Talk:Homewrecker (disambiguation)

Main page, not a DAB page

This page is a primary topic. The primary and enduring subject of homewrecking is about relationship ending third parties, devices, or activities. This is not a disambiguation page. Dovid (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a DAB page. It has been since 2006 when an article on Homewrecker was deleted per WP:NOT a dictionary. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homewrecker. I disaggree with overwriting this DAB page. As I said before please create a new article at a location like Homewrecker (person). You can then submit a WP:RM request to move this page to Homewrecker (disambiguation). Tassedethe (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC clearly agrees with moving this away from a DAB, which is what you keep reverting. [[WP:NOT] is irrelevant here, as the material goes well beyond a dictionary definition, showing various (sourced) aspects of how a marriage may be damaged by outside influences. Its previous life as a DAB, absent main topic material, is irrelevant now that we have a main topic. The existing page cannot be moved to a new DAB, as the DAB page already exists. So if you really like the DAB page, copy the old content there, and stop vandalizing. If you continue edit warring, it will require mediation. Dovid (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think there is a PRIMARYTOPIC then go ahead and create a new article and request that it be moved to this location. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply at the moment as we have no article to move to this location. I am not edit warring over this. You WP:BOLDLY overwrote the existing page which I reverted per WP:BRD. I have offered a perfectly reasonable solution - create your new article at Homewrecker (person). Then apply to move the page (using WP:RM) and make your case that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No need for mediation. Tassedethe (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor who noticed the thread about this on a noticeboard. Dovid, please stop edit-warring. It will end badly for you. David in DC (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that a neutral way to look at it? The way I see it, there are always two parties to an edit war. Please review the merits, explain what you find compelling/not compelling and why, and then go ahead and do your thing. I followed WP:BRD, but as there are only two of us on this talk page until now, there was no consensus. I'm an experienced WP editor, and I feel like there's some condescension going on. Dovid (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You say you followed BRD but the point is to stop at Discuss, and that step takes time. You can't just assume that because there are only two opposing editors that discussion is at a stalemate and you are in the right. There is requesting a third opinion or looking for other editors' opinions through noticeboards. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's grant that. Can we get a discussion of the merits of the ideas? 1) Does the removed content qualify as an article, or does it violate WP:NOT? 2) If it qualifies as an article, does the situation qualify under WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or not (most likely subject, comparatively lasting subject)? 3) If it qualifies as primary, is the change likely to create confusion, or not? 4) If it passes that test as well, are there any other arguments? I think the above distills the issue down to a an easy decision matrix. Can we agree on that? If we can, I'll create a new subhead listing these as bullet points, and we can let the discussion move to what was done to what makes sense to do. Dovid (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've taken note of the sound of metaphorical crickets and utter disinterest of admins in opining about the editorial behavior on the noticeboard thread, and think we can apply WP:SNOW to the likelihood of any administrative action besides marking the thread at the notice board as moot.
"Let's grant that" is, I suppose, the closest we'll get to an acknowledgement that a failure to follow the "D" in BRD is a better description of the prior behavior tham "It takes two to edit war." So be it.
I've used the off time to look for additional uses of "homewrecker" and added only those I can describe with wikilinks to already existing wiki-articles. I'm left more convinced than when I first came to this article that the word/phrase needs a DAB page.
However, I'm persuadable (hell, nearly persuaded) that a well-written, well-sourced PRIMARYTOPIC article could be written and that a consensus could be reached to make it a stand-alone article with a headnote to the dab page for other uses.
Dovid: would you be willing to post your starting point in a sandbox page, for review and, if deemed necessary, collaboration, until at least three of us (you included) agree to the switch that you first made per WP:BOLD. I'd particpate in such a process.
Graeme, Tassed: would you?
In my view, that's a route that could get us to the place for which Dovid is aiming. David in DC (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, see new section below. Dovid (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Well my initial wish was for this to occur with a mainspace article and a formal WP:RM but if a sandboxed article is created and other editors feel it meets the requirements of both WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and not a WP:DICDEF then I'm not going to oppose that process. Tassedethe (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for writing in a way that smacked of condescension. It had not been my intent, but re-reading what I've written, I understand your point and regret my choice of words. I've self-administered the traditional use of a trout in the manner G-d intended for trout to be used.

I'm heretofore uninvolved, and think I've come to this content dispute with a neutral point of view. I see a bold edit that's entirely proper and an equally proper reversion.

Things degenerate from there. What should happen next is a discussion on this talk page. Two people can, reasoning together, come to a consensus on a talk page. But if they don't, the article page should stand as before the bold edit, and additional editors should be invited to weigh in. There are techniques galore for seeking such in-weighers, including asking for assistance, soliciting a third opinion, WP:RfC, etc.

But reverting the reversion is the first shot in an edit war, and it ought to be avoided like the plague.

On the merits, I think viewing this page as a DAB, and not as a PRIMARYTOPIC, is the better course, but I've been known to think six impossible things before breakfast so my view is surely not dispositive. And, somebody's gotta say this at least once in any content dispute, whether it's remotely relevant or not - !voting is evil.

Now this matter is at ANI. I think it's best for all three of us to sit back and see what other experienced WP editors have to say. I can think of no reason that this content dispute needs speedy resolution. Right is better han fast. And repeated reversions and re-reversions are disruptive to the project. I'll not edit this article page again until some resolution of the ANI thread is reached and content discussions resume on this page. I urge that course upon all three of us. David in DC (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox version for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC

Here's a sandbox version, as discussed in primary heading. It is similar to the last edit before revrsions. Let's continue the discussion here, to keep things easy to read, please. Dovid (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I really appreciate your taking this approach.

I've taken a shot at copy-editing, adding some wikilinks and general tidying-up.

I've noted some places I think refs would make this more of a PRIMARYTOPIC and less of a DICDEF, and deleted some unsourced assertions.

I've tried to remedy, for NPOV reasons, anything that seemed to limit this to heterosexual marriage or heterosexual domestic partnership.

There are some ref format problems I fixed, but I botched trying to fix those in the final section and self-reverted. Please see if you can do whatever it takes to make those "unnamed ref" tags disappear. You probaly know better than I which refs belong with which sentences. (That whole section, btw, is fascinating.)

Again, todah rabah David in DC (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Dovid (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, worked on it:

Cleaned up some wording.

"Joint custody" and "division of" property were unnecessary, so I went back to the basic language. I think you were focusing on the "wreck" instead of the "home." The idea is that a "home" relationship without formal marriage is more recognizably so when the relationship produces children, or when the partners choose to share property. It demonstrates that the partners are in for the long term, and places the interloper (and cheating party) in a worse light leading to the pejorative homewrecker.

I agree with your promotion of other relationships besides marriage, and kept that in. Exceptions were a few cases where it decreased accuracy or made the wording very awkward. In those cases, I tried to fix it without pushing marriage back in, but there were one or two cases where I kept marriage as the example for simplicity. It might make sense to take the paragraph that specifcally calls out marriage versus other relationships, and add a note that the article, for simplicity, in some places uses "marriage" or "husband" as an example, but is nevertheless inclusive or other similar arrangements.

Made more clear that the three recipes are separate, not a combination cocktail. The fact that none of them shares even a single ingredient may have created an false impression, which I want to avoid.

Fixed the two cite errors, one of which was secondary to misplaced article text.

By the way, which was the fascinating part for you? The Oxytocin bit? Dovid (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the oxytocin/voles study.

Given that no admin ever joined this discussion as a result of the AN thread, and that only you and I have worked on (or commented on) the sandbox version, I think the thing to do now is to move your article into mainspace with a name like Homewrecker (infidelity), and then request that Homewrecker be moved to Homewrecker (disambiguation) and Homewrecker (infidelity) be moved to Homewrecker, using the procedure outlined here: Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_multiple_page_moves. I think there's more here than simply WP:DICDEF and would support. I'm not sure about Tassed or Panther, but this would give us all a chance to do things the right way and get also to get additional eyes on the matter. The NPOV stuff about non-marital, committed relationships can be hashed out in the fullness of time. I don't think resolving that part should hold up getting a consensus on the DICDEF issue, one way or the other. And WP:RM seems the best way to generate that dispositive issue. David in DC (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a plan! Though I'm pretty sure we can do the move request straight form the user space (sandbox).Dovid (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems predicated on a successful outcome. Consider if the request is not successful -- do you want the article to remain in user space? Also, the templates used for requested moves might not work as expected for pages not in the main (article) namespace. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, User:Bkonrad, thanks for pointing that out. Based on your feedback and Dave's, I moved it out of user space into article space before the RM, so it should be clean. If the move is rejected, then the article is at the new name, and if it succeeds, then all the better. The only Q is, if it succeeds, will the current name be necessarym even as a redirect? Dovid (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, unless [[Homewrecker (relationship issue)]] has been already used as a wikilink on another page. Then it would be needed to keep from turning a ble link red. The move tool tells the person attempting the move about whether that's the case. If not, I wouldn't think it would need to be a redirect term. No one coming wouls actually search for it that way. I do think, especially because they are in bold on the new page, that the terms "Home wrecker" and "Home-wrecker" would need to be redirects. David in DC (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:RM definitely cannot be used to move articles from user space. That's why the first step I suggest is creating Homewrecker (infidelity) and cutting-and-pasting the sandbox version onto it. Then, the template will work. If the requested move is not granted, I'd expect Homewrecker (infidelity) to stay in main space, and be added as another link on the current dab page. David in DC (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Homewrecker → Homewrecker (disambiguation)
• Homewrecker (relationship issue) → Homewrecker

– There was no current WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and no coverage of the general sense of homewrecker (person who stresses someone else's marriage or other relationship by having an affair with them, or similar one-side relationship stressors). Previous arguments against doing this were:

• previous attempts to make the material at Homewrecker (relationship issue) into the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC were done improperly
• WP:NOT a dictionary
• questions of whether there really is a primary topic

These objections have all been taken care of:

• This move request follows WP policies and guidelines exactly, including the move process, and the separation of DAB and primary content into two articles.
• The material is clearly comprehensive, encyclopedic, not a dictionary entry.
• The material qualifies easily for primary topic, as all other uses are for entertainment/food articles that are themselves really conceptual references to the proposed primary topic.

The move should be uncontroversial. Dovid (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I opposed an earlier effort to do this, wholly on procedural grounds. The nominator has addressed that objection, quite civilly. After talk page discussions, he created the PRIMARYTOPIC article in his sandbox and I helped refine it. Not all of my suggestions were accepted; since I'm not always right, that's appropriate. When the nominator felt the article was in proper shape, he invoked the proper procedure. I view all of this precudural stuff to be a necessary condition to considering the requested move.
  Now, on substantive grounds, is the new-born article sufficient to overcome prior substantive objections?
  I think so. The feminist critique, and the ref backing it up, is far removed from WP:DICDEF, which is the reason an earlier attempt to create a PRIMARYTOPIC page foundered. So is the material about homewrecking/home-building behavior in voles exposed to oxytocin and the academic material in the refs backing that section. I guess the cocktail recipes are, too, but I find them less persuasive than the other reasons. Taken as a whole, I think the article qualifies to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC David in DC (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. An informative article on the clear primary topic of the term. bd2412 T 14:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - cheese is tasty. In other related news, a homewrecker is someone who metaphorically ruins an established relationship, and is the clear primary topic here. I'm too hungry to be editing right now. Red Slash 16:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Mmmm, moldy milk! Putting the anal hat on, a homewrecker is someone who literally ruins an established relationship, and metaphorically wrecks the partner's home. Dovid (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, Dovid, can you literally ruin something non-physical? You can "ruin" a city in the literal sense, but can you "ruin" a relationship? Yours in anality, Red Slash 23:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.