Talk:Iconoclast (disambiguation)

Comments

There is no reason to associate iconoclasm with reactionaries. I removed "reactionary" from the See Also list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.171.100 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 8 December 2005‎ (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary

From what I can see in the text of this article, it is not much more than a detailed dictionary entry. This article does not look like it is going in a encyclopedic directior or has the potential to do so. --chemica 21:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say merge with iconoclasm, if anything, though I think several of the other usages could be expanded. FrozenPurpleCube 19:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. A disambiguation page might be in order as well. Polemon (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps with a list of links to bios within wikipedia of noteable iconoclast's from history would merit keeping this in if anyone was thinking of removing it. --Zarniewoop (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 05 August 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iconoclast → Iconoclast (disambiguation) – To convert Iconoclast into a redirect to Iconoclasm. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC) – Ringbang (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support seems reasonable. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Sounds sensibleand logical. Graham87 03:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Iconocast - One who attacks cherished beliefs (the common usage); is more likely than the one who challenges religious beliefs (the traditional usage) covered at iconoclasm ; I would say we're missing an article on the modern usage -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: the above comment makes me realise that the literal image-breaking Iconoclasm is probably not the primary topic. The Wiktionary link leads to three definitions. The dab page is probably more useful for more readers than the link to the literal sense of the term. PamD 17:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pam, you raise a good point. In the absence of any additional information I'm inclined to agree with you, since Iconoclasm is a much bigger article to download than the dab page is. Does anyone know if we have access to web analytics to see which links on the dab page users click most? The page view logs show that in July 2014 Iconoclasm received about 6.5 times as many page views as "iconoclast" (from 8 May to 6 August the ratio was about 5.6). But without knowing how many of those visitors were disappointed by the content in Iconoclasm this information isn't necessarily useful. In any case, I applied Template:See Wiktionary to the top of Iconoclasm, and added Wiktionary links for iconoclasts and iconoclasm to that article's "External links" section. —Ringbang (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconoclast doesn't mention or link to anything about people who attack cherished beliefs, and Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY. Move and redirect Iconoclast and put a WP:HAT on Iconoclasm. G. C. Hood (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per G. C. Hood's well-reasoned rationale. bd2412 T 14:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.