User talk:T Cone3
Please be aware that even if you do not technically violate WP:3RR, a policy with which you should familiarize yourself, you can still be considered to be edit warring, which can lead to sanctions. Please explain the reason for you constant reversions of notable, factual material on that page, and attempt to gain an editor consensus before you remove the single comment on the modern meaning of the word talent.μηδείς (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not quite sure if I fully understand your goal. You ask for help moving the definition to the main page. Do you mean that you think it belongs here: Talent rather than here: Talent (measurement)?
If that is the case, you have to understand that wikipedia is not structure like a dictionary. The page Talent is not a definition page. It is what is called a disambiguation page. Its purpose is to redirect one to all the possible articles one might be looking for if one types in the word "talent." For example, the page Mercury is a disambiguation page which redirects you to articles on the element, the planet, the god, and so forth.
In the case of the word talent, there is apparently no page that simply defines the word's modern connotation. That is not too surprising, since such an entry would belong in wiktionary, rather than wikipedia.
As for the Talent (measurement) page, the single comment advising what the modern meaning of the word is should be left there since it is a truthful statement of how the word, which did derive from the unit of weight, did develop over time.
It is not a question of either/or. The same information can go in different articles. In this case, there is no reason to delete the statement from where you found it, since articles are supposed to be comprehensive. Look again at the page talent. Look in the upper right hand corner. That has a link to the wiktionary entry.
If I am understanding you correctly, I can advise you on editting the disambiguation page to add an etymological statement there. Let me know (type your statement here, I will watch for it) and I will explain further.μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- You are making an understandable mistake in assuming that there is a "main" article on talent. But wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. There doesn't necessarily have to be an article on every word or main sense of a word. Many words just have wiktionary entries. The article for Talent (measure) properly has a one line description of the modern meaning of the word because in a Wikipedia:COMPREHENSIVE encyclopedia it would be remiss not to indicate that the modern meaning developed from this one.
- In this case I think you should probably just accept the status quo and try to understand the meaning for it. There is what is called a disambiguation page talent to which you could a definition - but you may run up against purists who hold that disambiguation pages should not have any text, they should just link to other pages, such as the wiktionary entry.
- To get a better idea of how wikipedia works I suggest you find a few areas that interest you and try adding comments and references to those articles. If people reverse your edits, they should specify some reason for doing so. If they do, read that policy. You will also find that all too many ediotors don't really know or understand the policies themselves. It can be frustrating. Good luck.μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Your recent outright deletion of the etymological explanation of the word talent in this article can only be described as in bad faith, given that you have before argued not that the explanation is incorrect, or needed support, but that it belonged elsewhere. I strongly suggest that you explain yourself in detail on the talk page of that article and seek consensus before attempting any further such edits. Otherwise I fear they will appear to be vandalism.μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)