Talk:Accept

Acceptance

In the move discussion at Talk:Accept (band), there was a pretty substantial consensus that "accept" is a reasonable search term for our article on "acceptance" to the point that there was no primary topic of this term. In fact, several argued that acceptance is the primary topic. To accord with that consensus, a link to acceptance needs to be included on this dab page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the discussion page where there's room for more than one-liner arguments.

I disagree with your interpretation of the reason for the move. The concept Acceptance wasn't mentioned in the original suggestion, a comparison with the organisation Accept (organization) lead to the conclusion that there's no apparent primary topic. The same contributor who originally suggested the move, later suggested a redirect to Acceptance, but provided no argument and noone else expressed support. The original proposition certainly was not altered, so the other votes count for no support to any consideration of the connection between Accept and Acceptance. Noone apart from George Ho gave any support to the idea of the redirect or gave any favourable comment regarding Accept and Acceptance. If I've missed something, please point it out to me. I haven't been able to find the substandial consensus you mention, Cuchullain.

Moving on to the discussion whether Accept does refer to Acceptance. I propose that "viable search term" is something entirely different from "to refer to". If many people do type in Accept expecting to read an article about Acceptance, a proper service to them would be to include Acceptance under "See also". We shouldn't mislead them by stating that Accept refers to Acceptance unless it does. In my opinion, such a statement requires references. Not references that prove many search for it, but references which prove that Accept is another name for Acceptance. I've looked up Wiktionary and Dictionary.com, finding no indication of such meaning - no description of Accept as a noun at all.

On a side note, I would like to point out that being the primary topic in Wikipedia's sense requires much more than being the primary topic in an everyday use of the expression.--Odd M. Nilsen (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The nomination itself referred to "Accept" being ambiguous since, among other uses, it's "a common word for approving people or things". Under our naming conventions, the article on that subject is titled in the noun form - acceptance. The article could just as easily be titled "Accept" under different conventions. Three other editors agreed with the nominator; one explicitly referred to the "dictionary definition" and the nom further suggested "accept" redirect to "acceptance" (which obviously I didn't do). If there hadn't been this existing article on the emotional state, it's unlikely the band wouldn't have been considered the primary topic. To accord with the the consensus in that discussion as I see it, "acceptance" needs to be one of the listed uses (not necessarily first), just as hunting and running are listed at hunt (disambiguation) and run (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Although I'd like to note that the article about Acceptance isn't simply about the noun form of the verb, but a specific psychology term.--Odd M. Nilsen (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)