Talk:Zeitgeist (disambiguation)

Zeitgeist the Movie
To put an end to all the back-and-forth about the appropriate description of Zeitgeist, the Movie here on the disambiguation page, perhaps we should follow a narrow construction of WP:MOSDAB and reduce this line of the DAB page to the following, short, sweet, and totally NPOV:


 * Zeitgeist, the Movie, a 2007 documentary film directed by Peter Joseph

Thoughts?--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have "American Zeitgeist, a 2006 documentary film", it seems a little to similar. I think the current language is descriptive and not too long.--Sloane (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, I agree with the simplified approach of your latest edit. I added the director's name to each film as a strictly neutral way of identifying them. Hopefully this will be OK with all; this is just the disambiguation page, after all, and substantive characterizations of the films belong on the article pages, not here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think the "a 2007 film propagating several economic, social, political and religious conspiracy theories" version or something like it was better, but I'm trying to avoid User:Zeitgeisty his edit warring. Anyone else agree this is the better version?--Sloane (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty weird to have "The Zeitgeist movement" as a category under "Zeitgeist the movie". As far as I've come to understand, the movement is not directly affiliated with the series of films, and even less so with the first movie which seems to discuss completely different things. I'm no expert on the matter though, does anyone know if this interpretation is correct? --Granbarreman (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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 not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (disambiguation) → Zeitgeist – The current "article" at Zeitgeist is nothing more than a dictionary entry. There's nothing encyclopedic to say about this topic beyond what would be found in a dictionary. As such, it is not in our scope, and this disambiguation page should replace it. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Powers T 03:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Postpone. AfD (or Prod) the article at Zeitgeist first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If I did that, it'd be rejected on procedural grounds since I'm actually asking to replace it, not delete it. Powers T 18:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I'm surprised (although perhaps I shouldn't be). There's article content that you're proposing to delete content from the encyclopedia. I don't see how RM (which is unadvertised on Zeitgeist, while AfD or Prod would be) be the correct approach? -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Because (and this is my understanding which could be mistaken), AfD is for deleting pages, not deleting content. Content can be removed at any time by anyone, because this is a wiki.  Powers T 14:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing all of the content from a page and moving different content from another page to that title is effectively a deletion process, and should go through the proper channels for deletion. bd2412  T 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Improve the existing Zeitgeist article instead. bd2412  T 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said above, "There's nothing encyclopedic to say about this topic beyond what would be found in a dictionary." If you disagree, you improve it.  Powers T 00:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And this kind of discussion is better suited to an AfD for Zeitgeist. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced; WP:DP indicates that I could just replace the content of Zeitgeist with "#REDIRECT Zeitgeist (disambiguation)" without an AFD. How is what I'm proposing any different than that?  Powers T 13:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Its closure would imply consensus, but the discussion isn't drawing attention of visitors to Zeitgeist. That edit might get reverted, either by an editor who disagrees or as WP:MALPLACED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I told you this would happen.  Powers T 02:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't move, the zeitgeist article is clearly more than a dictionary definition, and the term is clearly the primary topic. Dondegroovily (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't conflate "dictionary definition" with "dictionary entry". Dictionaries contain more information beyond simple definitions.  Powers T 13:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose move, and Oppose AfD - this article is already more than a dicdef and Zeitgeist in itself is a notable concept, which is why spirit of the age redirects to it. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For Pete's sake, I just asked Dondegroovily not to conflate "dictionary definition" with "dictionary entry". Yes, this is more than a "dicdef".  But WP:NOTDICT recommends against dictionary entries of any sort, not just definitions.  Powers T 19:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDICT has a purpose which has the same it has been for a decade. To prevent perma-stubs here. It was drastically necessary in the early years. -- Its purpose is not to prevent long and well-referenced articles about words, although very few of those are possible (eg American (word), Football (word), Craic, etc).
 * This topic, the concept of zeitgeist (not the word 'zeitgeist'), has potential to become a full length FA-quality article, if all the relevant sources from philosophy and psychology are summarized. (And if it is given time to grow). —Quiddity (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone talks about potential, but no one has put forth any significant sources that demonstrate that potential. At the time I tagged it, it was indeed a stub, and I'm not yet convinced there's any way for it to grow beyond that.  Also, the article has existed since 2004; how much more "time to grow" does it need before it becomes evident that there's nowhere for it to grow?  Powers T 21:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering how many of our WP:CORE articles are Start or C-class, probably quite a long time. But even longer if the current information is deleted. —Quiddity (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's essentially a meaningless metric, then. If this article hasn't yet had time enough to grow, then no article could ever be declared moribund and unexpandable.  Powers T 02:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - This RM should have been closed Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist 16 October 2012 closed as Keep. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per result of AfD and improvements to article which points towards definite potential. —Quiddity (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2012 (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.