Talk:Naive (disambiguation)

Requested move 1

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Naïve (disambiguation) → Naive (disambiguation) — the English word is usually without the diaeresis (umlaut or whatever), and it would be easier to access the disambiguation page with a typable character. The main article Naïve is also being renamed to Naive. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 06:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support The dictionaries are the authorities on spelling, and they say "naive."[1][2] If that's not enough, I've got an ngram here. Kauffner (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, Webster's Collegiate Dictionary also spells it "naive". -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Naive (disambiguation) → Naive – The content currently at Naive is not particularly encyclopedic. It's got a definition, etymology, examples of usage, and usage notes -- all of which belong properly in a dictionary. If there were something more here about the concept of naivety, rather than the word "naive", that might be something worth keeping -- but there's not. Powers ^T 18:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is no way to present a deletion request. Oppose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a badly formed request. But perhaps naive could be moved to naive (term). It is not as if we need to delete it for a technical reason like saving disk space. Keeping it could encourage someone to add to it and make the entry more encyclopedia worthy. Kauffner (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Had I proposed deletion instead, I would have been greeted with opposition due to "not being a real deletion request" because I still want there to be content at that title. So what should I have done? Powers ^T 12:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not clear as to what you want to request, but I suggest you read WP:Requested_moves#Requesting_multiple_page_moves and WP:Articles_for_deletion. Kauffner (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read them both many times, thank you. I want to replace the content of Naive with the content here. It's not that difficult to understand. If you really think an AfD would have worked for this, then I apologize, but my experience indicates otherwise. Powers ^T 12:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Use the multiple page move template. Send Naive (disambiguation) to naive and naive to somewhere else. Or you could do an AfD for Naive. If it was deleted, you could move Naive (disambiguation) to Naive yourself with the move button, as it would then be uncontroversial. Kauffner (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the procedures. Why are you treating me like a newbie? If you'd go back and read what I wrote above, I was concerned that an AfD would be rejected because I wasn't actually proposing that the page "naive" no longer exist; some participants might reasonably say "do a move request instead". (And a multi-move is silly because the content at naive would be just as unencyclopedic at a different title. I notified Talk:Naive about this discussion, so the effect is the same in that respect.) Powers ^T 14:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This one is a head scratcher? Do a multi-move and then an AfD. Kauffner (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt a multi-move would succeed, because so long as the content at Naive exists, it's clearly the primary topic. Powers ^T 12:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose'. The "naive" article may be a little short but it is not un-encyclopedic and definitely the primary meaning. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Please explain how it is encyclopedic. The article has only definition, etymology, examples of usage, and usage notes. There is nothing there about the concept of naivety (and in fact, a proper encyclopedia article about the concept would be titled naivety, not titled with an adjective). Powers ^T 21:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Then add it! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The concept is sufficiently covered at credulity, gullibility, and innocence. Powers ^T 12:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment someone should copy the "naive" article content to wiktionary, in "usage notes" and "etymology" sections found on wiktionary pages. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a particularly important and subtle cluster of concepts, and therefore the article at naive is an important article that should be expanded. Applications to naive set theory, folk psychology (aka naive psychology), theology in the work of Paul Ricoeur following the work in philosophy of Edmund Husserl and others, all should be mentioned. Andrewa (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.