Talk:Jack Rose

This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Disambiguation 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

should this page not include a link to the drink as well? if not auto redirect to the drink, a much older and more relevant item of history than a current musician? 165.166.42.26 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC) carolinajak 12/26/2008Reply

You seem to be unclear on what the words "history" and "relevance" mean in the context of Wikipedia. To put it in simple terms -- I know a man named Will Smith, and his simply being older than the world-famous American actor does not make him more "relevant" through a global, objective lens. This is an encyclopedia, not a bartender's guide. The cocktail is addressed on the disambiguation page. Whatwillhappen (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Jack Rose" should be 100% redirected to disambiguous until the listing with primary relevance is agreed upon.

I agree that the drink should be the redirect of "jack rose". Wikipedia listing many drinks including, this famous drink, should not warrant an insult at listing this type of material. Whatwillhappen, you seem to be passionate for this musician, but that does not make it a primary relevance. Note your own excuse in the editing references that google search results, which while I do not agree denote relevance, now reference Jack Rose the cocktail as the top couple results.
Reasons why the cocktail should be primary relevance:

- one of six basic drinks listed in David A. Embury's famous and highly referenced The Fine Art of Mixing Drinks
- inclusion in Ernest Hemingway's 1926 classic, The Sun Also Rises, in which Jake Barnes
- inclusion in recent major publications the New Yorker and Washington Post

Reasons why the cocktail should be primary relevance:

- I do not think anyone would argue he is a major recording artists - I see no mention of notable awards or chart hits
- a good half of the links to other wikipedia listings have been killed off for lack of relevance
- he bares no historical significance to his profession or music style

--Blumonky4 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely should not redirect to cocktail

I don't deny the romance that surrounds a drink featured in the work of Hemingway. However the recent media attention surrounds the inability to find the drink because it is has long since fallen out of the common vernacular, as it were, of bartending. It is in fact not even featured in the Bartending Wikibook, despite its Wikipedia entry's falsely stating as such.

Jack Rose is not a "major recording artist," no, at least not in the sense of recording for any of the failing major labels. He tours more often than most "major" recording artists, though, and while avant-garde music does not sell as well as Hemingway paperbacks, his inclusion in end-of-year best-of list by the likes of The Wire, Arthur Magazine, and Aquarius Records, along with very positive reviews by media outlets such as Pitchfork Media -- whose readership trumps any other online music review website, including Rolling Stone -- is a testament to his current and upsurging notability.

With regard to his historical significance within the context of his "profession or music style," I will leave your POV to you, much as the Wikipedia should.

I will not redirect "Jack Rose" back to the guitarist unless/until others weigh in -- for now I am content with Jack Rose leading to the disambig. It should absolutely not redirect to the cocktail, however.

-Whatwillhappen (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I vote the cocktail Not that this is a vote. Just chiming in. I have changed this redirect in the past and am glad to see real discussion on the merits. The cocktail has more significance in my POV, but that is just one opinion. I think the fact that there are multiple people and a cocktail that share this same name forces the disambiguation page to to be primary.

"If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". Source"

--carolinajak (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm leaning toward agreeing with the disambig remaining primary. Your addition of Jack Rose the gambler was something of a turning point in my mind -- nice catch, it had been a while since I'd thought about Charles Becker! Although my POV stays with the guitarist I believe that keeping the disambiguation as the primary topic stays closest to both spirit and letter of the Wikipedia guidelines. And, indeed, there may very well be more Jacks out there. I'd still like to hear more opinion on the matter, but for now, I think things are correct as they are. Whatwillhappen (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Changed birth from 1911 to 1917. ( see [1])
• "Broke the rules" (disamb. guidelines) and made a piped link. WHY? Because otherwise there was no link at all. The "guidelines" do allow for some slack. Either we allow slack here, or erase it altogether. I vote for keeping it (therefore it has to have a link). Proofreader77 (talk) 02:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

No rules broken. Piping is ruled against in the entry, not in the description of the entry if the entry doesn't have its own bluelink. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply