Jump to content

Talk:Avatar (disambiguation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

discrepancies

[edit]

Are both of these needed? "Among people working on virtual reality and cyberspace interfaces, an avatar is an icon or representation of a user in a shared virtual reality." "Avatar is also the visual image representation of a member of an online virtual community." Dustin Asby 09:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

nothing on that nickelodeon show Avatar: The Last Airbender? It certainly deserves a note as being "american anime done right for once" eh?

I'm changing the definition by removing the word earthly. This will make it so that the definition will now read that an Avatar is the incarnation of a higher being. This will make it so that it fits the meaning in veritual communities AND the mythological term, from which it sprung from. That is why we use the term Avatar in role play games and in virtual communities. There, WE are the gods, and our character is our avatar. Corrupt one 02:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's better how you changed it. Besides the good reason you gave, the word "Earthly" was redundant anyway since it is already implied by the word "incarnation." The sanskrit word Avatara from which Avatar comes means 'descent from above' and does not say anything about the Earth. If an avatar incarnated on Mars wouldn't he still be an avatar? Cott12 Talk 12:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved stuff

[edit]

I'm moving these elaborate definitions here, they are better suited in the appropriate article. (I've replaced them with shorted entries on the dab page) -- jiyTalk 21:32, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • CMU, Tektronix superuser. Quite a few Unix implementations name their superuser account "avatar" rather than using the tradional name "root". This quirk originated with a CMU hacker who found the terms "root" and "superuser" unimaginative, and thought "avatar" might better impress people with the responsibility they wielded.
  • In the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game an Avatar refers to a Material Plane (earthly) manifestation of any deity, outlined statistically in Deities & Demigods. Only gods of a certain rank may manifest these avatars, which "mortals" may attack and slay without injuring the deity itself, who can often manifest the avatar again after a relatively short time. Some other RPGs have similar uses, and some MUDs refer to any player who has reached a certain level as an "avatar".
  • Avatars form a type of robot or interactive computer program designed to teach, or help to learn. Usually museums use such avatars: visitors can ask them questions, which the avatar "understands" and answers using generated voice in a Text-To-Speech system.
  • Avatar (band)

Avatar: More recently Yahoo Messenger has started a new feature to use Avatar

Avatar Redirect

[edit]

Since there are so many meanings for avatar I think that 'Avatar' should redirect here at 'Avatar (disambiguation)' and not Avatar. Teak the Kiwi 23:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The first and most important meaning is the religious/philosophical one. All other ones are merely pop cultural in nature. --86.135.181.244 18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That may be, but if I want to look up "avatars" (as in user images in forums) or the "Avatar" (as in the Ultima Series) or the 2009 film "Avatar", I'll probably be VERY surprised to find some Hindu philosophy. That's not only unexpected, but mostly not very useful at all to anyone but Hindus. -- 78.34.64.222 (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See this. It was a pretty heated debate. It certainly hasn't been resolved. Oldag07 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing layout.

[edit]

I will be changing the layout in a week if no-one objects. I will be having the definitions in things like computing and gaming next to each other, and examples of the words usage in things such as shows after that. Can anyone find something wrong with that?" Corrupt one (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized it would mean goint hrough all those things individually and coming up wih an entirely new layout. Can't do that in one go. Will wok on t in it pieces. Corrupt one (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added headers, as it seems to be long enough now to warrant them. I've also floated the TOC to the right, but the position of the first header has shifted the (due to the length of the intro and the position of the Transwiki box. I've also moved the AVATAR entry into the computing section, as it doesn't seem to me to be a major enough usage for inclusion in the intro section. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Crystal (disambiguation)#Primary usage. This is one of the many dabs that utilize more than one primary topic. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar (Band)

[edit]

There are two bands called Avatar, the Romanian one listed on the Avatar(Disambiguation) and another one: http://www.avatar.net/

Should be a separate page for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.187.200 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no need for more dab pages. Also the other band needs a Wikipedia article in order for inclusion here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last Airbender film

[edit]

The Last airbender should be included on talk page because people still call the Airbender film, "Avatar", despite the cameron film.

While not official sources, the essence of a disambiguation page is to reduce confusion, and make the film more search able. Oldag07 (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While those are not super authoritative sources, it shows that it is possible for people to get the film confused with the Cameron film, hence the need for a link to the Last Airbender. Oldag07 (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Title ownership went to James Cameron, so, what in blazes are you talking about?! You adding that entry there will actually cause confusion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many people do not know that there is a film called Avatar made my James Cameron coming out this year. No trailer has come out for the Cameron film. I was confused the first time I looked for the film. If i was confused, and my friends were, others will be too. Hence the need for both films to be placed on this page. Oldag07 (talk) 05:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, you're trying to mention something that is unrelated to this disambiguation page. The hatnote at the article Avatar (2009 film) already clears it up. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote that i added. . . I am not going to push it. Oldag07 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that The Last Airbender should be mentioned on the disambiguation page and not the page on Cameron's film. One actually needs to specify that Avatar is an 'upcoming science fiction film directed by James Cameron' to reach that page, or type 'Avatar (2009 film)'. If someone lands on that page, it would seem that they know what they're looking for. 'The Last Airbender' was actually titled 'Avatar: The Last Airbender' before Fox and Cameron had a dispute, so there is a reasonable explanation for it being on the disambig page. At the very least it should be mentioned by the reference to the cartoon on that page. --Krevans (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the movie is alternatively called "Avatar" in some other country then it'd be appropriate here. However, a reliable source would need to back that up first. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because Cameron's Avatar is a big international release, the title has been changed to 'The Last Airbender' everywhere. I just don't feel the note should be placed at the top of the page for Cameron's film in particular. Like I said, to reach that page you need to know what you're looking for...eg 'a 2009 science fiction film directed by James Cameron'. The Last Airbender is not that. it doesn't even come out in 2009, so why should there be a note about it at the top of 'Avatar (2009 film)'? Especially when the vast, vast majority of people who reach that page know what they're looking for. The cartoon 'Avatar: The Last Airbender' is listed on the disambiguation page, so I think the film should be as well. It makes a lot more sense there than on the page for Cameron's Avatar. --Krevans (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you'd want to incorporate this here, but, the hatnoting settles it (awkwardly if I may say). Besides, "Avatar" wasn't even a working title because of the name dispute. If this were a case like WP:DAB#Partial title matches, I could see the need for it to be in the see also section, yet even so ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Avatar" was a working title of the project when it was announced in 2007. See here and here. I just don't think the hatnoting really settles it, since people looking for The Last Airbender, a 2010 film not directed by James Cameron and not considered science fiction, aren't likely to wind up on the 'Avatar (2009 film)' page. --Krevans (talk) 08:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Restarted intents)Last Airbender already has a trailer out. Cameron's movie doesn't. I know people when telling them what do you think about the new Avatar movie, they honestly believe that I am referring to the Airbender movie. Confusion exists. and therefore a hatnote, or placing it on the disambig page is appropriate. Oldag07 (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trailer just came out, and it would seem that people still are confused with it. Quoting weemann45 from the youtube: "i thought it was avatarthe last air bender...FML" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXF2nH4Z9sc Oldag07 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Avatar which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 03:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Avatar which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 23:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously?

[edit]

I went to 'Avatar (film)' because I know that on Wankipedia that's how things work but I ended up at another disambig page. Are you guys just having a laugh? I can understand that searching for 'avatar' may take me to a disambig but is there are reason for 'avatar (film)' doing the same? Wikipedia is a joke nowadays.--Xania talk 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Check the DAB page; there are two films with the name Avatar. Wikipedia has always been a joke; why change now? --MegaSloth (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, which film would you expect the link to go to? The reason it redirected to this disambiguation page is because it is impossible for us to read your mind and determine which article you want to view. So, we give you a list to choose from. It's the only solution, really, so I fail to see what the problem is. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, what changes do you think we should change. Oldag07 (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? One of those films on the disambig page doesn't even have an article and the other is somewhat less well-known than the 2009 film (and I'm putting that nicely). Yes, our minds can be read - when we search for 'Avatar' we mean the 2009 film, when we search for 'Georgia' we mean that country north of Turkey rather than the state in the USA and when we search for '24' we mean the TV series rather than the year '24'.--Xania talk 22:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so passionate about moving the new Cameron movie to Avatar (film), than make a request on the page to move it. WP:RM If the discussion goes in your favor, then we will move it. One must note, that the new avatar movie has only been out for a few months. The original Avatar (2009 film) title was correct at the time. No one knew how successful the film would have been. Hindsight is 20/20. Oldag07 (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this same question 7 months ago, but was voted down. See Talk:Avatar (film). ...comments? ~BFizz 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me (and it's not), I would move Avatar (2009 film) to Avatar, for obvious reasons. —C Teng(talk) 20:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious reasons??? See Talk:Avatar/Archive_1#Requested_move:_Avatar_.E2.86.92_Avatar_.28Hinduism.29 This is anything but obvious or easy. Oldag07 (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move per consensus Oldag07 (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar → Avatar (Hinduism) — Avatar (disambiguation) → Avatar

  • This was a debate that occurred about a year ago and it was never settled. Does hindu definition of an "Avatar" remain the primary definition of the term, or is there no primary topic? Since the last debate, Avatar (2009 film), went from a little advertised and known film to the highest grossing movie in the world. Moreover, one of the key arguments against the move was that the Oxford World Dictionary exclusively defined the term "Avatar" in its Hindu definition. This is no longer the case [1]. Add these recent developments to Jhunter's argument " the disambiguation gets more than half the hits of the base-name page, so more people are looking for something else than are looking for this meaning." We can thus assume that there is no primary topic for the term Avatar, and that this move is necessary. Oldag07 (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A compromise move was attempted during the last attempt to make this change. It was a rather lengthy discussion too. This might prove useful in this discussion. Oldag07 (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Top 5 results on Google Web search for "Avatar site:wikipedia.org", and their respective page views in August 2010:

  1. Avatar (2009 film) 394297
  2. Avatar (computing) 17403
  3. Avatar 146095
  4. Avatar: The Last Airbender 361478
  5. Avatar (disambiguation) 54017

What is the disambiguation page doing in that list at all? It is getting way too many hits from Google because people using Google are looking for something other than the first 4 results. The same is evident in the page views; they are way too high too. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Updating Jhunter's links "disambiguation and base-name page", the number doesn't seem exactly half anymore. Still, I think the argument is still strong enough for a move. Oldag07 (talk)
In July 2010 Avatar (disambiguation) was viewed 66117 times (compare Avatar at 162711).[2] That is a huge number of page views for a disambiguation page, and it suggests that 66117/162711 or 41% of page views on Avatar are from people looking for something other than the article that is there now. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed feelings - The hindu term is obviously where the computer and movie terms originated from, so there is merit to keeping Avatar (Hinduism) as the main page for Avatar. However, Avatar (2009 film) has about 3x as many hits as the base-name page ((2009 film) stats). My gut instinct would be to make (2009 film) the main page, and add a hatnote for the hindu concept, the computer term, and disambiguation page. But I admit that other arrangements are certainly understandable and have their reasons. As a side-note, I personally don't think enough people are finding Avatar (computing) when they might be looking for it without Google's aid. It should hold a more prominent place in the disambig page, and in hatnotes (imho). ...comments? ~BFizz 04:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment moved computing definition of Avatar to top of page. Considering how many dictionaries define the term "Avatar" first as the hindu concept, than the computing definition, its place on the disambig page makes sense Oldag07 (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I support the move in that the current popular use of the word "avatar" means any general representation of another being. Hence the name of the movie "Avatar" or the use of computer "avatars" for MMORPG. Obviously the English language got the word from Hindu, but English as a language has always (and likely will always) assimilate words. Even though I know better, I always expect that a WP search for avatar will take me to the computer version, so a move to the disambiguation page would also be personally appreciated. AarrowOM (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Clearly, the word "avatar" means different things to different people. Make the disambiguation page the main page. Valadius (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Consensus can change, and in this case there's good reason for it changing. Both the continued growth of cyberculture and the continued and enormous impact of the film have changed English usage since the last RM, which closed without consensus.

The situation with respect to guru is a lot more complex. I've added a hatnote to point to guru (disambiguation), that was a serious omission. But it's not a good analogy.

The analogy with respect to the ship Titanic is far worse. Most who are aware of the film would know that the title is the name of the ship and why. On the other hand many English speakers who know exactly what the significance is of the Titanic would be at best dimly aware of the film. Andrewa (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I expressed in the previous discussion, while the recent film has certainly weakened the primary topic status of the Hindu definition, it is the term used in relationship to graphics that sells the move to me. According to WP:RECENTISM, one of the tests used when dealing with recentism is the ten year test. "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" I dare say the film, and the tv series might fail that definition. The computing definition (with is still getting more hits than the current avatar page) is here to stay. Oldag07 (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I lied. . . Oldag07 (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that there is any current primary meaning currently. For one thing, it would be unusual for language to change quite that rapidly, although not unheard of and the competing articles are both in fast-changing fields. Another problem is the rather speculative nature of the claims for the other meanings, particularly for the computing term. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and perhaps I am to blame for making it one above! While the film uses the term in a technological sense, it's not directly computer-related, it's a deliberate extension of the meaning. Will this continue? Who knows? But probably.
And there are still more than a billion Hindus in the world, and many of them speak English and are potential readers of this article. The current proposal is to make the undisambiguated name a DAB, and I think it's a good one. Andrewa (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points. I didn't intend to say that the computing definition has in overtaken the hindu definition or that it would in the future. Was trying to express that the computing definition weakens the WP:RECENTISM debate. Oldag07 (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add to Andrewa's"film uses the term in a technological sense", Avatar_(2009_film)#Themes_and_inspirations quotes Cameroon connecting the avatar term directly with the Hindu concept. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another previous move proposal

[edit]

Talk:Avatar/Archive_1#Requested_move_to_Avatara was referred to above, and it's a long and rather tangled discussion, which closed no move. Consensus at this time does not support a page move as proposed. If I'd closed it I'd have been a bit more definite... There was a rough consensus not to move IMO. But the problem was that, as a compromise, it naturally invited a lot of discussion which was not directly relevant to that actual proposal, but is far more on-topic for the one under discussion here. It didn't change my view. Andrewa (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the accessment. I apologize for not mentioning it earlier. Oldag07 (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Avatar has to be moved, it should be to Avatar (Hinduism) and not to Avatara as Avatar is also an English dictionary word in the Hindu context. Also, I request the closing admin that before moving Avatar to Avatar (Hinduism) (if there is a consensus); please employ some bot to auto-substitute Avatar link with Avatar (Hinduism) link as this move will affect a vast number of Hinduism articles. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The previous proposal to move to Avatara was rejected; AFAIK nobody wishes to reconsider this, and IMO it would attract even less support today than it did previously when it was rejected. The current move proposal is to move to Avatar (Hinduism) to make way for the DAB to move to Avatar, and appears likely to succeed.
The bot is a good idea, there are over 1000 but less than 1500 links to the page, many of them however not from the article space. Will any of the existing and approved bots do this? Andrewa (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to get a bot. Using a bot does have its problems. Some pages like Invincible (Two Steps from Hell album) (before my edits) were linked to the Hindu page even though, it was meant to go elsewhere. Still it is probably the best course of action at the moment. Oldag07 (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps surprisingly for an old systems programmer I have made no use of bots here at Wikipedia at all. But they have some obvious dangers, and recognising this there are controls on them. There are two basic ways to get a bot: Find one that's already written and approved and will do what you want, or write a new one and get it approved. It's quite possible that some of the automation others have already written and had approved will help here. Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it: WP:BOTREQ Thanks for the suggestion. Oldag07 (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links for several tools to make this job easier. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this discussion is past its 7 days. For those of you opposed to the move, I am willing to continue the discussion, but so far no one has spoken out. But before making the wholesale move, i am going to ask for bot support moving the massive number of links to Avatar to Avatar (Hinduism) before making the switch. Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, are you going to ask? When? Where? For what it's worth, I suggest moving the pages first. That way, the incoming links will put Avatar at the top of the October monthly dab challenge list and all editors who participate in the challenge can have a go at fixing the incoming links. The editors at the top of that leaderboard are using bots. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like good advise. did about ~70 pages with autowikibrowser and yea, that sounds like a good idea. Going to close this discussion. Oldag07 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Undue

[edit]

I am not sure why the undue tag is on this page. The recent move discussion rebuffs this claim. Oldag07 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding? I removed it. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the recent move discussions points out why it is there. See the oppose "votes". A move suggestion is not a vote, and if there are coherent arguments against an action, and the action is carried out regardless, the result will be pages tagged for cleanup, neutrality or content disputes.

I can assure you that you have made a mistake that will waste a lot of people's time for no good reason. Things were perfectly well-adjusted before your attempt at rearrangement, and now we will just have an interminable ultra-WP:LAME, vitriolic disputes on our hand until everybody involved is completely fed up with Wikipedia's irritating circuitousness in dispute handling.

Trust me, it is one thing to pull off a move because you managed to conjure up an ad hoc majority over five days, it is quite another thing to blank the dispute templates after more people become aware of what you have done.

I am also not familiar with your username from Talk:Avatar (now Talk:Avatar (Hinduism) or the Avatar (now Avatar (Hinduism)) contribution history, and it is an insult to every bona fide contributor at Avatar that this "discussion" did not take place at the article talkpage watched by people who actually contribute to the topic. --dab (𒁳) 12:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Templating the disambiguation page with templates that do not apply to disambiguation pages seems inappropriate. Perhaps an RFC on the location of the disambiguation page is in order? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Move

[edit]

I am so disappointed I did not know about this move until after it happened. I see it was done very carefully, but some of us had no way to know it was in the works. So I want to voice my objections and hope it may some time be moved back, even if it is for now too late. The Avatar concept is from Hinduism and all other uses of the term are borrowed from the Hindu concept, and in some sense allude to it. Avatar is so central to Hinduism, it is comparable to the term "Christ" in Christianity. Thus to move the word "avatar" to a disambiguation page and reduce "Avatar (Hinduism)" to a sub-page of it, is like moving Christ to a disambiguation page and calling it "Christ (Christianity)". I don't see what was accomplished. To grasp what the central concept from Hinduism means is what gives all its Western derivations their meaning. It is now reduced to be one of many possible meanings (the Hindu one) as if Air Bender and its Hindu meaning are on the same level. I don't think this is encyclopedic. Anyway, I hope one day there will be renewed discussion. As I said I regret I did not know earlier. I certainly would have spoken up in strong opposition. Dazedbythebell (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration, but if some one made half billion dollar movie and then had multibillion profits of it named "Christ" then I am sure we would do a similair link there for Christ too.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its also compounded by Avatar: The Last Airbender which while a bad movie was a TV show with cult status The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dazedbythebell, I really feel bad that you didn't get to participate in our discussion the moving of Avatar. I know that this topic has many strong opinions as evidenced by the earlier attempt to move the page. I admittedly have lost my fair share of battles on wikipedia and can understand your frustration. We appreciate that you have taken the time to write your concerns, and all of the input you have put into wikipedia. Oldag07 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did also not realize this was being planned until the move had been completed. I insist that it was a terrible idea, and as long as there is no consensus, the page must be tagged with templates pointing out that it is totally disputed that this is the proper way of doing things.

I am really fed up with major moves like this being pulled of within a week. Many people invest months and years in building a decent representation of a topic, and then some "maintainer" can come along and mess things up in a few days. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "page hierarchy" and Avatar (Hinduism) is not a "sub page" of Avatar. The disambiguation page is a navigational aid, and page views of many entries on the disambiguation page showed good reason to put the disambiguation page at Avatar. Now who is fixing the incoming links? I see Oldag07 is fixing them, I am fixing them... What about you? 69.3.72.249 (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that this discussion was not sufficiently long, or sufficiently well publicised, e.g. in WT:HNB or WT:INB. I would have posted an objection to this move had I been aware of it. The alternative names discussed in previous moves, e.g. 'avatara' should have been part of this discussion. This was a bad move considering, and reflects badly on Wikipedia's processes and practices. Imc (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest we do? Oldag07 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I thought of intimating WT:HNB or WT:INB, but if I did it, it would be called as canvassing and pushing my own POV. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this from my talk page:

You are welcome to discuss pop culture items on Wikipedia.
But I can assure you that my resistance to your attempts of giving pop culture precedence over or equal weight with respectable encyclopedic topics will be tenacious. Wikipedia is not the encyclopedia built by slashdot geeks any more. The fact that you gathered a few votes for the notability of a 2009 big budget movie over that of a centuries old concept in a major world religion may say something about the demographics of people watching move requests, but I can assure you that I will insist that the resulting mess remains tagged as disputed until the situation is sorted out. If we have to drag this into WP:LAME territory to fix it, so be it. As I see it, it was lame from the beginning, so there is very little to lose. --dab (𒁳) 12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldag07 (talk) 00:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I appreciate Oldag07's efforts in fixing the links in Hinduism pages after the move; I still oppose the recent move and think the move was a victim of Wikipedia:Systemic bias and WP:RECENTISM, maybe the Avatar film effect. Avatar, a central Hindu concept existing for centuries is not considered a primary meaning here. There would not be a single practising Hindu, who would not know what an avatar is. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi all, now that this has been converted into a disambiguation page, I'm hoping those who were behind the move will remember WP:FIXDABLINKS and help fix misdirected links. To put things in context, this disambig has just under 600 links, making it (by far) the most linked disambig in Wikipedia. Anyone willing to join a cleanup task force? It will be easy, there's just a LOT of links to fix. Navigation popups are quite useful (with the popupFixDabs flag set to true). Auto Wiki Browser is even better, but you have to get approved to use it. --JaGatalk 19:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just under 600 links represents a significant decrease already. Good work, folks. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I initiated the thing, I figured, I would pull some weight. Reduced it to less than 300. Any help would be appreciated. Oldag07 (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something else to fix. While the move was being discussed, the article was moved from Avatar to Avatar (Hinduism), leaving behind a redirect. Avatar had about 20 incoming links that were redirects, and a bot "fixed" them all to redirect instead to Avatar (Hinduism). However, most of those redirects should go back to Avatar. See the current list of redirects. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the redirects belong here. Avatar (film) is an example of this. Oldag07 (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Figured I would finish the dead. all ~600 pages have been scrubbed with autowikibrowser. some of the pages need some work, but Avatar (Hinduism) now has over 500 pages linking to it. Oldag07 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some links remain to be fixed, but not many. Already the good effect of our efforts can be seen in page view graphs: Avatar, Avatar (disambiguation) and Avatar (Hinduism). By next month, we can guess from the page views on Avatar (Hinduism) what fraction of the prior visitors to Avatar wanted an article about the avatar in Hinduism. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most links are fixed. Some remain in the list due to transcluded templates; the links are correct but indexing lags behind. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldag07's final thoughts

[edit]

I, honestly have the most to lose if this page reverts to where it was. I started the movement. I spent several hours changing links from Avatar to Avatar (Hinduism). I will take the blame for the mistakes make during this process.

And as much as I believe in the move, there was some weirdness with the move. I was not involved with these movements, but I guess I should have paid attention to them.

  • The template discussing this move on the top of Avatar (Hinduism) was removed before the discussion was completed. See [5]. This shouldn't have been done. This was after the 7 days required for the discussion, but it should have been kept.
  • Furthermore Avatar (Hinduism) page was moved to its current location on the 20th before the 7 days required for the discussion.[6] While long term harm was no done because a search query for Avatar page still redirected to Avatar (Hinduism), this was completely out of line because the discussion was not complete.

I am surprised that those watching Avatar (Hinduism) did not catch and revert these changes, but I guess that is how things go.

I will shamefully admit, I knew very little about the Hindu concept of an Avatar. Moving 700+ avatar links pages has made me doubt whether the move was the best of things. It seemed as of 1 out of every 50 pages (not a scientific estimate) was something other than the Hindu concept. Admittedly, this was not a proportionate sample. I can assume most of links on wikipedia are correct and most of the instances where Avatar (computing), or Avatar (2009 film) were linked correctly, while at the time none of the Avatar (Hinduism) links were. But I realize now why this term is so important to so many people. As of now, I stand by the move, but I respect why many people oppose it.

I sympathize with the editors who felt like this move was not advertised, and wish they could have participated in the conversation. I should have thought about posting something on the various wikiprojects related to this move. But, I have been accused of canvassing in the past, so I have been weary advertising moves such as this. But consensus, not democracy is the key to wikipedia, and I realize now that I made a mistake.

Perhaps one way to prevent mistakes such as this in the future is to add to WP:MOVE a section about recommending that wikiprojects related to a particular page should be notified about a particular move. While I am sick of this topic, I wouldn't mind if someone else would like to lead a move discussion that reverts this change sometime in the future when heads cool off. I have learned a lot. Best of luck to all. Oldag07 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also fixed incoming links and from what I found, moving the pages was not a mistake. There is not just one article about avatars in religion, but three. The disambiguation page now reflects that, and linking is improved. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only 1 article about Avatar as a concept. Dashavatara is an daughter article of Avatar. Incarnation is a Christian concept. It is the English Indologists who translated and related the Hindu Avatar to the Christian Incarnation concept. The word "Incarntion" may mean Avatar in a Hindu context, but the word "Avatar" does not refer to a Christian concept of Incarnation.--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redtiger. Avatar is the only one concept, Dashavatar is a daughter article. It has to revert to what it was. Wikidas© 05:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Redtigerxvz too. I think that by turning Avatar into Avatar (Hinduism) we are turning down the importance of a term older than 2500 years in favor of a western popularization of the last 50 years and some products of the last decade. There is only one Avatar concept, with many things named after it. The word Avatar is unambiguous. The convention for such important terms is to disambiguate in a "for other uses" template right under the original term in its own page, not to link it in a disambiguation page first. I am surprized the convetion was broken in this case. Hoverfish Talk 17:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Now you have taken the time to compile a clean disambiguation page, it is obvious that Avatar (Hinduism) is the primary meaning. Can we therefore just move this back to Avatar (disambiguation) now, please? --dab (𒁳) 11:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the last three months have proved anything, it has proved that this page really does belong where it is. After the change hits to the page "Avatar" has stayed pretty much the same, in the ~4K-8K range: September, October, November, and December. However, for Avatar as related to Hinduism, (linked to "Avatar (Hinduism)") is averaging around ~1K. September, October, November, and December. This is with me meticulously relinking every article linked to the page titled "Avatar" to their appropriate pages See this. Maybe this is because of WP:RECENTISM, and WP:BIAS. Nevertheless this data shows that the overwhelming majority of internet users, when typing in the search term "Avatar", are not looking for the Hinduism definition of the term but for something else.Oldag07 (talk) 04:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made minor fixes to my links, and argument Oldag07 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avatar move request again

[edit]

See Talk:Avatar_(Hinduism)#Requested_move_2. It has been requested that the move that occurred in the discussion above be reverted. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with the above suggested move back. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Avatar (Hinduism) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change of title

[edit]

Avatar (Hinduism) was moved to Avatar, please update the page accordingly. Hoverfish Talk 19:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Avatar (film)

[edit]

Avatar (film) redirects to Avatar (disambiguation)#Film, which ironically puts the James Cameron film out of view, since it is listed above. It's a silly thing to worry about, but it could cause unnecessary confusion for people looking for the 2009 film. Got any ideas? ...comments? ~BFizz 01:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd knock off the #Film part. I'm not crazy about anchor tags in redirects because dab pages get reformatted so frequently. --JaGatalk 01:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As #Film is the 1st section anyway, it is easily visible when redidrected to the main. walk victor falk talk 01:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fragment removed. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. I noticed this when I was disambiguating links to the Avatar page, and then forgot about it afterward. There were three other redirects to that section, which I've also changed now. Reach Out to the Truth 03:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing Avatar (2009 film)

[edit]

shouldn't Avatar (2009) be in the Film section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.254.195 (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem rather subjective (and recentish), as is including the film in the hatnote at Avatar, I'd also query the inclusion of the Last Airbender in there too. (Emperor (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014

[edit]

'Avatar' is also the title of an episode of 'Earth: Final Conflict' (specifically Episode 4 of Series 1). I feel that this should be noted in the 'Television' section. SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Earth:_Final_Conflict_episodes#Season_1_.281997.E2.80.931998.29 PHRobertson (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC) PHRobertson[reply]

Not done for now: Does that episode have it's own Wikipedia page? The disambiguation rules kind of frown upon adding things to the list that have no, and are likely to never have, their own page. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 22:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Avatar_(disambiguation)&oldid=1145931693"