This article was nominated for deletion on 25 March 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Yesterday (time) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Requested move 21 April 2017[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved by strong consensus. I also note that the consensus to keep one of the time articles in the recent AfD mentioned below was very strong. Andrewa (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the meaning of the term. The obscure albums can be covered at Yesterday (disambiguation). 101.161.40.254 (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose both. For Yesterday, very few people are looking for the time usage on WP (see WP:NOTADICTIONARY), as demonstrated by the page view stats which actually show the Beatles song is the primary topic. As for Tomorrow, the page view stats are very mixed, and indicates the dab page should remain at the base name. --В²C ☎ 19:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both time articles rendering this move moot. They are WP:DICDEFs in disguise with some random blather attached. It is WP:OR to randomly cite John Locke's musings; yesterday & tomorrow are common words and can be taken out of context a lot, but it doesn't make for an encyclopedic topic. Just put a Wiktionary link on the disambig page. SnowFire (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent point. Agreed. --В²C ☎ 22:43, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a recent deletion discussions that resulted in keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (time). PaleAqua (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both. The stats provided by Born2cycle above clearly show no primary topic for Tomorrow. Likes Beatles song is primary for Yesterday as shown by the stats above and I would support a move of Yesterday to Yesterday (disambiguation) with a redirect created to the Beatles song with a hat note back to the disambiguation page. PaleAqua (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And to be clear oppose is just for moves. Both articles should be kept. PaleAqua (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all for the reasons stated above. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per the above. Zarcadia (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But keep Yesterday (time) and Tomorrow (time) :: there is enough matter in them to warrant keeping them. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose both although the nominator (nor anyone else) did not stretch out the argument for moving, which is that that "primary topic" is determined not really by pageviews but as "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance". I have heard this also described as giving primacy to the concept originating the therm, and also weight to importance, seriousness, scientific or historical importance. Usually this is translated to long-term significance, but they're not necessarily exactly identical. It's a strong argument. Not strong enough for me, but a good argument. It wasn't really made. Herostratus (talk) 00:33, 28 April 2017 (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.

Redirect / Future of this article[edit]

Setting this out in a separate section so as not to spam the move request. I think this article should be redirected as a dictionary definition. And even if this article is kept, nearly all of the current content should be deleted as misleading or misplaced.

The Locke quote has nothing to do with anything. Locke isn't particularly known as a philosopher of time (it's his political ideas people care about), and it isn't really talking about "yesterday" anymore than it would be an appropriate quote for ""future", "duration", "existence", "age", etc. If you look at the context - see [1] - you'll see that it's in a section called "Some think they have a positive Idea of Eternity, and not of infinite Space." And the very next line is "But if these men are of the mind, that they have clearer ideas of infinite duration than of infinite space, because it is past doubt that God has existed from all eternity, but there is no real matter co-extended with infinite space; yet those philosophers who are of opinion that infinite space is possessed by God's infinite omnipresence, as well as infinite duration by his eternal existence, must be allowed to have as clear an idea of infinite space as of infinite duration; though neither of them, I think, has any positive idea of infinity in either case." Whatever Locke's point is here, he's not talking about "yesterday", he's engaging in an argument about infinite duration & infinite space that is fairly abstruse to a modern reader.
The "In Chinese philosophy also the meaning of "today" and "yesterday" is relative to contexts." is just a repeat of the dictionary definition. Of course "yesterday" is relative. That's its definition, not philosophy, and if there's anything distinctively Chinese about it, it's not seeing it.
"In the rhetoric of history "yesterday" can refer to the life framework of a past era" - This is like meaning #3 or 4, but again, dictionary definition. That's not an encyclopedic topic anymore than "bygone era" is an article topic. Specific periods of history, sure. Maybe the concept of "history" or "past", sure. But "yesterday" in this context is just a synonym for "past" then; having separate articles is like having different articles for car & automobile.
The learning & language section is perhaps interesting, and maybe the most keepable of the set, but this is still not the place for it. It should be in Child development or language development, or a subarticle thereof. It doesn't make tons of sense here. Think of it this way: if I'm curious about how kids understand some topic, I don't really expect to check *that topic* and see an "in child development" section (barring things very closely associated with them). I expect it'd largely be kept to its own articles.

Any thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 17:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Per being reminded of this by the below requested move, I've removed the philosophy section - it was a pile of nonsense. If there is an article to be written on the topic of Yesterday in Philosophy, it isn't that content. SnowFire (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 March 2019[edit]

The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause : consensus is clearly against the proposal. I note some have said these should be deleted per WP:DICDEF, so feel free to take to AfD. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– In both cases the time is clearly the primary topic per PT#2 and I don't think anyone would be astonished to land here is they were looking for one of the topics that invoke the time. Apple isn't about the company, Kiss isn't about the band and neither is Oasis. Reading isn't about the capital of Berkshire. Per WP:NWFCTM the general global audience will understand these terms to mean the time unless the context is otherwise. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (time) was closed as keep but even if the articles aren't kept in the future (per WP:NOTDIC) then they would still be valid WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTS. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, strongly. These dictionary-definition articles (WP:DICDEF) should be deleted IMO, and certainly should not be the primary target. (See above section, where I have been waiting in good faith for this article to develop, and it hasn't.) I have no objection to a sentence explanation of the normal English meaning of the term and a wiktionary link on the disambiguation page, which concisely gives all the relevant knowledge. Note that the problem with these articles is not, IMO, fixable with work: all of the patchy content that currently exists is "someone using this common English term" in running text. But even if somehow these articles are kept, they are far too minor to have be the primary target; if someone is curious about more details about the concept in general, they can click the link from the disambiguation page. SnowFire (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out they could be merged into 1 article but would still be primary for the terms "Yesterday" and "Tomorrow". WP:DICDEF is a content and not disambiguation guideline. I bet if you walked down a street with a card saying "Yesterday" or "Tomorrow" how many people would think you were referring to an album or film etc as opposed to the time meanings. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, if you did the same at a record store, the album meaning would not be shocking. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary or running text, so expectations are different. WHO redirects to World Health Organization, not a non-existent article about unknown identity, etc. SnowFire (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A record store is a specific context. Similar to the fact that if you say Calgary to someone on the Isle of Mull they probably won't think you're referring to the one in Alberta or if you say Boston people in Lincolnshire probably won't think you're meaning the one in Massachusetts. WHO is probably primary for the all caps version, Who (pronoun) is probably primary for the lower case. WP is an encyclopedia not a directory of popular culture which is why Pink doesn't go to the singer. Libel which is also a "dictionary word" goes to an article about the general meaning, not a specific one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my point is that Wikipedia is a "specific context". People expect encyclopedia articles here, so only topics that qualify for encyclopedia articles and are relevant qualify. And relevant is not a woozy fuzzy issue, it's objectively measurable by page hits and edit history and the like, and it's clear: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=Yesterday_(time)%7CYesterday_(Beatles_song) says that the Beatles song is far more likely to be the primary topic, if there is one, than this article. That's if this article is even valid; your example of libel has a valid, relevant encyclopedia article, so that's fine. This article is not fine. It's very minor, it's not what most readers want, it is something that at best should be merged as a section into some article on relative time - which would make this closer to the First disambiguation page, which features a prominent link to ordinal numbers but doesn't immediately redirect there. SnowFire (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leave as is there is a need for these articles. But they probably aren't Primary Topic, ironic as that may seem. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note also the closing comment in previous RM "The result of the move request was: not moved by strong consensus. I also note that the consensus to keep one of the time articles in the recent AfD mentioned below was very strong." @Andrewa:, 28 April 2017 In ictu oculi (talk) 08:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping! But I'll stay out of this one. Whichever way it goes, IMO it will be more evidence that our concept of primary topic is a nonsense. So I'd prefer to be uninvolved! Andrewa (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Yesterday (time) and Tomorrow (time) articles are virtually the same. They should probably be merged into a section of a third article, with a disambiguation link to the section on that page. Danielklein (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Underwhelming articles, and not enough interest to be the first landing. --Quiz shows 22:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NOT. Delete the "(time)" dicdef "articles" per WP:NOTDICT. — AjaxSmack 02:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with AjaxSmack. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and this is why I was opposed to adding the historical significance criteria to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The nom actually has a reasonable argument, but only because of that criteria #2. It needs to be removed. That said, at least Apple is a substantive article. It's outstanding, actually. --В²C ☎ 22:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all of the above. –Davey2010^Talk 13:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the view counts for the Beetles song and the 2019 film probably Yesterday should indeed stay as a DAB. In this case it is a split between the 2 criteria (especially given that the song is a level 5 vital article) and that suggests a DAB serves everyone best. Tomorrow looks like it could still be primary though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]