This page is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Although it may be tempting to include many articles here with titles that include the word "technique", I would like to suggest restraint. I propose that this page NOT include links to articles about SPECIFIC techniques. It would be unworkable and unhelpful because there are way too many of them. It would be difficult to establish fair criteria for which "techniques" are included here and which ones aren't. There's no way to include them all, since "technique" is such a commonly-used term. SlackerMom 16:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it would be nice it we had some way to link to a list of all the articles that contain a word in their title (not just articles whose titles begin with a word e.g. All pages beginning with "Technique".) Ewlyahoocom 18:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
At the moment, I'm in favor of including it, since it is such a broad category of technique, but including specific techniques (as mentioned above) may open the floodgates to every specific technique in Wikipedia, which I am not in favor of. SlackerMom (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved, with no issue with a near-immediate re-RM once the to-be-base-name article exists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Would it too much to ask for a draft of the purported primary topic? I can't support displacing the disambiguation page in favor of a hypothetical article. older ≠ wiser 12:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
IMO, there needs to be an actual article first -- one that complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (such as WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Notability)) that makes it unlikely to be nominated for deletion. Otherwise, the page moves would be a pointless exercise. Not every category needs a "main article", especially if the topic does not have enough content, verifiable by third party reliable sources, to warrant such a separate page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply - I have been working on a draft, but at present it is, I admit, a WP:STUB that is dangerously close to WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. IMHO there is enough material for an article along the lines of Tactic (method) or Procedural knowledge, but I personally am having difficulty pulling it together. I will keep working, but would appreciate contributions from interested editors. --Andrewaskew (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.