Talk:Talk

Talk:Talk confusion
Talk:Talk confuses with Talk Talk or TalkTalk Group And also Talk:Talk Talk Talk:Talk Talk Talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.54.134.133 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Talk is not confuse with face to face or Talk:be talkative let's someone else so Talk Talk Talk-satisfied comment added at 01:31,28June 2021 2402:8100:3907:DD08:EC56:B2C0:C97A:2075 (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Move?
I'm think someone should move this page and place it under a more appropriate title. Redirect this one to be about... talking! Any objections/supporters? --Figs
 * Not sure I really see the point. There's already speech, and there's already a link to that article from here.  Are you proposing a separate article?  A redirect?  Alai 14:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I mean, redirect this one to speech and then move this to something else. Maybe Talk (unix) or Talk (program)? Whichever is more appropriate. --Figs 22:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Still not at all sure I see the purpose in doing that. Is it really a hazard to navigation to have an article in this part of the namespace?  Granted speech is by far the more important topic, but it's a matter of one extra link to reach that article, vs. having to play "hunt the article" if this article redirects there.  A disambig would be somewhat more palatable, but also unnecessary when it comes right down to it.  Alai 23:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I came to this page because I was looking for an article on the act of a person talking to himself but could find no such article. I believe such an article should be started, but I'm not the person to do it, nor would I know how to name it as evidenced by by description in the previous sentence. -- 01 July 2005


 * When I came here I was expecting to see a page about conversations, not about programs. I think the disambiguation would be a good thing (most people would probably be looking for an article on the act of talking as opposed to this program, wouldn't they? Although if they were looking for the program, then the disambig would be fairly effective at handling that hurtle. "01 July 2005"'s Topic should also be added, but I also cannot think of a word that properly describes it... --Figs 05:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing past revisions of this page, it seems to me as if someone accidentally created this page assuming it was a subpage. But I thought it still might serve a useful purpose – talk about  pages.

For instance, see the Wikipedia-L discussion about Talk policy starting at http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-August/000366.html.

&lt;&gt;&lt; tbc

Already been done. :-) See Talk Page.  Actually, I think "Talk" should probably be reserved for an article about the important phenomenon of, well, talk!  Maybe the topic would be better placed under conversation, though, or some other word.

Wikipedians might find value in a tool called QuickTopic. It is a "free, preposterously easy instant discussion space." It might fill a gap between this page and the Wikipedia mailing list. That is, if any gaps are found between those two existing mechanisms.

Gaps? What gaps?

But should this go under conversation instead? I don't know, I'm not a linguist or communications expert.

Not all talking is conversation, either in the general sense of talking to another person or in the stricter sense of talking to another person and listening to that other person also. Perhaps this page should be strictly for the physical phenomenon of human talking. Or should that be under speech? :-) --KQ

Speech is the saying of the words (i.e. a transmitter), but in no way implies that the listener (reciever) has actually gotten anything out of it. That is how UDP protocol is structured. I think that talking to an active reviever TCP is really what conversation is about, but communication of ideas requiring understanding on the part of the reciever is very far beyond the scope of talk.
 * If I talk to a duck, that is a speech, for while the duck may hear, not much else is happening.

-- Mike Dill

Somebody send us a linguist. ;-) --KQ

Ask Gritchka. --Damian Yerrick

Any decision made on this yet? Seems like the article could be considered redundant with other articles and hard to define based on what I've seen here... Should we keep it? Rgamble

Removal
I have removed this paragraph because I thought it didn't really add something to the article and sounds like a joke to me. Sietse 11:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Talk is also used when talking to other people, in Standard English you would say "i am talking to someone" However this varies when we look at Australian, South African or Estuary English. This is due to changes in dialect. In Standard Australian English, one would say 'I'm talkin' to someone darl'" and in South African one would say, "I'm talking to someone, yis?" and in Estuary English one would say, "Can't yoow see im talkin' to someone love? Just give me a minute." Chavs completely mangle the word "talk" and would instead say "Your chattin` sh*t". And thus the history of the english language is clearer for another day.

Motion seconded. I am South African and have no idea what this person is trying to say. Zepplin88 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Perhaps this is my stupidity showing, but could one somehow make a disambiguation page for the subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachol (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 July 2005‎ (UTC)


 * I made a disambiguation page last week, but after reading this discussion I think it would be for the best if I act unilaterally and move "Talk" to "Talk (Unix)", and move "Talk (disambiguation)" to "Talk". And therefore that is what I am going to do.  Ta Ra!  Deano 21:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect on talk page
(in reference to and ) "Talk:Talk" is not a reasonable misspelling of Talk Talk, and it isn't styled that way. Because of this, I think it is more important to keep a place for discussion about the page talk, and a hatnote will do. Olidog (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)