Talk:Artificial (disambiguation)

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Artificial was copied or moved into List of articles about things which are artificial with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Artifice = artificial?

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)[reply]

False dichotomy : artificial is a subset of natural.

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)[reply]

Clean-up

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested moves

The following is a closed 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: consensus to move the pages as proposed, and to redirect the base names to Artificiality, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

– Move to redirect titles to their primary topic, Artificiality, the state of being artificial or man-made. The pop culture titles vying for the name are obscure and inconsequential in comparison to the concept of artificiality, which has been a subject of philosophical discussion for thousands of years, and which has great potential for expansion and improvement. bd2412 T 14:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom. Gregkaye ✍♪ 16:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snark: Shouldn't one of the albums or songs be considered the primary topic? And in modern life, isn't the concept of artificiality becoming obsolete? Just kidding – (Support per nom.) —BarrelProof (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Red Slash 01:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The concept of artificiality is certainly more of the primary topic than any of the specific pop culture titles. However, the concepts covered by the Artificiality article also have a good possibility of not being the main interest of the reader searching for artificial -- many of the bullets currently under the See also section on the disambiguation page may actually be more likely search targets.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The "see also" section doesn't play into the primary topic consideration at all, because it is a collection of links for different titles that relate to the concept of artificiality itself, not to the ambiguous title. The entire list could (and should) be merged into the "see also" section of the Artificiality article. I will do that now. bd2412 T 03:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a complicated move to understand but it makes sense. Artificial and Man-made should both redirect to Artificiality. That page should have disambiguation links to Artificial (disambiguation) and Man-made (disambiguation), which should contain the content currently at Artificial and Man-made. So there are two moves here and then two redirects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.