Jump to content

Talk:Talk: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
AvicBot (talk | contribs)
m Bot: Fixing double redirect to Talk Talk
Reverted to revision 767023881 by Olidog: Umm... What about when someone wants to talk about the page talk on the talk page of the page talk? See talk. (TW)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{selfref|This is the wikipedia [[WP:TP|talk page]] for the page [[talk]]. For the music group, see [[Talk Talk]]. For the telecommunications company, see [[TalkTalk Group]]. For other uses, see [[Talk Talk (disambiguation)]]}}
#REDIRECT [[Talk Talk]]


{{disambigProject|class=|importance=}}

==Move?==
I'm think someone should move this page and place it under a more appropriate title. Redirect this one to be about... talking!
Any objections/supporters?
--[[User:Figs|Figs]]
:Not sure I really see the point. There's already [[speech]], and there's already a link ''to'' that article from here. Are you proposing a separate article? A redirect? [[User:Alai|Alai]] 14:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

:Yeah, I mean, redirect this one to [[speech]] and then move this to something else. Maybe [[Talk (unix)]] or [[Talk (program)]]? Whichever is more appropriate. --[[User:Figs|Figs]] 22:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

::Still not at all sure I see the purpose in doing that. Is it really a hazard to navigation to have an article in this part of the namespace? Granted [[speech]] is by far the more important topic, but it's a matter of one extra link to reach that article, vs. having to play "hunt the article" if this article redirects there. A disambig would be somewhat more palatable, but also unnecessary when it comes right down to it. [[User:Alai|Alai]] 23:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

::: I came to this page because I was looking for an article on the act of a person talking to himself but could find no such article. I believe such an article should be started, but I'm not the person to do it, nor would I know how to name it as evidenced by by description in the previous sentence. -- 01 July 2005

:::: When I came here I was expecting to see a page about conversations, not about programs. I think the disambiguation would be a good thing (most people would probably be looking for an article on the act of talking as opposed to this program, wouldn't they? Although if they were looking for the program, then the disambig would be fairly effective at handling that hurtle. "01 July 2005"'s Topic should also be added, but I also cannot think of a word that properly describes it... --[[User:Figs|Figs]] 05:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


----
After reviewing past revisions of this page, it seems to me as if someone accidentally created this page assuming it was a subpage. But I thought it still might serve a useful purpose &ndash; talk ''about'' <code>/Talk</code> pages.

For instance, see the [[:Wikipedia-L|Wikipedia-L]] discussion about Talk policy starting at http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-August/000366.html.

''&lt;&gt;&lt; [[User:Tim Chambers|tbc]]''
----
Already been done. :-) See [[:Talk Page|Talk Page]]. Actually, I think "Talk" should probably be reserved for an article about the important phenomenon of, well, talk! Maybe the topic would be better placed under [[:conversation|conversation]], though, or some other word.
----
[[:Wikipedians|Wikipedians]] might find value in a tool called [http://www.quicktopic.com QuickTopic]. It is a "free, preposterously easy instant discussion space." It might fill a gap between this page and [[:Wikipedia-L|the Wikipedia mailing list]]. That is, if any gaps are found between those two existing mechanisms.
----
Gaps? What gaps?
----
But should this go under [[:conversation|conversation]] instead? I don't know, I'm not a linguist or communications expert.

Not all talking is conversation, either in the general sense of talking to another person or in the stricter sense of talking to another person and listening to that other person also. Perhaps this page should be strictly for the physical phenomenon of human talking. Or should that be under [[:speech|speech]]? :-) --[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|KQ]]

Speech is the saying of the words (i.e. a transmitter), but in no way implies that the listener (reciever) has actually gotten anything out of it. That is how [[:User Datagram Protocol|UDP]] protocol is structured. I think that talking to an active reviever [[:Transmission Control Protocol|TCP]] is really what conversation is about, but communication of ideas requiring understanding on the part of the reciever is very far beyond the scope of talk.
:If I talk to a duck, that is a speech, for while the duck may hear, not much else is happening.
-- [[User:Mike Dill|Mike Dill]]

Somebody send us a linguist. ;-) --[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|KQ]]

Ask [[user:Gritchka|Gritchka]]. --[[user:Damian Yerrick|Damian Yerrick]]

----
Any decision made on this yet? Seems like the article could be considered redundant with other articles and hard to define based on what I've seen here... Should we keep it? [[user:Rgamble|Rgamble]]

==Removal==

I have removed this paragraph because I thought it didn't really add something to the article and sounds like a joke to me. [[User:Sietse Snel|Sietse]] 11:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Talk is also used when talking to other people, in '''Standard English''' you would say "i am talking to someone" However this varies when we look at '''Australian, South African or Estuary''' English. This is due to changes in dialect. In '''Standard Australian English''', one would say 'I'm talkin' to someone '''darl''''" and in '''South African''' one would say, "I'm talking to someone, yis?" and in Estuary English one would say, "Can't yoow see im talkin' to someone love? Just give me a minute." Chavs completely mangle the word "talk" and would instead say "Your chattin` sh*t". And thus the history of the english language is clearer for another day.

==Disambiguation==

Perhaps this is my stupidity showing, but could one somehow make a disambiguation page for the subject? <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zachol|Zachol]] ([[User talk:Zachol|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zachol|contribs]]) 21:06, 9 July 2005‎ (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:I made a disambiguation page last week, but after reading this discussion I think it would be for the best if I act unilaterally and move "Talk" to "Talk (Unix)", and move "Talk (disambiguation)" to "Talk". And therefore that is what I am going to do. Ta Ra! [[User:Djr xi|Deano]] 21:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:19, 30 May 2017


WikiProject iconDisambiguation
WikiProject iconThis disambiguation 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 or contribute to the discussion.

Move?

I'm think someone should move this page and place it under a more appropriate title. Redirect this one to be about... talking! Any objections/supporters? --Figs

Not sure I really see the point. There's already speech, and there's already a link to that article from here. Are you proposing a separate article? A redirect? Alai 14:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean, redirect this one to speech and then move this to something else. Maybe Talk (unix) or Talk (program)? Whichever is more appropriate. --Figs 22:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still not at all sure I see the purpose in doing that. Is it really a hazard to navigation to have an article in this part of the namespace? Granted speech is by far the more important topic, but it's a matter of one extra link to reach that article, vs. having to play "hunt the article" if this article redirects there. A disambig would be somewhat more palatable, but also unnecessary when it comes right down to it. Alai 23:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I came to this page because I was looking for an article on the act of a person talking to himself but could find no such article. I believe such an article should be started, but I'm not the person to do it, nor would I know how to name it as evidenced by by description in the previous sentence. -- 01 July 2005
When I came here I was expecting to see a page about conversations, not about programs. I think the disambiguation would be a good thing (most people would probably be looking for an article on the act of talking as opposed to this program, wouldn't they? Although if they were looking for the program, then the disambig would be fairly effective at handling that hurtle. "01 July 2005"'s Topic should also be added, but I also cannot think of a word that properly describes it... --Figs 05:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]



After reviewing past revisions of this page, it seems to me as if someone accidentally created this page assuming it was a subpage. But I thought it still might serve a useful purpose – talk about /Talk pages.

For instance, see the Wikipedia-L discussion about Talk policy starting at http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-August/000366.html.

<>< tbc


Already been done.  :-) See Talk Page. Actually, I think "Talk" should probably be reserved for an article about the important phenomenon of, well, talk! Maybe the topic would be better placed under conversation, though, or some other word.


Wikipedians might find value in a tool called QuickTopic. It is a "free, preposterously easy instant discussion space." It might fill a gap between this page and the Wikipedia mailing list. That is, if any gaps are found between those two existing mechanisms.


Gaps? What gaps?


But should this go under conversation instead? I don't know, I'm not a linguist or communications expert.

Not all talking is conversation, either in the general sense of talking to another person or in the stricter sense of talking to another person and listening to that other person also. Perhaps this page should be strictly for the physical phenomenon of human talking. Or should that be under speech?  :-) --KQ

Speech is the saying of the words (i.e. a transmitter), but in no way implies that the listener (reciever) has actually gotten anything out of it. That is how UDP protocol is structured. I think that talking to an active reviever TCP is really what conversation is about, but communication of ideas requiring understanding on the part of the reciever is very far beyond the scope of talk.

If I talk to a duck, that is a speech, for while the duck may hear, not much else is happening.

-- Mike Dill

Somebody send us a linguist.  ;-) --KQ

Ask Gritchka. --Damian Yerrick


Any decision made on this yet? Seems like the article could be considered redundant with other articles and hard to define based on what I've seen here... Should we keep it? Rgamble

Removal

I have removed this paragraph because I thought it didn't really add something to the article and sounds like a joke to me. Sietse 11:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talk is also used when talking to other people, in Standard English you would say "i am talking to someone" However this varies when we look at Australian, South African or Estuary English. This is due to changes in dialect. In Standard Australian English, one would say 'I'm talkin' to someone darl'" and in South African one would say, "I'm talking to someone, yis?" and in Estuary English one would say, "Can't yoow see im talkin' to someone love? Just give me a minute." Chavs completely mangle the word "talk" and would instead say "Your chattin` sh*t". And thus the history of the english language is clearer for another day.

Disambiguation

Perhaps this is my stupidity showing, but could one somehow make a disambiguation page for the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachol (talkcontribs) 21:06, 9 July 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]

I made a disambiguation page last week, but after reading this discussion I think it would be for the best if I act unilaterally and move "Talk" to "Talk (Unix)", and move "Talk (disambiguation)" to "Talk". And therefore that is what I am going to do. Ta Ra! Deano 21:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]