Talk:Moot
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
In US English
[edit]"In US English, a moot point is one of no importance, whereas in British English, it is a critical or decisive issue, from which many other decisions may follow." I'm British and I've always understood the phrase to have the "American" meaning ascribed to it here. Any sources on this? Lfh 17:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- This was discussed extensively (with references, which I no longer remember) on Talk:List of words having different meanings in British and American English. It is now in the archive section (The See Also here should be updated) -- Gnetwerker 17:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have never seen any British English text where moot is used in the American sense. We tend to say "that point is academic" instead. --Concrete Cowboy 17:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Moot of 4Chan fame
[edit]This is a disambiguation article. It distinguishes between articles of similar names. It should not include all sorts of extraneous material. This is the standing order for dab aricles. There is no such article as Moot (4Chan), so I can't see any reason to list it. He is clearly not notable, otherwise he would have an article. Unless a counter-argument citing a relevant Wiki Policy is offered, I shall delete that line again. --Concrete Cowboy 13:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Moot is notable enough to guarantee his mention in the 4chan article, he's a well-known internet personality and it wouldn't hurt to have him here Nightmare X 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what you said in your edit summary. But it doesn't answer the challenge: disambiguation articles are to distinguish between articles with the same or very similar names. See WP:Disambiguation. There is no such article as Moot (4Chan): I believe that there was an attempt to create one but it failed the test of WP:Notable and was deleted (I'm not certain of this as it is from other editors' comments). You haven't produced any justification other than that it is your POV that he should be an exception. So I have reverted again. --Concrete Cowboy 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Red links are allowed on disambiguation pages, as long as the topic is significant enough that an article could be written about it. For the related policy, you can take a look at MoS:DP#Redlinks. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. -- Natalya 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agree completely. But the challenge is whether the subject is notable: as I said, I believe that such an article has already failed notability and been deleted. --Concrete Cowboy 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I doubt there would be any reliable third-party sources from which to base an article on.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Even 4chan is somewhat difficult to find third-party sources on, that cover the topic in detail, making original research and synthesis of published material likely, as appears to have happened in the 4chan article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I doubt there would be any reliable third-party sources from which to base an article on.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree completely. But the challenge is whether the subject is notable: as I said, I believe that such an article has already failed notability and been deleted. --Concrete Cowboy 13:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Red links are allowed on disambiguation pages, as long as the topic is significant enough that an article could be written about it. For the related policy, you can take a look at MoS:DP#Redlinks. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. -- Natalya 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is what you said in your edit summary. But it doesn't answer the challenge: disambiguation articles are to distinguish between articles with the same or very similar names. See WP:Disambiguation. There is no such article as Moot (4Chan): I believe that there was an attempt to create one but it failed the test of WP:Notable and was deleted (I'm not certain of this as it is from other editors' comments). You haven't produced any justification other than that it is your POV that he should be an exception. So I have reverted again. --Concrete Cowboy 18:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Moot will probably never get an aricle because even if we used OR, we'd still have a four sentence article. Moot does deserve a mention with a link to 4chn, however, in the same way that CJayC redirects to gamefaqs. CJayC has the exact same problem as moot- he's contributed enough to internet culture to deserve his own article, but there's just not enough information to justify more than a permastub.24.181.243.83 (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)