Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-12/Hoagie

Note
Per a Protection request I made, the article is now under temporary full protection due to edit warring. Expiration is in three days. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 18:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the heads up Jeremy! BillyTFried (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the conflict?
The conflict is over the the merge of the stub article Hoagie into Submarine sandwich. The articles for Hero sandwich and Grinder sandwich have already been merged. Hoagie was finally incorporated under its own section and merged as well but has been blocked by User:SummerPhD. And all info that is on the Hoagie page now exists on the far more comprehensive article for Submarine sandwich. Hoagie is simply a Philadelphia region WP:Alternative name for Submarine Sandwich. I called a vote that after weeks stands at 9-5 for Merge. Then two people strongly protested and I tried to work toward consensus with both. The first person who was a neutral editor eventually agreed to work with me on the merged article that I've begun that he referred to as "excellent" and the second, SummerPhD, who appears to be a Philadelphia fanatic per WP:Don't be a fanatic demanded I prove Hoagie, Hero, and Sub were synonyms. At her request, I provided many different sources proving so, however she has refused to stop her WP:Disruptive editing and relentless blocking of the merge process, without giving any argument for why other than that I have somehow not addressed her complaints, which I have, thoroughly. Instead of showing WP:Good faith herself, she has instead posted multiple warnings on my talk page of getting me blocked from Wikipedia for calling her WP:Disruptive editing exactly what it is. BillyTFried (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hoagie#Merger_proposal


 * Notwithstanding Billy's excellent work in both cleaning up this article and incorporating information into Submarine, I don't see a valid reason to delete this article. (1) Neither the AfD process nor the RfC process are votes, so a count of popularity is invalid.  (2) The ongoing requests for merger over the last year seem like forum shopping, until the desired goals were attained.  If you evaluate the comments over the last year as a whole, there is no compelling consensus for a merger.  I think that the advocates for merger just wore down the oppponents.  I don't see why there is a need to eliminate this article.  I think that the sub article and this each have a place at WP. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The following is a qoute form my comment at the most recent RfC, where I have stricken a sentence which is no longer valid after Billy's excellent rewrite of the Sub San article: "There are enough references provided for the Hoagie article to make it notable on its own. While the sandwiches are not substantially different, the origins and theories of the origins appear to be the real encyclopedic topic. This proposed merger would bring a larger article into a smaller one, and we then face the issue of which is the more notable name for the merged article: "hoagie" or "sub". Per the etymology of each article, it appears that the sandwiches evolved independently and the hoagie may have preceded the sub. Though "sub" may be the more current colloquialism, at WP we strive to avoid 'recentism'." --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I liked the idea of using Italian sandwich because it's a bit more accurate and avoids the whole rivarly nonsense, but according to Wikipedia: WP:Alternative name >> Naming_conventions_(common_names) >> "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. Search engine testing might in some cases assist in discerning which of two alternative versions of a name is more common. "


 * http://www.google.com
 * About 618 for "Grinder sandwich". (1st non-recipe link: What are known as grinders in New England are called subs, submarine sandwiches, po'boys or torpedos in the rest of the US.)
 * About 9,930 for "Hoagie sandwich". ("Hoagie is the specific name of the article in question)(1st link: Known by various names depending on where you live in this country. Some of those names include: Submarine, Heros, Hoagie, Grinder, Po' Boy, Rocket, Torpedo, Dagwood, Hero, Zepplin, and Italian Sandwich.)
 * About 48,200 for "Hero sandwich". (1st non-Wikipedia link: It is certainly known by a lot of other names. It can be called a Po’Boy in New Orleans, a sub or submarine sandwich in Boston, or a hoagie.)
 * About 59,500 for "Italian Sandwich". (1st link: In a world of hoagies, heroes, grinders and submarines, Portland, Maine is known as the birthplace of the Italian sandwich.)
 * About 205,000 for "Submarine sandwich". (1st non-advert link: The same basic submarine sandwich may be known as a hoagie, a grinder, a bomber or a hero in different regions of the United States.)


 * BillyTFried (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but searching by the less restrictive "Hoagie" I get 579,000 results on Google. I think that the term "Hoagie" is self descriptive without requiring the modifier "sandwich."  Not sure about the others.  But I that this is an invalid test due to the subjectivity of the search parameters. --Kevin Murray (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, then let's get back to the mountain of other sources I have provided already, of which basically EVERY source names Sub as the most common all around general use term for this sandwich. And that is what Wikipedia says to use when considering alternative names. I mean seriously, you live in The Bay area and I bet never even heard the word Hoagie used in this sense before now, whereas you could no doubt ask a stranger on the streets of Dallas(87 Subways), Tokyo(50 Subways), Berlin(40 Subways), or Sydney(13 Subways), where to get a Sub or Submarine Sandwich and would be almost guaranteed to get what you're looking for. Try that with Hoagie or Grinder! Also conversely, I have NEVER seen a single source that claims that Hoagie, Hero, or Grinder is the most WP:Common name. BillyTFried (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're going to use Google as a benchmark, at least use proper lexicon when searching. Of course entries for "grinder sandwich" and "hoagie sandwich" are going to be severely limited because those words never appear in that order next to each other in common usage. That's like searching for "Coca-Cola soft drink" as the end-all, be-all benchmark for finding all instances of that particular beverage. And for the record, a Google search for simply "hoagie" turned up 625,000 results.   BroadSt_Bully  [talk]  15:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure Hoagie searched for alone gets a lot of hits since it's a man's name. A search for just Sub gets 431,000,000 results. I tacked on the word Sandwich to try and make it more specific, but of course I realize that searching Google is not the end-all-be-all. Either way, I don't think the fact that Sub is the most commonly used general term for this sandwich (as noted in all provided sources) has really been disputed anyway. BillyTFried (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple of questions:

 * (1) All Hoagies are Submarines, but not all Submarines are Hoagies. Does anyone dispute that statement?


 * (2) The Hoagie concept evolved independently from the Submarine concept, though on similar and parallel paths in different regions of the US. Does anyone dispute that statement?


 * Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (1) No, anyone who wants to call ANY of these sandwiches a Hero, Hoagie, or Sub or its dozen other names can ALWAYS do so no matter what. Even if the ingredients vary greatly as with a Meatball Hoagie, Tunafish Hero, or Eggplant Sub. Just the same as anyone can call a Pepsi a Pop or Soda, a Sprite a Pop or Soda, or a Dr. Pepper a Pop or Soda. Nobody can ever tell you that since your sandwich has cabbage instead of lettuce or mayo instead of olive oil that it is not a Hero, Hoagie, or Sub. You can basically cut a loaf of Italian bread in half and slather one side with peanut butter and the other with jelly and call it a PB&J Hero, PB&J Hoagie, or a PB&J Sub.


 * (2) The origins of Hoagie and Sub are somewhat vague. And I wouldn't really call NY, NJ, and PA different regions of the US, but rather the same region, called the Northeastern United States. My mom is from PA, my dad is from CT and I am from NJ, but we are not all from different regions of the US. We are from the same region, sometimes called the Tri-state area. I'd also say that basically a bunch of poor immigrants from Italy got off the boat at Ellis Island with bags full of cured meat and Italian bread and some headed to the docks of NYC looking for work and others headed to the docks of Philly an hour and a half away looking for work. Then they all started making sandwiches with the Italian foodstuff they brought and when asked by the locals what they were eating one of the workers in NY/NJ said it was a Sub and one of the workers in Philly said it was a Hoagie. When asked what was in it, the guy in NY/NJ said it had Capicola, Salami and Tomato Sauce, and the guy in Philly said it had Coppa, Salame and Sunday gravy. All of which are the exact same thing, and go to the exact same articles.


 * Catch my drift? (See what I mean?) BillyTFried (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hoagies are submarine sandwiches are hoagies. There may be regional (or personal, or shop-based) distinctions in the usage of these terms, but these appear to be poorly-documented and contradictory opinions. If these idiosyncrasies can be reliably documented, it would be worth covering in the merged article. That said, in common, widespread usage the terms are interchangeable. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Policy
According to Wikipedia Policy, this article sastifies the criteria for a merge as follows:


 * Criteria_for_deletion
 * Criteria_for_deletion
 * Content fork (A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.)
 * REDUNDANT or otherwise useless templates


 * Merging
 * Duplicate - There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
 * Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap.
 * If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand.


 * Redirect
 * Redirect
 * Template:R_from_alternative_name
 * Category:Redirects_from_alternative_names
 * This is a redirect from a title that is another name, a pseudonym, a nickname, or a synonym. It leads to the title in accordance with the naming conventions for common names and can help writing. It is not necessary to replace these redirected links with a piped link.


 * Naming_conventions_(common_names)
 * Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. As a rule of thumb, when choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? We want to maximize the likelihood of being listed in external search engines, thereby attracting more people to Wikipedia. Search engine testing might in some cases assist in discerning which of two alternative versions of a name is more common.

BillyTFried (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a productive way to handle this conflict
Talk about showing WP:Good faith eh? Talk:Submarine_sandwich BillyTFried (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail and rhetoric
BTF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)


 * Classy! I take it you're forfeiting having any say in the matter at hand. Good. Thanks for playing champ! BillyTFried (talk) 09:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No! You are burdening the discussion with so much bulk, that you are distorting the processes.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha! Talk about dramatic emotional rhetoric! Seems like you're the only one here who needs a tissue. And I'd rather be found to be verbose but right, than wrong and shamefully resorting to pathetic attempts to hijack and "distort the processes" with tactics like deleting other editors Merge & RfC Tags or removing relevant images with cited sources or like your little "Merge all sandwiches to one article!" tantrum. BillyTFried (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It all boils down to several people here think this is an important article, and if this is true, why do you feel the need to bully them into your vision of the project just to prove a point? I really don't care about the article, but I really don't like your demeanor and tactics.  Why not live and let live, and leave the article for those who think it is important?  Anyone who puts this much energy into pushing a minor point of process such as this, has some axe to grind, and that really bothers me.  This is a volunteer project; why don't you let the people from Phili etc. have their article since it meets WP:N, WP:V etc.?  You've created a popularity contest and are trying to wikilawyer the results. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No Kevin, you're wrong. It all boils down to what is encyclopedic and what is not. And Wikipedia Policy, as I've assembled for you above, clearly states that having multiple articles on the same topic is not encyclopedic. And I have no axe to grind nor have I bullied anyone into my "vision of the project". What I've been pushing here is no "vision", it's Wikipedia Policy. And I have simply been very persistent about making sure that something that is wrong gets fixed, which I believe without my efforts likely never would. In doing so, I have also made the Submarine sandwich article ten times better than any of the separate stub articles ever were. My contibutions here have had a positive effect on Wikipedia whereas SummerPhD's and yours have had a negative one. And the "Awe shucks Bill just let em' have their way already!" line is a cop out as well as a slippery slope that leads to Wikipedia becoming a joke. Separate Articles for Pop and Soda, separate articles for Shopping Cart and Shopping Carriage, separate articles for To-may-to and To-mah-to, really Kevin, it's simply nonsense and I have no qualms whatsoever about continuing my effort until the proper results occur. And if it turns out that doing what is right "really bothers" you or a few NJ/NY/PA fanatics... as they say in Philadelphia... Tough Noogies! BillyTFried (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Billy, maybe I'm overeacting to your style, and if so I appologize and will assume that you are acting in good faith. However, some of what you site above as policy is just help page guidance etc. -- not policy, and much which is "policy" is open to subjectivity.  I don't see a clear cut objective solution in your research on policy, though you imply there is one.  When it comes to gray areas, I think the benefit of the doubt should go to diversity and inclusion.  Cheers and have a great weekend.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. And thanks for changing your original title for this section from "Wiki-Drama? BTF" to what it is now, and also changing your line that said "You are cluttering the discussion with so much wikidrama and distorting the processes by continuing to vomit your emotional rhetoric" to what it is now too. I'm glad you realized how rude and inappropriate these comments were. Your edits to your original comments may now make my replies seem a bit over the top, but I'll just leave them how they are anyway. As far as your suggestion that Wikipedia policy on this matter isn't "clear cut", I'm not worried about it. You have a great weekend too Kevin! BillyTFried (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)