Talk:Glamour

Glamourgraphy

What is Glamourgraphy and does it deserve a mention if the article doesn't exist ?

-- Beardo 16:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dicdef

Should this article even exist? It sounds more like a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary.Raynethackery 23:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unclear

"The alternative spelling glamor is little-used, even in the United States. This is because the word is from the Scots language."

How does being from Scots make it different?

Because the other -our/-or words are from Latin. In Latin, the ending is -or, e.g. humor, favor, odor etc. The original Scots word for glamour was gramarye and so the standard pattern isn't followed. Morrad 20:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

User: Wolfkeeper insists on the glamour (presentation) entry on this dismbiguation page reading as follows: "careful presentation and accessorisation so as to make someone or something appear to be better than they or it would normally appear."

I've repeatedly tried to modify it to make clear that this is an old (archaic) definition. He's said, "It's an admittedly slightly archaic meaning of the word, but I have found a reliable source for that particular usage, which is quoted in the article; and there was no other article in the wikipedia that covered glamour in that sort of sense at all." This is the only article on the concept of glamour, and while I don't think Wikipedia is the place for dictionary definitions or articles on old definitions, I am willing to compromise on an accurate explanation of the article on the disambiguation page. Unfortunately, my efforts have been repeatedly reverted.

I think it should be noted that the above definition for glamour is archaic, or the the actual definition should be included. I welcome a neutral perspective and suggestions for resolving this impasse, (which hasn't been discussed here, but has been on my talk page). Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion. First, WIkipedia is not a dictionary. Second, I agree with Wolfkeeper's edit message on this post: "wikipedia articles are not a 'discussion of a term'." The text should not say "discussion of term" or anything like that; rather, it should describe the article as simply as possible. I see you guys battling over the charm disambiguated page so that's another story altogether, but for here, I think the current version is more than acceptable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It just seems self-evident that the wikipedia cannot 'compromise' by having the disambiguation page misdescribe the article as other than it is. If you wish to change the definition of glamour used at Glamour (presentation) then you should discuss it at the talk page there, not by arbitrarily changing the disambiguation page.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The other thing that confuses me is that you rewrote the disambiguation for Glamour (presentation) to include 'beauty' when there is a perfectly good link right below it on this disambiguation page already.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, thank you for your input and for offering an opinion on how to diamgibuate that article and the term on this page. I agree that Wikipedia articles are not a "discussion of the term", that's why I suggested fixing or deleting the article itself. But the article wasn't deleted and (despite everyone suggesting it needed radical improvement) it hasn't been fixed at all. So now we have a flawed article AND a misleading description of the term in this disambiguation page. I will abide by your opinion, but it troubles me that this page includes a description of what glamour is, based on an archaic and misleading definition without any explanation or indication that this is the case. Is there a way to at least suggest there is another definition of the term? The one in the dictionary?

And as far as fixing the article, I have no idea what that article is supposed to be. I tried to fix it by at least including an accurate definition of glamour, but that was rejected (rightly so) as not being what Wikipedia is about. But if Wikipedia isn't about accurate definitions, I would think it definitely shouldn't be about inaccurate definitions, and as far as I can tell that's all that article is. So if you have any follow-up ideas or suggestions I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'm moving on.

And finally, beauty and glamour are not the same thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is that if you're seriously claiming that the article isn't accurately reflecting the source that would be a very serious charge. To my knowledge nobody else has seriously claimed that. Or if you are claiming that that the source is not a reliable source, again nobody else has claimed that, only that they are concerned that article is single sourced. Since it has been written other people have added other reading list, and these people that have done that have given no indication that they believe the definition or that the article is in any way inaccurate.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you reread the AfD. I didn't nominate the article, and everyone except you seemed to recognize it was flawed. Basing an article on one commentator's take on a term (based on an archaic definition) is probably a big part of the problem. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, she seems to be a reliable source. She has written books on this and got them published. She has given a talks on it, and had it published by TED also. The definition she uses is essentially included in many dictionaries. And at the very least it is a historical definition that lead to the current one. The AFD had only one deletion call, which was yours, and another two that agreed that it was highly encyclopedic in both the general sense as well as the wikipedian sense; on a strict vote count you lost 3:1. So basically, I don't really agree.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right that there's sort of a discrepancy in the use of definition versus WP:DICDEF. Personally, I would've voted to delete the other article, as I don't really see anything important in the article that wouldn't be covered by looking up the term in a dictionary. Other pages that I can find that sort of fit this criteria are Dictionary (disambiguation) and Cheese (disambiguation). Those pages have a one line definition right at the top: "A dictionary is a list of words and their meanings." The disambiguations are then listed underneath. In this case, I'd consider turning the top line of the disambig page to a definition - "Glamour is x" - and then turn the presentation page into the definition you're looking for. The listing for Glamour (presentation) would be something like "Glamour is an item that is used to accessorize" or whatever. What do you think?

Side note - I seriously hope you didn't misspell my username there at the beginning of your first response, CoM. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be an appropriate solution. My concern has been only giving a misleading definition based on the article Glamour (presentation). If an accurate definition is given and then the other disambiguated summaries including the summary for the article Glamour (presentation) (a summary that still seems strange to me without explanation or context) that would satisfy my biggest concerns regarding this disambiguation page. I hope Wolfkeeper will offer an opinion so we can move forward and resolve this dispute.ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible to define the term Glamour except in a dictionary/terminological sense other than in the way I have done. Really it's used in a few distinct ways. There does seem to be a useful and clear distinction between beauty and glamour (presentation), and most dictionaries seem to make that point; merging in any way doesn't seem to be helpful. Many common usages of the term 'glamour' don't make any sense except in the way it is used in the presentation article, and the concept is clearly quite distinct. Articles, as in mentioned in WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary are on distinct concepts, rather than terms.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

For the disambiguation page, the term really is used in multiple ways. We could list it as:

"Glamour is Alluring beauty, charm (often with sex-appeal), style or accessorisation and presentation so as to make someone or something appear to be better, wealthier or more attractive."

Something like that anyway.

- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style for disambiguation pages has a prescribed style for the introduction at the top of a disambig page. A disambig page should only open with a definition, such as the one that seems to be suggested here, if there is a primary topic for the disambiguated term, in which case that topic should be linked at the top with a short summary. For example, if the magazine Glamour were determined to be the primary topic for the term "Glamour," then the magazine article would be moved to Glamour, the disambiguation page would be at Glamour (disambiguation), and the disambiguation page should begin with something like "Glamour is a magazine. Glamour may also refer to:" followed by the list of entries.

Disambiguation pages are emphatically not intended to be a list of definitions of a phrase; they are designed to lead users to the existing Wikipedia article that covers each possible usage of a phrase. If there is no article that offers information on a specific usage, then there's no reason to list it on a disambig page. Propaniac (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As magic

Some colleague felt this ref

"Glamour" in Katharine Briggs, An Encyclopedia of Fairies, Hobgoblins, Brownies, Boogies, and Other Supernatural Creatures p.191. ISBN 0-394-73467-X

belonged as a footnote to

* Glamour (spell), a type of spell over someone, particularly to change how things appeared to them.

Footnotes and the like do not belong on Dab pages, but (even tho i have no idea what the intention was) any argument that was implicit in the footnote's addition can be made on this talk page.
Of course, since the work cited is paper info, it's implausible that it will affect how we edit that entry in the absence of (at least) a summary of the relevant portion of that page.
--Jerzy•t 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)