Talk:Infantilism

Changes to DAB page

I've edited the page per MOS:DAB. The page starts with a definition (this one taken from dictionary.com), then goes on to list possible uses of infantilism from most to least well-known or likely. This is all pretty uncontroverisal stuff. Infantilism has no particular meaning associated with it since it is a noun that applies to many things, none of them with a primary meaning. The page follows MOS:DABENTRIES, MOS:DABSY and MOS:DABMENTION. Per MOS:DAB#Organization, the primary topic should be at the top; in this case there's no obviously primary topic but the obselete medical term seems like it would be the most commonly searched for. It's an odd case, but this seems the appropriate setup to me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding the definition) Some of the topics covered are cases where infantile aspects are preserved, such as Infantile_speech, not reappearing in post-adolescence. Besides, there is already a link to Wiktionary using the proper template.

As for the order, here are links to searches on Google and Yahoo. These systems are engineered to put the most searched for topics on top. In each, the first page includes dictionaries, encyclopedias, and websites on paraphilic infantilism. Feel free to look through them and let us know how far down pages specific to the obsolete usage are. BitterGrey (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, dictionary.com lists multiple definitions, all longer than what you've pasted here, and all copyrighted. BitterGrey (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't bound by google hits, it's the most logical order. Diaper fetishism shouldn't be there as far as I'm concerned, because it doesn't use the word "infantilism" at all. However, since it's an odd DAB page I've posted a request for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Infantilism. For reference, here was the original version before I edited it today. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infantilism and diaper fetishism are often used interchangeably. Since the word 'paraphilia' isn't in the common vocabulary, infantilism is often called a diaper fetish. The Dutch 'Infantilismus', the Spanish 'Infantilismo', the French 'Infantilisme', etc. all direct to the diaper fetishism article. Thus disambiguation is needed. BitterGrey (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the definition, when text is copied from other sources (such as dictionary.com) Wikipedia requires clear attribution. Copying text into Wikipedia without this attribution is plagiarism. Neither time did your definition include any attribution.[1][2] Since violations of wp:copyvio and wp:plagiarism can be expensive for the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm probably not alone in thinking that they are important policies. (And yes WLU, I am dwelling on this point because you discussed doing much the same thing to my website yesterday[3]). BitterGrey (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not import unrelated disputes.

The definition I used was not a copyright violation or plagiarism from dictionary.com or any other website, and the definition itself is not copyright-protected. MOS:DAB states that references should not appear on the page, and no other DAB page I am aware of uses references - these appear to be irrelevant issues.

The page on diaper fetishism makes a point of saying it is unrelated to paraphilic infantilism, which in my mind means it should be removed. I also believe the medical term is by far more common, see the definitions at dictionary.com and yourdictionary.com, neither of which mention sexuality. Accordingly, I think the medical definitions should be moved up. Since paraphilic infantilism isn't just "infantilism", it's not really any more or less appropriate but is probably a whole lot less common in daily parlance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are not waiting for input from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Infantilism.

For years, the only infantilism article was what is now the paraphilic_infantilism article. (This is why all those archives needed to be moved from infantilism to paraphilic infantilism, and the sandbox still needs to be moved.) Don't blame me - the article was started before I joined Wikipedia.

As for the definition, you wrote that it was "taken from dictionary.com"[4]. Was that true? BitterGrey (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, neither of us are, and I see your edits as visibly worsening the page so I'm attempting to accomodate them in a way that retains what is useful while still keeing it in line with MOS:DAB and other DAB-governing pages.

"For years" is never an argument on wikipedia and shouldn't be used to justify sub-par articles or edits. Saying "WP:DABNOT states that 'A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context' means we should include a dictionary definition at the top of the page" is a valid argument. Which is my way of saying we should include a dictionary definition at the top of the page for the most common meaning - the appearance of childlike characteristics after childhood.

My definition was "taken from dictionary.com" in the sense that I went to dictionary.com, among other online dictionaries, and checked the meaning. I pointed to this because it shows that the definition I included is valid and accurate. They all listed the same definition I included, a couple other minor definitions, and no mention of a paraphilia. No, we don't need to reference this per MOS:DABENTRIES, "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions." and "References should not appear on disambiguation pages". It's not a copyright violation to include a definition, particularly not one that is a direct quote, and it's not plagiarism. If you really think this is a copyright violation or plagiarism, bring it up at a noticeboard where I believe you will not find support.

Can you please replace a valid definition at the top of the page per the guidelines? Thank you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of us is confused now.

In this edit[5], you (WLU) change the text to read "Infantilism may also refer to:" and then later change it to "Infantilism may refer to:"[6]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [7]. 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)[reply]

I'm asking at WP:3O, this is pointless. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

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)[reply]

Third opinion

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)[reply]

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)[reply]