Talk:Motive

Why has a little redlinked line of Hebrew been added to the article? I suspect it's a failed transwiki, but I have no notion what it is or how to fix. Smerdis of Tlön 18:34, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No disambiguation page?

motives something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.80.159 (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be better than the list of alternate meanings at the top of the 'Motive' main article IMO. How do I know that the aforementioned list is comprehensive?

I'm not looking for any of the offered definitions of 'motive' - how do I know without a disambiguation page if the listed alternatives is a comprehensive list? If it isn't, how do I get to the other articles?

I've fixed up all the motive/motif pages and Motive is now a disambig. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-09-27 07:29Z

Chess composition

I have noticed change of chess composition explanation from Motif (chess composition), a reason for that some move works or not in the solution of chess problem. to Motif (chess composition), a reason for which a particular move may or may not be effective in solving a chess problem.

While I appreciate much better English wording, the improvement has also slightly altered the meaning. Now I see it is unsatisfactory (it was before as well). Motifs do not only contribute to effectivity of solution, their role is much more general. I would say they are abstract entities contained in (almost) every move, contributing to the changes in position, whether it is in solution, try, set play... They have quite extensive theory, that is nevertheless understandable to (almost) every chessplayer, once he knows about it. (That is why I even intend to write an article and why there is still red link. Once...) I have no specific suggestion, rather I will think about it... and change the definition in due course. --Ruziklan 06:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my view removing chess composition motif is going too far. It is widely accepted term, well researched over years. This article, although published on my own webpage, summarizes well known theory approved by experts. Should I transform it into separate Wikipedia article to have motif listed on this disambiguation page? --Ruziklan 10:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. I'd just removed the link because the article didn't exist. This is a disambiguation page; its purpose is to suggest articles that the reader might want to read. As such, listing articles which don't exist isn't particularly useful. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In recent cleanup edit I do not understand why motif in chess composition was moved from creative work part of this page to other uses page. Chess composition is partly understood as a kind of art and it is work as creative as one can imagine. Does the used manual of style cover this issue? --Ruziklan (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motive and Motif - merge or no?

Merge - First of all, there is a link on the "Motif" page that directs you to the Motive disambiguation. Secondly, I am studying this topic in class and my book describes it as a "Motive". I am not a music major but from my understanding of the text and the "Motif" wiki article is that they are exacty the same thing.

One example that was given was Beethoven's 5th,"DA-DA-DA-DAA"(Source: Listen - Sixth Edition Pg. 27).--Ponemax (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No merge - I was surprised when I first saw that there was one disambiguation page covering both "motive" and "motif". It seems like the two words have a different cast of associated articles. Is there a particular reason why the WP readership would be served by having the two different sets on one page?--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No merge - This is the English version of Wikipedia, in common English usage Motive and Motif are two whole separate concepts, with very little overlap. In other languages there is a distinct crossover, but not in everyday English. At least as far as I know (AFAIK) here in the US, this may not be so in other English speaking nations.Sfrahm (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No merge - Motive is an alternate spelling for motif, but only by the 'recurring element' definition - see Wiktionary:motive. Articles like Motif (widget toolkit), Aston Motif, and Yamaha Motif should definitely not be listed here however because 'motive' is not an alternate spelling for their proper name. We should separate the disambiguation pages more and add a simple 'see also'. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 12:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my described changes, if you feel this is inappropriate you may change it back. But please say why here. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 23:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOT an "alternate spelling"

I've stumbled upon this Wikipedia disambiguation page some 14-15 months late, and have no idea whether Jujutacular or anyone else is still bothering to monitor comments here. My comment is not so much addressed to the question of whether or not the disambiguation pages for motive and motif should properly be merged - I would say they should not be, and a See Also would be more appropriate - but I was stunned by the assertion that "motive is an alternate spelling for motif" and vice versa. This is simply untrue, and is extremely misleading to the unwary.

These are two different words, although obviously of common etymology, and with overlapping meanings in some limited usages - but in any case, always with differing pronunciations. "Motif" is pronounced mo-TEEF, while "motive" in most cases is pronounced MO-tiv. In the limited instances where "motive" is used in place of "motif", it can be pronounced mo-TEEV with a "v" sound - but not mo-TEEF with an "f" sound. In no circumstances would either of these two words be an "alternate spelling" of the other.

Also, disregard Wiktionary, which is simply user-made like Wikipedia, and carries little to no cachet of authority. Instead look at two authoritative online dictionaries, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: motive, and Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: motive.*

This is especially problematic because nearly all the disambiguation entries under "motive" cannot conceivably be used with the word "motif".

Ponemax, I think this is the source of your confusion. Yes, "motive" pronounced "mo-TEEV" is sometimes used as a synonym for "motif", as your textbook indicated for the opening of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. You cite the link on the "motif" disambiguation page, but that page has exactly the same problem as here.
Milkunderwood (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*This is not to say that Wiktionary is inaccurate - although it may be - or unuseful; simply that it has no authority. Both Merriam-Webster's and Houghton Mifflin's publications are based on extensive and independent research by professional lexicographers. Just looking at the Wiktionary entry for "motif" I see that 1) it's more extensive than the online versions of either M-W 11 or American Heritage (which Houghton Mifflin has turned over to Yahoo to maintain online); and 2) there are zero citations provided. I would guess that the information on that page is mostly taken from either or both of those copyrighted publications, or from the copyrighted Oxford English Dictionary. This is exactly why Wikimedia is currently in trouble over copyrights. Milkunderwood (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you to simply want to remove the bit about it being an alternate spelling, and move it to a 'see also' section at the bottom? I'm okay with that. Jujutacular ^talk 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]