Talk:Sore loser

Merge
There's no useful content here right now, IMO. Since Sportsmanship is closer to a proper article, I think this term could be mentioned there, and this could turn into a redirect. Thoughts? Friday (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As you can see from this article's history, I actually prodded it, only to be deprodded by badlydrawnjeff; I later mentioned this very merger idea on his talk page, only five minutes before your post! Anyways, I tentatively endorse this proposal, with the other possibility being an AFD. Picaroon9288 19:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merged. Sportsmanship isn't very long of an article, so it's unclear if/when someone would get around to expanding this. Also, this article seemed one-sided... sportsmanship covers both good and bad sportsmanship, and this article covered only the bad half.   --Interiot 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes little sense to me. Sportsmanship is a workable opposite of sore loser, and if people are searching for this term, they're not going to be looking for sportsmanship.  I don't agree with this move, it was a viable stub before. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sore loser is a term sometimes applied to someone with bad sportsmanship. Dicdef at best, right?   Why not discuss this in the broader context of sportsmanship?  Friday (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All stubs are, to start. I think it should be discussed in a more specific context, it's why I opposed deletion and oppose the redirect/merge route. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict.) To cite the commonly used example, non-flammable redirects to flammability. I don't think two articles are necessary for this one topic, which is pretty much "behavior in sports." Picaroon9288 20:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but that's more specific than being a "sore loser," which goes beyond sports and games. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * badlydrawnjeff, are you saying you want seperate articles on good sportsmanship and bad sportsmanship? Or are you perhaps going even further and suggesting that the bad sportmanship article be broken out into seperate articles on sore winners and sore losers?  Friday (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't oppose such a split, I think we're veering away from this specific article. If I click on "sore loser," i don't want an all-encompassing article on sportsmanship, but rather a description of sore loser, which is a well-known and heavily used term.  I don't think the redirect is entirely proper in this case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true of anything that has Template:R with possibilities on it (about 2600 redirects currently). The template exists to say "if you have the urge to expand this into a decent article, please do so".  And unlike deletion, even anons can see the history here, and can use it as part of an expansion without having to consult anybody else.  --Interiot 22:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the scariest category I've ever seen on here. 1-800-COLLECT is a redirect?  I'm stunned. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)