Talk:Motive

message: 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)

message: 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)
replies: text: Fine by me. I'd just removed the link because the article didn't exist. This is a disambiguation page; its purpose is to suggest articles that the reader might want to read. As such, listing articles which don't exist isn't particularly useful. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chess composition 

message: Merge - First of all, there is a link on the "Motif" page that directs you to the Motive disambiguation. Secondly, I am studying this topic in class and my book describes it as a "Motive". I am not a music major but from my understanding of the text and the "Motif" wiki article is that they are exacty the same thing.
One example that was given was Beethoven's 5th,"DA-DA-DA-DAA"(Source: Listen - Sixth Edition Pg. 27).--Ponemax (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made my described changes, if you feel this is inappropriate you may change it back. But please say why here. Jujutacular talkcontribs 23:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

text: *This is not to say that Wiktionary is inaccurate - although it may be - or unuseful; simply that it has no authority. Both Merriam-Webster's and Houghton Mifflin's publications are based on extensive and independent research by professional lexicographers. Just looking at the Wiktionary entry for "motif" I see that 1) it's more extensive than the online versions of either M-W 11 or American Heritage (which Houghton Mifflin has turned over to Yahoo to maintain online); and 2) there are zero citations provided. I would guess that the information on that page is mostly taken from either or both of those copyrighted publications, or from the copyrighted Oxford English Dictionary. This is exactly why Wikimedia is currently in trouble over copyrights. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So you to simply want to remove the bit about it being an alternate spelling, and move it to a 'see also' section at the bottom? I'm okay with that. Jujutacular talk 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Motive]] and [[Motif]] - merge or no?