Talk:Point of no return
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class)|
Some of this article seems to be just an extended dictionary entry. We don't need to mention that "point of no return" has metaphorical uses, since that is dictionary not encyclopedia information. -- 188.8.131.52 02:27 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)
- (1) What's wrong with, as you call it, an EXTENDED dictionary entry? What's wrong with mentioning metaphorical uses of a word?
- (2) Please quote the dictionary/dictionaries where you can find the information given here.
- (3) We don't need to mention anything, do we? But if we think along these lines, we'd have to reconsider hundreds of Wikipedia articles. --KF 02:34 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary
- I am not saying all the information is inappropriate -- I am merely arguing that the metaphorical uses should be able to be found in a good dictionary. The aviation sense (and maybe also the orgasm sense) may well belong in an encyclopedia...
- Well, if an article is a dictionary entry, it should either be expanded into something more or deleted. --184.108.40.206 02:47 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)
- (1) from Wikipedia is not a dictionary: "[...] Moreover, there are plenty of senses of terms that aren't of interest in an encyclopedia. They would be, in a dictionary, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. So it makes no sense to describe those other, mere dictionary senses of terms in Wikipedia articles (unless, somehow it is important to describe those senses in order to clarify the main topic of the article)."
- (2) Please go find them.
- (3) Mrs 220.127.116.11, feel free to expand this article. I have already exhausted my resources, and I'm exhausted myself.
- KF 03:30 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)
Well, there's a specific concept here - that of an irreversible decision (whether real or imaginary), which needs the aviation meaning as background/canonical example. The other meanings are dealt with essentially as disambiguation, which seems reasonable. So no, not just an extended dictionary entry. Martin 21:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The article seems to assume that all uses of this term are incorrect or self-deluding. Not in the mood to fix it now, but I'll try to come back later... Martin 13:01, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I think better now - feedback? Martin 21:36, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, it's better now. You've done a great job. Thanks. --KF 22:19, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)
reason for Other uses
Categorizing Christianity under Other uses seems more fair to Christians, of which I am one, than the rather roundabout implication that Christianity is false sticking it under False Rubicons. -- EmperorBMA|話す
Here, the quote is phrased as "alea jacta est." The Rubicon page, linked from this article, notes that this is a misquote, and that the phrase should be "iacta alea est." I've changed the quote on this article to reflect the one on Rubicon. Any objections? TaintedMustard 16:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"The term point of no return originated as a technical term in air navigation, to refer to the point on a flight at which a plane had used half of the fuel with which it was loaded at the beginning of its journey." OK, this might be nit-picking, but I don't think the above is quite right. Since a plane will use more fuel per mile at the start of the flight (due to the climb-out and the cost of carrying all that fuel), by the time the plane has burned half the fuel, it can go considerably further on the last half of the tank. Of course, this ignores the need to carry a reserve.
I think a better description would be "The term 'point of no return' originated as a technical term in air navigation, to refer to the point on a flight at which a plane is unable to return to its point of departure" I'm not going to make the change just yet, since I may be wrong, but anyone is invited to make the change if it seems reasonable. Bunthorne 18:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think I weaseled it successfully. I think a phrase like "due to fuel consumption" is important, because the technical term refers to fuel calculations, but we can leave out numerical details. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
This article has blatant POV issues, which scares me even more since the article appears to rely on just about nothing and the fact that it is really notable. Looking at this talk page, it's clear that other editors have questioned the neutrality of the article. ------Mr. Guye (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a dictionary article with no information