Talk:Motive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why has a little redlinked line of Hebrew been added to the article? I suspect it's a failed transwiki, but I have no notion what it is or how to fix. Smerdis of Tlön 18:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] No disambiguation page?
That would be better than the list of alternate meanings at the top of the 'Motive' main article IMO. How do I know that the aforementioned list is comprehensive?
I'm not looking for any of the offered definitions of 'motive' - how do I know without a disambiguation page if the listed alternatives is a comprehensive list? If it isn't, how do I get to the other articles?
- I've fixed up all the motive/motif pages and Motive is now a disambig. —Quarl (talk) 2006-09-27 07:29Z
[edit] Chess composition
I have noticed change of chess composition explanation from Motif (chess composition), a reason for that some move works or not in the solution of chess problem. to Motif (chess composition), a reason for which a particular move may or may not be effective in solving a chess problem.
While I appreciate much better English wording, the improvement has also slightly altered the meaning. Now I see it is unsatisfactory (it was before as well). Motifs do not only contribute to effectivity of solution, their role is much more general. I would say they are abstract entities contained in (almost) every move, contributing to the changes in position, whether it is in solution, try, set play... They have quite extensive theory, that is nevertheless understandable to (almost) every chessplayer, once he knows about it. (That is why I even intend to write an article and why there is still red link. Once...) I have no specific suggestion, rather I will think about it... and change the definition in due course. --Ruziklan 06:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
In my view removing chess composition motif is going too far. It is widely accepted term, well researched over years. This article, although published on my own webpage, summarizes well known theory approved by experts. Should I transform it into separate Wikipedia article to have motif listed on this disambiguation page? --Ruziklan 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
