Talk:The Gale Storm Show
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Why does "Oh, Susanna" redirect here
instead of to the Stephen Foster song which is about a billion times better known? Unless someone objects I'm going to change it. 64.160.39.153 07:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- The song is Oh! Susanna, whilst the TV show was Oh, Susanna. There's also a singer known as Oh Susanna. All of the pages disambiguate at the top of the page, making it one click if you came to the wrong one. Over-redirecting (sending people intentionally to the wrong place because we've made an assumption about what is "better") is not a Good Thing. However, I will clean up the disambiguation templates as they've drifted a bit. 〈REDVEЯS〉 11:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- First of all the article doesn't say anything about the TV show being "Oh, Susanna"; it says it's "The Gale Storm Show". Maybe some explanation could be added. Second, "Oh, Susanna" and "Oh Susanna" (referring to the TV show and the singer) are names clearly chosen to evoke association with the song, attaching the song title's familiarity to themselves basically as a form of advertising. I know that I found this article by looking at Oh, Susanna while seeking info about the song--I'd never heard of the TV show or singer previously. It seems to me that the song is much better known and is the more likely subject of reader interest. So if we're going to redirect based on an assumption of which is "better", the assumption should be towards the song, rather than the TV show or singer. So I'd still like to change all these redirects. Does that sound ok? 64.160.39.153 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, no, but you'd have expected me to say that! First, the article does mention this - end of the first paragraph says "In syndication, it was retitled Oh, Susanna". Just in case you don't know how these things work, probably more people saw the show in syndication than on the network. Also, for the sake of doubt, I never saw the show and, from the article, don't think I'd enjoy it if I did see it!
- Second, yes, I understand you got the title of the song wrong and thus ended up at the wrong article. Two points: 1 - a single click got you to the right article (thanks to the disambiguation at the top of the page) so no harm was caused; 2 - whilst I appreciate that you were looking for the song, are you typical? Would people typing in the name of a TV show expect the song or the TV show? If someone typing in the wrong name got the wrong article but a helpful pointer to the right one, would they feel inconvenienced?
- The current disambiguation system, where the right names point to the right articles, could easily be replaced by the wrong names pointing at the wrong articles... but to whose benefit? It seems better to credit our readers with a little bit of common sense rather than dumbing it down so nobody is satisfied (although at least everybody would be equally unhappy, I suppose). RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 20:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- By redirecting to the TV show instead of the song, you are asserting that the TV show is the right target and the song is the wrong one. Do you have any particular reason to believe that readers are more likely to be looking for the TV show? If there's no solid evidence one way or the other, I think it's better to point to the song. Of course the song article has a disamb template too, so that readers wanting the TV show can reach it in one click, just like they can now reach the song with one click from the TV show article. 64.160.39.153 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- First of all the article doesn't say anything about the TV show being "Oh, Susanna"; it says it's "The Gale Storm Show". Maybe some explanation could be added. Second, "Oh, Susanna" and "Oh Susanna" (referring to the TV show and the singer) are names clearly chosen to evoke association with the song, attaching the song title's familiarity to themselves basically as a form of advertising. I know that I found this article by looking at Oh, Susanna while seeking info about the song--I'd never heard of the TV show or singer previously. It seems to me that the song is much better known and is the more likely subject of reader interest. So if we're going to redirect based on an assumption of which is "better", the assumption should be towards the song, rather than the TV show or singer. So I'd still like to change all these redirects. Does that sound ok? 64.160.39.153 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You've missed the main point: at the moment, the right name points at the right article. You are proposing that the wrong name should point at the wrong article. Frankly, I can't see an upside to this idea. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 22:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see "Oh, Susanna" or "Oh Susanna" as being "wrong" spellings for the name of this extremely well known song that has been published and sung in countless places and forms and modified in various ways through the folk process in the 160 years since it was written. They are both perfectly good ways of writing the song title. Same with "Oh, Susanna!" (which was also the title of a 1936 movie [1]). For example, here is harmonica notation for "Oh Susanna": [2], here's a lyrics+mp3 download page for "Oh, Susanna" [3], here's a moved midi page for "O Susanna" [4], etc. I do not feel that Wikipedia should be an advertising or SEO tool for TV show companies or currently-active performing artists or improv groups so I think all these different spellings of the song name should point at the song if they point anywhere. 64.160.39.153 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
