Talk:Large

Untitled

Large (computer sciences): You should also consider that "Large" is also a special word for HDD geometry. (common values in BIOS: LBA / Large) No idea how to put this here, but I hope someone will know how. -andy 217.230.101.102 13:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 4 June 2015

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: no consensus, probably leaning towards consensus against moving. Jenks24 (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

---

• Large → Large (disambiguation)
• Small → Small (disambiguation)

– Having recently created a long-missing article on Size, I would propose that the clear primary meanings of large and small are the expressions of relative size. I would move these to their "Foo (disambiguation)" titles, and redirect both to Size. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC) bd2412 T 13:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm astonished we didn't have an article on size earlier, but I don't think someone looking for "Large" or "Small" is looking for the general concept, any more than someone looking for "Hot" is looking for Temperature. (Cold, interestingly, is its own article.) --BDD (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The expressions of relative size are the primary meanings of "large" and "small". ONR (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Red Slash 07:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. While these terms clearly are instances of size, I'm inclined to think that anyone searching for Large or Small is looking for something with those in the title. Searching for these terms is much different than simply searching for a different spelling, capitalization, or disambiguation of Size. kennethaw88 • talk 02:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom Oppose per Diego Moya. Khestwol (talk) 04:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with BDD and kennethaw88 here. Someone interested in the definition of "large" will go to a dictionary. Someone searching WP for "large" is not likely looking for Size. Dohn joe (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. An article on "large" would be merged with similar into "size". People come to Wikipedia looking for more than definitions, but definitely including definitions. Strongly support what I see of bd2412 creating hierarchical structures organizing generic concepts. People not wanting the topic "large" should use a search engine (Wikipedia's or external) instead of going straight to a title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

But Size does not include a definition of "large", and Large (disambiguation) does. Also, what good are disambiguation pages if no articles link to them? Diego (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The article should contain a more nuanced description of "large" than provided by a dictionary, and the DAB page should not provide a definition as a definition is better provided by a wiktionary link. I note that the definition asserted on the DAB page is not a very good definition. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

But the link to wiktionary's large is one click away, right at the top of Large (disambiguation) for any reader who wants an expanded definition, yet it's nowhere to be found at size. Diego (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, size should contain coverage of a range of typical and broad descriptions of size, including Big, Tiny, Huge, Giant and Humongous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DAB pages should not be in the business of trying to be a substitute for search engines specializing in poor search queries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

But they are great at providing navigation to the homonyms of those terms, which have no place at Size (in fact DAB pages are much better than search engines for that task). Diego (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

In this debate, I feel that you are beating me on points, and I am feeling a lot less sure. I think I agree with the requirement that "Size had whole sections for Large and Small which could be linked directly by the redirect". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a section - Size#Terminology used to describe size. bd2412 T 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as impractical and hurting navigation. By the same logic we should redirect Big, Tiny, Huge, Giant or Humongous to Size, and thus all the readers who wanted to see articles with those titles would be forced to load an article they're not interested in, and left without direct access to Big (disambiguation), Tiny (disambiguation), Huge (disambiguation), Giant (disambiguation) or Humongous (disambiguation), the pages that contain the links they wanted to see (including Large (surname) and Small (surname), as well as polular topics like Big (film), The Notorious B.I.G., Huge (TV series), HUGE (digital agency), Humongous Entertainment or Tiny, Ontario, which are now one click away and would be made unreachable from Size). IMHO linking adjectives to their disambiguation page, where the top of the page includes a short definition, the wiktionary entry, and a link to the related topic, is a very good solution. Diego (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

  The fact that uses like Big (film) and Tiny, Ontario exist is precisely the reason why I did not propose to move those pages. The slippery slope that you raise has already been foreclosed by the limitation to the two articles that are proposed in the nomination. bd2412 T 15:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So who says someone won't propose all those moves tomorrow, citing this successful move as precedent? Is there any essential difference that would make those moves unlikely if this one is accepted?

I could accept this move if Size had whole sections for Large and Small which could be linked directly by the redirect, and which could held their own "for large, see (dab)" hatnotes. You haven't addressed my concern that someone typing "large" will be unable to reach neither Large (surname), Large (film) nor the definition of large at Wiktionary - none of those links are adequate at Size, so there's no way for a reader to reach any of the articles linked from the disambiguation pages if they land at the size article. Diego (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, and I do agree that "of bigger (or smaller) relative size" is the primary meaning for large and small. But I don't think the current content of the Size article stands by itself as a valid target as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the proposed terms "large" and "small". "Size" is not synonymous with "large", and people looking for the later term are not more likely to be best served by the contents of the Size article than any other link at the disambiguation page. Diego (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Things are only "large" or "small" as a matter of relative size. A mouse is small next to a person but large next to a flea. Frankly, I don't know how often people look up "large" or "small" in an encyclopedia at all, but they do link to them, and when they do it is almost always in the sense of "Joe had a large dog and a small cat". bd2412 T 21:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOTDICT, i.e. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and "size" is not the the primary encyclopedic meaning of "large". —  AjaxSmack  03:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If you distinguish between "encyclocpedic meanings" and "non encyclopedic meanings", how do you define what is an encyclopedic meaning? (And what do you do when there isn't one)? Diego (talk) 09:34, 23 June 2015 (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.