Talk:Outro (literary)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Outro which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Book design

This article is a part of Book design as shown in that article, and in the template {{Design}}. Therefore it should not be deleted as a mere definition, when anyone studying book design should understand every possible component of a book.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Objection to deletion

"This page duplicates a dictionary definition already listed on Wiktionary. Its dictionary counterpart can be found at Wiktionary:outro." There is no definition of outro as a literary term or as one component of a book. Therefore I strongly object to deletion. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor Dthomsen8: while it's not mentioned specifically as a "literary term", the Wiktionary definition does use the phrasing: The closing sequence at the end of a film, television program, video game, etc.. So the "etc." captures other usages including "literary term" and "one component of a book". While you could easily improve the Wiktionary definition if you think "literary term" or anything else should be added, the term only belongs on an encyclopedia if an encyclopedic article can be written about it. Otherwise and as it is presently written, it's just a dicdef and against that policy.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 12:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor Dthomsen8: rather than send this to AfD and delete this page, and until reliable sources and a more descriptive, encyclopedic article can be written, it would be better to redirect this title to a page where it is mentioned and described. (Note that the Book design article also states that "outro" and "extro" are "more commonly used in music".) I hope you are okay with this and that if you think this title truly deserves its own article, that you will develop it in your userspace with references and more than just a sub-stub, dicdef description/explanation. If you don't agree and you revert the conversion, then it should either be converted to a soft redirect to Wiktionary or taken to Articles for deletion.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 16:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Lacking a firm opinion on whether this article should live a separate life, I merely object to the choice of target of the redirect. Epilogue pretty much covers the topic without using the word, and could be beefed up to handle the distinction and nuances. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Jim.henderson - "covers the topic without using the word" is actually a reason to delete, as well. At least this concept is mentioned in its present target article. If you think a better target exists, then RFD might be the place to determine if that is correct.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

So, I put a sentence into Epilogue. Is this enough to change the redirect? Jim.henderson (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor Jim.henderson: yes, that seems okay to me.  Paine Ellsworth  ^u/c 02:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)