Talk:Non sequitur (literary device)
Latest comment: 1 year ago by PhotographyEdits in topic Requested move 26 May 2025
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Non sequitur (literary device) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 years  |
 | Some older discussions can be found archived at Talk:Non sequitur (rhetoric). |  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | On 26 May 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to Non sequitur. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Non sequitur (literary device) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other websites. |
Requested move 26 May 2025
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 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. Per nominator (closed by non-admin page mover) PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Non sequitur (literary device) → Non sequitur – Since the logical fallacy uses a different name, this becomes the primary topic. The disambiguation page should get a parenthesis disambiguation. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose No it doesn't, there is such a thing as a primary redirect. The current DAB page seems like it works fine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose. The logic meaning is more relevant here. Aside: it's not clear this article should even exist. It seems to be part of the genre of "[Term] in [Context]" articles which could be made about any combination of words & contexts to use them, and the sole reference that seems to refer to this as a literary device appears to be just Internet slop, with the rest being synthesis by original research. SnowFire (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2025 (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.