Talk:Attack: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
:::::: I know what the context cited is, that doesn't stop the noun form of "attack" being "attack" - I'm fairly confident it's been used as a noun elsewhere in stuff covered here, the page is just a stub. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | :::::: I know what the context cited is, that doesn't stop the noun form of "attack" being "attack" - I'm fairly confident it's been used as a noun elsewhere in stuff covered here, the page is just a stub. [[User:Cookieboy 2005|Cookieboy 2005]] [[User talk:Cookieboy 2005|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
::::::: (I would contest having conceptual noun pages in the vast majority of places, but policy is policy I suppose, even if this is unusual practise.) I would strongly contest covering verbs on noun pages; "attack" the verb and "attack" the noun are very different words and we should not treat them as if they are the same. It's not even the full damn word in the source! {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 21:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:02, 18 November 2024
Conjecture problems
Leaving a quick note: I don't think that a conjectural title should be used to form the basis of a concept page like this. Verb/noun policies aside, the word "attacks" isn’t even fully visible in the given example. Fennel Soup ☎ 22:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Part of the word does appear in the source, so I feel like that's probably enough for a conjecture page - the word has surely been used elsewhere in stuff we cover, though. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 22:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I'm not saying that the existence of the conjecturally titled page Hercules Attacks is a problem. I'm saying that this page ("Attack") should not use a conjectural instance of the verb "attacks" as its only/lead example for various reasons. As you've just mentioned, there are certainly actual instances of "attack" out there that we could use instead. Fennel Soup ☎ 23:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- Articles on common verbs like this just shouldn't exist at all. Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 16:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- "Attack" is also a noun... Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 17:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not in the usage case cited. It's not "Hercules's Attacks", it's "Hercules attacks [someone or something]". Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 20:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- I know what the context cited is, that doesn't stop the noun form of "attack" being "attack" - I'm fairly confident it's been used as a noun elsewhere in stuff covered here, the page is just a stub. Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 20:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- (I would contest having conceptual noun pages in the vast majority of places, but policy is policy I suppose, even if this is unusual practise.) I would strongly contest covering verbs on noun pages; "attack" the verb and "attack" the noun are very different words and we should not treat them as if they are the same. It's not even the full damn word in the source! Aquanafrahudy 📢 🖊️ 21:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
