Talk:Magog (disambiguation)

Requested move[edit]

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 move per WP:D. JPG-GR (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magog (disambiguation) → Magog — move to appropriate name - current target only a redirect that should be a dab page —B.Wind (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support B Wind's move proposal above; Magog is currently a redirect, however most of the articles linking there refer to other items on this disambig already. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per primary topic. Discussed last year at Talk:Magog. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem is, "Gog and Magog" is NOT the primary topic being sought by someone typing in "Magog". That article is a POV mess, is very unstable, and this is a POV-pushing attempt to divert people wrongly to "Gog and Magog" and away from the real articles about Magog. Just because two editors against one supported it last year, does not make it set in stone, or even legitimate. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  Kindly stop accusing editors who disagree with you on this of POV-pushing. It is uncalled for and uncivil. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The primary topic is Gog and Magog. I never understood the need for a separate Magog (Bible), it does nothing but reiterate (some of) the information found at the main article. It is important to note that until very recently Magog did not redirect here but to Gog and Magog; Til changed it without discussion by means of a revert war.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for the current consensus to keep them separate, are explained at length at Talk:Magog (Bible). Aside from Magog (Bible) being an integral part of a series on Biblical sons of Noah, another reason is that, contradicting what you just falsely asserted, Magog (Bible) includes PLENTY of information and references specific to the Biblical character, that are NOT found at Gog and Magog. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've added a little bit over the past day or so that doesn't yet appear at Gog and Magog. And there are a few (unreferenced) factoids that may not be there either. I still don't agree with your rationale to keep them separate, and do not at all understand why you feel strongly enough about this to become uncivil.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have said nothing uncivil; that is merely your perception / claim. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slap all with wet trout for temperature escalation. There is more to Magog (as a search term) than Gog and Magog, simple as that. The rest seems to be ego bashing. Now please cut it out! 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we've had a breather here, let's stick to the proposal at hand[edit]

- Support per WP:D. There are multiple meanings of the word, and a redirect page is insufficient at target area. In addition, it is bad form to have a redirect to a dab page of the same name. The "primary page" argument would be valid if there were only one or two additional meanings for the single word, but there are several articles with "Magog" in the title. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:D as proposer. The "primary article" issue is unrelated to the proposal, although the people who oppose the move think otherwise. The opposition does not address the bad-form duplication of titles of Magog and Magog (disambiguation). Per WP:D, since there is no article with substance at Magog, the contents of Magog (disambiguation) should move there with the old name of the dab page being a redirect to the new name. B.Wind (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I only knew about Magog, Quebec before this. Gog and Magog doesn't seem to outweigh all the other meanings combined in importance, so I would say there is no primary meaning. Joeldl (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

The primary topic for an ambiguous word is not POV, even if the primary topic happens to be Biblical, reality-TV-based, an Obama supporter, or Icelandic. Talk took place appropriately on Talk:Magog last year. Some Google hit counts:

"gog +and magog": 146K, 7 News, 1516 Books, 2320 Scholar
magog -gog: 2.1M, 43 News, 1588 Books, 1870 Scholar

Depending on which flavor of Google search you give weight to, the primary topic could be Gog and Magog, with no POV-pushing (an inappropriate accusation for ambiguous redirect targeting). It could also be something else (or there could be no primary topic). The Google searches used previously on the Talk:Magog page seemed to indicate Gog and Magog more clearly. If these indicate no primary topic, then this should be moved. Either way, no POV pushing has occurred. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Google hit count, "depending on which flavor", supposedly "proving" that "Gog and Magog" supposedly has "more hits" than just "Magog", is utterly irrelevant for our purposes. You had to slice it a whole lot of different ways to get a result that favored you, then proclaim that the "primary article". Sorry, but what is of more relevance for our purpose is "what links here" to Magog. Almost everything linking to the redirect proves in SPADES that people who type simply "Magog" are thinking of one of the "Magogs", and NOT "Gog and Magog" - which happens to be an article that is usually crucial to someone's attempts to "prove" that everyone on the other side of the world (pick which side) is evil and should be immediately killed, but has always been badly written with little real information. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of your inability to assume good faith here, Til. Thank you for the claim about "What Links Here" -- are there counts for the various topics? ("What Links Here" is not always conclusive for redirects either, since some things that would have linked to the ambiguous redirect would already be pipelinked to the intended target.) In the mean time, I'm helping "your" POV by providing data that mostly support moving away from the Gog and Magog target. You're welcome. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this presupposes that there needs to be a separate Magog (Bible) page, and that if there is one, it must be on the same level of prominence as the Gog and Magog article. Magog is already covered at Gog and Magog, which despite what some people seem to think, does not exist solely to discuss Gog and Magog together (and it certainly doesn't exist to prove certain people are evil). That Gog and Magog is a bit of a mess right now is irrelevant; any article can be improved, and it's still leagues ahead of Magog (Bible).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that is incorrect. Gog and Magog has seen far more instability and lots of back and forth with people deleting each other's mythology. As I stated at Talk:Magog (Bible): M. is an ethnic name discussed in historiographic sources as part of the Biblical Table of Nations, whereas G. and M. is about apocalyptic folklore that has been derived from the Bible (There is actually no "Gog and Magog" even appearing anywhere in the Old Testament itself; rather it is "prince Gog of the land of Magog".). The bottom line is, most of the links that have already been added to wikipedia for Magog have nothing to do with Gog, but rather belong to one of the other disambiguation articles. Also, it is VERY MUCH A P-O-V to assume that an apocryphal concept of two distinct but associated figures strictly from Christian / Muslim folklore (not even in the Hebrew Bible as two distinct figures) -- a nebulous concept that is indeed invoked in many sermons about how evil the "other side of the world" is -- would somehow be the "main article" for Magog, which is in the Hebrew Bible, let alone Magog in Quebec, Magog in the comic books, etc.. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing second trout... 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.