Talk:Genius (disambiguation)

someone put up something about the new genius program in itunes please? 216.227.17.26 (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

an employee at the apple store? that doesn't sound right... dachshund2k3 (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I thought the article was referring to the above program. dachshund2k3 (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper reversion by shelfskewed

Excuse me, this reverted disambig page is NOT according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). That help page says the following very clearly: "Rather than including a dictionary definition of a word, create a cross-link to our sister project, Wiktionary. To do this, use one of the Wiktionary link templates on the first line." The link to Wikionary is there. We do not need the definition. I therefore am putting it back the way it was. Furthermore, if you continue to object, I would like to see exactly what article of that huge page you mean. We do not need a leading definition of genius; furthermore, such a definition is against policy. It is too much verbiage. And finally, that is not the only definition of genius. Look it up in the unabridged English dictionaries. You need to either get a system administrator on your side quit reverting my changes. Thank you.Dave (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would point you to WP:BRD. You made an edit, and it was reverted. You should have entered into discussion before reinstating your changes.

Second, the portion of the Manual of Style for disambiguation pages that I was referring to is the section on Linking to a primary topic. In those cases where the disambiguation page is located at Foo (disambiguation)--that is, in cases where the disambiguated term has the primary topic Foo--the introductory sentence should link to that primary topic. In this case, the primary topic article--as defined by Wikipedia usage--is Genius. All that's on the dab page is a very brief description of that particular use, not an assertion that this is the only or original use. It seems to me that perhaps your quarrel is, or should be, with the content and composition of the article Genius. I don't see any reason to make an exception to the MoS guidelines in this case.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is it your intention to decline to discuss this further as long as the page is arranged your way? Unless you have a good reason why this disambiguation page should be treated differently from other, similar dab pages, I will restore the format that matches WP:MOSDAB guidelines.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not my intention. I didn't see this; I'm working on other things. What drew my attention was the big white space left by the repetition and placement of the TOCRIGHT. I see you have allowed that to be fixed. What struck me also is that, when you first reverted, you reverted the white space, or allowed it to be reverted, which led me to think you didn't know enough to fix it. I notice your confrontative manner also and I ask myself, why? You presume to tell me what my intent is. I'm not interested in arguments and my intent is to do it right. Let's stick to the issue. The basic issue is, should the dictionary definition be placed at the top? You have an ideal, that in each case it should be. Apart from the fact that the definition given is only one of the many senses of the word, I think we should clarify the basic issue first, as I see many pages being done that way. To me that help page says, if you have a reference to Wiktionary, there is no need to put any definition at the top, that such a definition creates more unnecessary verbiage. Now there is the question of why this does not say that to you! Let me evaluate your above answer and then append the evaluation to this discussion. That may not be today. It is the 4th and I have other things to do; moreover, I'd rather work on articles. But, as we are talking about a standard format to apply to all such disambigs, I think an overall decision ought to be reached. As it may have to be an administrative decision I pass on re-reverting it for the moment. Find something else to do; I will send you a message when I am ready. No rush, is there?Dave (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Hmm. I notice you have 40,000 edits and are a book collector. I collect books myself, but I don't have room for them anymore. Unless you are going deal and have storage space you have to go for quality and interest rather than quantity. One soon runs out of space. For many years I spent a lot of time handcrafting bookcases. Anyway, are you a system administrator? Do you speak from the bully pulpit? Setting up to resolve this with a block, are you? Regardless of what your status is, I think you are wrong. The definition should not be at the top when there is a Wiktionary entry there. If you are an administrator you are not supposed to bully. Moreover I notice you are set up to provide refs to the policy. What good does that do when the ref is to extensive material covering many topics? Talk to you later.Dave (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where to begin?

1) I am not an admin, and I have neither the ability nor the desire to block you. You are clearly not a vandal or troublemaking editor; we merely have a disagreement. In one sense, there is nothing special about admins; in the ordinary course of things, their opinions regarding editing decisions carry no more weight than yours or mine. But if you would like an admin to support my formatting of the page, I can probably supply two or three or more.

2) A dictionary definition, in this context, refers to a pure definition that has nothing to do with disambiguating a Wikipedia article. Take, for example, the dab page Somewhere (which I just had to clean up): There is no Wikipedia article dealing with the meaning "an undetermined or unspecified location," so such a definition, unrelated to any article, does not belong on the dab page. As you point out, that's what the Wiktionary link is for. But the case is different here. There is an article dealing with the meaning of genius as "a mentally gifted person," and that article is located at Genius. Mentioning and describing this article is not a dictionary definition; it is disambiguating a particular use of the term as the title of a WP article.

3) There are two basic types of dab page. One type is exemplified by that page Somewhere; there is no primary topic, so the disambiguation page is located at the plain term, and all the uses are listed below a standard unlinked introductory line. The second type of dab page is what we have here. In the case of the term genius, it has been determined by consensus (although consensus can change) that the primary topic for this term is "a mentally gifted person," so the article about that meaning is located at the plain title, and the dab page is located at Genius (disambiguation). As I explained in my earlier message, when a dab page is located at the (disambiguation) title, then the introductory line should link to and briefly describe the primary-topic article. That is what is being done on the Genius (disambiguation) page. The top line is not a bare dictionary definition; it is there to state the primary-topic article and distinguish it from all the other uses of the term.

4) If your issue is not just with this particular page but with all the dab pages formatted this way, that issue can't be resolved here. The place to initiate that discussion is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

5) Re: book collecting. Believe me, I'm painfully aware of space issues, and I'm constantly culling the collection. And I'm sure I'll be obliged to sell off or donate parts the collection as the years go by, just like most other collectors. But I also find that as I get older I'm more confident in my taste and judgement, and I can tell what is really significant to me and worth keeping, and what is not. So I don't mind too much getting rid of what I let go. Regards --ShelfSkewed Talk 17:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another sense of the word

In private conversation with William "The Genius" Gibson (see William Gibson (playwright) (1914–2008), American playwright, author of The Miracle Worker), my mother and I discussed this word intensively. He knew more about it than anybody, but was impressed with my mother's erudition, and went so far, when I coined a word, to say he was tempted to "pass his crown" to me. I think he was a bit fond of coining "clever" words. He did it a lot in his writings. We were all aware of a meaning which isn't apparent in this article, which is not divine. Divinity relates to gods and goddesses, or God. A genius in this sense is something everybody has. It's something that resides in your mind and guides your thinking. It accounts for the particular varieties of "genius" possessed by "geniuses", accounts for the way you are the way you are, and explains the concept of "genius loci", though as I said, it isn't divine, just mysterious. When Bill wrote "The Miracle Worker", that was genius at work, not only in the sense that he was working as a genius, but also in the sense that his genius, like a muse, was inspiring him. To get a feel for this sense of genius, I'm sure it would help to go back to ancient sources, but not being a classicist myself, I've got to beg out. "Genius" in this sense is related to "demon" ("daimon", "daemon", etc.), which means a sort of driving spirit, a genius which has an obsession to get something done. This is the sense in which poets and public intellectuals often use it, and philosophers and psychologists speculate about it. Your genius might lead you to playing the violin obsessively, but if you want to get really good at it, you've got to be driven by a demon, hopefully a beneficent and benevolent one. 172.56.26.161 (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]