Talk:repurpose
I don't see even a slight difference between the first and second definitions. Their examples are interchangeable, demonstrating the lack of necessity for a second definition that is a repeat of the first. However, one person's opinion shouldn't be enough to outright remove it, so I'm just pissing and moaning like usual. 70.132.140.16 21:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting... I would not consider " to alter" as the same as " to reuse" so I would advocate that there are 2 definitions. Notwithstanding I think it is a horrible ugly word, when alter or reuse is much more efficient way of saying what you want without confusion. — This unsigned comment was added by Buzzbuzz10 (talk • contribs) at 15:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC).
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I think the two senses should be merged. The distinction we're trying to draw doesn't seem fundamental and isn't borne out by other dictionaries. PUC – 21:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. The term is neutral/ambiguous about whether or not physical alteration is involved in the reuse for a purpose other than a previous purpose. AHD uses or in its definition to make the ambiguity explicit. Maybe our users need to be informed that the term is used for both sorts of repurposing. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree; merged. - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)