Talk:Artificial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 

Artifice = artificial?[edit]

Why does artifice re-direct here? according to the Wikitionary definition (and others) it has a very different meaning to artificial.Aamackie (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

False dichotomy : artificial is a subset of natural.[edit]

Opposing natural and artifical, is in my opinion a common but blatant error.

Humanity is part of the nature. All human activity and the product thereof should thus be considered natural.

A NPOV (ie not human-centric) article should IMO be rewritten in this regard, but since this may be controversial, I prefer to leave it as is at the moment.

Interesting discussion. This article calles the Beaver Lake artificial since it was made by beavers. Wouldn't it more correct to call artificial everything made by a plan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.100.249.107 (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up[edit]

I couldn't find the reason this was tagged, but I guess it was because of the incoming links and because some entries seem just to contain the word artifical - I'm not sure any of these are what people would be looking for if they typed in artifical, I think they'd probably want Wiktionary. What do other people think needs doing? Boleyn2 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to nominate this for deletion. I don't see any item on the page that is something that users are likely to search for using the single word "Artificial." --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I know this isn't a very good disambig page, but because there are so many links to it, maybe those could be cleaned up first before deleting the page? Otherwise, it'll only create a lot of red-links. Sometimes when you go thru "What links here", then you can get an idea of what links should actually be on this diambig page. Just a thought! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just said I was tempted, not that I was going to do it immediately; in addition to the redlink problem, there's also the possibility that I've overlooked some valid reason for this page to exist. But since last night I did take a pass through a lot of the incoming links, and it appears that nearly all of them are dicdef-type links that can be unlinked. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
When a link is better suited to connect to wikt, what is best to do, should one set up the link to wikt or just remove the brackets to disable the link for that particular word? Just wondering! --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In most cases, just unlink the word. This has been discussed several times on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)