Talk:Santorum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apologies for reinstating the disambiguation page but as someone who heard about the sexual connotations of "Santorum" before ever hearing about the senator, I feel pretty strongly about this. Regardless of your politics, "Santorum" is now recognised in many places that neither know nor care about the Rickster. veghead 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation page already exists at Santorum (disambiguation). I've reverted this back to a redirect to Rick Santorum as per existing consensus, and restored the hatnote on that article to direct readers to the disambiguation page. Powers T 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
OK sorry - I missed the disambiguation page. Could you point me to a reference to this "consensus" as I've been unable to find it. Thanks veghead 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Powers T 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair play - I stand corrected :) veghead 21:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing relative importance

As Santorum lost his senate bid, he's becoming less of a politically important figure. As the use of santorum as sexual slang increases (as evidenced by the last comment), the relative importance of the two change, thereby meriting reconsideration of the value of the disambiguation page. That something was resolved in the past does not mean that is a static and unchangeable decision any more than English is a static language.NickGorton 16:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What "last comment" do you mean? Regardless, it's true that the decision need not be static, though I would at least wait until Sen. Santorum is out of office before bothering with a new discussion. Powers T 14:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
A couple of anon edits have recently moved the target to the dab page; I've reverted a couple of times, since I think that at least a discussion is warranted prior to changing the existing consensus. For myself, I think the target should remain the senator, since I suspect both he will decline in notability no faster than the other possible targets. If anyone disagrees, let's talk. Mike Christie (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Another revert today for the same reason as above. If we need to change the target, we can, but given the history of discussion I don't think this should be done unilaterally. As it stands I would still think the ex-senator is the natural target for the redirect. Mike Christie (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


Having never heard of the senator, I disagree.

If you can get consensus for your view, we can change it. Consensus has to come first though, given the history of this discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)