Talk:Practice

This article was nominated for deletion on February 11, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep as disambiguation page.

Untitled

From VfD

Practice - attempted dictionary definition - and I don't think it's accurate - Texture 19:51, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I can still remember the lecture in school about the difference between "Practise" and "Practice"... dictionary definition (and no it's not terribly accurate) so delete. -- Graham :) 19:59, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Lots of philosophy in that one keep. BL 04:11, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)
  - Surely whether it's philosophy or not it's a dictionary definition and belongs in wiktionary? -- Graham :) 14:10, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I vote Keep, but work on. Its linked to from many pages and is an interesting philosophical subject or can be if worked on. I'll try something... sunja 02:50, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The point was to contrast the difference between technologies and practices for the software engineering page. Practices such as reuse, inspection, pair programming, proofs of correctness, and so on are things that one must do. They are not things one can buy. I hope the page will evolve to state this, at least.

haha a duck

Redirect & deletion of Practitioner

I protest at teh redirect from and thus deletion of my definition for Practitioner. Now it may be debated whether it belongs win this or that Wiki, but it doesn't deserve to be simply wiped out of existence... --Amedeo Felix 15:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the old page history for Practitioner and made it into an (incomplete) disambiguation page. John Vandenberg 08:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with this horrible page

As has been observed, this page is basically a disambiguation page in disguise, listing multiple meanings for the word "practice." NOTHING about it complies with the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages. Most of it is dictionary definitions without offering encyclopedic context. None of the information here is referenced, and it's almost certainly all original research. While merging the page's content to appropriate articles is a good idea in theory, I don't think any of the suggested target articles would benefit from adding this shallow and unreferenced content.

The best course of action that I see for this page is to replace everything with a properly formatted disambiguation page, linking to the articles Practice (learning method), Business process, and Cultural Practice (as well as the wiktionary entry for "practice", as is customary for dab pages and which avoids the need to list random definitions that have no corresponding article). Those are the only articles I'm aware of that could be a legitimate target or synonym for the term "practice", as per WP:Disambiguation#Lists. I would go ahead and do this, but I sense that it would probably be reverted; I'm therefore posting this discussion here before making any changes, to see if anyone actually does object. Propaniac (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error

The link of "Standards and Practices, a conventional, traditional, or otherwise standardised method" takes readers to "Broadcast Standards and Practices (US)", which is something totally different. Carlotm (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be linked to a new main article--Practices and Ways

The Intuitive experience of Monks, Fakirs, Yogis, others--toward Involution; A non-philosophical experience...Arnlodg (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be linked to a new main article--Practices and Ways

The Intuitive experience of Monks, Fakirs, Yogis, others--toward Involution; A non-philosophical experience...Arnlodg (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]