Talk:Rouge

Should this link to rogue somewhere? The misspelling seems very common, and not just as a Wikipedian in-joke. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be in favor of that. I've made that mistake myself, adding the game, 'Rogue'. ^_^; Maybe at the top there could be something like, "Did you mean Rogue?" With a link. --Gero 01:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I added {{confused}} at the top of this page, and likewise with rouge, so that they link to each other. I used to spell rogue like this all the time when I was a kid. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 05:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:ROUGE link

Rather than have an edit war between numerous good-faith, long-term editors, surely it would be better to just have a discussion here and come to a concensus over what is not really an urgent issue? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. How do you feel about the hat? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I added the hat about the essay a couple of weeks ago, when I was trying to find the essay and went to this dab page, and was surprised to not find it. It's not for us to speculate on what our readers find important - the job of a disambiguation page is to help people find things, and just like Ban and Vandal (disambiguation) and others have hats to policy pages, it seems to me that a hat-link to the humor essay only helps. I'd also point out that editors are readers too, and while the general public may not have heard about so-called "rouge" admins, anyone who edits here a bit may come across the term and look for it. I agree with Dreaded that this is not at all urgent, and I do not understand what is being gained by eliminating the hat. It takes up one line - what's the problem? Tvoz/talk 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually neutral about it. I don't care one way or another. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 10:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for it to be a hatnote, why not just include it as a general entry? --George100 (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

... except that Template:Selfref screws up the formatting... --George100 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Excuse my removal, as I wasn't aware of this discussion until Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) reverted my edit (seems I'm not the first he's reverted). I have to agree with Ral and Sandstein (who also removed it), as I don' think we should be using mainspace to link to humor essays within project space. I understand policy/guideline links, but we should draw the line at pages tagged with {{humor}}. It's absolutely for us to speculate what readers want, which we do on a daily basis, and I'd wager the vast majority couldn't care less about a page that jokes about Wikipedia admins. Keep the man behind the curtain. - auburnpilot talk 23:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Score one for less information then. I don't care about this either - it is trivial and idiotic to waste time talking about it. But all the hat does is increase information for readers who may be interested in this when they see the phrase here and there and go to ROUGE instead of WP:ROUGE - disambiguate the word so people can find which "rouge" they're looking for - which is what I thought we were supposed to be doing. I don't have an opinion on the pros and cons of the essay or the topic, and it sounds like there might be some hyper-sensitivity at play here that really shouldn't come into edit decisions. But this is too unimportant to fuss over - if you are so bothered by a one-line hat on an obscure disambiguation page that just directs readers who might be looking for it to an essay - i.e., DISAMBIGUATES - do what you will. Tvoz/talk 23:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, you might need to take a step back and regain your objectivity, Tvoz. I'm not understanding why you seem to be getting worked up over the issue. I do not believe any essays pertaining to the editing of Wikipedia should be referenced from within mainspace. I object to this hatnote just as I would object to one on Shopping redirecting editors to WP:SHOPPING, one on Horse redirecting editors to WP:HORSE, one on Stick redirecting editors to WP:STICK, and one on Dick redirecting editors to WP:DICK. It simply shouldn't be done in my opinion. - auburnpilot talk 23:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, since the hat seems to be such a bother, why not have the link as an entry? I think someone suggested that above. For instance, take a look at the fourth item at Spider-Man (disambiguation)#See also. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with AuburnPilot. Both hatnote or dab entry are inappropriate for this piece of internal trivia, IMHO.  Sandstein  06:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

←Trust me, I'm not worked up. I'm amused at the irony is all. But I see your point about dicks and horses, so fine. Tvoz/talk 01:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation previously added is correct. What's wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.40.128 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary

Yes there's a wiktionary link on the page. But not everybody is going to click on it for info about the word. 76.79.129.50 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You're correct that not everyone will click on the wiktionary link. The users looking for information about the make-up will click on Rouge (cosmetics), the users looking for the newspaper will click on Rouge (newspaper), and the users looking for pronunciation, etymology and plural forms will go to the logical place where that information is kept, the wiktionary. Disambiguation pages are meant to act as a road sign to get the user to the article that they were really looking for as quickly and efficiently as possible. Ideally, any information included here should be for disambiguation purposes. -- Fyrael (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)