Talk:Shnorrer

message: *Shnorrer -- slang definition. No-One Jones (talk) 04:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From VfD

message: Considering that two editors of this article cannot compromise, I am asking the Wikipedia community to vote on three seperate versions of this article. Please vote on all three version, and then we'll stick with the version that has the most consensus. --"DICK" CHENEY 01:48, 13 May 2004
Is there a way to vote for "none of the above"? Awolf002 23:33, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose all three... Martin 23:36, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: As seen here. This version is a compromise that links to Karl Schnörrer in the body of the article.
Support
#I think this compromise will do. GrazingshipIV 02:21, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
# Bryan 02:11, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Angela's latest version (1/7)

message: As seen here. This version makes no reference to Karl Schnörrer at all.
Support
# I see no particular reason to mention Karl Schnörrer.  I'm not certain this should be an encyclopedia article at all, though. john 02:22, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Wik's latest version (8/7)

message: As seen here. This version makes a prominent disambiguation towards Karl Schnörrer at the top of the article.
Support
# Bryan The two subjects are completely separate even though they have similar titles, and this is the standard Wikipedia way of handling that.
# Cantus - Obvious.
# More helpful to users. Markalexander100 06:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Cantus' latest version (9/6)

message: Wik is correct on this matter. The disambiguation policy is quite clear:
: Do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page, if there is no risk of confusion. Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", would they expect to view any of the articles listed on the disambiguation page? Disambiguation pages are not search indices -- do not add links that merely contain part of the page title where there is no significant risk of confusion.
Whether or not this particular article is important is irrelevant. The purpose of disambiguation is to deal with pages which would otherwise have the same title. This is not the case here, hence no disambiguation is needed. If people want to search for "Schnorrer", they should click "Search", not "Go", which should then include a redirect from "Karl Schnorrer". Granted, the search is disabled, but this will change very soon. As the policy states, disambiguation is not intended as a replacement for the search.-Eloquence*
The purpose is to deal with pages which might otherwise have the same title.  It is quite common to refer to people by their last names, and it is also quite common to drop "the little dotty thingies" from the top of vowels. anthony (see warning) 19:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: One of Wikipedia's lamest edit wars (in my opinion) resurfaced today -- I can't count how many reverts over the ridiculous disputed Karl Schnorrer link.  I don't know whose version I protected, and I don't care (m:The Wrong Version).  I have to go, so abuse/slander/allegations of impropriety can be left here or on my talk page, but really I just hope everyone can be calm enough to either talk this thing through or let it go. That's my two cents. Jwrosenzweig 19:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For crying out loud, we have another edit war?  At least this one is a slow one with new combatants.  But I promise, if you guys keep fighting over this, I'll reprotect the page.  Let's all exercise Wikiquette and discuss the right thing to do on the talk page, rather than revert each other.  I'll even get things started.  I think the disambig note doesn't hurt things one bit, and that it might as well remain in place since some people might find it helpful.  I know if I was looking for information on the German gentleman and didn't know how to insert an umlaut, I might search for "Schnorrer". Jwrosenzweig 07:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See  and start wondering who is who. <KF> 23:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Protected again. This is too silly to discuss. People, do something useful instead of wasting your time! <KF> 21:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected.  If people want to squabble over a disambig, let them, block the worst offenders, and let Wikipedia get on with being a wiki. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And you think this was a good idea? <KF> 20:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Unprotected again. This time for some reason there wasn't even a protection template, though it was recorded on WP:PP. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Protected again. Someone persistently creates new accounts just to remove the dab line w/o discussion, which I have been blocking on sight. Lately, their new accounts have also violated username policy. Oh well... --Fire Star 21:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Any suggestions would be appreciated. --Fire Star 20:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: At least we've taught our vandal not to use username anagrams... --Fire Star 19:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was using (misspelled) lines from an old Monty Python skit as usernames until I blocked him once (knowing the skit, who has no social life?) before he could redirect again. Probably not a bot, then, I'd guess. --Fire Star 20:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ha!