Talk:Respect (disambiguation): Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce
(→‎Puzzled: a possible solution)
imported>David Yamakuchi
m (Thanks again Hayford...and all)
Line 23: Line 23:
::Well, I dunno what the history *shows*, but what I deleted was an '''article''' in the shape of an article called [[Respect]] that was then a longish definition of the word.  I dunno what all the redirects and '''definitions''' have done to the record, but put your mind at rest, I deleted an article, NOT something else. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 00:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
::Well, I dunno what the history *shows*, but what I deleted was an '''article''' in the shape of an article called [[Respect]] that was then a longish definition of the word.  I dunno what all the redirects and '''definitions''' have done to the record, but put your mind at rest, I deleted an article, NOT something else. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 00:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


:::No need to apologize for doing your job Hayford, I tried to follow the instructions verbatim here:[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Definitions],[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Disambiguation], and [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Lemma_article].
::::Is it OK now?:)--[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
== Puzzled ==
== Puzzled ==


Line 32: Line 35:


:I think it was probably brought here for, shall we say, metaphoric or metaphysical reasons. I'll leave it to your  keen native intelligence to figure it out from there. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
:I think it was probably brought here for, shall we say, metaphoric or metaphysical reasons. I'll leave it to your  keen native intelligence to figure it out from there. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
::I think there's not an actual issue here Howard.  Hayford was right to delete what he did, and I believe, right to leave what he did. (see above).--[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:44, 14 February 2010

Thanks everyone for pitching in on this one. There is perhaps a consensus that needs to be reached here before I feel inclined to continue with some of our other (quite lively) "discussions".

Chris, you may already be aware that I was prompted to add {{subpages}} to this page but have decided it was not appropriate, as this is a (talk page for a) disambiguation page.--David Yamakuchi 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed and placed on talk page for further (possible) discussion:

--David Yamakuchi 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

deleted "Respect"

Sorry, David, but I deleted the article Respect -- it is very clear in all the guidelines that CZ is not a dictionary. It would be possible, I suppose, to write an article about respect, but we can't have an article that is nothing but a definition. Hayford Peirce 22:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the deletion history, it seems you have deleted Respect (transitive verb), not Respect. --Daniel Mietchen 23:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, I dunno what the history *shows*, but what I deleted was an article in the shape of an article called Respect that was then a longish definition of the word. I dunno what all the redirects and definitions have done to the record, but put your mind at rest, I deleted an article, NOT something else. Hayford Peirce 00:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologize for doing your job Hayford, I tried to follow the instructions verbatim here:[1],[2], and [3].
Is it OK now?:)--David Yamakuchi 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled

What consensus is at issue?

I'm curious why this disambiguation page was originally imported from WP. As far as I can tell, there were no ambiguity problems at CZ with respect to respect. Once here, the page was left not in the R-template based CZ disambig format, but in the text-and-wikilink WP format; I believe our rules do expect imports to be improved within a short time of arrival.

I reformatted it, and Chris then removed the multiple song references. What problem are we trying to solve? --Howard C. Berkowitz 23:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it was probably brought here for, shall we say, metaphoric or metaphysical reasons. I'll leave it to your keen native intelligence to figure it out from there. Hayford Peirce 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there's not an actual issue here Howard. Hayford was right to delete what he did, and I believe, right to leave what he did. (see above).--David Yamakuchi 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)