Talk:Eccentricity

Proposed merge with Behavior[change source]

Basic behavior is very different from eccentricity, I do not see how we could merge this into that. This subject is more along the lines of psychology, or personality or at least abnormal behavior. Perhaps we need an article titled that (Abnormal behavior), and merge this with that one, so we could at least separate what is considered "normal' from "abnormal". Meanwhile I added another person to the article and suggested perhaps adding a Category for "people with eccentric behavior". Fylbecatulous talk 14:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not merge this, I do not mind trying to expand this. Fylbecatulous talk 14:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I see no great reason for separate articles about odd or ordinary or normal or deviant hobbies, habits, habitats, rabbits, davits, divots or anything else. Everything that has variations has ranges, averages, extremes etc and articles that cover a subject should mention the most important variations. As for a category, it seems kind of indefinite, like a category for wise people or beautiful rivers, but then I don't do much biography so it doesn't bother me much. Astrophysics is what led me here, because all the links to this article are from orbits due to the nearly original meaning of the word. Of course there are also eccentric gears and foveal eccentricity, but those are too minor to get Simple articles yet. Hmm, come to think of it the en disambiguator is badly organized. I might tackle that, sometime this week. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think where I am hedging is in that the article "Behavior" is giving a coherent and simple explanation of one of the basic English 850 words. I hesitate to go down all these rabbit trails in that article that should stick to the basic elements. That article does a nice job of touching on all these areas we are taking of here, but when we begin to add text of manifestations of abnormal behavior (and those persons who partake of it), I still believe we have left the basic English word explanation in the outfield. Fylbecatulous talk 13:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All righty; I don't necessarily agree, but others have not joined (yes, the whole Simplepedia is small and watchers of any article are few) so I shan't push anymore. Instead I intend to repair (eventually) the erroneous links to this tiny article, unless others beat me to it. Oh, it does need an orbital hatnote, doesn't it? Jim.henderson (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]