Talk:Lint

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the clear primary meaning of "Lint" is the collection of fibers of which navel lint and pocket lint are just types; I propose merging both of those perpetual stubs to an article on the general topic at this title, and moving the remaining senses to Lint (disambiguation). Cheers! bd2412 T 14:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Opppose I think the bellybutton lint article is incorrect. I remember a study that said that alot of that "lint" is actually dead skin cells, so not fibrous material at all. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if that is the case, I see no reason why a separate article is needed. A fact like that could be presented in a general article in lint. Indeed, any article of clothing is likely to acquire some portion of dead skin cells among the other detritus it captures. bd2412  T 04:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a WP:SYN violation. There would need to be reliable sources showing that these lints are related to each other, instead of just using the same word to mean various things. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that they are "related to each other" is evident from the fact that both are accumulations of tiny materials with "lint" in the title. bd2412  T 18:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "lint" is an incidental connection. It's like saying Star Trek and Star Wars are connected because they both use "Star" and are both Science Fiction. Or the car Aries and the constellation Aries are related to each other because they're both named after the mythological source. Belly button fluff occurs in animals that don't wear clothing, so our article on the topic is inaccurate. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, shouldn't we just delete our unsourced, inaccurate navel lint article altogether? bd2412  T 12:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think by combining a merge proposal and a move proposal, this may get unjust opposition. May I suggest that you do it one step at a time? Create an article Lint (fiber), then propose merge into that. Then suggest a move. --Muhandes (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not too worried about that. I think my proposal outlines a clear result - there will be one article on "Lint" in the sense of fibers or other detritus that collect in fuzzy buts on clothing and on people, at this location, with the rest of the ambiguous topics at Lint (disambiguation). bd2412  T 12:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support In essence I support the idea - there is a clear primary topic which is the fibers. I have my doubts if it can be done in one step, but my support for the process is given. --Muhandes (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this eminently reasonable proposal. Powers T 00:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Two problems here.  1), No proposed target for the page "lint" yet exists and, 2), Even if it did, navel/pocket lint might be an important definition of the word lint but Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the topic is not encyclopedically important enough to be a primary topic.  —  AjaxSmack   03:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you mean by a proposed target? I have proposed to move "Lint" to "Lint (disambiguation)". As it stands, the page has a large number of unfixable links because those links refer to a general concept of "Lint" for which we have no article. I am also proposing to write an article that combines the existing subcategories of Pocket lint and Belly button lint, neither one of which deserves to be a stand-alone article as it is. The incoming links demonstrate that the primary topic for lint is the fabric; the placement of this disambiguation page therefore violates WP:DABCONCEPT, and must be brought in line with policy. bd2412  T 03:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try to be a little more clear. There is not "article that combines the existing subcategories of Pocket lint and Belly button lint" in existence yet.  Create the article first, then propose the move.  In the spirit of WP:CRYSTALBALL, let's not make moves now in anticipation of future events.  Also note that, even if such an article is created, I would oppose this move because a combination of pocket lint and navel lint is not even encyclopedically notable, let alone a primary topic.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary and, in an encylopedia, lint (software) alone is more notable than the cloth fibers.  —  AjaxSmack   14:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Muhandes is probably correct that I have bitten off a bit much by trying to achieve consensus for several distinct goals through a single discussion. However, I can not see how articles on specific kinds of lint can be encyclopedically notable, while an article on the general subject of lint is not. That would be rather like saying that "chocolate cake" and "bundt cake" are notable, but "cake" is not. I was not saying that I would just combine those two articles and leave it at that; I intend to write more broadly on the subject, and the two articles I plan to merge into the final product just happen to be kinds of lint that will sit there as permanent stubs if nothing else is done with them. I also understand the WP:CRYSTALBALL objection, but I have created literally thousands of Wikipedia article in all shapes and sizes, and I don't see this one as even being much of a challenge to write. I suppose, in light of this conversation, I should mock up an article on the subject just to show what it would look like, which would at least alleviate that concern. As for primary topic, I would be willing to bet that the average Wikipedia reader has never even heard of the software, while you would be hard-pressed to find a Wikipedia user who has not heard of the material. bd2412  T 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll try again. Neither pocket lint or navel lint alone nor a combination of the two is encyclopedically notable.  The articles are currently unsourced dictionary definitions.  (There is almost nothing in the current articles beyond an extended definition.)  To repeat yet again, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  These are important terms for Wiktionary but are barely notable for an encyclopedia.  I have an expansive view of what should be included at Wikipedia and wouldn't advocate deletion of these articles but they are certainly not very important topics.  For an encyclopedia, Lint, Belgium and lint (software) are more notable.  Cf. the example of "Nice".  In a dictionary, the meaning of "respectable or virtuous" is primary but, for an encyclopedia, the city of Nice is primary.  —  AjaxSmack   15:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The articles may be non-notable, but navel lint survived an AFD with nearly unanimous consent that is should be kept. It is here to stay, and pocket lint probably is also. Setting aside the primary topic question, would you agree that since we are going to have these topics covered, they should be merged into a more substantial article on the material generally? There must be some reliable sources out there. bd2412  T 15:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have created a draft article at Lint (material). Would you agree that Pocket lint, or Navel lint, or both, should be merged into that target article? bd2412  T 18:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Impressive. Great job.  Yes, by all means merge both.  —  AjaxSmack   01:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I see no purpose in moving Lint to Lint (disambiguation), Combining Pocket Lint and Belly Button lunt, and then having a silly number of cirvular redirects. Frankly, I think that the current sceme has the best flow to the correct topic. Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll believe that if you can fix the disambig links at Clothes dryer. Give it a try and see what you come up with. bd2412  T 04:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll believe what, that I don't see a problem? Oookay.  On another matter, what do you mean about that section?  The two links for "lint" that go here, precisely where it says "Fibres that may become trapped in the lint filter of a clothes dryer"?  I'm not exactly sure what more you want out of a link intended to explain/link off of dryer lint.  Perhaps if you could more precisely explain what problem you see with that paragraph and it's links? Human.v2.0 (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll believe that the current scheme provides any flow to "the correct topic" if you can find a link on this page to fix those ambiguous links. It can't link here so long as this is a disambiguation page - we have an entire project dedicated to eradicating disambiguation links. Or do you suppose the Clothes dryer article is as likely referring to a city or a computer program as anything else on the list, which is what is generally meant by an intentional link to a disambig page?  bd2412  T 04:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

With User:AjaxSmack's change of position on the merger issue pursuant to the creation of Lint (material), there is now a clear majority favoring merging Pocket lint into the general article now at Lint (material); however, navel lint seems to be more questionable at the moment. There is also a clear majority opposing moving the disambiguation page. I will therefore carry out the merge of pocket lint, but seek broader consensus as to navel lint and leave the target page at Lint (material). Cheers! bd2412 T 15:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Counter-policy entries
An editor has been relentlessly trying to add two counter-policy entries, ignoring my explanations in edit summaries and his talk page, so I will explain them here, again, in more detail. The relevant policies are WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. --Muhandes (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding Lint is specifically against WP:DABNOT. See also MOS:DAB that explains how the link to Wiktionary should be performed, and notice that there is already such a link in the article.
 * Adding Boracic lint is specifically against WP:PTM.