Talk:Epic

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other uses 

message: Update. Apparently this move was effected, so I removed the template.-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 01:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *There is a policy for avoiding redirects to a dab page; the following is quoted from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (top of page):Ideally, Wikipedia articles should not link to disambiguation pages; instead links should go directly to the appropriate article.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.-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Move 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Voting

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *There is a policy for avoiding redirects to a dab page; the following is quoted from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links (top of page):Ideally, Wikipedia articles should not link to disambiguation pages; instead links should go directly to the appropriate article.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.-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Someone has been adding this article into the "See also" section with edit summaries:
- It's an Easter Egg that's not causing any harm, plus TVTropes is using it for a trope
and
- he people agree, it stays. Or are you going against your own philosophy?
Neither of which appear to have anything to do with reasons for entry on a dab page (see WP:MOSDAB).  I'll hold off reverting once again hoping for further explanation.  But as the article doesn't even contain the word epic, it doesn't belong as far as I can tell.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann 

message: In recent years, epic has gone from meaning a literary term to a slang meaning as well.  Epic is now considered a synonym for "awesome" or "cool".  The use of this word has permeated many chat rooms and websites.  This word has inspired "epic duck", a fictional character on Roblox, a massive online multiplayer game.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewy33 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see that you're "open to discussion about this idea", considering you can't actually accomplish it yourself. However, page protection is not really something that needs consensus; you simply request protection if you think it's needed. Here is the page for such requests: WP:RFP. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  slang meaning of epic 

message: I have noticed that a lot of edits here are either vandalism or removal of vandalism. I believe that this page should be locked, and another "petition" page for suggestions on how to improve this page. Reply if you agree if disagree, and I am open to discussion about this idea. 76.22.16.254 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see that you're "open to discussion about this idea", considering you can't actually accomplish it yourself. However, page protection is not really something that needs consensus; you simply request protection if you think it's needed. Here is the page for such requests: WP:RFP. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock the Page 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Epic poetry which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 12:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress