Talk:Passion

Untitled

passion used to have "limerance" as the link. Now its nowhere to be found. Whats up with that?

I do not think we should link passion to limerence. The page [[passion (emotion) should not be a redirect. At best, right now, it should be a stub. In fact, I think I'll go make it one. We have articles like Major characters in The Smurfs and Combat stress reaction which are talking about "passion," but not "limerence." abexy 01:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some musical sources, especially 19th and early-20th-century ones, use "a Passion" as a form of music, as in the sentence "he wrote 12 operas, 2 Passions, a quartet, and 3 cantatas". None of the meanings on this disambig. page seem to fit that. --Delirium 06:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bach composed a work referred to as "the passion" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Matthew_Passion 12:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.28.183 (talk)

Proposed de-disambiguation

Although there are prominent other meanings, I believe that the overwhelming primary meaning of "passion" is the emotion. I think the article should be located at that title, and everything else should go to Passion (disambiguation). bd2412 T 19:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and further more films like The Passion of the Christ should go in the "Film" section ... unless there is a "partial-match" rule which specifically forbids this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PTM covers this. If the film is commonly referred to as simply "Passion" alone, then it's ambiguous and should be disambiguated. The Passion of the Christ makes no mention of that usage, so it doesn't need to be disambiguated, and should be either removed or left in the "See also" section. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read WP:PTM, and I think you are misinterpreting it. The title of Gibson's film is not abbreviated as (1) "Passion" but as (2) "The Passion". Anyway, the point is to help the reader find whatever they're looking for, right?

The Passion (TV serial), a 2008 British serial is under "TV" rather than "See other", because (a) it's a TV series about the Passion even though (b) it starts with "The". I see no reason requiring us to treat Gibson's film any differently. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the target of The Passion to see why that title is ambiguous here. If you prefer, you could separate the "The Passion" entries and split the dab here at at The Passion. Gibson's film is not abbreviated on the article as either "Passion" or "The Passion". Yes, we want to help the reader find whatever they're looking for, and one of the ways we do that is by keeping the things they're not looking for out of the way. Otherwise all disambiguation page would list all Wikipedia articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I feel particularly passionate about this, but, as much as I respect BD2412, he hasn't offered any reason for his belief that the emotion is the primary topic here. I'll keep an open mind, but I think that the designation of a primary topic (unless it's entirely uncontroversial) ought to be based on something more than just an unsupported personal opinion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I dropped by after a note on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Passion, and some time later I find I've disentangled two separate TV dramas, renamed Passion (play) to Passion Play (Nichols play), added a few items to the dab page... etc. I think there are so many different usages (umpteen albums etc) that the dab page ought to be at this base name, and it makes sense to combine "The Passion" with "Passion" into one article. PamD (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need two pages:

Passion - for the quality (with a see also for passion fruit
The Passion - for the death of saints like Jesus or Joan of Arc (and/or movies about them)

Or can we do it all on one page, with enough sections? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer my own question, looks like we all pitched in and made it in one page. Thanks especially to PamD; and JHunterJ, are you okay with it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passione and Pasión

Should these two terms be included in the Passion (disambiguation) page? They both had separate dab pages, but the one for Pasión has just been dismantled and the entries added to the "See also" section of this dab page.

I suggest they should be treated in the same way as each other. My preference is that they should have separate disambiguation pages, as they did before today's edits.

If they should have separate dab pages, then the recent edits which include Pasión here need to be undone.

If they should all be on this page, because we are treating them as variants of "Passion", then they should be integrated into the subject sections (music etc) and not just placed at the end under "See also".

The current situation seems a bit of a mess, but I don't want to get into an edit war by reverting. I didn't notice the "Merge" suggestion which was made on the Pasión dab page, and I don't think a corresponding "Merge from" was added to the Passion (disambiguation) page. PamD 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the suffering of Jesus

I don't really think Passion Conferences should be under that, perhaps the category should be named "Christianity" or something. Awsomaw (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]