Talk:Romance

Request

• Keep the article as a disambiguation page 200.78.133.10 20:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Other meanings for romance

I was looking for "romanticism"/"romance" in terms of having romantic ideals and attitudes (not necessarily Romantic love, though), but all I get are stuff about art styles and movements. Anybody want to create something about romance as a state of mind or something? Comrade-HW 04:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I say the Romance page should be redirected to one of the other Romance-related articles, such as Romance_languages or another. Knightskye 04:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

--Yes this is a problem. There really should be a seperate article for "romance"; "romantic love" actually has a whole different meaning. If I am able to, I will begin one on romance seperate from "romantic love." Modern day society does not seem to understand the difference, but it should be duly noted, for the connection between love and romance in today's society would not exist in the way that it does without the romantic forms of the past. Chado2423 19:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Grouping

So everyone can tell, I've group the various links on this page by subject/field. This puts the articles Romance languages and Romanticism at the bottom on the list. I'm interested in alternative arrangements and/or orders for the entries. -Acjelen 02:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly alphabetical order of the main subjects (Cinema, Culture, Fiction, Music, Poetry) and then alphabetical within them? That's the simplest... Bookgrrl 16:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

If (since) this is a Disambiguation page, why doesn't it say so at the top? Newbie Laurie Fox 21:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the time, the disambiguation notice is at the bottom of the article. -Acjelen 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Contested move request (2007)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Romance → Romance (disambiguation) — (This should be done first to accomplish next move) —Lara bran 13:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose romantic love, romance novel, romance language, romance period, romance style art, romance (love affair), romantic mood 70.55.88.166 22:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • This is necessary, as title should match contents. After move, let Romance redirect to Romance (disambiguation) itself. Later i may seek consensus for redirecting romance to romatic love. (Note:This is not withdrawn.)Lara bran 05:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If your suggestion is that all disambiguation pages should appear a xxx (disambiguation), then you are mistaken, disambiguation pages sit without the parenthesized discriminator, unless it is necessary because a non-disamiguation article sits at the primary name. 70.55.88.166 15:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Not all disambiguation pages, only pages where mostly new users come. This is one such page. Lara bran 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
          • If you look at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions, you'll see what the guideline says about disambiguation page titles. 132.205.44.5 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Romance has many definitions. There is not much point in moving X to X (disambiguation). ●DanMS • Talk 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: True romance has many definitions, so let "Romance" redirect here after this move. Lara bran 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Current page is highly confusing to newbies, who are majority who come here. Let Romance redirect here but let page title be Romance (disambiguation). See Talk:Romance#Disambiguation.3F right above this, i take one support vote from that newbie, as romance is searched mostly by newbies to wikipedia. Lara bran 05:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

  We prefer plain titles for dabs when the plain title isn't being used for something else; see WP:MDP for more details. Oppose. Dekimasuよ! 03:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Since the somewhat mysterious WP:RM process leads to comments being moved hither and yon, I can't recall what I posted here before. However the simple move of Romance to Romance (disambiguation) doesn't seem necessary. And the original proposal that wanted Romance and Romantic love to be identified seemed unnecessary, given the large number of related concepts that have to be kept straight. EdJohnston 21:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are fewer than 500 articles linking to this, covering diverse topics, many of them user pages or talk pages, and none of them major articles. Therefore the status quo is working well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Scolaire 07:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say it's not a problem; it's listed on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/problems and there are only about 20-30 dab pages with more links on Wikipedia at the moment. Someone will have to fix it, but this is still the best setup since the links are to diverse topics. Dekimasuよ! 03:39, 18 July 2007 (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.

I must say

I am currently one of the primary editors of the romantic love, and I believe this move was made erroneously. Although in modern Western society romance and love are categorically classified as being interwoven, historically this was not the case (as I have found out after some extensive research.) The article "Romance (love)" originally titled "Romantic love" details this distinction throughout certain portions. The reason for the move was in order to co-create a similar term to that of which is used in the Cambridge dictionary, (which educationally makes sense), but unfortunately that dictionary was written after the 19th century in which the major terminology and definition of the word "romance" changed in order to incorporate the aspect of love. It is difficult to see a distinction in modern day society bbecause the word romance currently implies love relationships, yet historically this was not always the case. In the past it romance may have been seen more as expression of the soul, rather than romantic love involvement. "Romantic love" is a more specific term than romance when closely examined, but a good majority of post-modern thinkers place the emphasis on love and romance as being integrated. Although there are those who readily understand the difference. It would be best to have two differing articles "romance" and "romantic love" IF, and I say if, if it were not for the mere fact that many societies currently use the terms in comparison to one another. With all this said, the controversy of the title change is now that matter of personal opinion, because modern terminology is different than the historic terminology of the same concepts. (please ignore my spelling mistakes above, I seem to be a poor speller.) Until I examine this further, I remain neutral as to the title change. Thanks Chado2423 18:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bromance

Considering this article exists, it could be a possible candidate for an addition to the 'See also' section, but I'm a bit hesitant.. -- œ^™ 13:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

“Romance … [is] love emphasizing emotion over libido.”

The quoted sentence is contradictory, in that it ignores that sexual arousal is an emotion. EIN (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Definition

Since the actual definition of romance is politically incorrect, i doubt any actual page on the topic in literal would be allowed to exist long anyway. Romance isn't about emotion or libido. If anything it is simply the precurser permitting either of these the permission to exist.. It is also a term; of which the definition differs depending on the culture, gender, and maturity of the person discussing it - so any definition or article on the topic would be "wiki griefed" by any group with a differing view. Yes it is notable and worth an entry in Wiki, but NO it will never be allowed.

IE Romance - the art of spending signifiant amounts of time, (often doing dangerous things) and resources (ie money) on objects of no practical or useful value in order to prove your Strength, prosperity and suitability for mating, therefor appealing to the opposite sex. See also Animal courtship, and mating rituals.

Although this is a literal definition, even this varies within the groups mentioned earlier.

Good luck finding anyone willing to put this or any other definition in a quotable or notable document, that wouldn't immediately be disageed upon or deleted by someone of a differing opinion group. For the sake of political correctness, this article is doomed from the start; it has too much opinion and emotion attached.

Leave it as a Disambiguation - less "wiki fights" will ensue. The lesser of two evils. 203.123.90.144 (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 17 April 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I've edited the dab so that Romance (love) no longer looks like it's the primary topic (although it's a prominent one, IMO). As far as Romance (love) → Romantic love, that should be settled in a separate RM if someone still wants that page moved. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

---

• Romance → Romance (disambiguation)
• Romance (love) → Romance

– This disambiguation page indicates that a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists. SSTflyer 14:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose That page should really be moved to Romantic love. I don't think that is sufficiently primary to justify the plain term, though it is arguable. There's no need to take the start of the disam page as gospel. Note the previous discussion in 2012 at the other page, and other discussions on this page. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Johnbod. Just because the lead sentence here is not well-considered is no reason to change the entire disambiguation structure. It would be much more sensible to change that opening sentence to more accurately reflect the terminological situation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose a "romance" is a type of story, while the romance period is an era in European history. Also per the 2007 move request. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi - romance can refer to sexual romance, romantic love, romance languages, etc. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 21:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment after the close

Even though this page is on my WP:Watchlist, I somehow missed this discussion. I would have voted "support" since I think that Romance (love) is the WP:Primary topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

So regarding this edit that Tavix made, I see WP:DABPRIMARY in the opposite way for this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Me too, maybe. But "Romance" is not the best title - Romantic love would be better, as I said above. Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Märia Rodriguês Mui 197.218.73.232 (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)