Jump to content

Draft talk:Answer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 7 May 2017

[edit]
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: Procedural close as indicated below. Moving article to draft space, and Answer (disambiguation) → Answer per WP:MALPLACED. wbm1058 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– On 5 March 2017 the article at Answer was moved to Answer (law) and replaced with the current "article" which is barely a dictionary definition. I tagged it as such. I moved this article to Answer (response) to be replaced by Answer (disambiguation) as there didn't seem to be a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It seems clear that the current article has no claim to be the primary topic. The original article on the legal aspects of "Answer" seems overly specialised to be the primary topic. Hence the request to move the disambiguation page to this location. Tassedethe (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nomination. Even on its own merits, the appropriateness of a 20-word, two-sentence stub being designated as a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is questionable, especially when all such a stub depicts is a brief definition. In view of the fact that this topic has been submitted for discussion, it may even be suggested that the separate Answer (disambiguation) and The Answer dab pages should be merged in the same manner that The Question redirects to Question (disambiguation). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that in the current state of affairs readers aren't well-served by arriving at a short article that doesn't give them anything they, as speakers of English, didn't already know. But questions of primary topics aren't about what condition the articles are at a given time, they have to do with the topics of those articles. If answer (in the sense of "response") deserves an article of its own (i.e. separate from Question), then it obviously is the primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala: No, not every common word is necessarily an encyclopedic primary topic: WP:PTOPIC stipulates that it must be highly likely... to be the topic sought when a reader searches... and have greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic.... Honestly, I don't know what to expect under the topic "answer" (except maybe 42 (number)), and why it would be a likely search term; that it hasn't been created for 15 years probably says something. Something certainly could be scrapped from the field of linguistic pragmatics, and Question#Responses is a fine target for some kind of redirect, but I think that it would not work well as a separate article. "Answer" is an ambiguous term in the encyclopedic context, and so it should be a dab page. No such user (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I wasn't thinking of it as the common word. I can't imagine who would open an encyclopedia and expect the main entry for "answer" to be a rare legal term or a name of an obscure song rather than the obvious "reply to a question". Yes, this topic is relevant in several branches of linguistics as well as in philosophy, but the real question is whether it should be treated in a separate article from Question. Personally, I agree that it shouldn't. – Uanfala (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and also delete/redirect this article. It's a WP:DICDEF, not an encyclopedic topic as it stands. SnowFire (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The correct thing to do is expand small articles, not delete them. Laurdecl talk 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured, I am not a deletionist. However, surely you accept that there exist some topics on which an encyclopedic article is impossible - Zzyhjkle, Piece of gum stuck on #14 Molar teeth, etc. When someone creates an article anyway on such a topic, the correct thing to do is to delete, not expand. SnowFire (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that an article on a common and important theoretical linguistics topic is the same as "Zzyhjkle", as you so eloquently put it? Laurdecl talk 12:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If not completely obvious, I don't believe this is an "important theoretical linguistics topic," and to the extent that it is, having a redirect to Question#responses seems sufficient. Disagree with me? Fine. Maybe I'm wrong. Prove it. You don't have to write a featured article, but you have to vaguely show that the topic has potential. If you can't do that, then what's the difference between this and Zzyhjkle? SnowFire (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your second ever edit is to support another editor in an RM? Right. Laurdecl talk 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and redirect (or delete). A hint to the author: if you're making an article about a broad concept with an unclear encyclopedic value, you'd better have a clear idea about it from the start, rather than asserting that obviously, this can become an article on a one-sentence stub. If nobody has bothered to create one in the past 15 years, it's quite likely that it's not wanted at all. No such user (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that there was no article. There was one, and it was mostly about a legal term, so I moved it. Thanks for the "hint" though, whatever the point of that was. Laurdecl talk 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Laurdecl: The point was: it is discourteous towards both the readers and the fellow editors to create two-sentence "articles", disrupting other things in the way, without a clear idea how to proceed, and then ask others to expand them and finish your work. You have an idea about the article → you expand it to an acceptable level, demonstrating that it satisfies WP:N, WP:V and WP:NOT. So far, others have demonstrated that it fails WP:DICDEF. This is not 2004 anymore, when we encouraged creating of micro-stubs on all imaginable topics; standards are much higher, with a reason. And if we have to go through the hoops of AfD to get rid of this, so be it. No such user (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the time it took you to write all of that, you could have expanded this so-called "micro-stub" into an article. AfD if you want but Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Remember, there is no deadline. Thank you for demonstrating my point that this isn't actually a move discussion. Laurdecl talk 11:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comment above and the fact that this discussion seems to centre on the RM-external matter of the notability of the article at the primary topic. That's for AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose as an AfD in disguise. See the article at Question for an example of how this can be expanded. "This page is a stub" has less than nothing to do with being primary or any move discussion. This is an important concept in linguistics. Laurdecl talk 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, The current article is useless and zero evidence has been provided to support primary topic claim. older ≠ wiser 11:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You must be joking. The primary topic for "Answer" is obviously the word, and its importance in linguistics. And "this article is useless" has less than no relevance to this discussion. Did you even bother to read my explanation of how this article could be expanded like Question? Laurdecl talk 09:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least. Evidence are things like page view statistics or results based on search engines, not intuitions. older ≠ wiser 11:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Now show me some to support your claims. Laurdecl talk 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would be much more persuasive had you put your money where your mouth is, rather than asking us to invest our money (i.e. editing effort) there. No such user (talk)
Sorry, not my responsibility. I split this from the law article and moved it because the article was about multiple topics. Unless you're suggesting that I am responsible for this article because I WP:OWN it? Laurdecl talk 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. There is a primary topic, but the article needs a lot of help. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, although symmetry might expect "answer" to be an encyclopedic topic comparable to "question", that is perhaps a bit of a false symmetry. The variety of forms in which a question can be expressed or implied is of considerable interest in linguistics. Answers in contrast are not nearly as interesting (and perhaps more so from a rhetorical perspective than a linguistic). I see no reason to presume a dictionary definition is the primary topic, and if any editors think a viable encyclopedic article is possible, please write the article first rather than making empty claims. older ≠ wiser 11:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions are for AfD. The title of this article has nothing to do with its quality. Laurdecl talk 12:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There you go [1] – now Answer provides a borderline useful answer (pun intended). Since this is hopefully not an "AfD in disguise" anymore, can we please return to the discussion whether it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "answer"? No such user (talk) 12:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurdecl: Whether this is or is not the primary topic is directly related to article quality. Unless someone can demonstrate with some objective evidence that this ambiguous term has a primary topic, I see no reason to presume otherwise. older ≠ wiser 13:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural notice. This discussion and the accompanying edit- and move-warring is annoying and disruptive. You're making my bot look bad by having move notices posted to redirect pages. It's reporting that this is a malformed request, because at this point, it is. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I'm of the mind to move this "article" to draft space; I think I have every right to do that under WP:A1, WP:A3 or WP:A10. There's nothing of substance here, beyond a dictionary definition, which duplicates content at Question. We can repeat that definition at the top of the disambiguation page, and link to wikt:answer. Feel free to work on it in draft space, and when it's ready, submit a new move request. wbm1058 (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2017 (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.
  • Well, with that completely out-of-process unilateral move which is little more than a blatant deletion and outright supervote based on personal opinion, I guess this discussion is over. I respectfully submit to wbm1058 that they stay away from speedy deletion if they believe this page has "no context" (A1), "no content" (A3) or is "a duplicate" (A10). Laurdecl talk 07:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Answer&oldid=779665223"