Talk:Ecstasy

Comments

I added link to new article Ecstasy (philosophy) - competents, please feel free to edit the summary. Hele 7 19:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the revert. I put the traditional meanings first to be consistent with most encyclopedias and dictionaries, also the Wiktionary. I think that here the street drug slang should not come first, especially because the slang is misleading, as the pill usually does not induce the state. Hele 7 11:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Piet Delport for the edits. I only changed the order of the drug and the ship, according to their frequency of use. OK? Hele 7 07:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess... I had them the way they were according to the entry order guidelines. --Piet Delport 09:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not get your point. These guidelines say "place the items in order of usage, with the most-used meanings appearing at the top and less common meanings below" and they give a formal example. The problem is that following of this formal example does not give exactly the order of usage. The current edition is a compromise between these principles and some rational considerations - and I think it is a reasonable one. If you disagree, please explain why. Btw, I do not advocate the drug at all, I changed the order only because of large difference in usage frequencies. Hele 7 20:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the guidelines also recommend grouping synonyms after primary meanings. "Ecstacy" might be a very common informal name for the drug, but it doesn't necessarily carry the same kind of weight as a proper name in a formal, encyclopedic context like Wikipedia.

Also, more immediately, i think any potential convenience gained from having the drug listed one bullet point higher is outweighed by the disruption in visual flow (which plays a large part in helping readers quickly find their targets).

What do you think? --Piet Delport 22:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that the drug slang should not become the primary meaning of the word. If it does, it's bad for several reasons. But please search some respectable science databases (e.g. ScienceDirect, PubMed, ISI) and compare the frequencies of use in different meanings... a disaster, isn't it? We cannot ignore the real usage, it is not just informal for a long time already. Even if we accept that Wikipedia should not only reflect but also direct common usage of words, it is better not to have big discrepancies with the usage.

About the visual flow of the page - I think it is much weaker argument than frequency of usage. Contents of this two-section dab page suggest visual structure similar to number 3 and at least on my screen this is even a bit better satisfied in the version "drug before ship". I cannot see big problems with visual flow here, finding the right place to click is not obstacled I guess.

More general meanings come first in the current version, there is a spectrum from concepts to proper names. Ecstasy as a state of consciousness is a general concept, the ship is one definite object which is (hopefully) named after it, similarly to objects in the "arts" section. The level of abstraction of the name of the substance is somewhere in between.

In summary, you have improved the page a lot even if you decide to change these two rows. Is this the best you can do for this area? There are more serious problems here: the article about Religious ecstasy needs good sources and is tagged as NPOV-disputed (see its talk page). There is no active discussion any more, is it OK to remove the discussion tag? Maybe Ecstasy (emotion) and Religious ecstasy should be merged, as the second is probably a subset of the first? Could the result be named Ecstasy (state of consciousness)? You can help a lot if you devote some effort to this area and I do not want to waste this resource for debates over little differences. Hele 7 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, i responded mostly just to state my position, not debate anything. :) --Piet Delport 07:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks and welcome again. :) Hele 7 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was let the plain name be the disambig page Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Ecstasy → Ecstasy (disambiguation)

MDMA, recently moved from Methylenedioxymethamphetamine to 3,4-Methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine, and then to MDMA, is the primary topic, getting many times more page views[1] than any other type of ecstasy. Redirect ecstasy to MDMA, along with Ecstacy (common misspelling). 199.125.109.57 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I admit that, upon hearing the word, the drug immediatly comes to my mind. But the term originally refers to an emotional state of mind, not a drug, and this topic seems a bit too important to pass by like this (ecstacy plays an important role in many religions and philosophies, including Buddhism). As an alternative, perhaps we should move the drug entry on this disamb page to the top, so that it draws as much as attention as possible? I have done so here. Cheers, theFace 08:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what if we move MDMA to Ecstasy (drug)? The former gets almost 2,000,000 hits, the latter gets about 13,700,000 hits. The media also clearly prefers the term "ecstasy" over "MDMA"; compare this search with this one. Cheers, theFace 08:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The result of those particular Google searches is not that the drug is more commonly called Ecstasy than MDMA, but that the word "ecstasy" (which has several meanings) is used more often on the Internet than the initialism "MDMA". Jafeluv (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I did a search on ecstasy pills, and it gave about 1,480,000 hits. That's less than the "MDMA" search. Does that mean that MDMA is used more commonly than ecstasy when referring to the drug? On the other hand, if you examine the Google News searches, you'll see that the media almost exclusively use the word "ecstasy" to refer to the drug, and if they mention "MDMA", they also mention "ecstasy" for clarity. - theFace 17:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the move request. The common name and most common usage would be related to the drug. --HighKing (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that the page you cite is not really a policy. Also, common sense is exactly what I used in my above comments: the emotional state called ecstasy is an important part of the human experience. Muhammad was in ecstasy when he received his revelations, which became the basis of the Islam. Legend says that Allah sended him these revelations, scientists says that he was actually on drugs (not ecstacy). Cheers, theFace 17:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

HighKing probably meant WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy. Jafeluv (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed rename, the DAB should stay at Ecstasy and the article about the drug should move to Ecstasy (drug) or similar. My initial response was to support the move, but when I looked at the DAB and read the other articles and particularly the article at Ecstasy (emotion) I had to concede that there isn't a primary meaning. But, there's no doubt that the drug is called Ecstasy in terms of WP:COMMONNAME; Those who know the more technical names would know that name too, but many who know this popular name would have no idea what the technical names are. So it's a classic case of disambiguation. Andrewa (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I just saw that two weeks ago a simmiliar discussion was initiated at Talk:MDMA#Requested move, where several users concluded that MDMA was the best name for the article, not Ecstasy, because MDMA is used by several authoritative sources,[2][3][4] and sounds more professional.
  So we have three possibilities here:
  1. MDMA as the drug article, Ecstasy as the disamb. (current situation)
  2. Ecstasy as the drug article, MDMA as a redirect, Ecstasy (disambiguation) as the disamb.
  3. Ecstasy (drug) as the drug article, MDMA as a redirect, Ecstasy as the disamb.

Like Andrewa, I would choose the third option, but I can live with the first one as well. I oppose the second option. Cheers, theFace 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Second comment: user 199.125.109.88 noted a fourth option below which I failed to mention:

4.  MDMA as the drug article, Ecstasy as a redirect, Ecstasy (disambiguation) as the disamb.

Cheers, theFace 12:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'd lean with #1, so I oppose rename. MDMA was consensus discussing its specific naming issue based on numerous guidelines and also I don't see a reason to bless that meaning among the quite different ones. I also lean towards "how it's been for a long time" stability unless there's a compelling reason to change...WP is for others, not for ourselves, and instability of "what's where" (essentially swapping full pages, not just moving and leaving an automatic #REDIRECT) isn't polite to readers. "Foo (bar)" is only a standard in the WP realm to break ties that aren't clearly solveable in other ways: Ecstasy (drug) makes things more complicated for the reader since that is clearly not an expected search term (makes "at least one more click to get to article"). Which is basically what WP:NCDAB advises too. DMacks (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The 4th choice, however, is to redirect ecstasy to MDMA and use ecstasy (disambiguation) as the dis page, which is the only logical choice given that MDMA is located at MDMA, and given the overwhelming evidence that the primary topic for ecstasy is MDMA. Any discussion of moving MDMA should be taken up at that page, and not here. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that some disagree that there is overwhelming evidence that the primary topic for ecstasy is MDMA. Andrewa (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• I would prefer #1, although #3 is a good alternative. The choice between those, however, should be made at Talk:MDMA and not here. Jafeluv (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree that moving the article now at MDMA would need to be raised at Talk:MDMA. Andrewa (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

See also:

• Talk:MDMA#Requested_move and especially Talk:MDMA#Another_requested_move where this discussion was explicitly raised just yesterday.
• Talk:Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Archive01#Description_of_MDMA_as_Ecstasy.
• Talk:Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Archive02#Renaming_discussion.
• Talk:Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Archive02#Page_name.
• Talk:Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Archive02#Proposed_Move.
• Talk:Methylenedioxymethamphetamine/Archive03#Moving_to_MDMA.

And probably others I've missed! Andrewa (talk) 06:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrewa! But all those discussions appear to be about whether the article should be titled Methylenedioxymethamphetamine. As I have difficulties pronouncing that name, and because it's technically not even correct (strictly speaking, it should start with "3,4-"), I am happy that the article was eventually moved. The only discussion about the MDMA and Ecstasy titles is Talk:MDMA#Requested_move, where a small majority seemed in favor of MDMA. - theFace 13:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite correct. My point is that MDMA -> Ecstasy (drug) is probably a lost cause, it hardly even got a mention there. It's an interesting case of meaning and reference (see Saul Kripke#Naming and necessity for example), and I think the basic argument in favour of MDMA is flawed, in that it seems to be that many people mistakenly refer to fake Ecstasy pills (adulterated or just plain substituted MDMA) as Ecstasy. But what they mean (and we probably struggle here because many of these people are in a sadly altered state of consciousness) is still MDMA. So I'd rename to Ecstasy (drug) on WP:COMMONNAME grounds, but I see little chance of it happening. Andrewa (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose primary meaning of the word ecstasy is not MDMA. It is Ecstasy (emotion) or religious ecstasy. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Leave it the way it is - Ecstasy if not the disambiguation page it currently is should redirect to Ecstasy (emotion) related to language and historical culture rather than current culture and "hits". Hits of ecstasy, you guys are funny. - Steve3849 ^talk 15:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ehm... that comment looks tangled up, Steve3849, or at least I can't make sense of it. What do you mean? Cheers, theFace 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Less tangled (it wasn't really tangled, it just left out a few discerning terms) :

• Ecstasy = a disambiguation page, or if it must be a redirect it should redirect to the emotion Ecstasy (emotion)
• MDMA = the drug page
• Ecstasy (disambiguation) = entirely unneeded

... or in other words, Leave it the way it is. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Explaining the lame joke: most of the arguments in favor of a move, or change refer to the number of hits the pages are receiving, ha. - Steve3849 ^talk 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a rough consensus above that the primary meaning of the term Ecstasy isn't the drug, anyway. Complete consensus is unlikely. Andrewa (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. There seems to be a confusion between "primary meaning" and "primary topic". Primary meaning as in if you look it up in a dictionary, what is meaning number 1. for the word. Joy. In naming articles WP uses primary topic, not primary meaning. "Primary topic" is defined solely as the subject most searched for, viewed, and has the most links to it. That is purely a quantitative measure, although it is not always used. An example is Madonna. Even though the singer gets many times the hits that Mary does, the RCs can not stomach Madonna even redirecting to the singer, so it never gets moved there. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the meaning of primary meaning as we use the term in Wikipedia. By this definition, every dictionary term would have a primary meaning. That's not the way we understand things here. Andrewa (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ecstasy (according to American Heritage Dictionary)

1. Intense joy or delight.
2. A state of emotion so intense that one is carried beyond rational thought and self-control: an ecstasy of rage.
3. The trance, frenzy, or rapture associated with mystic or prophetic exaltation.
4. Slang MDMA.

This isn't a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you direct me to a naming convention that suggests using a quantitative measure such as hits in selecting which of multiple uses for a word shall be a primary article? Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Overlapping_names suggests making a disambiguation page to resolve conflict. That's what Ecstasy already is. When considering moving MDMA to Ecstasy the result would require a user to find Ecstasy (emotion) by following a link from a disambiguation banner on an article about the drug (which everyone would be arriving at when searching wikipedia for "ecstasy"). This to me is a matter of conflict.

Currently, the drug is at the top of the disambiguation list which concurs with the topic's popularity. I would be more interested in changing MDMA to Ecstasy (drug) for descriptive clarification and popular use. Yet, "MDMA" would still be my first choice of names in this matter. Again, this was recently discussed at Talk:MDMA. - Steve3849 ^talk 09:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This guideline says:

Tools that may help determine a primary meaning (but are not determining factors by themselves):

1. Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere
2. Wikipedia article traffic statistics from http://stats.grok.se/
3. Google web, news, scholar, or book searches from http://www.google.com/

Jafeluv (talk) 09:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. These are interesting tools. There is also this sentence just prior to the copy/pasted links: If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". - Steve3849 ^talk 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Just noted that I haven't voted yet. theFace 17:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.