Talk:Romance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Keep the article as a disambiguation page 200.78.133.10 20:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Other meanings for romance

I was looking for "romanticism"/"romance" in terms of having romantic ideals and attitudes (not necessarily Romantic love, though), but all I get are stuff about art styles and movements. Anybody want to create something about romance as a state of mind or something? Comrade-HW 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I say the Romance page should be redirected to one of the other Romance-related articles, such as Romance_languages or another. Knightskye 04:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

--Yes this is a problem. There really should be a seperate article for "romance"; "romantic love" actually has a whole different meaning. If I am able to, I will begin one on romance seperate from "romantic love." Modern day society does not seem to understand the difference, but it should be duly noted, for the connection between love and romance in today's society would not exist in the way that it does without the romantic forms of the past. Chado2423 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grouping

So everyone can tell, I've group the various links on this page by subject/field. This puts the articles Romance languages and Romanticism at the bottom on the list. I'm interested in alternative arrangements and/or orders for the entries. -Acjelen 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly alphabetical order of the main subjects (Cinema, Culture, Fiction, Music, Poetry) and then alphabetical within them? That's the simplest... Bookgrrl 16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation?

If (since) this is a Disambiguation page, why doesn't it say so at the top? Newbie Laurie Fox 21:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the time, the disambiguation notice is at the bottom of the article. -Acjelen 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Romance → Romance (disambiguation) — (This should be done first to accomplish next move) —Lara bran 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose romantic love, romance novel, romance language, romance period, romance style art, romance (love affair), romantic mood 70.55.88.166 22:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • This is necessary, as title should match contents. After move, let Romance redirect to Romance (disambiguation) itself. Later i may seek consensus for redirecting romance to romatic love. (Note:This is not withdrawn.)Lara bran 05:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
        • If your suggestion is that all disambiguation pages should appear a xxx (disambiguation), then you are mistaken, disambiguation pages sit without the parenthesized discriminator, unless it is necessary because a non-disamiguation article sits at the primary name. 70.55.88.166 15:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Not all disambiguation pages, only pages where mostly new users come. This is one such page. Lara bran 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Romance has many definitions. There is not much point in moving X to X (disambiguation). ●DanMS • Talk 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: True romance has many definitions, so let "Romance" redirect here after this move. Lara bran 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Current page is highly confusing to newbies, who are majority who come here. Let Romance redirect here but let page title be Romance (disambiguation). See Talk:Romance#Disambiguation.3F right above this, i take one support vote from that newbie, as romance is searched mostly by newbies to wikipedia. Lara bran 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    We prefer plain titles for dabs when the plain title isn't being used for something else; see WP:MDP for more details. Oppose. Dekimasuよ! 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Since the somewhat mysterious WP:RM process leads to comments being moved hither and yon, I can't recall what I posted here before. However the simple move of Romance to Romance (disambiguation) doesn't seem necessary. And the original proposal that wanted Romance and Romantic love to be identified seemed unnecessary, given the large number of related concepts that have to be kept straight. EdJohnston 21:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Oppose. There are fewer than 500 articles linking to this, covering diverse topics, many of them user pages or talk pages, and none of them major articles. Therefore the status quo is working well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Scolaire 07:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    I wouldn't say it's not a problem; it's listed on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/problems and there are only about 20-30 dab pages with more links on Wikipedia at the moment. Someone will have to fix it, but this is still the best setup since the links are to diverse topics. Dekimasuよ! 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I must say

I am currently one of the primary editors of the romantic love, and I believe this move was made erroneously. Although in modern Western society romance and love are categorically classified as being interwoven, historically this was not the case (as I have found out after some extensive research.) The article "Romance (love)" originally titled "Romantic love" details this distinction throughout certain portions. The reason for the move was in order to co-create a similar term to that of which is used in the Cambridge dictionary, (which educationally makes sense), but unfortunately that dictionary was written after the 19th century in which the major terminology and definition of the word "romance" changed in order to incorporate the aspect of love. It is difficult to see a distinction in modern day society bbecause the word romance currently implies love relationships, yet historically this was not always the case. In the past it romance may have been seen more as expression of the soul, rather than romantic love involvement. "Romantic love" is a more specific term than romance when closely examined, but a good majority of post-modern thinkers place the emphasis on love and romance as being integrated. Although there are those who readily understand the difference. It would be best to have two differing articles "romance" and "romantic love" IF, and I say if, if it were not for the mere fact that many societies currently use the terms in comparison to one another. With all this said, the controversy of the title change is now that matter of personal opinion, because modern terminology is different than the historic terminology of the same concepts. (please ignore my spelling mistakes above, I seem to be a poor speller.) Until I examine this further, I remain neutral as to the title change. Thanks Chado2423 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)