This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no move. There is no possibility of consensus to move, and an arguable rough consensus not to. Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, neither the OED nor Websters gives that sense. They both say that "duckie" is a variant of "ducky", meaning a term of familiarity/endearment, or a woman's breast (noun), or sweet, pretty (adj.). Even if it is a slang/colloq. term for a duck, who would enter "duckie" to find an article about ducks? No other article uses any form of the word "duckie", so the performance group ought to occupy the namespace. DionysosProteus (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right. I think it would be worth a move discussion to get clear consensus first though. If it's clear enough cut, shouldn't do any harm? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, I'm having trouble understanding what the rush is. I'm pretty sure that 11.9 million Google results for Duckie don't point at a "post-gay independent arts outfit" from London. But I don't know. So that's why I'm 100% content to allow the community to discuss it and decide. There's no rush, is there? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I would imagine that those google results mostly use the dictionary defintions given above--i.e., the correct senses of the word. If you have a good reason to think that it means "duck" then, at a stretch, a discussion might be a useful activity. If there's some evidence that it means what you say, that is. Otherwise, it's simply an error that ought to be corrected, no? DionysosProteus (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why this shouldn't be discussed. It should only take a couple of days. The redirect from Duckie has been in place and uncontested since June 2009, so once again, what's the rush? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly given that we are in debate, this is contested. So let's allow some outside contribution to see the best way forward. In closing, as you are so confident that the move is without controversy, I cannot see a single reason why you couldn't allow an extra day or two for a fuller discussion, particularly since the redirect has been in place for 21 months. Where's the fire? (FWIW you can spend a few seconds finding "duckie" being used for rubber ducks on Google ([1], [2], [3] etc). I'm not saying any of them are brilliantly reliable, but I am saying let's let the community decide. You seem dead set to sneak this move through without community consensus. Why would that be the case? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be clear, the logic of your contestation of a blatently uncontroversial move is as follows: an article about a subject actually called "Duckie" shouldn't occupy that namespace, because "Duckie" is used colloquially by children to refer to a duck. Not any old duck, of course, but a rubber duck, in fact. Therefore, you conclude, if someone types "Duckie" into the encyclopedia, they are likely to be expecting to find a link to an article about a duck. A rubber one. Although, by some oversight, there isn't a link to the article on rubber ducks on the page to which we are sent. But never mind. Never mind, too, that the OED and Websters both neglect to mention this use of the word. Perhaps neither is as reliable a reference work as Wikipedia. Never mind that Wikipedia would become the only encyclopedia on the planet to refer the reader curious about "duckie" to an article about ducks--rubber or feathered. I should have done some google reseach, it seems. Clearly, I have some surreptitious, not to say sinister, motivation for trying to "sneak" this through, pretending that the dizzingly tortuous logic of your contestation was somehow one of those clear errors with which Wikipedia is plagued and which it ought not to require such a blatent waste of our collective time and energy to correct. WWIT? (what was I thinking?) DionysosProteus (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The treatment given to 'Ducky', eg., is to have it's own disambiguation page (though the individuals found there are also listed on the 'Duck' disambiguation page). Adam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I have no opinion either way in particular, but if the move does go ahead, the new Duckie page should have a hatnote for people who meant to find "Ducky" when typing "Duckie". The Rambling Man (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not the primary usage of the term "duckie". It shoudl either be a disambiguation page, or redirect to a disambiguation page. The performance troupe is not primary usage, and should not occupy the priamry name. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See the notes above. The OED and Websters, first and foremost. And yours? 06:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Your OED and Websters shows nothing of the sort Merriam-Webster says it's another spelling of "ducky". Your explanation is exactly the same, showing that this article, a collective of performance artists that describes itself as “a post-gay independent arts outfit.” is not the primary usage, if you go by dictionary definitions. Dictionaries almost never describe an arts group as a definition for any word. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For heaven's sake, you seem to be forgetting that this is a discussion about a re-direct in an encyclopedia! I've pointed out that "duckie" is an alternative spelling of "ducky". Now, kindly consult the dictionary for the definition of the word. It categorically does NOT mean a "duck"! That is what is at issue here. The performance group have named themselves after the TRUE meaning of the word! Unless there is an encyclopedia article on that word--which is never going to happen, let's face it--the namespace, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, ought to point to the article on the group, as this is the primary usage in an encylopedia. Both the OED and Websters confirm that the contestation made by The Rambling Man--that the present re-direct to duck is the most appropriate--is nonsense. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would, however, appear that you are holding a minority position at this time. And there's no need to resort to emboldening swaths of text, it's very unpleasant to see and read. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's your failure to provide adequate evidence for the position you've adopted that is driving the quantity of my responses. If you didn't want a debate, you should not have demanded one. Provide one singe reliable source that supports your position, and there might be something to discuss. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not really up to me to provide anything. You're the one wishing to change the status quo. And I didn't have a problem with the response, just the manner of it. And actually, you didn't reply to my question as to why you believed this "arts outfit" was as significant to London as Arsenal F.C. or the Rosetta Stone? And finally, for your interest, I had a look around Wikipedia for uses of "duckie", and to my surprise, there were many that were related to "rubber ducks" (a lot of Sesame Street articles, courtesy of Bill and Ernie relate to Duckie an awful lot without the "Rubber" prefix, ("Put down the Duckie", "The Case of the Missing Duckie") go and have a look!), some that related to a character out of "Pretty In Pink" (the famousJon Cryer, some 158k Ghits), some related to Black Uhuru, and some that related to your "arts outfit". I remain unconvinced that the primary use of "Duckie" throughout the English language should be solely to a Lambeth-based LGBT theatre troupe. Perhaps a new dab page for Duckie (disambiguation) that links to all of these is the best solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are advancing an argument, which you were, then it is your responsibility to provide evidence in support of that position. Otherwise, it is merely an expression of your subjective opinion and irrelevant to the discussion. It is just this kind of byzantine rigmarole that results from precisely that failure that makes Wikipedia such a difficult place to make a positive contribution to. So much time and energy wasted on this kind of nonsense purely because editors insist on defending positions without reference to evidence the supports them. Evidence allows for a rational discussion. Failing to provide it just makes for a lot of unnecessary type. Once you provide evidence, then a rational discussion may begin. Now, I'd invite you to look at the examples that you've offered by way of evidence. Do any of them use "Duckie" in a way that is likely to produce its own article? You are seriously suggesting that the use in the title of a Sesame Street episode "The Case of the Missing Duckie" is likely to prompt some reader to type in "Duckie" expecting to find an article on a rubber duck? Seriously? Do you not see how strained your argument is? I'm sure you know as well as I that even if someone were looking for, say, the song "Rubber Duckie", that Wikipedia conventions are that the group would occupy the name space and a hatnote would direct to other meanings that merely contain the word.
As for the other issues you raise, I didn't respond because they are irrelevant to the discussion in progress, and I have found that this is a classic misdirection technique to which editors who fail to base their positions on a rational argument and evidence resort. Since you insist, however, I would point out the rhetorical strategy belies your lack of familiarity with London-based topics, as well as suggesting more insidious reasons for the opposition. "Lambeth-based LGBT theatre troupe" is not the subject of the article and suggests a desire to marginalise. Kate Bush and The Sex Pistols are not particularly London subjects. I would expect Arsenal, Chelsea, and Vauxhall to occupy high rather than mid priority for the London project. And Duckie is something that just about every gay man in London is familiar with, along with Heaven and G.A.Y. It is a central part of the culture of London. But you'd have to be familiar with it to know that, I suppose? DionysosProteus (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feeling verbose, I see. As they would say on Oprah or similar, "you don't know me" and it's best to hold back your accusations of "a desire to marginalise" or having "more insidious reasons for the opposition". I fail to see why "And Duckie is something that just about every gay man in London is familiar with" makes it as significant as, say, Arsenal F.C., with whom a huge proportion of the world is familiar. I'm sure you know that the G-A-Y article is only rated as "low importance" to the London project, as is Heaven (club), both of which are known probably world-wide. You really feel this group matches that level of notability? No way. And no need to get indignant, my initial position on all of this was that Duckie was another word for rubber duck. It now appears that Duckie is used in lot of other circumstances, none of which have claim to the primary usage. So while this move proposal is interesting, we'd be better off having a Duckie (disambiguation) page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not the primary usage. No indication that the "post-gay independent arts outfit" should be what a reader sees when they type "Duckie" into the search box. And you claimed "mid-importance" to the London project? Along with Arsenal F.C., Chelsea F.C., Charles Darwin, Kate Bush, Rosetta Stone, Sex Pistols, Vauxhall Bridge etc...? I wonder why? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The indication that "Duckie" refers to the group is that this is the ONLY article in the encylopedia to use the word "Duckie". Jenks24, to which article, then, does your research lead you to conclude OUGHT "Duckie" to point? Kindly share any evidence that suggests it ought to be a feathered duck! DionysosProteus (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there is not currently an article at "Duckie" does not mean that this musical group is the primary meaning of "Duckie" (see, for example, Elvis, though there are probably much better examples). To overly simplify things, when naming an article like this, where we are trying to determine the primary topic, it ultimately leads us to the question, when a reader types "Duckie" into the search box, what article do they expect to come to? The answer is, in my humble opinion, shown by the results of searches for the word "Duckie" in google, gnews, gbooks and basically any other search engine you care to mention. This is why I'm !voting oppose; because I think that when a reader the majority of readers search for "Duckie", they are in actuality searching for "Rubber duck", as opposed to the musical performance group. Therefore I wouldn't mind if the redirect was made more precise to lead to Rubber duck, as opposed to the dab page (but that last bit is just obiter). Jenks24 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That, at least, is a logical argument, once we are talking about rubber duck rather than duck (which is the current situation that clearly has no justification). However, unless I have misunderstood how the tool in question works, the page view stats for the page Duckie (currently the redirect) are 138 views in the last 30 days. The views for the article on the group Duckie for the same period are 213 views. No one will have reached the page by typing "Duckie (group)" directly, so all of those 200+ have reached it via a wikilink. Of course, some may have followed a wikilink from somewhere other than the disambiguation page--but a glance at What Links Here gives most links as similarly low-view articles (the awards, possibly not). But that means that the vast majority of people who have typed in the word "duckie" have reached the "Duck (disambiguation)" page, experienced, I would imagine, the same surprise at the lack of logic Wikipedia displayed in so doing, scrolled down through a list of other articles, none of which are called Duckie, to find the group's article and gone to it. No one will have typed in Duckie and ended up at rubber duck, because there's no link to it on the disambiguation page. I would suggest, therefore, that the evidence is that most people who type in Duckie to Wikipedia are looking for the group. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the dab page above. It has no real bearing on this move discussion because it is a superset of the things being discussed here, and doesn't address the original concern over the use of Duckie. As I've said before, whatever becomes of the Duckie page, a hatnote needs to be provided to ensure we get some idea that this is a very isolated use of the term. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
