Talk:Handeck

American football

Why isn't there a reference to the alternate name of American Football in this article? As an American, I know of numerous people who refer to the sport as "Handegg." While this is merely anecdotal evidence, I'm sure there has to be some reference to it somewhere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.50.159 (talk)

Because primary topic of the article is about a town. WP aritcles cover single topics. The term hand-egg is not mentioned in the American football aricle because is it not a term with usage in reliable sources, hence we can't link to it from here. - BilCat (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just make a disambugation page. --88.105.28.149 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

(logged in now, I was the editor who made the change as an IP this past hour) Look, it's quite obviously a well known nickname for American Football; everyone knows this to be fact. Demanding references for a hat is pretty much unheard of per WP:COMMON. And I don't know who's bright idea it was to put WP:CREEPy instructions on the page in a hidden comment, but that's not really how things are done around here, especially after a mere smattering of talk page comments, the majority of which would seem to approve of such a disambig header. -- Kendrick7^talk 06:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This page gets a lot of one-off har-de-har mentions of American Football added by IPs; I had no reason to think your change was any different (though the hidden comment is not mine). I don't fundamentally object to a hatnote alone if there's a consensus for it. And I agree that the term is well-known enough; see the citation on wikt:hand-egg, of which I am the author. If there's any sort of objection to the therm, though, I would support removing the hatnote again. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh, fair enough, but I don't think it's worthwhile for any good editor on here to be racing against the tide. As the Lord said (q.v.): "the wind blows this way and the wind blows that way." WP:AGF applies even when our fellow editors are mere IPs (which is part of why I usually stay undercover); IPs show us where the wind is blowing. There are far more important things to be worried about ;) -- Kendrick7^talk 07:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the word "handegg" for football may happen in some circles, but it is not an official term, not used in reliable sources, and is not encylopedic. If you believe it to be so, and are determined to put it in this page (which, mind you is about a beautiful little village in switzerland, where they could care less about this issue) then please state your rationale here, with some sources. I actually would like to know which wikipedia policy there is where we write uncyclopedic information just to put down a sport you may not like. Cheers ~ipuser 90.194.62.161 (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the sport. The hatnote has actually prevented far worse from being added to the article as compared to before it was added, so although I didn't originally support a hatnote, it's proved its worth. The only problem we've had since then is with at least 3 separate IP addresses from London removing it with discussion or consensus in the last 6 months or so. Perhaps we should have the page semi-protected after all, just to prevent London-based IPs from removing it. - BilCat (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I came to it from seeing those. I think it's unnecessary. Why do we keep it? So that vandals don't write something worse? Shouldn't we be more worried about that when it happens, then creating content without citation to try to stymie the vandals? ~ipuser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.62.161 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A hatnote isn't content, it's just a hatnote. - BilCat (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too clear on Wikipedia's definition of "official term" or its purge enforcement of them, but Google term searches / Twitter hashtag #handegg results / ETC. indicate a considerable pattern and a related vandalism history to the article. Since the article as a whole is rather brief, I don't see the need for pedanticism here.DeXXus (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

7May2015 UPDATED response to first RFC participant. I just want to reiterate that the majority of edits to this article are directly related to football(soccer) enthusiasts wish to assert their "pet" name for what the disputed hatnote covers.DeXXus (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The solution to that is semi-protection or pending changes, perhaps coupled with an editnotice, not a useless hatnote. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My final comment is 1.) the hatnote *IS* related and 2.) it *IS NOT* useless.DeXXus (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

WP generally doesn't like long-term protections. If a simple hatnote avoirds that, then I think we can apply WP:IAR in this case. Later, there may well be a reliable source that deals with Handegg reh American football, and we can then link to whatever article covers it. - BilCat (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source from CBS Sports blog. That might be enough to warrant a mention in American football. - BilCat (talk) 06:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should Handegg Switzerland be used to publicize a pejorative term for Football?

Should the hatnote about american football be present, or is it unencyclopedic to state without reference a vulgar slang term? 90.194.62.161 (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Remove the hatnote. The purpose of a hatnote is to help readers navigate to the article they're looking for, and it is unlikely that a reader would reach this page when trying to find information about gridiron football, Australian rules football, or rugby football. See also WP:TRHAT. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Concur in part I've edited the hatnote back to something far more reasonable,[1] and akin to what, IIRC, was being discussed back in 2010 (despite my own, regrettable, 2013 mindless reversion to the prior language). Handegg is a century old English word, still in common use, even if mostly in jest, especially outside of the U.S.,[2] and it's completely reasonable that (a) someone might come to the English Wikipedia expecting to find out what the usual use of the term handegg means, and (b) for us to provide a simple cross-link to Wiktionary especially give that (c) they would be otherwise completely befuddled by the sheer coincidence that it also happens to be the name of (who even knows the population? but I'd guess) a vanishingly small village in Switzerland, whose main claim to fame appears to be that a painting of a nearby alp by the same name resides in a museum in Cleveland, Ohio. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  Good point. I agree that linking to the Wiktionary entry for handegg is a good idea. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The linkage appears to be a fine compromise. It provides a link to the other usage of the term, and isn't intrusive on this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Things to add

• transport stops use the spelling "Handegg"
• the local hotel (and its owner BKO) use "Handeck"
• Older Swisstopo maps used "Handeck", newer "Handegg". (this may or may not reflect local usage)
• There is also an aerial cableway from the locality (in addition to the two funiculars)
• Others painted the village or the waterfall

It would be good to have some references to add these points. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)