Talk:Attack

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)

So if you attack someone, that isn't an attack? Cookieboy 2005 ☎ 21:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cookieboy on the above point. That said, if a proper source for attack (the noun) is not found, this page will have to be deleted.

And just speaking personally here, with my admin hat off: I don't think articles for common nouns should be created until there's something substantive to put in the lead, at least. One-sentence articles where we don't reach the bold text until the very end are not my cup of tea. I would honestly rather build up redlinks, in these cases, to hopefully inspire someone else to make the article (with a good source).
×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   21:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend doing something with Doctor Who and the Silurians, by the way. The Silurians mount an attack on the humans, the Doctor keeps insisting that they are only attacking to survive, but tensions are high, culminating in that last scene with the Brigadier. It's a good case study.
×   SOTO contribs ×°/↯/•]   💬•| {/-//:   21:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I 100% agree with the sentiment here, but in the particular instance Attack of ignorance is a clear IU example of "attack" being used as a noun. (Scrooge Someone, anyone, please, please, Forum:Loosening T:NO RW and Forum:Information revealed in a foreign language need resolutions. This is maddening.) Najawin ☎ 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Indubitably my bad on T:NO RW, bt as to the other… can I close that one? Are you good with that? I'm fine doing so if you are, but I did make substantial contributions. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 00:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd actually more prefer discussion on that one to continue than to close, but nobody seems to have a response to my Mandarin point? Najawin ☎ 00:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)