Talk:Purpose

Following disambiguation style

Despite finding many sources to create a notable article on the concept of purpose User:ZuluPapa5/Purpose I've removed the content and references here to follow the disambiguation style. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 August 2015

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: no consensus. Reasonable objections have been made, I don't think it's possible to say there is a consensus to move the dab page to the primary location. Worth revisiting at some point though. Jenks24 (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose (disambiguation) → Purpose – Given that the word "purpose" seems to have strong historical ties with both concepts of "intention" and "goal", there doesn't seem to be a topic which the term "purpose" can be the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Steel1943 (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support evident. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For previous discussions, see Talk:Purpose. older ≠ wiser 12:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here are two sections on that talk page that may have the most bearing on this discussion: Talk:Purpose#Proposal of redirect to intention instead of teleology and Talk:Purpose#Broad-concept article draft. Quite frankly, if User:ZuluPapa5/Purpose can be cleaned up to move to the article space and address Mr. Stradivarius' concerns, I wouldn't mind that being the preferred option of a page to move to Purpose instead. Steel1943 (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Purpose should be moved to Purpose (goal) (or Purpose (purpose) ) to preserve the edit history and talk page -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Yes, that history needs to be retained. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Please feel free to work with my User:ZuluPapa5/Purpose space. I am a bit distracted and Wiki frustrated currently to push forward. Always wanted to incorporate buddhist two purposes and solidarity into this, but failed references. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note Guess I just had to look for "Unity of Purpose". "Hume's Enlightenment Tract: The Unity and Purpose of An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding"[1] Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Revised the draft to SFN reference format so that folks who feel their concerns are primary can editorialize their wiki contributions in the notes. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am "next up" for ANI [2] [3] after working to clarify these issues, breaktime. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. None of the previous concerns on talk have been addressed. I am confused as to how and why Steel1943 would make and support this proposal knowing that the previous concerns remain. The current draft is not just unacceptable, it is absurd. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I really don't have a true opinion in the draft; it was just a suggestion. Either way, even after I read the discussions I referenced, my opinion still stands. I'm not seeing a primary. Steel1943 (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if I had participated in that discussion (in which you seem to have been involved and closed), I would have opposed the redirect's current target since I do not agree with the outcome of that discussion. Also, consensus can change, especially if the previous consensus was formed through a non-standard forum, so seemingly advertised to only experts in that subject, thus preventing consensus to be formed by a wider audience, such as the WP:RM forum does. Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, at best change the redirect. Greg Kaye 02:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your stance? Steel1943 (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking back at my 2012 comment at Talk:Purpose#Broad-concept article draft, I find that my opinion about this subject hasn't really changed. The concepts of "purpose", "intention", "goal", and "teleology", etc., are all part of the same broad concept, and have different names. Disambiguation pages, however, are for pages with the same name, but that are about different concepts. So logically the Purpose page should be a broad-concept article rather than a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages or hatnotes should be reserved for pages like Purpose (album), which don't have anything to do with the normal meaning of the word "purpose". The sticking point seems to be that ZuluPapa5's proposed page is overly broad and has become basically an article on philosophy, when what we need is something much more basic. I suggest that we rewrite ZuluPapa5's draft and give it an explicit scope in the lead section to avoid people adding things that are of questionable relevance. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:45, 30 August 2015 (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.

I move it out of my space into Draft:Purpose so folks can feel comfortable. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Concept Article

The top section of this disambiguation page should be a broad concept article. The leading sentence ahead of the list of concept terms is the primary meaning capable of being described in an article and should probably be expanded. A substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type. A disambiguation page still makes sense for the term Purpose because of entries for music and people. As far as page titles, I think the broad concept Purpose (concept) is the primary topic and this BCA should have the title Purpose, and the remaining disambiguation page should have title Purpose (disambiguation). An example why the BAC is better is the link to purpose in the article Science, Reason and Faith Group. It's currently a link to the dab page and it can't be reasonably resolved to one of the specific articles. It can't be resolved because it's referring to the broad concept, not to one specific usage of the word. 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC) [edited Coastside (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)][reply]

Following disambiguation style

Requested move 17 August 2015

See also Talk:Purpose

Broad Concept Article