Talk:Sine Qua Non

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Requested change[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The current direction of this redirect leads to Sine Qua Non (Battlestar Galactica) which I believe is wrong for a few reasons. The target article is by no means a primary topic and shouldn't take any precedence over Sine Qua Non (wine), which quite a few would consider the more notable topic. Nevertheless, I think this redirect ought to go to disambiguation. User:Edokter disagrees with me, I think on the pretext that same article names with only different capitalizations are to be avoided, but I can't see this as the case since Sine qua non and Sine qua non (disambiguation) are far apart. An attempt to solve the disagreement by making this namespace into a DAB for the capitalized title has also been rejected by User:Edokter.

Please weigh in. MURGH ^disc. 11:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I sincerely doubt that the primary intended target for the majority of people typing "Sine Qua Non" (be it all Caps, all lower case, proper capitalization or not) would be an obscure episode of a TV show. The legal term in addition to one of California's premiere and most sought after cult wines are much more likely targets. The only logical solution is for the redirect to go to the DAB page. Wikipedia readers don't really care about the finer nuances of capitalization in titles. When they want to go to an article they're just going to type whatever comes to mind in, regardless of capitalization. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since search terms are almost never done capitalized, and capitalization is an intrequite part of an article title, the redirect should reflect that. Calling the target an "obscure episode" is not relevant; the episode wins on incoming links. The lower case title already goes straight to the legal term, so this discussion only involves the upper case title; so the only question remains: TV or wine? — Edokter • Talk • 19:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My take:

Sine Qua Non should redirect to sine qua non (the article on the Latin phrase). Distinguishing solely on the basis of capitalization is silly.
Sine qua non should (and does) include a hatnote to the dab page Sine qua non (disambiguation) via {{otheruses}} (and it does).
Sine qua non (disambiguation) should include entries for sine qua non (it does, but badly); Sine Qua Non (Battlestar Galactica) (it does); and Sine Qua Non (wine) (it does); as well as any other relevant articles.

Moving the redirect to the wine is as silly as having it point to the episode title. It should point to the phrase, which is the primary use of the term, and the basis from which both the episode name and wine are derived. TJRC (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the legal term has a stronger case, overall, for primary topic than the cult wine--the TV show episode would be distant third. My first preference would be for the redirect to go to the DAB page but if consensus is for the legal term, I would be fine with that. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since titles are case-sensitive, it is not uncommon to have similair titles contain (or redirect to) different articles, provided they are properly disambiguated; such titling is not silly at all. I should not have moved the episode begin with, but I wanted to at least make the distinction clear. Maybe I should move it back? — Edokter • Talk • 20:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making this suggestion because you sincerely believe the BSG episode to be the primary topic, or to make a point? Let's not do anything for a little while and see what consensus we can arrive at. MURGH ^disc. 20:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titles are case-sensitive, but that's more of an exploit and can be very confusing for readers since MediaWiki's Go button treats case-sensitivity in its very own way. Moving the Galactica episode to Sine Qua Non is therefore a uniquely bad idea. Everyme 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much like MediaWiki's Go button, stats.grok.se doesn't distinguish all inital upper case titles from all inital lower case titles, but I believe most would type in "sine qua non" no matter what they are looking for, and would correctly arrive at the legal term article Sine qua non. As long as nobody proposes something as preposterous as redirecting "Sine qua non" to the Galactica episode, I'm therefore largely indifferent on the issue. However, for reasons I won't pretend I understand myself I'm weary of anything that makes Wikipedia look like the fictioncruft dump it has become; so on the chance that someone looking for the legal term might type in "Sine Qua Non", I'd argue that fiction fans can be burdened with having to quickly click twice in order to hurry past the article about the legal term and the dab so as to avoid being stressed out by any real-world info.
As to Edoktor's claim that "the episode wins on incoming links", I'd argue that using the post-first-broadcast-hype numbers from August, stats.grok.se for one firmly disagrees: Sine Qua Non (Battlestar Galactica) August hits: 3.037 vs. sine qua non August hits: 31.043 (yes, Sine Qua Non (wine) has only 236, but the reason I'd redirect Sine Qua Non to the dab is a different one). I readily concede however that this doesn't rule out the possibility that the vast majority of Galactica fans wasn't able to find their way from Sine qua non to the episode article. Everyme 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems no primary topic for the capitalised version, so this redirect should go either to the dab page or to the uncapitalised phrase. My gut feeling is for the uncapitalised phrase, as I don't think most people enter search or "go" terms using careful choice of case, and I'm sure this latin phrase is the primary usage of the three words. PamD (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with PamD and others. There is no obvious primary topic for the capitalized title. Sine Qua Non should redirect to sine qua non (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 01:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (and I'm repeating myself here a bit, so don't double-count me for consensus purposes) with PamD's take that the redirect should go to the uncapitalized phrase. A typical reader is not going to make that distinction. I really believe that the phrase, which is the basis for all other uses, is the primary topic. That being said, a redirect to the DAB page is a close second, in my book, and would be an acceptable disposition. The DAB page should be edited a bit, to make the article of the phrase less hidden. At present, it's easy to miss its link in the prefatory line ("The Latin term Sine qua non may also refer to:"). TJRC (talk) 04:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- a few entries here have referred to the phrase sine qua non as a "legal term" or "legal phrase." It is sometimes used as a legal phrase, but it is really more accurately described as a "Latin phrase." It refers to an essential condition for a thing. I've seen it in both legal contexts and non-legal contexts, but far more often in non-legal contexts. I've only seen it in a legal context maybe three times, and I'm an attorney who reads a lot of legal documents. I googled for the phrase, and of the first four hits that are definitions, not one of them refers to it as a legal phrase:

The first several hits using the phrase as a phrase do not use it in any legal context:

[1]: a document from the National Endowment of the Arts entitled "Effective Meeting Facilitation: The Sine Qua Non of Planning"
[2]; "Nicotine: The Sine Qua Non of Smoking"
[3]: "Networking: The Sine Qua Non of Job Search Success"
[4]: "That we think of cycling as sine qua non is no surprise." (this entry also refers to it as "a Latin legal term", but doesn't actually use it as one)

In the first five pages, there are no hits that actually use the phrase as a legal phrase.

I make this point not as a matter of pedantry (although I can certainly be a pedant), but to point out that this discussion isn't about whether a wine, a episode title, or a specialized legal term is a primary use. It isn't a specialized legal term at all. It's a pretentious phrase, I will admit, but not a specialized one. That's why we see it used by the NEA, and adopted as a name or title by an excruciatingly relevant (and I mean that as a compliment) science fiction show, a winery and even a hair salon. Its miscategorization as a legal term is perhaps due to the fact that we attorneys are often a pretentious bunch, and often are far too willing to put things into Latin or French rather than to express it in clear English. TJRC (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should go to the dab page or to the uncapitalised phrase, as suggested above. - Merzbow (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to dab page or possibly to the uncapitalised phrase. Well-known Latin phrases tend to find their way into many areas, and it is a fair assumption that a vast majority of readers of English Wikipedia are ignorant of Latin capitalization standards/practices. (Present editor not excluded.) Thus, assuming that a certain capitalization will primarily refer to an episode of Battlestar Galactica, rather than to some other use of the phrase, is bordering on the absurd. Tomas e (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree on the perceived absudity; As I said before, there are many different articles with the same title capitalized. However, consensus seems clear toward redirecting to the DAB page. I also think redirecting it to the 'legal' term presents undue weight. I will undo my edit. — Edokter • Talk • 15:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.