Talk:Infantilism

message: In this edit, you (WLU) change the text to read "Infantilism may also refer to:" and then later change it to "Infantilism may refer to:".  I'm not adverse to either, but am confused by the change desc: "if you're going to do something like that, which you shouldn't, then at least make it grammatical."  As the only other person actively editing the article, I'd normally assume "you" referred to me, but I didn't make that edit.  Have I missed something?  BitterGrey (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Standard formatting for a DAB page is to include a brief definition.  The use of "also" is only appropriate when you have a definition at the top (i.e a standard DAB page contains the idea "Normally this word means this.  It can also mean:" and the list appears.  Without the definition at the top, the inclusion of "also" is ungrammatical.  When you removed the definition in this edit, it left the word "also" in the subsequent phrase.  I corrected that error, even though your removal of the definition is wrong.  Yes, I am referring to your incorrect removal of the definition, and a definition should be included in the page.  The initial edit you refer to added a definition and the line "Infantilism may also refer to:".  You only removed the definition and did not correct the subsequent phrase.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the breadth of the topics, there really isn't a usable, common general meaning:  Infantilism might be anything that is somehow infantile, or that was thought to have been so at some time.  (This is something I made up: Zero verifiability.)  That definition seems uselessly broad, but at least it covers the topics disambiguated.  Please note that the guideline states "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. Otherwise, there are templates for linking the reader to Wiktionary, the wiki dictionary; see Template:Wiktionary.".  This seems to imply that disambiguation pages are not required to include definitions. The two that just got revamped into one at WikiProject_Disambiguation don't have a definition .  Here there isn't a common general meaning, so a definition might be neither appropriate nor useful.  BitterGrey (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm asking at WP:3O, this is pointless.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  At least one of us is confused now. 

message: Per WP:DABNOT, I believe the page should include a brief definition.  I believe that definition should be something along the lines of "Infantilism is the appearance of childhood traits in an older child or adult."  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Since the definition was involved in all of the above discussions, your input has the potential to end a lot of arguing. BitterGrey (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: A definition should at least agree with how the word is actually defined. Wiktionary, for example, defines it as (1) an emotional dependency on being treated as an infant, or (2) a sexual dependency on the sight or feeling of diapers, or being diapered. Neither of these definitions agrees with WLU's proposal. Beyond Wiktionary, actual published dictionaries include three definitions: (1) anatomical, physiological, or psychological characteristics of childhood that persist into adulthood, (2) an infantile act, trait, etc., especially in an adult (basically what WLU proposed), and (3)
a speech disorder.
WP:DABNOT says A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context. While a disambiguation page can include a definition/description, in this case it doesn't seem possible to provide a general description that determines a context that covers the uses of the term as described in the articles linked. The current way the page is structured, with a Wiktionary link off to the side, seems fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Since the definition was involved in all of the above discussions, your input has the potential to end a lot of arguing. BitterGrey (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion