Talk:Rogue (vagrant)

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: consensus not to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Rogue (vagrant) → Rogue
• Rogue → Rogue (disambiguation)

– The clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC due to long-term significance. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose. WP:NOTADICT (the article is barely more than a dictionary entry). --В²C ☎ 02:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose. the PrimaryTopic is the dictionary entry, and the Wiktionary link fits best on a DAB page.
  I note that Rogue (vagrant) corresponds narrowly to wikt:rogue#Noun #3, and meaning #1 is the PrimaryTopic. I think a better suggestion is Merge Rogue (vagrant) into Vagrancy (people). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose concur with SmokeyJoe. This article seems to be pulling too many usages together under one topic. The "wandering vagrant" meaning is not primary and should stay if it can be expanded, or merged as he suggests. I think the "Gaming" section is completely misplaced here, as that context is more like thief or burgler, and should be removed (perhaps replaced with a hatnote to Thief (character class)). -- Netoholic @ 12:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Support but improve substantially. The rogue is a well-documented stock character in fiction - see Jessica Morrell, Bullies, Bastards And Bitches: How To Write The Bad Guys Of Fiction (2008), p. 90. If anything should be merged, Lovable rogue should be merged into this at the final title. bd2412 T 04:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • User:BD2412, I'm getting a sense that this article needs splitting several ways.

(a) Rogue redirects to Rogue (disambiguation);

(b) Merge most of the core content to the article that attempts to be a broad topic, Vagrancy (people);

(c) Merge some (I can't see exactly what), with Lovable rogue, to Rouge (trope);

(d) Merge the Rogue_(vagrant)#Gaming role playing fantasy stuff to Rogue (character class).

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• I think perhaps move the portion about vagrants to vagrancy, and move and expand the "lovable rogue" to "rogue", since the rogue archetype is not only those that are lovable, but those that are straight-up thieves. bd2412 T 04:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Tropes versus Archetype, I'm not sure. You think maybe put the rogue trope/archetype at rogue, a hatnote to Rogue (disambiguation), a wiktionary link at both? Yeah maybe. I agree that vagrant is not well tied to rogue, the connection is a small minority use. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Oppose between the car, the D&D character class, the computer game, and other uses (not to mention Rouge), I don't think this is the primary topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose as above In ictu oculi (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

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.

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: not moved. See definite general agreement in this debate to not move this article as proposed, and if we take the March debate into consideration, and in this case I think we should, I see only a very rough overall agreement, too close to no consensus, to move this article to Rogue and that dab page to Rogue (disambiguation). In addition, there is the merge discussion that has opened, and the best way forward might be to see how that goes. There is no prejudice toward revisiting this if necessary after the merge discussions have ended. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  04:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Rogue (vagrant) → Rogue (person) – Rogue (vagrant) is an awkward disambiguation, since rogue and vagrant are used more or less synonymously in the context of the article. Per WP:NCDAB, the parenthetical term should be the generic class to which the topic belongs, in this case "person" – alternatively, the term could refer to the relevant context, such as law in this case. Rogue (person) should not redirect to an article about a specific musician who uses "Rogue" as a pseudonym, since there must be countless such individuals. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 00:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC) --Relisted.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Relist comment. Members of WikiProject Sociology have been notified of this debate. Note also that notice was left at Talk:Rogue (disambiguation) on 15 April 2018, so if this page is moved to Rogue, and if that page is moved to Rogue (disambiguation), then the closer should give that notice a minimum of 7 days from the 15th, please.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  19:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Some users have suggested a different move, Rogue (vagrant) → Rogue, or alternatively a merge to Vagrancy, both of which I would also support. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

• Procedural note. I am pulling the second part of the request, Rogue (person) → Rogue (musician), out of the template: because both of these pages are redirects, it was causing the request to show as malformed. There isn't any reason to move a redirect to another title that redirects to the same location. It's possible that the musician referenced here requires further disambiguation as suggested, but if so, the place to do that disambiguation is at Rogue#Music; if the redirect Rogue (musician) requires discussion, the place to do that is at WP:RFD. Dekimasuよ! 18:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Oppose and propose alternate move to Rogue since this article is clearly trying to be a WP:BROADCONCEPT for the character type/trope. Lovable rogue can also be merged into it. It needs significant work though._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • Please note that ZXCVBNM proposed this move last month were it was rejected by a significant margin. Unless they have a significantly stronger case than last time it seems to not make sense to religitating this arguement since it's highly unlikely that the consensus has changed in this short timeframe.--67.68.210.105 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • I wouldn't call it a "significant margin", two users BD2412 and SmokeyJoe essentially agreed with me about it, albeit also proposing significant changes to the article itself. That certainly doesn't scream "SNOW Oppose"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • It looks like SmokeyJoe explicitly opposed the previous move before being swayed to a more neutral position over the course of the discussion. Dekimasuよ! 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Support - the new name will allow the BROADCONCEPT redesign and merge which ZXCVBNM suggests. The adjective form of "rogue" (meaning solitary, etc.) is what I see as primary. That adjective can be assigned to a person, but it also describes so many more non-person topics that I feel the current primary disambiguation page is the better solution. -- Netoholic @ 13:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • The usage of Rogue to describe a person has far more enduring notability than the other "rogue" names. If you asked someone on the street what they thought a rogue was, they'd probably still say a thief/rebel type of person, not rogue planet or rogue state. WP:NOTDICTIONARY, so the adjective form doesn't apply here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • I concur that adjectival uses don't apply here per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. In any case, the primary topic of Rogue is beyond the scope of this request. I have no objection to making this page a broad-concept primary topic provided adequate sourcing exists. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • This isn't a WP:NOTDICTIONARY issue at all - I'm not suggesting we "define" the adjective. I am saying that per WP:Disambiguation, we can take into consideration not only articles but also other coverage within other articles. In that sense, the broad adjective form, which gives its meaning to the person, also gives its meaning to many other subjects. Trying to put the person at primary is ultimately misinforming those other subjects. -- Netoholic @ 02:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • I think that's backwards. Rogue as a noun denoting either an idle vagrant or a mischievous person was in use in the sixteenth century, originating in the Latin rogare, meaning "to ask". Various adjectival uses (rogue elephant, etc.) came later.^[1][2] Thus, the other uses owe their sense of rogue to the person (), not the other way around. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC) (edited 03:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC))Reply
          • That may be the origin, but it no longer commonly means "vagrant" either, right? Is a planet not orbiting a star "rogue" because it begs for money? Is an elephant rogue because he lives on the street? Is someone a lovable rogue because he dresses in shambles? No, these are all rogues because of their solitary, wandering nature, not because of vagrancy. -- Netoholic @ 08:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
            • Citation please? I don't see what the lovable rogue idea has to do with being solitary. Quite the opposite, in fact. Ditto for rogue trader and rogue security software. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
              • Much like I don't see how those have anything to do with being "an idle vagrant or a mischievous person". -- Netoholic @ 21:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
                • I never said they did. My point was that rogue as a person came first. The adjectival sense of "uncontrolled or undisciplined" is only from 1964.^[1] Merriam-Webster still gives the primary meaning as "vagrant" or "tramp" (which is not the same as "beggar").^[3] —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Move to Rogue. Clear primary topic. And move Rogue to Rogue (disambiguation). And redirect Rogue (person) to Rogue, as opposed to some obscure musician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Move to Rogue. I agree with Necrothesp. This is the primary topic. And move Rogue to Rogue (disambiguation). And redirect Rogue (person) to Rogue. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Move to Rogue per the above. There is a broad concept here to be developed. bd2412 T 16:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Procedural comment, again. I assume the reason this isn't going through is that the idea of moving this page to the plain title was closed (by me) as consensus not to move last month, and perhaps because there was no notification on the disambiguation page that would need to be moved for that to take place. I'm not going to close this myself, but it's hard for me to read a consensus to move the page into the talk page as a whole, given the conversation that just ended last month. Dekimasuよ! 22:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • I'd be happy with this request being re-listed to establish stronger consensus. Notification of this discussion could be added to Rogue (disambiguation). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Merge to Vagrancy. Apart from etymology, I don't see anything in the article that distinguishes a rogue from a vagrant, and I don't feel a particular distinction either. The #History section, covering the Vagabonds Act 1572, gracefully fits into the Vagrancy#United Kingdom section. Very weak oppose redirecting Rogue there, as I feel that numerous cultural usages overwhelm the original meaning for it to be an original topic.
  P.S. For the time being, I redirected Rogue (person) to Rogue (vagrant), and moved it to the top of the dab page, without prejudice for the RM outcome. No such user (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Agnostic on the original proposal, oppose a move to rogue per WP:NOTDICT and support a merge to vagrancy. The current article is a dicdef and anything more on the topic is already dealt with or can be dealt with in the vagrancy article (see User:No such user's comment above). —  AjaxSmack  20:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Pinging earlier participants Born2cycle, SmokeyJoe, power~enwiki, and In ictu oculi. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
• Move to Rogue and start a merge discussion with Vagrancy. And I'll take care of the second part. Ping User:No such user. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

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.