Talk:Skuld

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Move

This is a disambiguation page — a list of articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Proper disambiguation please, move this to Skuld. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This policy in a nutshell:

If an article's name is very similar to another, make a note at the top. If many articles share a name, create a disambiguation page.

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Skuld (Norse Mythology) for a discussion. JRM · Talk 00:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

What's going on? Didn't we vote not to make this a disambiguation page? - Haukur 09:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really. What happened is that the move to disambiguation was opposed because people felt this would give unreasonable attention to an anime character, when the Norn was the original. Almost none of the oppose voters actually considered the reasons why we have disambiguation in the first place, and this gut reaction to "animecruft" is not a valid reason. The question is not what article is "entitled" to be at a given name, but what readers (and linkers) will be looking for when they go to Skuld. The reason you gave, "the original phenomenon should, in most cases, have primacy over derivatives", is the most sound of all the opposing votes, which is why Valkyrie is not about Richard Wagner's opera, despite being rather important; if you linked to Valkyrie, you'd expect the mythological figures the other concepts are based on.

Skuld is quite another matter. Like it or not, Skuld the anime character is rather well represented in Wikipedia, and in popular culture. The least astonishing solution is to have a disambiguation page that forces linkers to be specific. It is well and good to claim what we think ought to be written about the various Skulds, but that doesn't change the reality.

The question is not about the original meaning, but the primary meaning. This is, without a doubt, an arguable matter. In this case, the least harmful solution is to have a disambiguation page. If people feel this gives "undue weight" to a page they don't like, that's unfortunate, but not what they should base their decisions on.

I'd like to stress here that I'm not "ignoring consensus" to push through my opinion, or at least that is not my intention; if people indeed agree that there is a primary meaning, that primary meaning should be under this title. But the vote as it was held simply does not establish a consensus for this, but rather the distaste people have for derivative characters. That's just not how disambiguation works; it's a simple technical provision.

If, in consideration of all I've said above, people can agree on a primary meaning, without needing to appeal to disparagement of "animecruft", we should move this page back. If you do not mind, I would prefer a separate poll on that, since I'm not convinced the first one was made in consideration of the disambiguation policy. JRM · Talk 14:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument but however misguided you believe the original vote was it did go 8-4 against making the change you implemented. I was thus somewhat surprised to see it done without any prior announcement or further discussion. This is not a big deal and I am not going to make a big deal out of it but I think there are perfectly valid arguments for the prior arrangement - our disambiguation policy notwithstanding. - Haukur 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Re prior announcement/discussion: it's too minor for that. I could hardly post messages on everyone's talk page asking them to revisit the issue, then wait, and wait, and wait some more... I'm not comfortable acting "notwithstanding" our policies because a poll says there are interested people who would prefer it. Again: if people care about this enough to poll and say "no, you're wrong, and your arguments are wrong, and we opposed this move even though we were aware of the disambig policy and its purpose", then I'll have to concede being of a minority opinion, I'll acknowledge a hole in my interpretation of policy (or a hole in the policy itself), and I'll gladly rearrange things to match. But I believe the outcome of the original poll was based on a propagation of misunderstanding. I could have started yet another move request myself, but somehow I doubt this would have been more productive, and I likewise doubt the "controversy" normally required for such requests was significant enough to warrant this ("not a big deal", as you put it). JRM · Talk 22:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with Haukurth's interpretation of the previous poll. But OK, it's not a big deal. Tupsharru 22:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think one of the things which annoys us old farts about this is that a normal encyclopedia will have an article about the Norns (though probably not one about Skuld specifically) whereas it won't have any article about their Oh My Goddess! counterparts. It won't have an article about Skuld (Oh My Goddess!), it won't have an article about Oh My Goddess! itself and it probably won't even have an article which mentions Oh My Goddess!. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has something like 100 articles and pictures specifically about Oh My Goddess!. I'm actually fine with that. I'm no rampant deletionist - in fact I like that we have good coverage of popular culture and I make use of it myself. But when the popular culture coverage starts getting in the way of people finding more traditional encyclopedic content I get a bit grumpy. Once again this is not a big deal and one disambiguation page will not make things very difficult for anyone. But I am concerned about the precedent since I know that Cool Cat has his sights set on other mythology pages as well. Will Yggdrasil be the next page to become a disambiguation page? Don't we need to distinguish the tree in Norse mythology from the supercomputer in Oh My Goddess!? If our disambiguation policy implies Skuld is a done deal then what does it say about other articles? - Haukur 12:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't forget the crucial treeship Yggdrasil in the Hyperion Cantos! I better go make a disambig quick. --Maru (talk) Contribs 15:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This gets into areas of "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind", per Emerson. Should Yggdrasil be a disambig page? No. The mythological tree is the primary meaning. To coin a phrase: Google it if you don't believe me. :-) (Caveat: this is not an endorsement of any sort of Google test...)
That is, the "if this, why not that" line of reasoning just doesn't work. Just because Skuld is also an anime character and we disambiguate doesn't mean everything that appears in Oh My Goddess! suddenly warrants a disambiguation page first. JRM · Talk 23:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Haukur speaks well here, and I go so far to say that he speaks for my own position- very precisely so. We are looking at one of the differences between a 'normal' (heh) paper encyclopædia and a wiki with few limitations in terms of actual content. I say that the Norn named Skuld and the more abstract concept of Skuld is ultimately more important to provide to potential readers, in the long-term, rather than a pop-culture phenomenon that will fade just as quickly as it rose. I can stretch as far as being okay with a disambiguation page for any and all entities sharing the name Skuld, but my 'grumpy' and academic POV, as Haukur referenced it, says that placing pop-culture entities on a equal basis with an entity and a concept that has been with humanity, and been *important* to many humans, for many centuries is really rather foolish. Should we give equal weight, attention, and work to our articles for New Kids on the Block and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? I say no. That is the sort of democratising effect that works directly against the darwinian nature of knowledge as a whole- the frivolous, the marginally correct, and the outright incorrect usually ends up being forgotten, and that which has great value remains. At least ideally, anyway. Both the theory of evolution and darwikianism account for the possibility of unforeseen disasters that destroy in an indiscriminate manner. ;)

I digress. The points above remain valid ones, though, at least to some of us. Thoughts? P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes: sign your comments with ~~~~, please; it makes it easier to distinguish who said what and when.

I understand your (and Haukur's) point of view well enough, but I think your concern in this regard is misplaced by extending the mere fact that reaching the "academically respectable" article now takes an additional click to some sort of value judgement. It is possible, I suppose, to have a sort of policy equivalent to "the articles that ought to be given the most value from a scholarly point of view ought to be the most easily accessible", but I trust you see why this would be nearly impossible to set up as policy (formal or informal), and it's got nothing to do with interference from the unwashed masses. We are indeed looking at the difference between Wikipedia and a traditional encyclopedia, very much so. From the simple point of view of a WikiGnome, having a disambiguation page here is the best way to serve all our readers and contributors simultaneously, not merely the, ahem, intellectually privileged ones, pardon the snobism. The anime character happens to be prevalent enough (not merely on Wikipedia) for disambiguation to be warranted. Wikipedia is, for better or worse, a product of its times as well. It is not impossible that one day the situation no longer warrants it, at which point we can simply change it again.

A lot of wrangling can be had here over what the "primary meaning" the disambiguation policy speaks about is, in each case. Is the Norn the primary meaning? Does real-world usage factor in this at all? If so, what part of the real world? Do students of Norse mythology take precedence over anime fans? Why or why not? Will this affect the public perception of Wikipedia? In what way, and do we care? Should Wikipedia reflect current usage or aim for a timeless appearance?

And in the end we are, of course, still just talking about adding an extra click to reach pages, and the conveniences of linking. It seems unlikely this issue can be resolved in a broad way; I also suspect that if another vote were to be held, the people who cared would be exactly those whose hair bristles at the thought of this arrangement, but I do wonder whether that is productive. JRM · Talk 23:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a little fooling around with Google for those who are interested. I'm not going to imply that these numbers are an accurate reflection of anything in particular or that they necessarily have any bearing on what we should do here.

google.com

• 169.000 pages for Verðandi OR Verdandi OR Verthandi OR Verdhandi OR Veroandi
• 442.000 pages for Belldandy OR Berudandī OR Berudandi OR Berudandii

books.google.com

• 558 pages on Verðandi OR Verdandi OR Verthandi OR Verdhandi OR Veroandi
• 8 pages on Belldandy OR Berudandī OR Berudandi OR Berudandii

And the lesson is: Google hasn't digitized enough manga stuff yet. :D Or something :)

Okay, I'll throw in the towel in this Skuld debate - even though we apparently all agree that a new poll would go the same way as the old one. But as a retaliatory move I'm making Hild into a disambiguation page. - Haukur 00:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I can't be bothered. Too many incoming links. - Haukur 00:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't say such things, not even as a joke; we've got enough "retaliation" of this kind going on as it is, and it's massively unproductive. If a more consistent approach is needed, we should bring the issue up in a place that gets more eyeballs, like the Village Pump or the Wikipedia:Disambiguation talk page. It's quite possible a discussion like this has been held somewhere already.

And, again, I'm not trying to push my view of things through here; I'm all talk and no teeth, as multiple people can confirm. :-) If you (or anyone else) really disagrees with my conclusions, then just hold another poll. They're cheap enough. There's no need to be shy, here; nobody's got a hidden agenda. (They're all neatly in the open. :-) I'm not so arrogant that I would ignore or undo the outcome of a poll for which I know my input has been considered and rejected, nor so petty to hold a grudge if this was the outcome. I just felt that the participants in the previous poll clearly did not consider some aspects I consider vital to the disambiguation policy, and that's why I overrode the numbers—not because I personally didn't like the outcome. JRM · Talk 00:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to call another poll. If you want to do things the correct bureaucratic way then undo the change you made, wait until six months have passed from the previous poll, then call a new poll and argue your point. Or defend the change you did on the grounds that it is absolutely mandated by inviolable policy regardless of any poll past or present. But please understand that this feels quite heavy-handed. Fortunately it is a relatively minor issue. - Haukur 01:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, be bold, and I agree, in that order. :-) JRM · Talk 04:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Being bold is a good thing, certainly. But keep in mind the next time you want to boldly override an 8-4 poll to make a change that 99% of us cannot undo that it might be prudent — and not excessively bureaucratic — to have the relevant discussion beforehand. - Haukur 12:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This is true. If you had been able to undo it directly, you would have probably done so before asking me what I was thinking. Then we would have had this exact discussion, except that it would be less pointed. And I do realize overriding polls is not something we should do lightly. JRM · Talk 13:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

And consider some of the context here. Those of us who participated in the original poll had already watched Cool Cat's actions at Valkyrie and I've heard him argue for primary disambiguation in all cases where a term can refer to more than one thing. So when you come in and say: "Well, you people obviously didn't consider the policy properly so I don't care how you voted" it may not be a good way to make friends. - Haukur 12:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I, too, have heard him argue that (but after I moved this page). Cool Cat is wrong; we don't use disambiguation that way (and I have tried to explain this to him off-wiki). You are not fairly representing my point, though, although I understand your interpretation of it. The objection that overwhelmingly influenced the opposing votes is the one I have challenged directly as not being supported by policy—in my opinion. Note how this is not the same as saying "I don't care how you voted because you are wrong". This would be in direct contradiction with consensus. My argument was that, had people considered the argument I have put forth, which in my opinion was supported by policy rather than feelings about "animecruft", they would have either voted differently, or they would have shown why their votes stood in spite of my interpretation of policy. In either case, even if the outcome would have been the same, it would have been an outcome we could all agree as being a fully-informed consensus, which should be respected even if it's not quite what you would have liked. This is still possible.

Now, I do not have some sort of privilege on interpretation of policy, and in light of the waves overriding a poll causes, it would have been more prudent to raise this before doing anything. The "suppose everyone always did this" argument applies here: suppose everyone always overrode votes because they are of the opinion policy was not considered and then waited for objections to roll in, how would we ever get anything done? I was not trying to antagonize anyone, but I did so nonetheless through carelessness, for which I apologize. JRM · Talk 13:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Great. We understand each other, then. As long as it is clear to Cool Cat that this incident should not be taken as a carte blanche to implement his views in disambiguation matters this is too minor a matter for me to spend more time on. The article at Hild should definitely not be about an OMG! character but there are so many incoming links that I don't feel like spending time on fixing that either.

As an aside, I've been thinking for some time about merging the pages on the three individual norns into the norns article. There's very little to say about them individually. - Haukur 13:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit point for easier access to that edit link

Well here is my insight if anyone cares.

1. In 1000 years from now todays manga will be pretty much how we see norse mythology somewhat. The manga has been around since 1988. If the manga conluded tomorow that would be a story developing for one decade. I do not believe the manga would be forgotten the day after.
2. Wikipedia is not restricted to "academic knowlege" (whatever that is as manga and anime are covered in university lectures as they are an academic study after all). I am being blunt but I do have a point.
3. Norse mythology is Scandinavian "cruft". No offense but both the manga and anime are ficiton and equaly crufty. Only diference is one was writen ages ago. And dont get me wrong it was a fine peice of work hence why we have manga/anime based on it.
4. Manga is the way currently the mythology lives. Fewer people would care about the norse topics if they didnt taste the Norse topics via manga initialy. Do realise I intentionaly placed the disambig links on articles of Oh My Goddess! pointing people to the norse topics. My bargin is that if people are curious enough to look up anime/manga info, they should be curious about the roots of the manga. This way the anime/manga is advertising topics writen by you scholars promoting your work. Although the norse topics are rather disapointing as almost all are nothing but almost useless (no offense please expand :) ) stubs.
5. Topics such as Yggdrasil and Valkarie are not covered in detail in the manga. I wouldn't worry about them being disambig links. However if they did become disambig links I do not believe that would make the original yggdrasil any less significant.
   • If norse mythology and anime are both fiction and hence cruft we should have either the bomber valkarie or the motorcycle be the primary disambig as after all neither is derived from norse mythology. Now I am not suggesting that but as far as academics and google is concerned the bomber and motorcycle are also quite notable. I am not suggesting it being a disambig (as I dont care) but I do not think if it did become a disambig it should not bother anyone.
   • I am not remotely questioning norse mythology's significance. (As far as google searches are concerned Skuld the anime character is much much more significant than the norse counterpart), there is serious room for Skuld (Oh My Goddess!) to dominate Skuld or if real life is more significant than fiction (cruft), we have an asteorid Skuld (named after the norse deity). I only am trying to suggest there are valid arguments to go in many directions as far as what should appear on the page Skuld.
   • The purpose of disambiguation links is not to weight significance, who am I to weight the significance of Norse Mytholgy and Manga. The topics are both significant. Hence why neither should appear on Skuld and why Skuld should be a disambig page.
6. About Hild, I am willing to make that transformation as a disambig link but isnt the norse one named Hel also known as Hild? There is a similar situation with Belldandy and Veridandi

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

1. This is possible, but not relevant. We will all have our ideas over what will be important in the future, but obviously that's not a very useful criterion to write Wikipedia with.
2. I doubt anyone disputes this.
3. We should get past the accusations of "cruft" altogether.
4. Again, and we'll get to this in a moment, this is your interpretation of things, but it doesn't generalize.
5. True. This doesn't change the fact that Yggdrasil and Valkyrie have a primary meaning.
   • This is an argument against the use of "cruft", but it does not invalidate arguments of significance. The nature of topics is irrelevant for purposes of disambiguation. Being "quite notable" is not enough. The question here is about primary meaning. You can define that in more ways than one, but how many other "quite notable" meanings there are is of secondary concern to that.
   • This is not consistent with your earlier views. You are questioning that the Norse mythology is more significant than the anime series, because you are arguing they should be considered "equally" in some way or another. That's not how it works; Wikipedia is not political correctness. Our disambiguation policies are technical tools to reflect real-world desires for linking as closely as possible. At present, if you were to link to Skuld with either the anime or the mythological character in place, there are good chances you would link to the wrong article. This sort of mislinking is confusing to readers and not easy to detect. This is where a disambig page helps: it alerts the readers (and contributors careful enough) that there is plausible confusion about what topic is wanted.
   • The question is one of degree. It is not enough that both are "significant", what matters is that neither is significant enough to trump the other as primary meaning. This is why Yggdrasil or Valkyrie should not be disambiguation pages, even if the other meanings are "significant"; they are clearly not significant enough in terms of usage in the real world and on Wikipedia. Using a disambiguation page there would hurt more than it would help. JRM · Talk 14:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but all I am suggesting is it is an endless debate with diferent viewpoints. I am merely stating various possible and logical view points. I am not to say whats right and wrong. Hence why I think disabig page makes life easier for us wikipedia editors. I really see it as the middle ground.

As far as usability disambiguations help. If they didnt why else would we have them. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, obviously. Revolving doors are useful too, but that doesn't mean every building should have them. Sometimes they're appropriate, sometimes they're not. Same with disambig pages. It is in particular not the case that we stick up a disambig page whenever we can. That's obviously harmful—silver should not get me silver (disambiguation)... JRM · Talk 22:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer sliding doorsand every door should be one :). JRM my primary concern is when someone jumps to an article, say Cricket people should be warmly greeted with a disambig page, while for Jesus perhaps a disambig page is a bad idea as there are many many Jesus'es there is only one Jesus the overwheling majority would seek info about. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right that a lot of Norse mythology articles are crappy stubs. We have lots of animanga fans here and very few people working seriously on Norse mythology topics. I don't know if OMG! Hild is based on Hel as well as Hildr/Hild but I would be grateful to you if you made Hild into a disambiguation page referring to Hild the OMG! goddess and Hild(r) the valkyrie. - Haukur 14:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Consider it done, in OMG Hild is a demon ruling over the underworld (hell) although is known to restrain powers so as not to kill agents from heaven. I think she is more like Hel, the Goddess in charge of Hell. Anyways, consider that disambiguation done. I'll also add aproporate disambig links like in Belldandy and Veridandi. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)