Talk:Ecstasy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I added link to new article Ecstasy (philosophy) - competents, please feel free to edit the summary. Hele 7 19:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert. I put the traditional meanings first to be consistent with most encyclopedias and dictionaries, also the Wiktionary. I think that here the street drug slang should not come first, especially because the slang is misleading, as the pill usually does not induce the state. Hele 7 11:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Piet Delport for the edits. I only changed the order of the drug and the ship, according to their frequency of use. OK? Hele 7 07:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess... I had them the way they were according to the entry order guidelines. --Piet Delport 09:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not get your point. These guidelines say "place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below" and they give a formal example. The problem is that following of this formal example does not give exactly the order of usage. The current edition is a compromise between these principles and some rational considerations - and I think it is a reasonable one. If you disagree, please explain why. Btw, I do not advocate the drug at all, I changed the order only because of large difference in usage frequencies. Hele 7 20:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the guidelines also recommend grouping synonyms after primary meanings. "Ecstacy" might be a very common informal name for the drug, but it doesn't necessarily carry the same kind of weight as a proper name in a formal, encyclopedic context like Wikipedia.

Also, more immediately, i think any potential convenience gained from having the drug listed one bullet point higher is outweighed by the disruption in visual flow (which plays a large part in helping readers quickly find their targets).

What do you think? --Piet Delport 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that the drug slang should not become the primary meaning of the word. If it does, it's bad for several reasons. But please search some respectable science databases (e.g. ScienceDirect, PubMed, ISI) and compare the frequencies of use in different meanings... a disaster, isn't it? We cannot ignore the real usage, it is not just informal for a long time already. Even if we accept that Wikipedia should not only reflect but also direct common usage of words, it is better not to have big discrepancies with the usage.

About the visual flow of the page - I think it is much weaker argument than frequency of usage. Contents of this two-section dab page suggest visual structure similar to number 3 and at least on my screen this is even a bit better satisfied in the version "drug before ship". I cannot see big problems with visual flow here, finding the right place to click is not obstacled I guess.

More general meanings come first in the current version, there is a spectrum from concepts to proper names. Ecstasy as a state of consciousness is a general concept, the ship is one definite object which is (hopefully) named after it, similarly to objects in the "arts" section. The level of abstraction of the name of the substance is somewhere in between.

In summary, you have improved the page a lot even if you decide to change these two rows. Is this the best you can do for this area? There are more serious problems here: the article about Religious ecstasy needs good sources and is tagged as NPOV-disputed (see its talk page). There is no active discussion any more, is it OK to remove the discussion tag? Maybe Ecstasy (emotion) and Religious ecstasy should be merged, as the second is probably a subset of the first? Could the result be named Ecstasy (state of consciousness)? You can help a lot if you devote some effort to this area and I do not want to waste this resource for debates over little differences. Hele 7 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, i responded mostly just to state my position, not debate anything. :) --Piet Delport 07:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks and welcome again. :) Hele 7 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

merdda iudadh yuyyaw ds udh utdhy7w u7fj ujeuwkgjw yfskbo uycibawkbi eb iewl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.144.133.42 (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)