Talk:Spirit

Notes

See Talk:Spiritual_being

True or false??

True or false: this article belongs at Spirit (disambiguation) and Spiritual being at Spirit. 66.245.124.71 23:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure, that could work. However, if you do make the shift, please be careful that all the definitions in the religion/spirituality section of this article successfully make the jump over into the new Spirit article. Eventually, they could all be developed into separate sections of that article. Also, we might want to title that new article Spirit (religion), or Spirit (spirituality), or somesuch. --Gary D 00:16, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Islamic and Arabic World

I'm unclear as to what this section refers to. It is confusing and should probably be removed. GreatManTheory (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Removed. seresin ( ¡? )  03:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Spirit of the era

The disambiguation page should maybe include references to the expression spirit of the era, such as the famous spirit of the sixties and the spirit of Vatican II. ADM (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The entry Zeitgeist covers spirit of the era. Obankston (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Spirit vs Spirited

There are several "partial title matches" for things named Spirited. Any reason to exclude them? This can be observed in the Wikipedia Search field: type Spirited - several items are offered. This means that there is an ambiguity. There is every possibility that people will land on Spirit while seeking something with Spirited in the name. Discuss. --Lexein (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The album Spirited Migration is not ambiguous with "spirited". Other similar unambiguous partial title matches should also be removed. Please see WP:MOSDAB. Disambiguation pages are not an index for subject titles that merely start with or contain the term. older ≠ wiser 02:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, and do not appreciate your summary deletion of on-guideline additions. MOSDAB says nothing like what you've said. I think you're excluding items which justifiably belong in this DAB page - there's no "Spirited" DAB page, so they have to go here. By your logic, Spirited (TV series) should also be excluded. DAB is about a) words b) concepts c) article titles. I see that you're an interested editor on this DAB page, I hope you will consider that you may be exhibiting WP:OWN behavior. I would abide by a four-or-more-editor RfC on this - shall we seek one?--Lexein (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:PTM says explicitly what he said: titles that happen to include a word are not necessarily ambiguous with the word. Readers looking for "Spirited Away" are not searching on "Spirited" any more than readers looking for "New York" are searching on "New". There is not disambiguation page for "Spirited" because it's not an ambiguous title. Dab is about a) ambiguous titles. I believe we'll all abide by consensus, whether it comes from 4+ RFC or not. See also WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) a)WP:OWN goes both ways. b) Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Examples of individual entries that should not be created: On a page called Title, do not create entries merely because Title is part of the name. Also see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches: A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. The page at Spirited had, until earlier today, been a redirect to Spirit and the only disambiguation options offered there was for Spirit (disambiguation). That is why I left the TV show on the the disambiguation page. Now the TV show has been moved to "Spirited" and the only disambiguation options offered are for Spirit (disambiguation). It may be that "spirited" is now determined to be unambiguous and the entry can now be removed from the disambiguation page. The other titles do not appear to be ambiguous under any scenario. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude. It's a guideline, to which common sense should be applied. One of the core purposes of DAB pages are to help readers. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is linking to content, not excluding links to content. Bkonrad is not applying common sense, nor engaging the core issue. I would appreciate advice on moving forward in an inclusive, common sense way.

If I erred in redirecting Spirited to Spirited (TV series), I'll own that. My intention was to reduce the number of clicks. Perhaps that was wrong.

Still, a reader may be seeking something with "Spirited" in the title, but misremember it as "Spirit". I do not agree that they should have no chance of finding what they want, due to a single editor clinging to a non-prominent subsection of a guideline.

I also have qualms with calling Spirited (TV Series) primary - there are certainly other Spirited items. Is there not some better unified approach?

--Lexein (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Dude. Common sense was applied in the creation (and long revision) of the guidelines. Bkonrad's recap of those common sense guidelines is very inclusive of all of the consensus that has gone into it. You cannot simply posit your changes and then demand 4+ RFC or call all opposing views exclusive or lacking common sense.

Your change to Spirited seems correct -- the TV series (a noun) is a more likely encyclopedic destination than one of the adjective forms of "spirit". Moving the dabbed title to the base name then followed.

A reader may be seeking something with "Spirited" in the title, but misremember it has "Spearmint". Shall we include all of the "Spiriteds" on Spearmint (disambiguation) as well, or let the readers make use of the search function? The problem with including all of the "maybe one reader someday might have this problem" cases is that they make the disambiguation page too long and cumbersome for the actual readers who are trying to navigate the encyclopedia. If you would like to change the current consensus for partial-title matches in general (instead of this case), then yes, your earlier question about forums would be that it would be discussed at WT:D.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 19:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is that Spirit is close to Spirited, and not necessarily excludable based on the "starts with" exclusion - isn't the point of that excusion about whole words, not syllables? Common sense application is invited right at the TOP of MOSDAB, to account for gaps in consensus. I didn't put it there, and my RfC is appropriate: not in standing against consensus, but to somehow account for this, apparent, exclusion of reasonably includable DAB content. Spearmint isn't close. Please.

OFFS, I'm not going after changing consensus - nothing so scary or egomaniacal as that. Stop it.

Should there be a Spirited DAB page? Check the lookahead results when searching for Spirited... I'm not making this stuff up. --Lexein (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The question whether there should be a separate "spirited" is a matter of whether there are any articles that are ambiguous. Currently there is only one article. The others are unambiguous partial title matches -- and you have given no reason to think that these partial title matches are ambiguous other than the possibility that someone might misremember the title. But that is precisely what the consensus about partial title matches does not support. older ≠ wiser 00:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Repeating identical text at me doesn't explain anything. I'm not seeing why multiple articles starting with Spirit are considered ambiguous enough for a rather exhaustive listing of albums, when the article names are clearly unambiguous. There's an artificial distinction about the definition and application of the word "ambiguous", which doesn't help readers find articles, when that overspecificity benefits articles of one artificial class, and buries others in what seems like opposition to core tenets. Lest you consider me a dunce, I do understand not creating an exhaustive index. But there's a bias here, which damages article accessibility, and it's too bad you don't see that.--Lexein (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, other than JHunterJ and me repeating ourselves, I can't see what you're not understanding. Each of the songs or albums (not the article) is titled exactly "Spirit". The article titles have parenthetical or sometimes natural disambiguation, but in each case, if there were no other articles titled "spirit" then any one of the articles would be titled as "spirit" only. However, because there are many articles that could be titled as "spirit" a disambiguation page is necessary. Subjects that are not known as simply "spirit" are not ambiguous and are not included. That is the basic criteria for disambiguation pages. Article titles that merely include the term but are not otherwise ambiguous are not included. This is well-established convention. I'm sorry that you seem to be having a hard time grasping this. older ≠ wiser 02:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's why Spiritus and Spiritual aren't included in Spirit (disambiguation), and I guess you don't see any sort of problem with that, given core Wikipedia principles of connecting articles and helping readers. (I'm no religious advocate, just something of a fan of words, and how they are actually related.) There are these methods of connecting articles: links within articles, See also, categories, DAB pages, lists, and searching. Are you beginning to see what I'm talking about? Closing off avenues of article access: it's a problem. One way around this might be a template for Search for articles with similar word roots , but that's not what is needed either: it's just a workaround for exclusionary DAB rules, acted on in direct opposition to building a better encyclopedia. --Lexein (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, which is what the {{Lookfrom}} and {{Intitle}} templates are for. older ≠ wiser 11:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(after ec) Keeping the navigation pages useful for navigation (e.g., by keeping them from becoming bloated with every possible target for hypothetical very unsophisticated users) builds a better encyclopedia. I saw what you were talking about at the beginning; you're not the first editor to want to take disambiguation pages away from "ease of navigation" to "tenuous connection". See also

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orange-breasted‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green-backed
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkest
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forstal (disambiguation)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue-necked
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universidad
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good looking (no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retain (disambiguation) (no consensus)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusky
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as painted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lurking
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of titles with "Darker" in them
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of placenames containing the word "new"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of places beginning with Costa
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On wheels

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"not the first editor to want to take pages away from "ease of navigation"". Well, if ever there was a complete misunderstanding of what I want, that's it. Unfortunate. --Lexein (talk) 12:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Spirit (2012 film) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Spirit which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

The record of that discussion is now found at Talk:Spirit (animating force). — BarrelProof (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"Rooah" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Rooah. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 2#Rooah until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"Astral Spirits" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Astral Spirits. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 2#Astral Spirits until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 22:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

"Aspirare" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Aspirare. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 2#Aspirare until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)