Talk:Flim-flam

This disambiguation page 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

Move?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flim-flam → Flimflam – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flimflam is much more common spelling, and flim-flam is not in most major dictionaries, see [1] Espoo (talk) 15:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The OED uses "flim-flam" (and does not even list "flimflam" as an alternate spelling). But then looking at Webster's, I see that "flimflam" is used. I think this is an WP:ENGVAR issue and therefore should not be moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you have an outdated version of OED. Only the spelling "flimflam" is listed in Oxford Dictionaries Online and the spelling "flim-flam" is not even listed as an alternative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espoo (talk • contribs) 22:51, 19 November 2011
No, whoever you are. Jenks is right. Current OED is not to be confused with that Oxford site, and it does not list "flimflam" among the variants ("Forms: Also 15 ? flym flawe, 16 frim fram"). This entry is not among those updated recently in OED. But the newest SOED has, in accord with that site you link, changed the listing to "flimflam" (and SOED gives "flim-flam" formally as a variant). Both OED and SOED have examples of both forms in citations. Noetica^Tea? 09:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a disambiguation page, not an article. Among the four uses currently disambiguated, two use "flim-flam" and two use "flim flam." Locating the page at a spelling not used by any of the disambiguated terms wouldn't make any sense. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The disambig page should use the most common spelling of the word in its use as part of general English. For the decision of what spelling to use for the disambig page, it is quite irrelevant what spellings are used in the names of artistic works (or technical terms, not relevant here). And what spelling happens to be used in the confidence trick article is of course of zero value in deciding this question. (See WP:RS for the (incorrect) use of WP as a source.) --Espoo (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How the word is spelled in general English is irrelevant, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This page only exists to disambiguate between Wikipedia pages with similar titles, so it is the spelling of those titles that determines the best place for the dab page. So, oppose. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rare or fanciful spellings are very common in artistic works etc. and should not determine the disambig's title, especially (but not only) if it is also the synonym of an article title. According to the principle of least surprise, we wouldn't want someone typing "flimflam" or some other common term into the search box and ending up on a disambig page instead of the article dealing with the topic the reader was looking for. The only defense i can see of having a disambig page with the spelling "flim-flam" is if its title is Flim-flam (disambiguation) and if we make Flim-flam and Flimflam into redirects to Confidence trick -- which gets a Wikipedia:Hatnote referring to Flim-flam (disambiguation). --Espoo (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rare or fanciful spellings, when ambiguous, are wonderful selections for a disambiguation page's title. In this case, the ambiguous term is still the right choice, and is also neither rare nor fanciful. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the primary purpose of a disambiguation page is to help readers navigate between ambiguously topics in the encyclopedia. As such the disambiguation page should reflect the ambiguous spelling. older ≠ wiser 00:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of move discussions is to discuss, not to simply vote (WP:POLL), so please react to what's been said above. What do you think about moving this page to Flim-flam (disambiguation) and making Flim-flam and Flimflam into redirects to Confidence trick (and giving that page a hatnote referring to Flim-flam (disambiguation))? Thanks for your input. --Espoo (talk) 05:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did respond to the proposal and I oppose it and the reasoning behind it. As for the modified proposal you suggest here, I would not oppose that, although I would not support it either as I don't see any particular exigence. older ≠ wiser 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. See my remark on the newer SOED entry versus the unupdated OED entry, above. While "flim-flam" still dominates slightly in published British English (see ngram), "flimflam" is clearly more represented in American English (ngram) and overall (ngram). Technical note: ngrams require spaces around the hyphen, if it is to register at all. Noetica^Tea? 09:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC) [Withdrawn. See note, below. Noetica^Tea? 00:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)][reply]
As noted above, that would be relevant if this were a dictionary entry. As a disambiguation page, the relevant sources are the names of linked topic entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your opinion, but I am not sure that I should agree with it. I note this edit from Espoo: [2]. This changed the form in one affected article from "flim flam" to "flimflam", with the bare edit summary "ce" (marked "m" for minor), during the course of this RM. Whether this amounts to a confidence trick I cannot; but I am not happy to be involved with an RM where such things happen. I am withdrawing my vote of support, and withdrawing from the discussion. Noetica^Tea? 00:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the ambiguous term is "flim-flam". The claim above that "the disambig page should use the most common spelling of the word in its use as part of general English" is incorrect; that would be appropriate for a dictionary, as noted. The disambiguation page is titled with the ambiguous title, possibly + " (disambiguation)" as a qualifier if there's a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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