Talk:Still waters run deep
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. | |||||||||||||
- The following discussion is an archived 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: Moved the main article, and after looking it over, moved the disambiguation page, too. (For the record, though, "I haven't bothered to check" is perhaps not the most compelling argument to support one's position.) (non-admin closure) Red Slash 01:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Reply
- Still Waters Run Deep (fable) → Still waters run deep
- Still Waters Run Deep → Still Waters Run Deep (disambiguation) Still Waters Run Deep (disambiguation)
– "Still waters run deep", the proverb, is the origin of the phrase, and is far and away the most scholarly article (and per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term". And IMO is probably sought than the other four uses (1916 film, 1970 album, 1987 song, 2002 song) put together, although I haven't bothered to check. Move. Herostratus (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Reply
- Support - the capitalization misleading suggests a written work. If dab is needed still waters run deep (proverb) would be better, but since this is primary, support the move. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Reply
- Support as the original writer of the article. I don't agree with the proposal above to reduce capitalisation. It seems to have been made without reading the article, where it is clear that written works are involved. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Reply
- It was based on the lede, which doesn't use capitalization. The lede begins "Still waters run deep is a proverb...", and the article is about the proverb rather than any particular work or works title "Still Waters Run Deep". To the extent that actual titled works are involved, "A Country-man and a River" and "Le torrent et la rivière" ("The Torrent and the River", I think) and as "De rustico amnem transituro" ("The Farmer Crosses the River", more or less) seem to the be the ones in play. Herostratus (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Reply
- Oppose the disambig page move. Nom says he hasn't bothered to check on the primarytopic criteria. Dicklyon (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC) Reply
- Support. I think the nom has demonstrated that the primary topic criteria are satisfied. Agree also with the non-capitalisation. Can argue the DAB move both ways, but on balance I think move it too as proposed... disambiguation purely by punctuation or capitalisation is not adequate when one of the pages is itself a DAB, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Reply
- 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.
Why use the current Shakespeare quote - which has nothing to do with water - rather than the more obvious:
Smooth runs the water where the brook is deep, And in his simple show he harbors treason.
William M. Connolley (talk) 06:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Reply
According to Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Works_of_fiction_and_non-fiction, the two primary sources included in the reverted 'contemporary usage' section appear to be justifiable. The claims are not 'original research' because they can be reasonably ascertained by a straightforward appraisal of the pieces. Furthermore, many Wikipedia articles include lists of usage, such as in Heauton_Timorumenos#Homo_sum,_humani, and should not be construed as original research. User:Sweetpool50, could you provide context on your decision to revert the addition? I found it particularly interesting in that the du Maurier example uses the dated sense of the phrase. The introductory paragraph to this article does not indicate the time span under which the proverb changed its sense.
Nonnulla (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Nonulla has been editing on WP long enough to know that the argument WP:OSE is deprecated. The first of the examples in the deleted new section was not sourced, while the second provided only a primary source. Since it was being argued that it demonstrated a shift in meaning within the idiom, a secondary source is required that points that out. Without such a source, it is an example of the editor's original research. The argument that this "can be reasonably ascertained by a straightforward appraisal of the pieces" is a clear admission of original research. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Reply