Talk:Epic

Other uses

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)

Move

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

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)

When I finish going through the links to this page, I propose to make Epic poetry the primary target of "Epic" (it is, but the redirect comes here), change the name of this article to "Epic (disambiguation)" and have Epic redirect to Epic Poetry. John 23:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Epic → Epic (disambiguation)

It IS a disambiguation page and people are linking to it directly too easily. When the move is done, I will make Epic be a redirect to Epic poetry, which appears to be the most used reference. I would do it myself, but Epic (disambigutation) already exists.

Voting

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)

  Addendum. For the record, I just found out that the nominator is the aforementioned user (the plot thickens!). Of course, the issue of renaming Epic poetry is a separate issue from this, but it's still worth considering.
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• Support moving "Epic" to "Epic (disambiguation)"; "Epic poetry" to "Epic". This is by far the most common and scholarly meanings of those listed on the disambiguation page, and the one which would be expected to be at Epic. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The movie epics are the most common. Using what is currently linked to the dab is not always a good measure of the most common useage. Given the number of articles listed in the dab article, saying one is the most common is very risky and likely to be wrong. Vegaswikian 08:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Epic is completely disambiguated. Epic poetry has > 50, Epic film < 50. John (Jwy) 06:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Note that Epic (disambiguation) now exists only as a redirect to this. Somebody fixed the duplication by merging the two disambiguation pages about three weeks ago, and it is now as it should be. Gene Nygaard 13:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since disambiguation pages have specific uses, making one into a redirect would seem to violate policy. If anything, it should be the other way around: Epic redirecting to Epic (disambiguation)—though I still hold that Epic poetry should be moved to Epic. I also wonder if there is really any such thing as an epic film or an epic work; the word epic seems to function only as an adjective (meaning: "(1) of, relating to, or having the characteristics of an epic; (2) extending beyond the usual or ordinary especially in size or scope", according to Merriam-Webster dictionary). While critics and advertisers sometimes ascribe the word epic to films and works of literature, I'm not really sure that epic film or epic work is a legitimate genre. Is there any published source that defines such a genre?
    -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

    Update. I think I misinterpreted the comments of the previous user. I don't believe the user meant that Epic (disambiguation) should be a redirect, only that it currently is a redirect (in order words, it is a matter of fact). RlyehRising 05:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • My concern is somewhat in this area. If we put one of these meanings (Film or Poetry, either one) as "Epic," it makes it difficult to switch in the future because many people assume that if they have a blue link, they are ok. I'm hoping to avoid this. But the more I think about it, we will have that problem as long as "Epic" exists as a page, redirect, disambiguation or otherwise. It just seems like it should go the other way: the disambiguation page should be "Epic (disambiguation)" and, if we can't decide on a primary definition, we redirect Epic to it. If we do decide on a primary definition, redirect Epic to it. Since the frequency of use is reasonably close, this may make more sense. But the effect would be the same. I don't know. . . John (Jwy) 06:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Qevlarr 13:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here, but I'm adding links from this page to "Epic poetry" and "Epic (genre)" because, while we're in the midst of figuring out how to divide up these pages, it just seems weird that those two pages aren't linked from the epic disambiguation page, which is essentially what this page is right now. Apologies if I'm misguided about that. AsuEng (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann

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)

you clearly have never seen the show —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.70.26 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

slang meaning of epic

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)

• Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. -- abfackeln (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Lock the Page

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)

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)

Move discussion in progress

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)

RE: Epic poetry at top of page

To Michael!, the formatting that you applied to the page would only be appropriate if epic poetry were deemed the primary topic for "Epic" and would actually involve a couple of page moves. This idea has been suggested and discussed before. As you can see in the section directly above this one, the most recent proposal was about a year ago and resulted in no move. You are of course free to open up a new discussion, but I would ask that you please at least read that discussion and the parameters at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC before doing so. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Fyrael, thank you for correcting me. Yes, I did read the previous discussion(s), and I'm aware of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Actually there are several related, but different things. The last discussion was about whether epic poetry should be moved to epic; there was no overwhelming support for the suggested move, because some argued that "epic poetry" is an appropiate name, and therefore no good reason to move the page.

Another point is the primary usage of "epic"; "epic film" is the only serious contender for "epic poetry". However, nobody argued that "epic poetry" is just one of many usages, as good as any other. Even if an "epic poem" is not the primary meaning of an "epic", it's still appropiate to list "epic poetry" at the top of the epic disambiguation page, per: MOS:DABORDER:

"The primary topic, if there is one, should be placed at the top. In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below. See Mojave"

Then we have the epos disambiguation page: an epos is an epic poem, nor am I aware of any other serious contenders of the primary meaning of "epos". Therefore I think it's also appropiate to list "epic poetry" at the top of "epos" page as well.

Finally, there exist the epic poetry and, separately, epic (genre) articles. Yet epic genre redirects to epic, which is a disambiguation page. I feel it's more appropiate to link to one of the former two, instead of to the latter.

The edits reverted by you were made in good faith; I made these because I believe they are an improvement to the current situation. I'm open for discussion, of course. Michael! (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Michael. This is a Mojave case. The poetic form is the top definition at Wiktionary and in the OED because it is "primary", i.e. it came first. I also believe it is far more likely to be the kind of thing people look up in an encyclopedia. By pageviews, it beats our general article, our film article, our fantasy article and the dab page easily [1]. Srnec (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

So, I have a few concerns. For one thing, "primary" is absolutely not the same as "it came first" in the context of DAB pages, just to make that clear. Also, if we're talking about page views Epic Games dwarfs the other topics with about ten times the views over the past year and still easily competes if you go back a few more years. Of course if we were having a true primary topic debate then we'd have to consider long-term significance and how many users are really getting to that page from just "Epic", etc, but thankfully we're not. My biggest issue is with only putting poetry at the top, which suggests that it's the primary topic and we were just too lazy to move pages, which is not the case. If we're going to list the common uses, then we should do it right and include all contenders. I would think poetry, film, and Games (until such time as it becomes less relevant). Any additions or subtractions you would make? -- Fyrael (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

For one thing, "primary" is absolutely not the same as "it came first" in the context of DAB pages. I know. That's why I put "primary" in scare quotes—I was trying to indicate that I meant literally primary and not Wikipedia-primary. I work mainly in the area of pre-modern history. My concern is that in most historical contexts it is unnecessary to disambiguate "epic". The word has just one meaning. It means a type of poem. This is true in discussing many cultures. One says "Mongolian epic", not "Mongolian epic poetry". If you search for epic and come to the DAB page, you will feel lost. I had to ctrl-F "poe" to find the article when I came here. Again, my concern is that, unlike most other things, epic poetry is just epic in many contexts. Disambiguating it is not natural in the way that disambiguating a film titled Epic or a game company is. As long as it's above the fold, I'm happy. Srnec (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, it's at the top now. And maybe just adding the others instead of reverting is what I should've done at first. Tweak if you want. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)