Talk:Intent (disambiguation)

On 9 October 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved to Intent. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved per request and Intent redirected to Intention. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intent → Intent (disambiguation) – The clear primary meaning of Intent is as a variation of the term, Intention. The other meanings on this page barely scratch the surface in terms of Google hits and other real-world usage of the word. bd2412 T 14:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I don't understand the basis for this primary topic claim. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps this will help. According to Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictioanary, "Intent and intention share meanings and overlap in use..."; although the entry indicates that they are not always interchangeable, it indicates that "often they can be used interchangeably", and notes the distinction in their use as "intention" referring to what one has in mind to do, and "intent" suggesting more deliberateness. However, the article on "intention" covers purposefulness of action; by contrast the only mentions of intent were a duplicate redirect to intention (criminal law) (now removed), a redirect to a company which used this name for a non-notable, failed software platform, mentioned in that article only in an external link (also now removed), and a dicdef on an Android function, which I have just nominated for deletion. When these two meanings are deleted from the page, there will be no meanings left except for the term, "Intention". bd2412 T 14:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, I don't know what else they'd be looking for here. Red Slash 15:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a no-brainer to me. Not sure what's confusing Dicklyon. -- tariqabjotu 05:54, 3 September 2013 (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.

Requested move 9 October 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intent (disambiguation) → Intent – Arguments were made above for several different topics being primary for Intent. A while back, a primarytopic claim was made for Intention, which got the disambig page changed to a redirect. Most recently, Intention (criminal law) is claimed (by hamfistedly) to be the obvious primary topic. To me, what's obvious is that there's no primary topic for this term of many meanings, so disambiguation is more appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I presuae by "hamfistedly" you mean me, since I described some of my actions thus, in the section above. Had I wanted others to call me that, I would have created an account.~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I glanced where I expected to see a user name and didn't notice the IP. Dicklyon (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~No worries. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that User:Hamfistedly has a nice ring to it, though. Dicklyon (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither here nor at Talk:Intention_(criminal_law)#Requested_move_24_September_2021 – a nomination I withdrew on 27 September – did I describe anything as "obvious". Please don't put words in my mouth. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I interpreted "I would like to see Intention (criminal law) moved over Intent" that way. Wrong words per what you said, I agree. Dicklyon (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did say that, but elsewhere qualified a similar statement "(with or without a disambiguating phrase)". I should have done so where I said it, too. My intent (or intention) was to link the various discussions. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats show Intention and Intention (criminal law) about equal over the last year, trading places for some reason about a half year ago. Dicklyon (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Putting aside the fact that a substantial number of topics listed on the page are actually "Intention" titles rather than "Intent" titles, the few that are actually matching title names are either passingly obscure relative to the psychological concept of "Intent" or "Intention", or are subtopics of the psychological concept. Intent in the law is a matter of intending to do something. BD2412 T 19:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I do understand that the uses are based on the meaning of the word, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the article about the meaning and its interpretation in develomental psychology is probably not what most people are looking for. Dicklyon (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Intention is hardly a dicdef. Intention in the law is merely one form of intention. I'm sure you will agree that the software and military uses of "Intent" are comparatively obscure. BD2412 T 19:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they're less common, but hardly obscure. The criminal law one is quite common. Dicklyon (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Intention in criminal law is a subtopic of intention generally. The article on intention could be expanded to mention legal implications. BD2412 T 19:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal intent is the intent (knowingly) to do something wrong. Although for us it's a disambiguation page, whereas Criminal intention is red. All four entries use capital I. Criminal Intent was deleted in 2014; Criminal Intents is an R to the DAB page.Criminal intents is red. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal Intent was deleted because there was a non-notable film at the title; I have redirected it to Criminal intent. BD2412 T 21:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The generic term, from which all the others derive, is the clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree that there is no reason the article Intention can't be expanded to discuss the closely-related concept of criminal intent, with a {{main}} hatnote to Intention (criminal law). The mere fact that Intention (criminal law) is disambiguated itself leads me to believe it is a subtopic of the greater concept of intention, which seems logical. ASUKITE 14:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.