Talk:Entitativity

Merging whith entity

Entitativity is an important concept in social psychology, and I think it deserves its own article. I will see what I can do about expanding it. Rasputinous (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2023

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 02:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Entitativity → Entitativity (Social Psychology) – "Entitativity" as a word, on first glance, seems to be a standard nominalization of the most general sense of the word entitative, which implies the page is about the ability of a concept to be considered an entity, and not specifically only the social psychological concept (as the article is now). And, due to the current stub state of the article, upon first viewing this was not immediately clear.

I've added a hatnote to clarify a bit, but think that this article should also have the clarifier "(Social Psychology)" to provide "pre-visit clarification" about what the article is about. Perhaps also, after this is done, a disambiguation hatnote pointing directly to Entity (disambiguation) would be beneficial. After reading WP:DAB, it doesn't seem to state clearly if a morphologically derived word should have clarifiers separating it from its root word, when no other articles with the exact derived word's title exist, but in this case I think it makes sense, as this article is linked from that disambiguation page, and the concepts are highly related but distinct. Brubsby (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 22:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. If it's the only "Entitativity" article, best to leave it alone. I don't think the argument holds. Compare Intentionality. Srnec (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Srnec, in the absence of another potential primary topic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.