Talk:Damage

Proposed merge of Institutional damage

Institutional damage has existed without sufficient sourcing or development for eight years. Merged into this general concept article, the material will be preserved but have more chance to receive attention and improve in quality. bd2412 T 14:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Since there has been no response either way, I am boldly going ahead with this merge. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. The article has been improved to no longer solely be WP:NOTDIC. (closed by page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

---

• Damage (concept) → Damage
• Damage → Damage (disambiguation)

– The concept of "damage" is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this word. Everything else mentioned in the disambiguation page is a subset of the concept, such as various different types of damage. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support - this is precisely the reason for which this broad concept article was created. bd2412 T 21:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support' - I can't imagine a clearer PRIMARYTOPIC case. -- Netoholic @ 15:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ToThAc (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.