Talk:Jägermeister/Archives/2015

Requested move 25 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by repeated acknowledgment that the proposal seems a "dead horse" and should be closed (after no support was expressed by others). —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Jägermeister → Jägermeister (drink) – "Jägermeister" is foremost a historic title and position of significance in German game and forest management; Jägermeister the liqueur is named after it. Presently the the Jägermeister page is an overly commercial paen to the liqueur. A page should be created for the latter (by moving the existing), and the original subject (archived in stub form here) expanded in its own context Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is no inherent objection to articles on commercial products, just WP:SPAM. The drink is a more likely to be the subject of a search for Jägermeister than the German title, especially on English Wikipedia. There are several hundred links to this page which would be incorrect if the above suggestion was followed. I believe the correct procedure would be to (a) create Jägermeister (disambiguation) which links to here and a new page for the subject you propose, (b) create the page you propose, and (c) place {{Other uses|Jägermeister (disambiguation)}} at the head of each article. RichardOSmith (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

1. The proposal is not about Wikipedia having articles for commercial purposes; obviously the specified desire to move the page to one with a name indicating the commercial product embraces that.

2. Just because something is more likely to be searched for does not mean it should usurp the legitimate source of a page's subject. This is easily addressed with both a disambiguation page and a hatnote on each page referencing the other.

3. The "several hundred links" is an issue (though over one-half of them are links to User, User Talk, and the page's own Talk page); is there a bot which can automate the process once a move is made? After initial clean-up that issue should dissipate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser100 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. The primary topic for the term in the English speaking world is the liqueur. Interestingly enough, our friends at the German Wikipedia have also made the drink the primary topic [1] Calidum T|C 14:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Per item number two above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser100 (talk • contribs)

• Sympathetic oppose - I get your point, but "German forest manager" seems like a rather arbitrary subject for an article... Red Slash 14:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not at all arbitrary; it is one of numerous related positions and their pages, which include Park Ranger, Game warden, Gamekeeper, and others, none of which are the direct equivalent of the elevated German Jägermeister ("Hunting Master"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser100 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose not-English. There surely is an English title the German one is equivalent to, therefore the drink is the primary topic, while the German title should be explained in the equivalent English title as part of the regional equivalents -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Per immediately above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiuser100 (talk • contribs)

• Support. As laid out individually above, the appropriate course is to devote the page "Jägermeister" to the actual subject of that term (from which the liqueur derives its name), with a disambiguation page offering entries on both the subject of the term and the drink, and {{for}} hatnotes at the top of each referencing the other so users can learn more about either the origins of the term or the history of the drink. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

First, you don't move to support your own nomination. Second, if you plan on responding with the same point to every oppose voter, please see WP:BLUDGEON. Calidum T|C 17:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I am not familiar with this format. Who does present the Pro position then (when the argument in favor is kept to a few summary sentences in the template, or so I clearly thought)? Second, how does one rebut individual points? Oddly, my edit failed to display on my computer (even though the Talk page history showed over 1,500 bytes had been added). Refreshing the page and opening it up clean still failed to produce the edits, so I rewrote my response as a single entry (which did not appear due to an edit conflict with your most recent post). How is the user who initiated the move request supposed to respond to points as they are made? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Your original nomination clearly and eloquently explained your reasoning; there was no need to restate it. When this issue is reviewed and closed there won't be a simple count of the number of times "oppose" and "support" appears and all views, including yours, will be taken into account. I think your reasoning for the nomination is flawed; as several (including myself) have said the term Jägermeister is clearly now known for the drink and the original meaning is relatively insignificant, even if it came first. Is this illustrated by citing some other examples? Champagne is an article about the drink and not the large region of France from which it comes; Boston is an article about the major US city even though it is named after a small town in the United Kingdom from which some of the original settlers came. Do you think for a moment we should rename Boston? RichardOSmith (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose there is no evidence that the title is the best known use of the term in English speaking countries though the fact no article has been created does imply that it is not.--67.68.29.99 (talk) 01:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: There is currently no article on Wikipedia about german hunting masters, so there is no current ambiguity of topic, and if we try to create such an alternative article, it might just consist of not much more than a dictionary definition and would be of little real interest to most people. The term is already defined in the current article about the liqueur, and the liqueur is what most readers would be looking for. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It helps when users who comment familiarize themselves with the issue's history first. There's no article because it was thrown out with the bathwater in the original move revert; there is no proscription to it being "not much more than a dictionary definition" though that phrase continues to be bandied; "little interest to most people equally characterizes the wild overabundance of commercially/fanpage related content at the current Jägermeister page and its spin-offs, inappropriate for a general interest encyclopedia as Wikipedia positions itself.

This horse is dead. Let's close the discussion and get on with our lives. Ideally including improving this encyclopedia, not cluttering it up. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Does the last paragraph of your comment mean that you are withdrawing the proposal? If so, we can close this discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is quite unambiguous: "This horse is dead. Let's close the discussion and get on with our lives. Ideally including improving this encyclopedia, not cluttering it up" (as characterized in the sentence which preceded it). The situation has been intractable since its initial nuking 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC). Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

PS. I love Jägermeister, straight up in a snifter or in a Jell-O shot. I'm just not confused over its proper treatment at an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia positions itself. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Calidum. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 18:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Images

The German model is stereotypical and racist: no hips, no boobs and hairy legs covered by stockings. Probably really French. Please remove before I refer you to the UN. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BulloughPaul (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

History

The English expression is "Master of the Hunt" -- not hunting master. In Italian this title is "Capocaccia" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnhaupt (talk • contribs) 02:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)