Talk:Propinquity

Psychological propinquity

Psychological propinquity (like exposure effect of living near stairs (?)) needs to be distinguished from personality propinquity of similarity. ENeville 17:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venn diagram

The Venn diagram is great to have on this page... but I think maybe an explanation of its meaning would be useful. :) cøøki ə Ξ _(talk) 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation is this: Universe (U), Set A (A), Set B (B), and Similarity (S). The sets are basically any relevant subject matter about a person, or persons, or non-persons, etc; depending on the context of the use of the word. --Charlesrkiss 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. When I first came to this page I was wondering how the Venn diagram fit into it because in the article it's never related to the subject matter directly. I understand what a Venn diagram is, but I think an explanation of how it relates to propinquity specifically would be good. Just my two cents! Emm 08:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge note

Hi, I hope no one minds but I merged the essentially duplicate material from propinquity effect (four links) into this article (nine links) so that we wouldn't have to use the same diagram in both articles and because they are both essentially the same articles. --Sadi Carnot 03:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but see #Move to "propinquity effect"? below. --Concrete Cowboy 12:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a dictionary"

I accept that there is probably a case for the defence, but it needs to be made. I'll put the tag here rather than in the main article. Note that Wiktionary already has a definition - see propinquity. --Concrete Cowboy 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC) {{copy to wiktionary}}[reply]

Please note that putting the template here only leaves the talk page in the category; my bot only copies entries from the main namespace. I think you should remove this tag and nominate the entry using {{Afd}} instead. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cowboy, could you please not spam wiktionary with encylopedic entries like this, as you noticed it already has a definition of the word. If you want to get rid of this article, take it to AFD (which it would survive). Kappa 01:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-05-18 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "propinquity effect"?

Would it solve the "wikipedia is not a dictionary" issue if this article were moved back to Propinquity effect? This, it seems to me, is a valid encyclopedia entry. "Propinquity" by itself is just a noun that belongs in the Wiktionary. --Concrete Cowboy 12:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]