Talk:Scare-line

WP:Content fork

See the RfC close below. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

I just saw this edit by Srleffler. This split looks like an inappropriate content fork. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. The material I moved began with the phrase "Another completely different definition uses the term scare quotes to mean..." Per WP:NOTDICT, that makes it explicitly contrary to policy to keep the material in the same article. Completely different definitions of a term must be covered in separate articles.--Srleffler (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Srleffler, the only way that the split makes sense is if there are reliable sources stating that a scare-line is completely different from a square quote. Did you check the sources on this matter? The lead of this content you've split off even states, "A scare-line, scare-head, or scare quote." Furthermore, we commonly include different definitions/concepts of a term in one article, whether it's a WP:WORDISSUBJECT article or a WP:Broad-concept article. We don't usually split off material for every definition of a term/concept. Most terms have more than one definition, sometimes definitions that are completely different from one another. Our broad-concept articles are proof that completely different definitions of a term do not have to be covered in separate articles. See Triangle center as an example. I don't see where WP:NOTDICT states what you say it does. I'll query WP:WikiProject Linguistics, and editors at WP:NOTDICT, WP:NOT, WP:Broad-concept article and Talk:Scare quotes to weigh in on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flyer. There are a couple of different issues here. First, I'm surprised that this issue isn't more familiar to you...you've been around here a while. We do, by policy, usually split off material for every definition of a term/concept. This is a core part of WP:NOTDICT. See the first table in WP:NOTDICT#Major differences, particularly the last line. In general, unrelated definitions of a word or phrase must, by policy, be located in separate articles.

WP:WORDISSUBJECT is a rare special case: the odd circumstance where the word itself, rather than the thing it denotes, is notable and suitable to have an article about it rather than about the thing the word denotes. If you want to argue that we should write such an article in this case, we could talk about that, but scare quotes is not at present such an article. The article begins with "Scare quotes...are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to signal that a term is being used in a non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense." That defines the topic of the article as the quotation marks themselves, not the phrase "scare quotes". If the article were about the phrase, it would have to begin something like "'Scare quotes' is a phrase that describes...". Offhand, I don't think the article would be improved by trying to make it focus on the phrase rather than the concept.

WP:Broad-concept article is not an exception to the general rule. In a broad-concept article, a bunch of related things are discussed together, with the discussion unified by the general concept that they have in common. That is not the case here; in this case scare quotes originally had two completely unrelated concepts being discussed together simply because they happen to be labelled with the same phrase in English.

You asked for reliable sources. The sources are the ones already cited in the article. Both definitions of "scare quote" are supported by several citations. The definitions do not match and are clearly unrelated to one another. That is sufficient to prevent them from being in the same article unless that article satisfies WP:WORDISSUBJECT, which the article did not.--Srleffler (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Srleffler, I am well aware of what our policies and guidelines state. This is not the first time that two experienced Wikipedians have disagreed on a Wikipedia rule. So, yeah, the condescension is not necessary. I am significantly familiar with WP:NOTDICT; I've cited parts of it enough times. I simply do not agree with you that we, "by policy, usually split off material for every definition of a term/concept." We create a Definitions section, Etymology section, or similar, and include the different definitions there. Examples include Atheism, Asexuality, Universe, Blackmail, Theft, Murder, Fuck, Bitch (insult), Cunt, Free will, and so on. We cover different meanings, including past, modern and fringe meanings, all in one article. In some cases, such as Definition of music, Definition of planet, Definitions of pogrom and Definitions of fascism, we create an article simply for the different definitions. We only give a definition/concept its own article when its WP:Notable enough for one and when the split is needed. See WP:Spin out and WP:No split. I do not see that the split was needed in this case. You spoke of "unrelated definitions." And, again, I don't see any reliable sources stating that a scare line is completely different from a scare quote. In fact, I simply see reliable sources naming an alternative definition of a scare quote. WP:Stubs, especially those that are unlikely to grow beyond stubs, are not ideal. I barely see anything on "scare-line" when Googling the term, on regular Google or on Google Books.

Since we've discussed this and don't agree, and since no one else has yet weighed in on this, I've started a WP:RfC on the matter below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we'll have some other input from the RfC. I don't think your understanding of the policy is correct, and the articles you list as examples don't seem particularly relevant. Some of them are clear WP:WORDISSUBJECT articles, which scare quotes is not and should not be. Others combine related definitions or concepts in one article.

If the material in scare-line is not notable to have its own article, I would be fine with simply deleting it. My point is just that it doesn't belong in scare quotes because it is off-topic for that article.--Srleffler (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously welcome more opinions. There have been cases where editors shared the same opinion of a Wikipedia policy or guideline and have been wrong about it. So while I am open to hearing what others have to state on this matter, it doesn't mean that I will later agree with their interpretations. You don't think my understanding of the WP:NOTDICT policy is correct, but (except for pointing to WP:WORDISSUBJECT) I'm not focusing on that policy, and I've had great understanding of that policy for years regardless. If you mean WP:NOTDICT and the other rules (which are guidelines), well, I don't think your understanding of those matters in relation to this one is correct. The articles I listed are particularly relevant since you stated, "We do, by policy, usually split off material for every definition of a term/concept." No, we usually don't. Anytime you mean "completely unrelated," it's best be clear about that. Stating "We do, by policy, usually split off material for every definition of a term/concept." does not mean "completely unrelated." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough: I should have written that we do usually split off material for completely unrelated definitions of a term or concept. Scare quotes was a particularly glaring case, because the material I removed explicitly identified itself as completely unrelated to the main topic of the article.

It seems like a lot of your objection is to creating a stub article that likely isn't viable. Maybe we can find a better place for this material? Topically, it would fit in Rhetorical device, but that article doesn't get into that level of detail. I moved the article to Category:Rhetorical techniques. I wonder if there is an article there in which it would fit. I'm not familiar enough with the subject area to pick one easily, though.--Srleffler (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "usually." In this case, I fail to see why it is necessary to split the material into its own article. The fact that it's a stub that really can't grow is clearly one of my concerns, but so is the fact that I don't really see anything in the literature stating that a scare-line is completely different from a scare quote. Again, I simply see reliable sources naming an alternative definition of a scare quote, and those sources are the ones in the article. The "completely different definition" wording that was used for the material when it was in the Scare quote article was an editor's wording, and it seems that this wording is what led you to separate the text. But "completely different definition" does not mean "completely unrelated." We have articles with completely different definitions in them; I've given examples above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scare quotes are punctuation—a specific use of quotation marks. A scare-line (or "scare quote") is a quotation, ie words that are quoted from some other source. These are not the same thing. If there is any relation at all between them, I don't see it.--Srleffler (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This and this do not really give definitions and I don't have access to the other two sources; I assume you don't either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the OED reference:

Also (in recent journalistic use), scare-head, -heading, a heading to a column of newspaper matter written in extravagant language to produce a 'scare'; scare-line, a sensational announcement upon a newspaper poster; similarly in scare-letter, -novel, -politics, -report, etc.

This is followed by several citations to examples of its use.--Srleffler (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm starting to think you're right about keeping this alternative definition/concept separate. I'm not 100% on board, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

Here's my issue with giving the scare-line topic its own article: It does not appear to be WP:Notable, and it is unlikely that a person is going to search for the term/concept. It is also a stub, and will remain so because it lacks notability. Therefore, I think that readers would be better served learning about the term in the Scare quote article. In the case of the Pansexuality article, for example, which is about the concept even though the word pansexuality is what is mostly discussed there, the term pansexuality originally meant something different than what it currently does. We cover this in the Etymology section of that article. This original definition of the term, which, per WP:NOTDICT, does not deserve its own Wikipedia article, should simply be covered in the Pansexuality article. There is no better place to cover it on Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, when discussing what the modern day definition/concept of pansexuality is, some sources, like this one, note its original definition/concept, which makes it all the more valid to cover this original use in the Pansexuality article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the question of whether the material is notable or viable on its own as particularly relevant to whether it should be returned to Scare quotes. If this article isn't viable, the material should be deleted or moved into an article where it is actually contextually relevant.

An etymology section is not an excuse to introduce off-topic and irrelevant material into an article. Etymology of the article title itself is at best barely relevant to the topic of most articles. (Remember, the topic is what the title denotes, not the title itself.) Completely irrelevant uses of the same term or phrase should not be included. Presumably the original meaning of pansexuality is included in that article precisely because—as you noted—it has some relevance to understanding the modern concept of pansexuality. There is no such connection between a scare quote (aka scare-line) and the type of punctuation known as "scare quotes". They are not at all related.--Srleffler (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this was discussed here. I agree with the editors who opposed you in that discussion. --Srleffler (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that old debate was being had today (with me being a much more experienced Wikipedian than I was back in 2011), I would argue that mentioning the original meaning of pansexuality in the Pansexuality article is appropriate because when the modern definition/concept of pansexuality is discussed, so is, at times, the original definition/concept. There are some reliable sources that tie the previous definition/concept to the modern/definition concept. Back then, a Pansexualism section existed at the Pansexuality article. It no longer does. The original meaning of pansexuality is now briefly covered in the Etymology section of that article because it's mentioned in sources covering the modern day meaning. Today, even pansexualism can refer to the modern-day meaning. If you or anyone else wants to revisit that discussion, we can do that. Although stating "Pansexual and pansexualism were first attested in 1917, denoting the idea 'that the sex instinct plays the primary part in all human activity, mental and physical'" would be a WP:NOTDICT violation if that's pretty much all the article consisted of, a Pansexualism article could be created using some sources about Freud and psychoanalysis. I've now seen enough in the literature about pansexualism to know that it can justifiably have a Wikipedia article. But its creation wouldn't mean that the original definition of pansexuality shouldn't continue to be briefly mentioned in the Pansexuality article.

In this discussion I've been having with you, my point has consistently been that words and concepts evolve and that, when this happens, we cover this evolution in one article unless it is necessary to split off some material into a separate article. Trying to research "scare-line," I can't find anything on it, and so I would rather not take an editor's claims on the topic. I would rather see reliable sources making it clear that "There is no such connection between a scare quote (aka scare-line) and the type of punctuation known as 'scare quotes'." And I'm not on board with the idea that we shouldn't cover this other definition at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit (followup edit here and here), I undid the Pansexualism article and made some minor changes to that article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The key part of my viewpoint is that, with rare exceptions (like WP:WORDISSUBJECT articles), the topic of an article is not the words that comprise the title, but rather the thing that the title denotes. Words evolve over time, but if the topic of the article is not the words themselves, then the evolution of the meaning of those words has limited relevance to the article's topic. Former or alternate meanings of the same words, which have no relation to the article topic, are not usually going to be at all relevant.

I'm not sure I fully understand your objection to taking the definitions at face value. We have definitions for "scare quotes" and "scare-line", which are supported by references to reliable sources. It's very clear from the definitions that these things are not related to one another. I don't see any need for a reference to a source to support the fact that the two things are distinct. More generally, it does not seem to me that a reference should be required to remove material from an article on the grounds that it is not relevant. It seems more sensible to say that a reference would be required to support inclusion of material whose relevance is questioned.--Srleffler (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your viewpoint, and I mostly agree; "mostly" because in cases like atheism and similar, which are not about the words themselves, evolution of the meaning of the term/concept is very important. We don't need an article for every definition/concept of atheism.

As for face value, like I mentioned above, "This and this do not really give definitions and I don't have access to the other two sources; I assume you don't either." Also, is the OED definition you gave an entry that happens to mention different definitions of "scare quote"? If it's specifically about "scare-line," I would still like to see sources that are specifically about a scare-line, not about how Shakespeare used a scare-line (which is called a scare quote in the source). I would rather not assume that a "scare quote" and "scare line" are completely unrelated, without seeing sources that are specifically about the term/concept "scare line," how it evolved, and so on. I see nothing about it when I look for material on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about atheism. The concept evolved over time, and there are multiple modern conceptions of what atheism is. I have no problem with covering related concepts together in one article.

The OED entry is for scare, and mentions scare-line, scare-head, etc. but not scare quote. You can look at it here. It's right near the end of page 185. This is an earlier edition than the one cited in the article, I think.

If you've looked around and not found other examples of "scare quote" used this way, I have to wonder if that usage is not even worth mentioning on Wikipedia. I don't think we should be talking about whether to assume the concepts are unrelated, but rather whether there is any reason at all to think they are related. We should not assume they might be related without some evidence or a source that suggests they are. I'm more and more inclined to merge scare-line into fear mongering, drop mention of scare quote altogether, and propose deletion of this article. Would you go along with that?--Srleffler (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can go along with that. And if this other definition of scare quote is added to the Scare quote article, we can keep a lookout for that. Another alternative is to remove "scare quote" from the lead sentence, and then note that the term scare quote was sometimes used to mean what scare-line means. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But, given that it seems people are unlikely to look up "scare-line," I think the better option is to have "scare-line" be a subsection of the Fear mongering article. In this case, it doesn't seem that we a need source to state that a scare-line is an example of fear mongering. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to close the RfC below. It hasn't gotten traction anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should Scare-line be merged back into Scare quote?

The consensus is against merging Scare-line back into Scare quote. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

One view is that per WP:NOTDICT, the two topics should be kept separate since they are two completely different definitions. "Both definitions of 'scare quote' are supported by several citations. The definitions do not match and are clearly unrelated to one another. That is sufficient to prevent them from being in the same article unless that article satisfies WP:WORDISSUBJECT, which the article did not." The other view is that it's common to include different definitions of a term in one article, that we should only split content when necessary (see WP:Spin out and WP:No split), that stub articles, especially those that are unlikely to grow beyond stubs, are not ideal, and that there should at least be reliable sources stating that a scare-line is completely different from a scare quote. In this case, we have sources stating an alternative definition of a scare quote. Alternative definitions commonly go in the same article.

For those seeing this from a RfC page or from your talk page, see Talk:Scare-line#WP:Content fork for more on the arguments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's common for us to cover alternative definitions of a term in a single article, and I see no benefit to having "scare-line," which is also called "scare quote," split from the Scare quote article. It's an unnecessary stub. Furthermore, I barely see anything on "scare-line" when Googling the term, on regular Google or on Google Books. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. The material is off-topic. Per WP:NOTDICT the subject of an article is "a thing etc. that [the] title can denote", not "the actual words or idioms in [the] title and all the things it can denote". The policies cited above regarding spinning out or splitting off material presume that that material is actually on topic for the article. Off-topic material can and should be removed. If this stub article is not viable, the material should be merged into an article where it is actually on topic, not returned to scare quotes.--Srleffler (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No per Srleffler. The topics are clearly distinct, even though the same term sometimes happens to be used for both of them, and they should not be covered in the same article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak No On one hand I think they are definitely different things, and thus the rule against content forks does not apply. Currently "scare line" seems to fail WP:NOT#Dict and might be merged into yellow journalism, Smear campaign and/or fear mongering. :/ I'm not sure if that changes anything really, but I think it'll mean it'll be a bit harder to disambiguate. The weakness of my "no", however is because of this difficulty - it seems a single statement in "scare quote" defining "scare line" would be simple. (maybe something like "For the smear campaign or yellow journalism tactic see "Yellow journalism#scare line and/or Smear campaign#Scare line")--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are unrelated but notable and well-sourced topics, that need to be disambiguated with a hatnote and in their content. Scare-quoting is a typographic practice, a substitution of quotation marks for spoken-aloud phrasing like "so-called", "alleged", etc. and for gestural "air-quoting", and (as I just did with "air-quoting") for indicating a neologism or colloquialism. Scare-lining is a journalism and marketing technique to sell newspapers and other products through manipulative use of language to imply serious dangers are likely when they are not, and has nothing to do with typography (other than the entirely incidental fact that "scare lines" are, like other headlines, typically in some emphasized typeface – large, bold, different font or color, all-caps, small-caps, or whatever). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded: It took nearly zero effort to notably expand the article, without even doing much additional source research. This further distinguishes it completely from both Scare quotes and the various proposed merge targets in the thread below this. I'm certain it can be expanded quite a bit more, especially with material on political campaign use, issue-based activism use, and use in propaganda. It's also obviously a major component in both the fake news trend and the rise of Internet meme-pics as socio-political tactics. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responded below that I'm not seeing the WP:Notability. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2017 (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.

Possible merge target?

How about merging this into Fear mongering?--Srleffler (talk) 06:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. This can be mentioned as sometimes a form of that, but this has sufficient sourcing to establish independent notability, and scare-lining is not integral to scare tactics/fear mongering, which may not even have anything to do with writing or publishing, much less this particular PR practice. Scarelines are more related to propaganda than to "scare tactics" broadly (though they are also not integral to propaganda, either, which may instead rely on exaggeratory images, on excessively positive messaging, etc.). A more detailed article on scarelines can clearly be written. [Update, 22:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC): To prove that point, I've just expanded it with very little effort, mostly using sources already cited, which can be mined further.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 20:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested Yellow journalism and smear campaign as other possible merge targets in the RfC, but I also attempted to find sources for "scare line", not a lot of sources I believe. Apparently "Scare lines" are a type of fishing and/or hunting gear - so a lot of google books results for "scare line" are not about this phenomenon at all - had to search with a minus or NOT boolean search {"scare line" -fish}. Maybe a second disambiguation would be necessary (?), not only not "scare quote", but also not "scare line (fishing)"--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 20:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, that's only one kind of scare-lining, and not even the best documented/studied. See recent expansion of article. PS: Scare-line as used in fishing, bird hunting, and controlling pest animals does not appear to be a notable topic or set of topics; very little can be found about them other than definitions and (for the third case) marketing materials. Per WP:NOT#DICDEF and WP:DICDEF and WP:N, if we cover these it should be as glossary entries or the like, in articles on commercial net fishing, bird hunting, and animal control, the way we would any other minor bits of specialist terminology. PPS: I've edited the present article to distinguish its topic from the fishing/hunting use, though there is presently no need for a DAB hatnote, since a fish/bird scare-line doesn't have an article or section to link to. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 22:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the current state of the article, I still don't see that this topic is WP:Notable. I see different terminology smashed together and barely any sources that are specifically about scare-line. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Flyer22: You would argue that "scare line" are actually different phenomena? The use in Smear campaign, Yellow journalism, and Fear mongering to me seem very related so I would dispute that. However, I would agree about barely any sources that focus and elaborate upon the phenomenon, I haven't researched that much, but it seems to me that it's mostly trivial/passing mentions. --User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 17:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dwarf Kirlston, I'm not stating that, but I do take issue with the current setup for reasons that you and I have noted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think @SMcCandlish:'s edits were interesting but the problem in my view is that they expanded upon "scare stories" mostly and not over the phenomenon restricted to the "lines" - be it headlines that receive lots of attention or specific phrases that are repeated extensively. Scare stories don't seem to belong here - they seem to belong in fear mongering. I would say that scare-lines are one topic, and scare stories quite another.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The scare mongering article is something of a mess but I think the "women's magazines" industry as an subsection would fit in well in Fear_mongering#By industry.--User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 16:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason not to create a WP:SUMMARY section there for it now, whether or not material from this article might eventually move to it and this article be "disbanded". The material in it that is specifically about scary headlines could merge to Headlinese as a section, and also get some treatment in other places, as needed. There is no principle that something can only be covered in any detail at all in a single page, or WP:SUMMARY, WP:SPINOUT, WP:SPINOFF, etc., would not exist. However, it's not necessary to get rid of this article. If you take to to WP:AFD it will be kept; I'd bet real money on it. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 12:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]