here would break that.      --В²C ☎ 01:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You may have a point there. See my 02:16, 23 October 2014 post below.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Undoubtedly the primary topic.  Any reference to "snobs" broadly without context could only refer to the plural of snob. Not only are the other topics comparatively obscure, they are derivative of "snob".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Broad references to "snobs" are not relevant here! What's relevant is what people who are searching with "snobs" are likely to be looking for!  --В²C ☎ 01:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * People searching for snobs should expect to find hits starting with an article about snobs. People who skip looking that the search results should expect to go the the primary topic, which clearly exists.  Wikipedia should support scholarly use, and scholars expect logical structure.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You're talking about literal search results (when pressing the Search button - who does that?); I'm talking about practical search results (when pressing the Go button - I do that because it normally works well).  --В²C ☎ 01:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Right now, if I enter Snobs in the Search box and click on Go, I get taken to the Snobs dab page with these contents:
 * Plural of snob
 * Snobs (club), nightclub in Birmingham, England
 * Snobs (novel), 2004 novel by Julian Fellowes
 * Snobs (TV series), 2003 Australian television series
 * Now, if I'm searching with Snobs I'm probably looking for the club, novel or TV series, and we conveniently provide links here to each. But in the extremely unlikely event I'm looking for Snob, well that's there too. Perfect! This is classic if it ain't broke, don't fix it! --В²C ☎ 02:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Essentially, you are denying that snob/snobs is the PrimaryTopic, you prefer to see all imprecise queries go the dab page. I only argue weakly against that, thinking that there is a primary topic.
 * What I think is broken is snob and snobs going to different pages. It is silly, creating potential for confusion.  They are the same thing.  There is no specific snob who is different to the class of snobs.  They should both go to the article on the characteristic or both go to the same DAB page.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. And I have not been subtle about this.  My first statement here was: "I seriously doubt the primary topic for "snobs" is 'snob'. " I don't know why, but people seem to see the word "primary" and forget what "primary topic" (traditionally) means on WP: "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term".  Now, think about the reader who enters snobs in the Search box and enters Go.  Is he or she "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be" seeking the topic of the article at Snob?  No way.  I just don't see that.  Do you?   It's not the primary topic, by definition.  --В²C ☎ 02:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think that criteria, "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined", applies when one topic has overwhelming long term significance. I consider commercial products, including clubs, that are named after an established concept, to be subservient in terms of long term significance.  Only extreme examples, such as windows are justified exceptions, as the Windows interface has huge worldwide recognition, unlike the Snobs things.  I don't think it hurts that that the long term original topic is banal.  Simple topics should have simple titles.  Specialist topics should have very precise titles. This is a simple topic.
 * That said, if others agree that this is not case for a PrimaryTopic, that's no great problem, but Snob and Snobs should point to the same thing because they look like the same thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For the life of me I don't understand how taking "historical significance" into account when deciding primary topic improves the encyclopedia or helps the reader. --В²C ☎ 16:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Consider the fact that everything named "snobs" is derived from the historical concept of the "snob" (i.e., the elitist); the person who wishes to understand any topic deriving from that benefits from understanding what "snobs" are and how they came to be. The person looking for the club or the TV show is given an opportunity to learn about something more important than the club or the TV show. Did you know that the word originally referred to commoners allowed to attend elite schools, and that over the years the meaning got flipped around to refer to those who looked down on those commoners? For the record, I also doubt that people typing "snobs" are necessarily looking for one of the popular culture topics; they may very well want to know what we as an encyclopedia have to say about snobs. bd2412  T 20:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, thank you for that honest answer. It's like setting traps for serendipitous learning.  Frankly, I suggest it's rather snobbish to presume someone looking for a club or TV show named Snobs would be better off landing on an article about the historical concept of "snob".  No, I didn't know what the term originally meant and that the meaning got flipped around.  I'll grant you that's interesting, in a useless trivia kind of way.  Many people are not interested in etymological trivia like that.  Let's not be so presumptuous.   --В²C ☎ 01:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. It's clear to me that snob is the primary topic, and that the words snob and snobs refer to the same thing. kennethaw88 • talk 03:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In a general context, of course "the words snob and snobs refer to the same thing". In the context of searching for topics on Wikipedia?  No way do "the search terms snob and snobs refer to the same thing.  Context matters.  And this context is WP titles and topic searching.   --В²C ☎ 17:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Snob and Snobs obviously refer to the same thing. Titles are not so important for proper searching, but am not sure what your point is, as someone searching simply for either snob or snobs probably wants, and certainly deserves, to see as a top hit an article on the generic subject.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - didn't support earlier as an obvious clear cut case of no notable plural. User:Dekimasu thank you for relisting, but can be closed after nearly two weeks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: no evidence that the article Snob is what most readers searching Wikipedia for "Snobs" will be looking for, ie the Primary Topic (even though, in general use, that will be the most common sense of the five letters "snobs", which is a different matter). Most encyclopedia users understand that article titles are generally singular. The Snobs dab page gives a crystal-clear set of links, topped by the one to the singular form, and seems likely to provide the most help to the most readers. Pam  D  11:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Most encyclopedia users understand that article titles are generally singular." Really?  I find that highly dubious.  And even if true for some defined set of "encyclopedia users", this encylopedia values a wider accessibility.  Setting standards based on narrow definitions of the readers is contrary to the goal of easiest accessibility.  Many who do not normally use an encyclopedia may be astonished to find that snob and snobs take them to different places.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Baloney. We're all accustomed to singular entries from dictionaries.  Nobody searches for the generic term using the plural.  Only someone looking for something literally named snobs would search with snobs. ☮ --В²C ☎ 19:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Baloney maloney indeed. You are very loose with that universal we.  The encyclopedia is a serious reference work.  It is a scholarly product.  A scholarly reason to to be interested in snobs might be in relation to topics such as social stratification, social status, egalitarianism and meritocracy.  Finding the most useful topic may very well involve looking for things such as "snobs and bigots".  Note the naturalness of the plural.  The reader is not looking for a singular "snob".  Perhaps the topic should be at snobbery, but it should not be anticipated that someone looking for scholarly material on snobs should be expecting streamlined convenience to finding a club or work of fiction.  Someone expecting these things should use Google,  and should not jump straight to generic Wikipedia titles, bypassing even the Wikipedia search engine.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll give you this. You have a wild imagination.  Someone with a "scholarly reason to to be interested in snobs".  LOL! Even there are 2 or 3 people per year of that ilk, they can make do with linking, I'm sure.   --В²C ☎ 23:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia content should be scholarly, and organised and present primarily for scholarly application. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't Wikipedia more of the people's encyclopedia - the volkspedia, if you will - rather than a scholar's encyclopedia? --В²C ☎ 22:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. That is to say, it must always be easily accessible to the common folk. To achieve this, to avoid astonishment, snob and snobs must functionally be the same. A scholarly presentation is also desirable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you describe a realistic and reasonably likely scenario in which it would be important for snob and Snobs to be the same functionally, or how it would be problematic if they're not? I mean, what would a person have to be doing for either to occur?  I'll give several scenarios where it doesn't matter.
 * Some friends are chatting at a bar, one ends up calling another a snob, a debate ensues, and a third one decides to go to WP to search for "snob" and settle the matter. He enters "snob" and goes to the desired article.  Even if he enters "snobs" for some reason, he's taken to the short dab page where the first line -- Plural of snob -- directs him to the correct page.  No issues. No problems.
 * A guy at a club in Birmingham wonders if it's famous enough to be in WP, looks up its name, Snobs, is taken to the short dab page where the second line -- Snobs (club), nightclub in Birmingham, England -- directs him to the correct page. No issues. No problems.  Now, if this page is moved as proposed, then instead of to the dab page he's taken to Snob, where, after some confusion, he hopefully finds the hatnote link which takes him to the dab, from which he can finally get to his article.  That's a problem.
 * Some friends are discussing recently read books, one mentions Snobs, another looks it up, is taken to the short dab page where the third line -- Snobs (novel), 2004 novel by Julian Fellowes -- directs him to the correct page. No issues. No problems. Again, if this page is moved as proposed, then instead of to the dab page he's taken to Snob, where, after some confusion, he hopefully finds the hatnote link which takes him to the dab, from which he can finally get to his article.  That's a problem.
 * Some friends in Australia are discussing various TV shows, one mentions Snobs, another looks it up, is taken to the short dab page where the fourth line -- Snobs (TV series), 2003 Australian television series -- directs him to the correct page. No issues. No problems. Yet again, if this page is moved as proposed, then instead of to the dab page he's taken to Snob, where, after some confusion, he hopefully finds the hatnote link which takes him to the dab, from which he can finally get to his article.  That's a problem.
 * That's what I see. What about you?  --В²C ☎ 01:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A reader clicks on snobs and has snob download. Later, he goes to snobs and it is different.  This is a problem.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't evaluate this because you left out context. Describe a realistic context for each click.  --В²C ☎ 22:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Even without a hypothetical, there is a clear problem. No need to illustrate with hypothetical. Your concerns with clicks distracts you from the basic problem.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a problem, but it's caused by the lazy or incompetent editor who made a link leading to the dab page at snobs when they should have linked either to snob or to whichever sense of "snobs" they intended. Pam  D  23:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No User:PamD, this is not a problem attributable to lazy incompetence, and even if it was. It that snob and snobs do correctly link, but the visual appearance by design creates the problem. It is also that a reader should not be expected to understand that snobs is different to snob, because the singular is the PT of the plural, in this case, as in many cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. I don't see what all the fuss is about – Wikisnobbery, perhaps? It looks like a very straightforward case to me. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per В²C Asdklf&#59; (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as the primary topic. When the alternatives are an obscure nightclub whose page consists of five sentences, an obscure novel whose page is just a short plot summary with no references and no evidence of notability, and an obscure TV series ("Original run: 29 September 2003 – 11 November 2003" (!)) with a slightly longer (but still rather short) plot summary with no references and no evidence of notability, it's abundantly clear which use of "snobs" has the long-term significance. What isn't as clear is how many of the three other articles would even survive an AfD. Additionally, thanks to, if this page gets moved, the very first thing someone who reaches it will see below the title is:  Given that, I have a difficult time imagining a scenario where the rare someone who really is looking for one of those other, really obscure Snobs suffers "some confusion" that would keep them from finding the information they're looking for. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Don't see what all the fuss is about. Clear case of primary meaning, three other uses all obscure... it's a puzzle to me. If we really do have rules that indicate otherwise, we should fix them. But I'm unconvinced of that too. Andrewa (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.