Talk:Talk

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 /Talk pages.

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

<>< 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 (http://www.quicktopic.com). 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