Talk:Epic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Other uses
Some links to here are "Biblical Epic," "epic film," "epic novel" or "epic" as simply meaning a large-scale story. As I have been setting up links to (skip this page), I have chosen to simply unlink these uses. Its not clear to me if these should have their on article or not. And I wouldn't be able to do much more than a dictionary type entry for them. So if someone thinks these articles should exist, go ahead! John 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Move
Update. Apparently this move was effected, so I removed the template.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Odd, I was planning on withdrawing the proposal as not wrong, per se, but unnecessary and its not like the vote was decisive. But this works for me. John (Jwy) 02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
When I finish going through the links to this page, I propose to make Epic poetry the primary target of "Epic" (it is, but the redirect comes here), change the name of this article to "Epic (disambiguation)" and have Epic redirect to Epic Poetry. John 23:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Epic → Epic (disambiguation)
It IS a disambiguation page and people are linking to it directly too easily. When the move is done, I will make Epic be a redirect to Epic poetry, which appears to be the most used reference. I would do it myself, but Epic (disambigutation) already exists.
[edit] Voting
- Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
- Support. This probably makes sense. According to my Merriam-Webster online dictionary, the word epic means "1 : a long narrative poem in elevated style recounting the deeds of a legendary or historical hero <the Iliad and the Odyssey are epics>". Anything that describes an "epic" should refer to this meaning (such as "epic film"—though I think overuse has watered down the original meaning). Furthermore, Epic should be the main article and should have a hatnote directing users to the disambiguation page. (I raise this issue because a user removed the [[epic]] link from The Dream-Quest of Unknown Kadath; in fact, that article should link to Epic poetry, as should other articles about "epic" works.)
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 03:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)- Addendum. For the record, I just found out that the nominator is the aforementioned user (the plot thickens!). Of course, the issue of renaming Epic poetry is a separate issue from this, but it's still worth considering.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum. For the record, I just found out that the nominator is the aforementioned user (the plot thickens!). Of course, the issue of renaming Epic poetry is a separate issue from this, but it's still worth considering.
-
- Yes, it was me. In a few cases where the link did not seem to me to be enlightening beyond the dictionary meaning, I did unlink it with the suggestion that we perhaps write a new article to cover "Epic works" or something. In hindsight, I should have left it as it was and dealt with this later. It is a separate issue and I'm completely willing to discuss! John (Jwy) 03:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't really irked or anything like that. And I did take your point at the time (and besides, linking to a disambiguation page is clearly not what was intended!). When I thought it over, I realized that Epic poetry is the correct place to link to—though it seems wrongly titled.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 03:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I wasn't really irked or anything like that. And I did take your point at the time (and besides, linking to a disambiguation page is clearly not what was intended!). When I thought it over, I realized that Epic poetry is the correct place to link to—though it seems wrongly titled.
- Yes, it was me. In a few cases where the link did not seem to me to be enlightening beyond the dictionary meaning, I did unlink it with the suggestion that we perhaps write a new article to cover "Epic works" or something. In hindsight, I should have left it as it was and dealt with this later. It is a separate issue and I'm completely willing to discuss! John (Jwy) 03:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support moving "Epic" to "Epic (disambiguation)"; "Epic poetry" to "Epic". This is by far the most common and scholarly meanings of those listed on the disambiguation page, and the one which would be expected to be at Epic. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. The movie epics are the most common. Using what is currently linked to the dab is not always a good measure of the most common useage. Given the number of articles listed in the dab article, saying one is the most common is very risky and likely to be wrong. Vegaswikian 08:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Epic is completely disambiguated. Epic poetry has > 50, Epic film < 50. John (Jwy) 06:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Note that Epic (disambiguation) now exists only as a redirect to this. Somebody fixed the duplication by merging the two disambiguation pages about three weeks ago, and it is now as it should be. Gene Nygaard 13:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Since disambiguation pages have specific uses, making one into a redirect would seem to violate policy. If anything, it should be the other way around: Epic redirecting to Epic (disambiguation)—though I still hold that Epic poetry should be moved to Epic. I also wonder if there is really any such thing as an epic film or an epic work; the word epic seems to function only as an adjective (meaning: "(1) of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an epic; (2) extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope", according to Merriam-Webster dictionary). While critics and advertisers sometimes ascribe the word epic to films and works of literature, I'm not really sure that epic film or epic work is a legitimate genre. Is there any published source that defines such a genre?
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)- Update. I think I misinterpreted the comments of the previous user. I don't believe the user meant that Epic (disambiguation) should be a redirect, only that it currently is a redirect (in order words, it is a matter of fact). RlyehRising 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- My concern is somewhat in this area. If we put one of these meanings (Film or Poetry, either one) as "Epic," it makes it difficult to switch in the future because many people assume that if they have a blue link, they are ok. I'm hoping to avoid this. But the more I think about it, we will have that problem as long as "Epic" exists as a page, redirect, disambiguation or otherwise. It just seems like it should go the other way: the disambiguation page should be "Epic (disambiguation)" and, if we can't decide on a primary definition, we redirect Epic to it. If we do decide on a primary definition, redirect Epic to it. Since the frequency of use is reasonably close, this may make more sense. But the effect would be the same. I don't know. . . John (Jwy) 06:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Since disambiguation pages have specific uses, making one into a redirect would seem to violate policy. If anything, it should be the other way around: Epic redirecting to Epic (disambiguation)—though I still hold that Epic poetry should be moved to Epic. I also wonder if there is really any such thing as an epic film or an epic work; the word epic seems to function only as an adjective (meaning: "(1) of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an epic; (2) extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope", according to Merriam-Webster dictionary). While critics and advertisers sometimes ascribe the word epic to films and works of literature, I'm not really sure that epic film or epic work is a legitimate genre. Is there any published source that defines such a genre?
[edit] Discussion
- Add any additional comments
I don't expect this to be controversial. I am following the process here because the target page already exists.c John (Jwy) 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to make sure we separate the two moves: Epic -> Epic (disambiguation) and Epic Poetry -> Epic. The first is clear to me. The second we may want to think about. I was thinking that it might be better to have Epic redirect to Epic Poetry in case, in the future, someone writes a more general article about the Epic in the broader meaning of a work involving grand themes, vast geography and a cast of thousands. If a redirect is not too much overhead, I would suggest we do it that way. But I'm new here and open to suggestions. John (Jwy) 23:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think we can blaim Hollywood for distorting the original meaning of epic by insisting on calling every overblown movie an epic film. In fact, it could be argued that the sense of epic that you describe is a neologism; or more appropriately a Hollywood neologism (interestingly, my dictionary has two definitions for neologism: (1) "a new word, usage, or expression", and (2) "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic"—do we even need the "Hollywood" modifier!). In seriousness, I think what is needed is a more authoritative viewpoint on the word epic, especially from someone with a backgound in literature. Nonetheless, it is probably true that popular culture views the notion of an epic in a much different way than the typical literary scholar.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- The language moves on (whether we like the direction or not). My preferred way of dealing with this issue is to retain the epic film article (with the reference to Epic poetry that I added). Links from Hollywood can then go there and those enlightened visitors can move away from The Dark Side by clicking on the link. John (Jwy) 02:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- John, I don't think overhead is as big of a deal, but in general for style purposes as much as anything, redirects from a main page to a parenthetical page (disambiguated page) are not preferred—you might as well have the target at the main page. I agree with what you're saying. I think what should be done, and what would normally be done, is this: assuming this move is approved, Epic poetry will be placed at "Epic". If someone writes an article about what you describe, he could call it "Epic (work)" or something and add it to the disambiguation page. If he or someone then so chose, he could place a move request to move "Epic" to "Epic poetry" and "Epic (work)" to "Epic", and editors could then discuss the merits of that individual case. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is a policy for avoiding redirects to a dab page; the following is quoted from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (top of page):
Bearing in mind that an article for epic (Epic poetry) already exists, and it describes the essential meaning of the term, I see no reason why epic should not go there directly. If a user wishes to write an article about the popularized meaning of the term, he or she is free to do so, and can call it something like epic work or epic (narrative) or the like.Ideally, Wikipedia articles should not link to disambiguation pages; instead links should go directly to the appropriate article.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)- Side note: By posting that quote I may be undermining myself in a non-related move request. Just wanted to note that for the record in case someone calls me on it.
-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Side note: By posting that quote I may be undermining myself in a non-related move request. Just wanted to note that for the record in case someone calls me on it.
- In my scheme, the pages would not be linking to the disambiguation page. They might to the redirecting Epic page (which, after the move, is not the disambiguration page. But that doesn't really defeat your general comment. Whether we move Epic poetry to Epic and point that way or visa versa isn't really going to be different, except maybe links that really SHOULD be to "Epic poetry" can be distinguished by those that would go to "Epic (work)" if it existed by linking them to the appropriate one. Maybe I should whip up "Epic (work) now :-) Re: "undermining" yourself - Its good to see honest dealing here! John (Jwy) 06:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- Avoiding redirects to a disambiguation page generally deals with something entirely different from redirects where the only difference is the presence or absense of the parenthetical "(disambiguation)". However, when redirects in that way are done, I think the most common practice is to have the "XXX" as the disambiguation page, with a redirect to it from "XXX (disambiguation)". So I think that "Epic" should be the disambiguation page, and "Epic (disambiguation)" should redirect to it. There is not overwhelming use of one meaning; Epic should not recirect to "Epic poetry" (note lowercase "p"). People entering "epic" from the Go box can do their own disambiguating; editors can disambiguate links to the appropriate article. Gene Nygaard 13:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Isn't policy to avoid sending readers to the wrong article? Going to a redirect page is the correct solution in that case. I guess my question is, what is broken with what's in place today? I can find anything that's broken, so why change to something that will lead readers to the wrong place? Vegaswikian 19:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- There is a policy for avoiding redirects to a dab page; the following is quoted from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (top of page):
- John, I don't think overhead is as big of a deal, but in general for style purposes as much as anything, redirects from a main page to a parenthetical page (disambiguated page) are not preferred—you might as well have the target at the main page. I agree with what you're saying. I think what should be done, and what would normally be done, is this: assuming this move is approved, Epic poetry will be placed at "Epic". If someone writes an article about what you describe, he could call it "Epic (work)" or something and add it to the disambiguation page. If he or someone then so chose, he could place a move request to move "Epic" to "Epic poetry" and "Epic (work)" to "Epic", and editors could then discuss the merits of that individual case. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think we can blaim Hollywood for distorting the original meaning of epic by insisting on calling every overblown movie an epic film. In fact, it could be argued that the sense of epic that you describe is a neologism; or more appropriately a Hollywood neologism (interestingly, my dictionary has two definitions for neologism: (1) "a new word, usage, or expression", and (2) "a meaningless word coined by a psychotic"—do we even need the "Hollywood" modifier!). In seriousness, I think what is needed is a more authoritative viewpoint on the word epic, especially from someone with a backgound in literature. Nonetheless, it is probably true that popular culture views the notion of an epic in a much different way than the typical literary scholar.
