Talk:Muse (disambiguation)

MuseWiki

There's another aception of Muse that we must add to the disambiguation, that is MuseWiki. I won't add myself because I don't quite no what it is! Khullah (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The( )Muse

The usage of TheMuse and The Muse is under discussion, see Talk:The Daily Muse -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit

User:MusenInvincible, your edits

1. diff 16:12, 26 October 2018
2. diff 06:26, 29 October 2018
3. diff 08:14, 30 October 2018
4. diff 15:06, 1 November 2018
5. diff 15:08, 2 November 2018

Are breaking things and people have not accepted them. Please try to gain consensus for them here. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think these edit summaries are enough logic for those who challenge my edits:

Read carefully, It is "Muse (disambiguation)" page, not "Muses (disambiguation)" page, Then why the opening sentence written "The Muses are..."? It should be written "Muse is...
"I am talking about the page title, is it "Muse" or "Muses"? doesn't matter with the grammar because everyone can fix it
This is the disambiguation page of Muse (M-U-S-E) and the linked pages are places named Muse, people named Muse, etc. with none of them named Muses, if you search Muses, see Muses
Giving definition of 'Muses' for 'Muse' page is an obvious misleading information, and that is not relevant at all.

while the other editors just write:Clearly relevant, revert, or some statements of complaining about wording problem

Then, which argument is more reasonable? — MusenInvincible (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's got much to do with whether the nominal title of this page is in the singular or in the plural, but per WP:MOSDAB, disambiguation entries (and, per analogy, disambiguation lead sentences describing a primary topic) shouldn't contain blue links other than the one to the target entry itself. So it's quite reasonable to argue that the lead sentence should be reduced, to the point where it offers just enough information to identify the target topic, without further encyclopedic expansion (which should be left to the target page). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly what FP@S said. The plural thing is unimportant, but the lead sentence should be trimmed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree with Floquenbeam that 'The plural thing is unimportant' because it is matter of the title of disambiguation page in the lead sentence, also following Wikipedia rule, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence (except if the title is merely descriptive....)" MOS:LEADSENTENCE

Moreover, if the title is Goddess (disambiguation), would you choose "Goddesses are..." instead of "Goddess is..." as leading sentence, or let me pick an example for comparison in Greek mythology, see Titan (disambiguation) the title is Titan and the leading sentence is "Titan most often refers to" instead of "Titans are..." although the Titan (mythology) suggested the plural form "the Titans were..." — MusenInvincible (talk) 10:03, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The lead sentence of Titan (mythology) is a good example of singular/plural not being that important. There is no one on the planet who is going to be confused because we use "Muses" instead of "Muse" in the opening sentence, and multiple people have opined that it flows better that way. Plus, the article title is actually Muses. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I am not talking about an article page, but a disambiguation page. It does not matter when using plural in the article with title in singular form. But see the disambiguation page, in Titan (disambiguation) there are many linked pages with title Titan: Titan (Dark Horse Comics), Titan (1988 video game), Titan (Baxter novel), etc. with none of them titled Titans. So does in Muse (disambiguation)
If you argued 'There is no one(?) on the planet who is going to be confused because we use "Muses" instead of "Muse"' FYI, I am one of people in this planet who more acknowledge Muse as a famous British band rather than Muse as Greek mythology deity. Also keep in mind about rule of MOS:LEADSENTENCE that page title is Muse, not Muses. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not how things work; we are not usually picky about singular and plural in the lead sentence; it's usually whatever flows/sounds better. We hardly ever have separate disambiguation pages for the singular and plural. Also, you've inserted a new issue here; if you want Muse (band) to be the primary topic, open up a thread about that. Although I am really confident that people aren't going to agree. But that has nothing to do with understanding the lead sentence, which I still maintain is impossible to not understand as written. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you think the title is actually Muses, why don't you (or anyone) moved Muse (disambiguation) page to Muses (disambiguation)? because I think it is misleading to use plural form definition to a singular term of page title. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Asked and answered already. I'm not going to go around in circles on this. It's clear others don't share your opinion. If new arguments are presented, ping me and I'll reply, but I'm not replying further to simply restating what you've already said before. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

In other word, Conclusion:(Still) No consensus. — MusenInvincible (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

No consensus for the change that only you want to make. See WP:STICK Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"only me"? it is merely your assumption. — MusenInvincible (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the lead sentence and redirection

The consensus is for option A or option D but not option B or option C. There is no prejudice against opening a new RfC to discuss which of option A or option B is preferable.

Cunard (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The title and the opening sentence are not coherent. It might also be confusing that the title is a singular term (Muse) while the opening word is plural (The Muses) which is not following the MOS:LEADSENTENCE rule. Also I was baffled when I searched Muse page but redirected to Muses (Did I search for Muse or Muses? shouldn't it better redirected to disambiguation page). I have already discussed this above, yet there's no good consensus accepted. I have several solutions below. — MusenInvincible (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Option A (current version)

The Muses are the nine inspirational goddesses of literature, science, and the arts in Greek and Roman mythology.

Option B

Muse (pl. Muses) is one of the nine Ancient Greek deities of the inspiration of literature, science, and the arts.

Option C

Muse most often refers to:

• Muse (band), a British rock band
• Muses, a race of Greek deities

So should this disambiguation page only refer to the nine goddesses "Muses" as plural or as singular in the lead, or should it be both of "Muse" and "Muses" (compared to what is written in Titan (disambiguation) with the band mentioned first as the most likely target people are looking for. (See Google Search & pageviews).

Please vote and give the reason in Discussion thread. Thanks — MusenInvincible (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• Option A (or Option D, in the Discussion). -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option A (Summoned by bot) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option A – Þjarkur (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
• A or D. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
• Option D. D is the most clear as to what is actually being asked for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Option A , clearest and simplest (2nd choice Option D, if the ambiguity can be ironed out) - also point out that AFAIK, Muses are not a race, as claimed by Option C (do goddesses have race?). Pincrete (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Option A is fine (and coherent). The primary topic for "Muse" is the subject of the article best titled "Muses", so Muse is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If the plural/singular is seen as incoherent:

A Muse is one of the nine Ancient Greek deities of the inspiration of literature, science, and the arts.

would be adequate as an option D. Option C is less coherent, since there's a primary topic for Muse, and it's not the band. For that, we'd need a move request to move this disambiguation page to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• I'm voting option A, because B could lead some to think that Muse is the name of one of the muses, C goes against the primary redirect convention (per JHunter). I would be ok with D as well. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Option A is the clearest one. I don't feel the redirect is confusing, the article has hatnotes. – Þjarkur (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 16 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per WP:PTOPIC the Greek goddesses have a long-term significance the band lacks and should be the primary topic. (non-admin closure) Vpab15 (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Muse (disambiguation) → Muse – Muse currently redirects to Muses (the ancient Greek goddesses). However, Muse (band) sees about one and a half times as much traffic (167k vs 111k over the last 90 days, and of the 111k views for Muses, 48k came through Muse, possibly looking for Muse (band) instead) and clearly has substantial long-term significance as well. Hence, Muses is not the primary topic. As there is no primary topic, users searching for muse should land at this disambiguation page instead. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 18:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support no clear primary topic for the singular, by usage it would be the band, by long-term significance it would be the goddesses and there are a number of other uses on the DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. There's no clear primary topic for the singular form — move disambiguation page to basename~ Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. per nom and others above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose, per just about everything and then some. The present redirection of Muse to Muses is correct per long term significance (it has been primary since Ancient Greece, a bit before the band formed and will still be primary long-after the band is forgotten). There is also no notice of this move at either the Muse article, its redirect page, or the six WikiProject's who keep watch over the page (RM's, especially of popular or important topics, should not be snuck in the back door of a disamb. page). Randy Kryn (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention of having this fly under the radar. Since this page is to be moved, its talk page is simply the only appropriate forum. I have posted the following message to the talk pages of WikiProject Disambiguation, Muse (band) and the WikiProjects that have rated Muses or Muse (band) high-importance or top-importance:

An editor has requested for Muse (disambiguation) to be moved to Muse. Since you had some involvement with Muse (disambiguation), you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Whether or not to move depends mostly on the question if a) Muses (the ancient Greek goddesses) is the primary topic, or b) Muses and Muse (band) are comparably significant, and there is no primary topic.

As for long-term significance, the guideline explicitely states that "While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative.". Influential composers and musicians are typically well-known for centuries after their lifetime, and, since we are working on an encyclopedia for our future readers, future long-term significance is a more useful criterium than historical significance. ExcitedEngineer (talk) 12:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Long term historical significance, if strong enough, continues uninterrupted into future long-term significance. The societal symbolism of the muses of the ancient world and their representatives in the lives of individual artists will continue unabated. The band Muse, no matter how well regarded and currently enjoyed, is a popular and talented blip in the roaring timestream of human creativity. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. At the moment, let's say 4/10th of the readers end up directly at the right page, 5/10th are one click away from it (the band article), and 1/10th (or less) need the disambiguation instead. After the requested move, everyone will be 1 click away from the requested page. This means that this proposal makes things worse for 4/10th of the readers, and better for 1/10th or less. A proposal to make the band the primary topic, with a direct link in the hatnote to the Greek Muses, and one to the disambiguation for the remainder, could get my support (as that would make life easier for more readers than the opposite). But a move which may be technically correct but which makes things harder for more people (compared to the much smaller number of people who get it easier afterwards) is not an improvement. Fram (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  Per WP:NOPRIMARY "If there are multiple topics (even just two) to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page" and there are other uses such as Muse (2017 film) which gets 2,518 and Muse (Grace Jones album) which gets 1,018 compared to 25,123 for Muses[[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale, WP:HITS suggests this is not a good argument. The original Muses are the primary topic, and the film and the album are both secondary uses referring to the primary topic. GPinkerton (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  @GPinkerton: WP:HITS redirects to page about search engine test rather than page hits here which is what WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY refers to and do all uses derive from the primary topic? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

  Crouch, Swale, looking at each of the entries in the list, it would seem the only non-Musical Muses are the town of Muse, Myanmar, the Somali Muse (clan), and the nowherevilles of Muse, Florida and Muse, Oklahoma, which seem to have been named after iterations of Muse (surname). Nothing comes close to being a contender for primacy. GPinkerton (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per RK. Bit annoying how pop culture is always arguing that its topics should clear the field of topics of historical and cultural significance, leading to the bizarre result that the hundreds of things named after Greek and Roman topics generally crowd out whatever they were named after in the first place. [[File:Springfield News|thumb|Wikipedian yells at cloud]] P Aculeius (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Randy Kryn and P Aculeius. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Classic split primarytopic. Readers would be best served by the move. Dohn joe (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• The proposal isn't as outrageous as it seems at first, especially if you consider that Wikipedia titles don't distinguish capitalisation in the first letter: while the ancient goddesses are clearly the primary reference of Muse, there's also the lower-case muse, which is a very common word for a source of artistic inspiration. – Uanfala (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what a muse does, either ancient or present day, upper or lower case. And "muse" as a descriptor of the source of artistic inspiration tracks right back to the word Muse. If the band was commonly and universally known as humanities main source of artistic inspiration since 1994 then I could see the window opening a crack. It isn't. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  The article at Muses is about the Ancient Muses, it is not at all about the concept of artistic inspiration, even though the two are etymologically related. – Uanfala (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  The second lead paragraph at Muses reads: "The word 'muse' can refer in general to anyone or anything which inspires an artist, musician, or writer." Individuals considered muses are listed in Category:Muses. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Randy Kryn and P Aculeius. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Randy Kryn, the mythological meaning is the obvious primary topic by longterm significance._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment redirect Muse attracted just seven bad links for the band (plus one for Mu Se Township), but others may already have been fixed. Certes (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  It has a large number of incoming links intended for muse, rather than Muse. – Uanfala (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  True, though we don't have a separate article on that topic. Some articles should show lowercase m but the links lead to the least bad target, unless they should be unlinked or diverted to Wiktionary. Certes (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  We don't have a separate article, though we probably should: both the French and the German Wikipedias do. For the time being, the least bad option would probably be to pipe those links via a redirect (like Muse (inspiration)) pointing to Artistic inspiration. – Uanfala (talk) 20:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  A slender majority of incoming links are in lowercase, though many of them refer to the Greek goddesses (and some uppercase links refer to other inspiration). Certes (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose as Randy Kryn & P Aculeius have stated above. We shouldn't base naming choices on popularity. -- llywrch (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the Muses are the clear primary topic, in both the proper sense and the Wikipedia sense. Artistic muses, the band, and museums are all secondary meanings. GPinkerton (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, underrates importance of the historic muses. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - long term significance should take a back seat to reader preferences. Readers' opinions about what's important, as judged by page views > editors' opinions about what's important, as judged by !votes. The page views are close enough to show that Muses is not the primary topic for Muse. Neither is Muse (band) (or at least I'm not convinced it is yet). As such, it should be a dab page. So, basically, per nom. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Randy Kryn, P Aculeius and GPinkerton. Avilich (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Forget about the band, long-term significance itself is split between a) a member of the nine Muses; b) a person who's the source of an artist's inspiration. – Uanfala (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  Both a) and b) (about which there is less to say) are covered at Muse. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  Are they? The a) article at Muses has a single sideways sentence mentioning b) (the one Randy Kryn has helpfully quoted above in conspicuous bold). And I don't see how it could be expanded with anything more about it – just because two topics are known by the same name isn't a reason to cover them within the same article. – Uanfala (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes they are! There is also the section "In modern art, film, literature". More on post-classical & metaphorical use, and the ?modern concept of a distinct personal muse, would be good, but for now this article is the only place to put it. Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  In agreement with this. The "second sense" is the same article. Further coverage can be supplied to it. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  The section "In modern art, film, literature" is about depictions of the ancient Muses in modern art etc, it's not at all about the concept of a muse. The second sense is treated in separate articles on other wikipedias, and it will be listed separately in any dictionary you can find. I really don't see how the two topics could be treated in the same article – the connection between the two is essentially constrained to an etymology. – Uanfala (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  I won't go on about it, but both aspects of that comment are clearly wrong, imo. The French "Muse_(inspiration)", which seems near-identical to the German one, has almost as much on the classical muses as modern ones. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  The French article has just three sentences about the goddesses, and there are only there as an explanation of the origin of the term. But regardless of how you count, the main point is that fr:Muse (inspiration) is a different article from fr:Muses. But even the wikipedias that don't have separate articles, like es:Musa or it:Muse (divinità), still clearly limit the scope of that one article to be about the divinities. No wikipedia that I've checked, not even the English one, mixes up the two topics. – Uanfala (talk) 17:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  FWIW I strongly agree that "The Muses" is a different topic from "muse". They're homophones, not synonyms. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  If you're right – and you probably are – then muse has no primary topic and should be a dab: the Greeks and the artistic muse prevent each other being PT, regardless of views on the band or other topics called muse. If not then I'm less sure. Perhaps we should agree the best target for links such as Lady Gaga considers Donatella Versace her muse before deciding this RM. Certes (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Randy Kryn and others. The Greek mythological entities and their inspirational attributes are the primary topic. If and when that topic is split between the entities and their attributesinspirational function, we will need disambiguation. Until then it is not needed. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There's nothing to split off from Muses. The nearest superordinate article that covers meaning b) is Artistic inspiration. – Uanfala (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Quite so, this may change, but no current need. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Both competing topics have long-term significance (though one is indeed much much longer). One topic has the lion's share of usage. Many of the opposes above seem to be based on what things are named after what other things, which isn't part of the Wikipedia determination. The multiple less-than-ideal ways to try to put the two topics in this disambiguation reflects the problem. The disambiguation page should be at the base name, but like a task force for updating the incoming links would be needed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, much much longer. Muse is an apparently very important band in an arguably large portion of 1990s musical history (never heard of them), but muses embody our ancient symbolism of the goddesses. A symbolism encompassing and held within civilizations ever-expanding creative window, there, Beethoven's fifth, there, that little dash of blue in the corner of a child's artwork. Muses pertain to what inspires humans to tap into their access to the undescribable and bring forth the therebefore unimaginable. Seems arguably no contest for overall historical importance and long-term significance, the ladies grab that brass ring with all 18 hands. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clear long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The Greek topic is not sufficiently of long-term significance compared to the band to warrant a primary topic here. The disambig serves readers best.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

References

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Organisation

JHunterJ, is there any reason for removing the "Science and technology" section and merging its entries into a flat "Other uses" list, which now has as many as 20 entries [2]? – Uanfala (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

IMO there's no benefit to force-grouping a headband, erectile dysfunction medication, glider, television standard, and musical instrument. I don't think having as many as 20 entries is a hindrance to finding one of those items if one is looking for it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The twenty entries aren't exhausted by the five peculiar ones you've just listed :) – Uanfala (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation page ordering

I reverted this edit because I do not see a good reason to depart from the conventional ordering of disambiguation pages at the explanatory supplement WP:LONGDAB. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That isn't the conventional ordering, just one user's non-consensus essay on ordering. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the older version, from before December, was somewhat better navigable. Sure, it could have done with a bit of trimming, but merging almost half of the entries on this long dab page into an "Other uses" section isn't the way to do it. – Uanfala (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@JHunterJ: WP:BRD requires a discussion not a comment and a revert back. Note the preamble to WP:LONGDAB characterises it as an explanatory supplement. It is not "one user's non-consensus essay on ordering". I think that it should apply here, and @Uanfala: makes a comment above in favour of a version that uses that style, so unless further consensus is to ignore the explanatory supplement, please leave the page alone. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Muse as a person providing artistic inspiration

Just an additional note re this edit: this is probably the second primary meaning of the word in English and until an article gets written on it, I don't think we should pretend the topic doesn't exist by just linking back to a section of the primary article. Also worth noting that the link to Artistic inspiration was the fourth most visited link from the dab (after the Muses, the band and the film) [3]. – Uanfala (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

An article was written (well, partly written and partly translated from the Russian article) just now: Muse (source of inspiration). I think it's an important use, and we do have a well-populated Category:Muses. (I moved the entry here for the source of inspiration up near the top of the article for this reason, subject to discussion of course.)

The creation of this article would tend to tilt things toward having Muse go to this page, yes its been discussed but that might change things some, idk. In which case I'd put the three main uses (muses, band, inpirations) at the top. Or if not, should Muses now have a redirect to 1) the inspiration, 2) the band, and 3) the disambig, now? Herostratus (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

muse in homestuck?

In Homestuck (webcomic, 2009), there is a class called the Muse. Should this be included? 172.59.193.117 (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Maliner (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Muse (disambiguation) → Muse – Its been about 3 years since the previous RM so I think its time for another. The band has more views (37,229) than Muses (32,000), the web series has 2,240, the 1999 film has 1,759 Grace Jones album, the source of inspiration has 1,404, the Grace Jones album has 879, the 2017 film has 758, the MusE has 649, the Star Trek: Voyager has 512, the soundtrack has 483, the EP has 378, the headband has 358, the 2019 film has 291, the spacecraft has 213, the children's magazine has 121, the clan has 115, the building has 97, the place in Florida has 86, the Jolin Tsai album has 64, the Hong Kong magazine has 45, the place in Oklahoma has 40, the surname has 38, the Valery Leontiev album has 20, the novel has 15 and the Candy Lo album has 2[[4]]. This clearly shows the goddesses isn't primary by usage for the singular while Muse (source of inspiration) is based on the goddesses it also has long-term significance. Most Google results are for the band though the dictionary, headband and Sheffield University also come up but the goddesses doesn't appear to. Images again mainly returns the band with apparently nothing for the goddesses. Books does appear to return some results for the goddesses but the novel comes first. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The previous RM saw a strong consensus for the primary topic by long term significance Muses. There's no indication that that has changed. 162 etc. (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per detailed nomination. There are 50 entries listed upon the Muse (disambiguation) page (as well as 10 entries listed upon The Muse dab page, which does not have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) and little to no indication that the putative WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Muses dwarfs the combined notability of the remaining 49 entries. The previous RM — Talk:Muse (disambiguation)#Requested move 16 December 2020, above — resulted in 12 "oppose" votes and 9 "support" votes, thus confirming the absence of an overwhelming consensus on the issue. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Hope to keep Muse (source of inspiration) at the top of the dab page. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 04:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• The page view statistics are certainly relevant, but we can also analyze a bit about the specific readership of "Muse" by looking at https://wikinav.toolforge.org/?language=en&title=Muses which indicates that in October '23, there were 1125 identified clickstreams to the band hatnote, 438 to the source of inspiration hatnote, and 219 to the generic hatnote. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2015-07&end=2023-11&pages=Muses%7CMuse_(band)%7CMuse indicates the traffic to just Muse in the same month was 10548. So 1782/10548 = ~17%, meaning ~83% of the readers of "Muse" didn't seem to click the hatnote. This is on the edge of safe primary redirect status by usage already, and you need a more coherent argument why changing the navigation would actually improve it for readers, and not make it worse for the apparent supermajority of readers who already don't give us any indication that it's bad. --Joy (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, nothing has changed since the last RM, the Muses have long term significance and likely always will. The newer and short "source of inspiration" page could be merged to Muses, as it provides an important meaning which may be lost in the midst of Muses being the long-term significant topic (although have made it clearer with a longer link in the lead). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per the long-term significance of the mythological beings. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per long-term significance and educational value. Srnec (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Is there any evidence that "Muse" – just "Muse" – has long-term significance as the Muses? For example, Google Scholar and Books searches for "muses" predictably show results for only the mythological group, but a search for "muse" very much does not (I count zero on the first three pages of Scholar and five on three pages of Books), instead showing other meanings like Muse cell, Multi-unit spectroscopic explorer, and Muse (source of inspiration). Hameltion (talk | contribs) 05:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.