Talk:Avatar/Archive 3

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: page moved. The supporters of the move had the stronger argument with recentism, educational value, and to a lesser extent, systemic bias. NW (Talk) 17:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Avatar (Hinduism) → Avatar — Per the new guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "An exception [to following the standard criteria of determining a primary topic] may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article. In such a case, consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users." The guidelines' talk page uses Nirvana vs. Nirvana (band) as an example. If we are wanting topics of educational value to be the primary topics, then this particular topic should be the primary one. It was the primary topic before but was dislodged after this discussion. This new request to move should be considered with the new guidelines in place. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Srnec (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Why? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  All other uses are derivative and parasitic. A computer-avatar is to a user as an avatar is to a Hindu deity. The title of the movie Avatar (and use of the term in the film) is only comprehensible in light of the Hindu term. If Wikipedia had been around in 1997, some people would have suggested that the primary meaning of "Titanic" was the film. But the film is named after the ship. If the ship or the Hindu concept were to become practically unknown outside of specialist disciplines, then I could support both moves. This is not the case, as the naming of the recent film Avatar itself demonstrates. Srnec (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  "Parasitic" is unnecessary. Derivative is not a criterion. Some people have indeed suggested that the "Titanic" film should be at the base name, but it did not have consensus. It is possible to understand "avatar" in computer terms without understanding its Hindu origin. The title of Avatar is comprehensible in light of just the computing term as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Are parasites bad? I meant only that it draws its sustenance (meaning, comprehensibility) off of another thing.

  I don't care what the guideline says is a criterion or not. I believe that we can rationally determine what the optimal name of the article is without merely applying a guideline that may or may not represent consensus or usage. Derivation, however, is not irrelevant to educational value, which is a criterion. If somebody asks, "Why is the movie called Avatar?" You could answer, "Because in computing, an avatar is a computer graphic manifestation of a real user." And if your questioner asked why that was called an avatar, you're back to "Because it is a concept in Hinduism: the gods may manifest themselves or incarnate themselves as 'avatars'." The further etymology of the word is found in this article. Srnec (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Parasitic has a negative connotation, yes. I do care if the guidelines have the criterion, because without them, editors in any "camp" can find rational justifications for any of the topics to be primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment this is an incorrectly formatted multimove request. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the most common non-RECENTISM usage is that of the computer avatar. That usage has been around for many years, and has clear higher usage than that of the Hindu concept, per the last discussion point out in the nomination. Educational value of computer avatars is not taken into account by the nomination, only that of the films and TV show, per the Nirvana example. Infact, it might be better to just redirect to the computer avatar article. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Educational value is part of the primary topic guidelines. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The last discussion came to the wrong conclusion, and the "Nirvana" example illustrates why. All of the modern uses of the word "Avatar" originate with the Hindu concept, so it's fundamentally the primary topic. Arguments about popular culture don't change this. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines do not include an "originated from" criterion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  They do include a suggestion to prefer "educational value", which is clearly related to the "originated from" status. It is educational for people to realize that the word "Avatar" didn't originate with computers or movies, but from a much older concept that these recent technologies have drawn from in their use of the word. It's OK for them to go to Avatar and see something they weren't expecting...as long as we also have hatnotes to help them to get where they wanted to go should they choose to ignore the educational value of the article. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  I disagree that they are clearly related. Hamlet originated from Ur-Hamlet, but Hamlet has the bigger educational value. Either way, though, the discussion would be easier if we could focus on the primary topic criteria and call educational value "educational value". -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  But in that case, it is common practice (well, as common as it is for people to talk about Ur-Hamlet) to call them by different names, so the PT is unambiguous for both names. In any event, I've started a discussion at WT:Disambiguation#Educational value and origin about recommending "origin" articles as the PT in most cases. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Education value should override popular culture in such cases. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Educational value is part of the primary topic guidelines. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support — I strongly believe that Wikipedia entries for nouns should defer to dictionaries for determining primary topics. They are much better placed at gauging general usage within the English language than Wikipedia editors are. Merriam-Webster still has the Hindu definition as the primary definition [8] so we should follow suit. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Dictionaries are also not a criterion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  That is incorrect. There are no criterion for assessing usage and access, the guidelines clearly state that. If you are determining what the primary usage is then dictionaries provide an invaluable guide to current English usage. Internet search engines and Wikipedia traffic stats only provide the current usage for a small section of society (i.e. internet and Wikipedia users) subsceptible to current trends i.e. the demographic for internet and Wikipedia usage has changed beyond recognition over the last decade, whereas dictionaries better reflect usage within society as a whole. If you are trying to gauge what will be the most commonly applied definitions 10/20 years from now dictionaries are a more robust guide. Betty Logan (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  It was correct; I just rechecked WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and it makes no mention of dictionaries. We aren't trying to gauge what the primary topic will be 10/20 years from now. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  No you're wrong, it doesn't set any criterion for gauging usage. It states: There are no absolute rules for determining how likely a given topic is to be sought by readers entering a given term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move. It then suggests a few methods for gauging usage that neither recommends dictionaries or rules them out. But if Google is a legitimate measure for determining usage then I very much doubt dictionaries are prohibited. What's more, we have to have to try and account for usage that are not subsceptible to recent trends so we have to least consider what the usage pattern will be down the line. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support - It is fundamentally a Hindu concept. Sankarrukku (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Other than origination, which isn't a criterion, how so? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support per my comments at this move request and this move request. The Hindu concept is the primary topic and the other names are all derivatives of that. Recentism and more importantly the online coverage of pop culture and computers drives a lot more online sources for either the movie or the computer avatar, but if you look at scholarly sources, particularly of the offline variety, you will find the importance assigned to the Hindu concept. Britannica, Encarta and Oxford dictionaries treat the Hindu concept as the primary topic. —SpacemanSpiff 06:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Google Scholar searches are part of the guidelines. Do the Google Scholar searches support this? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support: Clearly the primary topic. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  How? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support No brainer. Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  No brainer is not one of the criteria. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Well, the changes to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are being put to the test rather quickly. This is a difficult one. Avatar (Hinduism) is undoubtedly a very important concept to one of the world's great religions, but not as familiar in Western culture as, say, Nirvana. Contesting PRIMARYTOPIC status is a blockbuster film – which, as a winner of three Oscars, is far, far more notable than most films. I'm sure the ghits and pageviews are crazily in favor of the film, and this will never change. The time has come for Wikipedia to peep into its wiki-soul and see what's there. Personally, I hope to find an encyclopedia that knows when a balanced worldview is more important than pop culture, even when it's really cool pop culture with awesome special effects. --JaGa^talk 08:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  A base name dab isn't necessarily imbalanced; see also Madonna. Wikipedia isn't pro- or anti- pop culture -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  My impression of that page's history is that the most recent discussion rejected the entertainer as being the primary topic. It seems to me that similar educational value can be found between Mary (mother of Jesus) and Madonna (art), so determining the one primary topic is a wash anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  We aren't pro- or anti- pop culture, but we have a bad pop culture addiction that leads to systemic bias. We need to balance educational value against that pop culture bias. The question here is, is Avatar (Hinduism) of high enough educational value to overrule the normal precepts of PRIMARYTOPIC? It's an interesting test case, especially since the "educational" article is one that is important in a non-Western culture. That makes it a systemic bias double-whammy; a topic that is important to Hinduism but little-known in Western culture vs. our love for tech and pop culture. Still, though, is it enough? It's hard to say. My biggest concern is I don't know enough about Avatar (Hinduism) to say how important the article is in that context. This discussion should answer that question. --JaGa^talk 18:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  The outcome of any possible moves will not introduce or remove any systemic bias -- all topics will remain just as covered as they are today, and the navigational tools will get readers where they want to go. Recognition of primary topic does not reduce the coverage of any of the topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about that. When we declare an article to be primary, we're saying this article is the most important of those with this title. Normally, that "importance" is decided by ghits and pageviews, which is very straightforward. But in this somewhat uncharted "educational value" territory we're making a value judgment. We're saying, right, I know the other article gets more ghits and pageviews, but we consider this article to be more valuable/encyclopedic/vital/whatever. Since we're making a value judgment, that judgment is subject to bias. And that's what I'm worried about. I know very little about Avatar (Hinduism) but it appears to be important to that religion. Due to my ignorance, though, I'm unable to recognize the importance of the topic and therefore give more weight to what I do know, which is pop culture and technology. Seems like systemic bias to me. --JaGa^talk 05:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  When we recognize an article as primary, we are making no judgment about its importance (or age or derivation). The primary topic is the one most likely sought, whether sought for important reasons or less important reasons. The traffic stats and GHits are imperfect measurements of what readers are seeking when they enter a search term (as opposed to clicking through Wikilinks), so we added (I think) the educational criterion to minimize surprise. People looking for Apple Inc. will be less surprise if a search on "apple" lands them at Apple than people looking for the fruit would have if "Apple" landed them at Apple Inc., for instance. OTOH, I think that many readers looking for the film or the computing concept would be surprised to land at Avatar (Hinduism), and that readers looking for the Hindu concept would be surprised to land at one of the others, which is why I think the base-name dab is a good solution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Well put. This is a good discussion. Consider Hesperian's excellent "principle of least surprise". Surprise for whom? A typical wiki user, expected to have a basic idea of what an encyclopedia should contain. If User A is surprised when he types in "Deep Throat" (yes, I'm pulling out that old chestnut again) and doesn't get the porno, we aren't concerned because he should be aware of the historically important Watergate figure. So the definition of "least surprise" is based on our expectations of a typical visitor - which is a reflection of our own knowledge. Now, enter systemic bias. Because we're steeped in Western culture, and little else, we know all about the movie and the computer concept but are largely ignorant of the Hindu topic. That colors our perception of "least surprise" in this case; we don't know much about the Hindu concept so we don't expect it of others. If, for instance, James Cameron's next blockbuster was called Immaculate Conception I would oppose moving the Christianity article to make way for a dab, regardless of pageviews. So why not now? Mostly because I don't know enough about the concept to appreciate its significance, and build that into my expectations of "least surprise".
  That being said, I'm sorely tempted to come to your side, if anything, by the "when there's a lot of discussion about a primary topic, there usually isn't one" rule. And, not to mention, that movie gets a lot of pageviews. --JaGa^talk 09:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Avatar (dab) = 119654, Avatar (computer) = 28386, Avatar (Hinduism) = 24631, Avatar (2009 film) = 409252. Based on page views, The Cameron film still takes precedence, followed by the computer article. Hinduism takes third place in this race, not counting the dab page itself. Primary topic - regardless of whether you like it or not - is clearly the film. a_man_alone (talk) 08:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Did you read the guidelines? Exceptions to search likelihood include recentism and educational value. The term "Avatar" at its root refers to this Hinduism-related topic. It may help to read the discussion about educational value on the disambiguation guidelines talk page here. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • (after ec)Traffic stats are also part of the criteria. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support Clearly the primary topic. Page view stats are completely irrelevant here. Hoverfish Talk 09:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  How is it clearly? Page views are relevant here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  1) The word Avatar is unambiguous. The fact that products are named after it (as in many cases) does not diminish its meaning or make its main meaning ambiguous. 2) Products can become famous for a while and then drop to lesser importance. We can't keep moving terms in Wikipedia to and fro accordingly. 3) I have nothing against pop culture, but I have much against the trend of making words lose their original meaning in the minds of people because of pop culture. I am against all types of Newspeak. Hoverfish Talk 12:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  1) That there are articles on multiple topics that could be titled "Avatar" is the definition of "ambiguous" on Wikipedia. 2) There are no limitations on moving articles accordingly; the actual moving of articles is trivial. 3) The trend, if it is there, is a real-world trend, not a Wikipedia trend. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose- Note I was the one who requested the previous move, so I am biased. to quote myself in the earlier talk page:

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.

As someone who has redirected all of the links to the word "Avatar", for the last 5 months or so, the vast majority of the new links to the word "avatar" have been to the new movie, or the computer request. It is very rare that I add a link to the Hinduism definition. I could definitely support giving the Hinduism definition more prominence in the disambiguation page. Much like what is seen in the page Amazon. But not a wholesale move. Oldag07 (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If part of the problem is having to change links, we have bots that can do that. The guidelines say that exceptions can be made for topics of educational value. Do you not believe that this topic has that kind of value? [EDIT: Nevermind, you are ignoring the new guidelines and just copying and pasting an outdated argument.] Erik (talk | contribs) 12:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please give time for people to respond. I lost up a long paragraph that I was typing merely because it was an "edit conflict". As stated earlier, I have been the one redirecting pages weekly to the word "Avatar". The vast majority haven't been to the Hindu definition. If consensus on this talk page indeed does determine that this is the primary topic than I do recommend turning the page title "Avatar" into a redirect and keeping this page. This would make it far easier to fix incoming links not related to this page. Oldag07 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you not have any input about this topic being of educational value? If the topic is educationally valuable, then it does not matter how many links point to where. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it could be of educational value. However, that term is a slippery slope. Choosing any term called "Avatar" could arguably be "educational". Sorry for taking so long to respond. Been busy. Oldag07 (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"the overwhelming majority of internet users, when typing in the search term "Avatar", are not looking for the Hinduism definition of the term": So is Wikipedia meant for internet users, who are "WP:BIASed"? Majority of the Hindu population is in developing nations (India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bali, Java regions .... ) where internet is not so reachable. If this is the case, then Wikipedia should be renamed as the Encyclopedia for "(1) a male, (2) technically inclined, (3) formally educated, (4) an English speaker (native or non-native), (5) European–descent, (6) aged 15–49, (7) from a majority-Christian country, (8) from a developed nation, (9) from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) likely employed as a white-collar worker or enrolled as a student rather than employed as a labourer."--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The placement of one topic (or a dab page) at the base name does not reduce or increase the quantity or quality of the coverage of other topics, and the bias, if any, would be unchanged. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Erik, don't want to seem like I am attacking you. Just want a balanced discussion. I am going to call you out for procedure. You do need to place a move template on the actual articles you want to move. This is a biased poll at the moment, because the people voting are the ones who have Avatar (Hinduism) and the Avatar dab on their watch list. While the dab gets far more traffic, I would assume more watchers would watch the hinduism page, not the dab. This poll can continue, however, I when tallying the end vote, keep this in mind. Oldag07 (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not "a biased poll at the moment". The IP 64.229.101.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) spread some notifications to various talk pages yesterday: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. There has been sufficient notification. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the banner. I guess I forgot to mention it. Good fix. Oldag07 (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Time to fix this blunder. Smetanahue (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  What blunder? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  The shameful blunder of disregarding the obvious primary meaning of a term because of a pop-culture fad... Smetanahue (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  That wasn't a blunder. Reasons were given and applied during the previous move requests. Keep it constructive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  The given reasons reached a very limited circle. Please give sufficient notification to all possibly interested parties this time. And please, no need for criticizing the previous move at this point. Hoverfish Talk 14:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. This topic is not a vital topic, and it does not automatically become important just because there are a billion Hindus on the planet. The avatar as used in computing is equally important, and we simply cannot and should not assume that a reader is looking for one versus the other. Powers ^T 15:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  The origin of a word does not "become" important: it is important, encyclopedically at least. Hoverfish Talk 15:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  We do not generally give precedence to originating meanings. Powers ^T 01:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Being a vital article is not necessary, but it certainly helps. For what it's worth, WikiProject Hinduism considers this topic to be of top importance. Why do you argue that avatar (computing) is equally important? It does not seem to be near as scholastic as this topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Of course it is. How people represent themselves online has been a topic of intense study at many levels. Granted, such study has not been going on for as long as study of the concept in Hinduism, but if we were to take that into account, we'd be guilty of greatly overcompensating for WP:RECENTISM. Perhaps a counter-essay to "recentism" is in order: "Just because something is older doesn't mean it's more important". Powers ^T 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support: This topic is an extremely important concept in Hinduism. The earlier move was a victim of WP:RECENTISM and Wikipedia:Systemic bias that a centuries-old Hindu concept that every Hindu would be aware of (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC), was reduced to just another meaning of the word Avatar. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  There was no reduction. Recognition of primary topic does not reflect importance, age, or value. Those are not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Further is a review of some major encyclopedias and dictionaries:
  • The Oxford Dictionary [Also found in The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English (2009)]: [9]"

    1. chiefly Hinduism a manifestation of a deity or released soul in bodily form on earth; an incarnate divine teacher.

    an incarnation, embodiment, or manifestation of a person or idea:he chose John Stuart Mill as the avatar of the liberal view

    2. Computing an icon or figure representing a particular person in computer games, Internet forums, etc..

  • [10][11] Random House Dictionary (2011), Collins English Dictionary (2009), The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language (2009), [12] Encarta, [13] Merriam-Webster give the Hindu meaning as the first entry. [14] Longman Dictionary also gives the Hindu meaning as the first entry: "literary a person or animal who is really a god in human or animal form". Please explain why all these dictionaries put the Hindu meaning as the first entry.
  • Brittanica: "avatar." (as a common noun) Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/45474/avatar>. However, it also has "Avatar." (the Cameroon movie) Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1610421/Avatar>.
  • Probert Encyclopaedia: [15] Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • My list of dictionaries with the Hinduism term as primary: Compact Oxford English Dictionary, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Merriam-Webster, Century Dictionary, Wiktionary, Collins Pocket English Dictionary, Encarta, Webster's New World College Dictionary, The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus, Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Collins English Dictionary 10th Edition, Online Etymology Dictionary, Webster's 1913, Rhymezone, Lookwayup. Shreevatsa (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support In Hinduism the word "Avatar" is roughly equivolent to their sense of a Christ, Messiah, Maitreya, Messengers of Islam, none of which take you to Christ (Chistianity), Messiah (Judaism) or Maitreya (Buddhism). It is only professional to give the same encyclopedic tone to Hinduism (with one billion members) that is given these other religions. "Avatar" is a thousand year old word devised in the language of the Hindus (sanskrit) in India by Hindus to denote the central figure of their faith, i.e. the incarnation of Vishnu (Sustainer aspect of Brahman). It is only in the last century that it has been known to the outside world. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Paul does not take you to the Christian apostle either. Again, recognition of primary topic is not a value judgment. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  After that !vote was edited: There is no change in tone either. The articles' contents will be unaffected by any disambiguation of titles. (And Wikipedia has only been known in the last century too.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support* - At the time of the other discussions, I marked my "vote" as Mixed Feelings, but now that strong community support has come to emphasize "educational value" as a factor for selecting the primary topic (a change which I also strongly support), it seems clear that Avatar (Hinduism) is the primary topic indicated by this criteria. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Edit: *I support Avatar (Hinduism) as the primary topic, but would prefer redirecting Avatar instead of moving this article there. See comments in section below. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Google Scholar searches return 89,500 hits for Avatar, but only 8560 hits for Avatar Hinduism OR Hindu OR Vishnu. Even with the educational lens, there appears to be no primary topic. I think leading the disambiguation page with the "big three" will best serve the readership. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  The fallacy is that most Google Scholar results (check some of the results) are white papers. That just means that there are more papers and books written on the Internet (which is new and upcoming) than on Hindu religion. 3,81,000 for Hindu v/s 22,60,000 for Internet. Please see encyclopedias and dictionaries cited below my vote to see with the educational lens. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  That's not a fallacy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  And that isn't an argument. Redtiger has a perfectly valid point; simply saying "no" won't make it go away. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  This isn't an argument; this is a Wikipedia move discussion to see if there's consensus to change the current state. The Google Scholar results are the Google Scholar results, and they provide the measurement that I indicated; there is no fallacy in those results. Recognizing that Google Scholar includes white papers and is on the Internet does not change those results. Simply mislabeling them a "fallacy" won't make them go away. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  In Wikipedia terms, discussion and argument are largely the same thing. But that's semantics. The point is that English Google searches—even Google Scholar searches—carry an inherent pro-recentism, pro-white bias. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline suggests that Google "may help to support the determination of a primary topic". However, in this case, we're dealing with an ancient, largely non-white concept of high educational importance. We're going to need better tools than a 2011 Google search—for a term that was recently given mainstream white popularity by James Cameron—to judge its status as the primary topic. Otherwise, we might as well redirect Nirvana and Bardo to the relevant band-related articles, and Kami to the disambiguation page. I'm sure quite a few readers are trying to find the Dragon Ball character and Magic the Gathering fantasy creatures. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks -- making a case for WP:IAR is more accurate than fallacy too. In this case, I think that the difference doesn't stem from non-white, but from non-English. I don't think the reader of English Wikipedia is being dis-served by the base-name disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  I understand the sentiment, but I still don't agree. Wikipedia, as many have said, is primarily an educational tool. The Foundation belabors this almost to the point of excess during fundraisers and the like. The idea is that Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, which will educate and improve the world—particularly the Third World. And, as an educational tool, the site prioritizes history over popular culture. The Hindu concept of Avatar is the most historically relevant usage; it's ancient, and it's critical to one of the world's biggest religions. To say that a niche computer term and a recent James Cameron blockbuster qualify it for a disambiguation page is just not right. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is primarily a reference tool, not an educational tool. (I haven't gained exposure to the fundraisers.) It's an encyclopedia, not a textbook, according to WP:WIS and WP:NOT. English usage of "Avatar" has diverged from the Hindu topic since 1815.[16] I'd say that the computer term wasn't a niche one, but I suppose I am not the best judge of that. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how you've missed those huge banners (with attached essays) during fundraiser season. Encyclopedias may be "reference" works by definition, but Jimbo and the Foundation make it pretty clear that the goal is to educate the world. Also, a textbook, by our own description, is a "manual of instruction"; it's very possible to educate people without instructing them. In this case, the fundamental mission statement is to "provide free access to all of human knowledge". Oh, and that article you linked to merely states that the term was inducted into the English language in 1815. All of its uses are references to the Hindu concept, which was the first, the most important, and the most widespread. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I hit the little x pretty quickly, or my browser add-ins get to it first. I do not believe the Napoleonic reference of 1815 implied that Napoleon was Hindu. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... I did not suggest that. The article says that Napoleon is the "avatar" of the "Evil Principle", or somesuch. The concept of Avatar is that a god can manifest as a flesh-and-blood being. In this case, replace "god" with "idea"; the meaning is that Napoleon is the physical manifestation of the Evil Principle. The writer simply borrowed the Hindu word without changing its meaning in the slightest. The point is, however, that the Hindu concept of Avatar is the primary topic. You have refuted none of the points I brought up during the course of this discussion. In light of that, I don't see how you can continue your opposition—unless, of course, you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, replace "god" with "idea" without changing the meaning in the slightest. Nice trick, changing it without changing it. You are off base with WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT; I'm here from the disambiguation project and have no horse in the race. I would like to see the various WP:ILIKEIT arguments end, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

One might argue that the gods of polytheistic religions represent ideas, but this isn't the place for religious debate. An "Avatar" is a physical manifestation of another thing; the core idea is unchanged. Either way, though, you clearly do have a horse in the race with your bolded "oppose" above. I return to my point: you did not refute my arguments. Continuing to oppose is unreasonable. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with your arguments, and reasonably continue to oppose, based on the disambiguation guidelines, not on my interest or lack thereof in any of the possible topics. Since my reasons for opposing have not been refuted, obviously everyone else should stop disagreeing with me. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I refuted your argument with my first comment, regarding English Google. I refuted your following arguments with the evidence that Wikipedia is an educational tool, meaning that educational (historical) topics take precedence over pop culture/niche terms. All you're doing is clinging to a single example from WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a guideline which explicitly states that exceptions to its rules should be made according to educational value. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You think you refuted my arguments, and I think I've refuted yours. The difference is one of us is calling the other unreasonable. And note that the guidelines do not state that such exceptions "should be made". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No; the difference is that you haven't presented one iota of evidence to support your points, aside from the inherently-terrible English Google source. Also, an "exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account" is the guideline's exact phrasing. Basically, an exception should be made when educational value dictates such—exactly as I said above. You continue to bicker over semantics rather than take on the salient point of the dispute: the clear, overriding educational importance of the Hindu concept. The only way you can argue against this is by proving that the Cameron flick and the computer term equal or surpass it in educational value. Which brings us back to the English Google source that, I repeat, is not going to cut it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that I have shown evidence. Google Scholar and Google Book searches do not back up the claims of the overriding-ness of the educational importance of Hindu concept, and despite the "I Like It" claims of its self-evidence, I disagreed and disagree. You disagree with that evidence and are dismissive of English Google (even though this is English Wikipedia), but that doesn't mean it wasn't presented. This is likely a WP:TRAINWRECK. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed self-evident. Hinduism is the world's third-largest religion, per our own article on the subject. With over 1 billion members, it is the belief system of at least 1/7 of the world's population. And, per our article, it has been called the "oldest living major religion". The concept of Avatar (which dates back more than 2000 years) is one of the most central elements of the religion; this means that 1/7 of the world's population is familiar with the term. There's nothing "I Like It" about my argument; you're trying to fight living history with a Google search. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have contributed to Wikipedia about as long as you, JHunterJ, and I have met various views about it. As long as people are constructive here, they can see it as they feel inclined to. But when you state "Wikipedia is primarily a reference tool", please be aware that you are simply projecting your own view. I believe, and contribute in that perspective (also while trying to make Wikipedia a better reference tool), that Wikipedia is primarily an educational tool. Hoverfish Talk 11:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This certainly isn't the place to argue this, but I did post a this concern on WP:PRIMARY TOPIC. The new policy violates WP:NPOV. Who are we to determine what is educational? Such a policy is bound to be influenced by WP:BIAS. Oldag07 (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm project the view of WP:WIS, which says that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia, which says encyclopedias are reference tool. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "educational value" can however be judged by other "authoritative" encyclopaedias and dictionaries? See my review of literature above. I couldn't trace a single source (except encyclopaedia of Internet) where avatar is not the first entry. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral—The Mercury disambig. article is in a similar position where the originating name is not the primary article. In this case there are also logical arguments for both options. Hence I'm neutral.—RJH (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I will object to the Mercury comparison as Mercury the deity has faded with the fall of the Roman religion, while avatars like Krishna, Rama et al. are still worshipped everyday. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Worshipped or not, as a major deity of Greek Mythology it is an important part of the Western cultural heritage. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Mercury is part of Roman mythology, which makes more difference than you might think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Worshipped or not, as a major deity of Greco-Roman mythology it is an important part of the Western cultural heritage. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about worshippers; I'm talking about historical importance. The mythology of Rome is far less well-known in the States, at least, than that of Greece. Most are familiar with the exploits of Zeus and Ares, but you be hard-pressed to get anything about Jupiter out of them. Hence why Jupiter redirects to the planet, without even bothering with a disambiguation page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

More familiar with Ares than Jupiter? Hm. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blame God of War. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support--The Hindu concept of Avatar is the primary topic and others--including the movie--have been derived from this primary idea. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Derivation isn't a criterion. Boston is derived from Boston, Lincolnshire, for example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Yet various independent people are coming to the same conclusion. It's not an explicit criterion, but in this case it just makes sense. All derivative uses of the word Avatar draw significantly from the original meaning. The concept explained at Avatar (Hinduism) is the very reason why those other movies, books, computer concepts, etc. chose the name "Avatar" to represent themselves. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  It's because various independent people are coming to the same conclusion that I keep pointing out that it's not in the guidelines. Where derivation makes sense, the other criteria will also point to that primary topic. Where the other criteria don't point to that primary topic, derivation doesn't make sense; that's why it's not a criterion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  But the guideline says: "An exception may be appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article." Wikipedia:Five pillars says: "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics" [like deciding a topic's educational value]. I have given some sources above. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Question Why isn't Avatar (Hinduism) a vital article? I'm trying to place this article's importance in the spectrum of Hindu articles and I'm surprised it isn't vital. --JaGa^talk 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Several "top-importance" articles from WP:WikiProject Hinduism are on WP:VA/E, but not Avatar (Hinduism). The project page says there are 35 top-importance articles in the project; they can't all be in the vital list, though, only the tip-top-importance ones, I guess. The list isn't set in stone; if you think Avatar (Hinduism) should be on there, then talk it over with the project. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  Anyway, who decides what to include or what not to in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded?? I do not remember WP Hinduism ever being consulted in this matter. IMO, it should have been consulted in deciding the Hinduism list. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The word Avatar is one of the most central concepts in Hinduism and is the thrust of the conversation in the Bagavad Gita. The word first appears in the Pāṇini in the 4th century B.C. All other terms on the disambiguation page are very recent borrowings of the Hindu word. One of the first uses of the word Avatar applied in western settings, based on the Hindu concept, was the horse Avatar in the Belmont Stakes in 1975. The New York Times mentioned the horse was named for the Hindu concept of incarnation of a diety. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't even know of the existence of that page until now, and I'm a casual contributor to Wikipedia Hinduism, although my primary focus is WP India/WP Cricket, and I haven't seen anything on those there either. However, whatever is there seems quite odd to say the least -- of the seven vital biographies listed there only one is really vital, I can easily think of many others to go higher up on the scale to the remaining six, yet they don't find any mention there. Part of the problem is that most WP:India and WP:Hinduism editors hardly every participate in project space, the other part is recentism -- Yogananda and Prabhupada in that list can clearly be attributed to that; while the absence of Vyasa etc is quite inexplicable. —SpacemanSpiff 09:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support As "appropriate when recentism and educational value are taken into account, especially if one of these topics is a vital article." Also, the primary meaning in reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica supports this move. First Light (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia suffers from systemic bias in at least two respects, as User:JaGa pointed out: a Western-centric bias, and an internet-savvy-user bias. As we want Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia for everyone and not just internet-savvy Western readers, it's often a good idea to account for this bias and counter it. The "incarnation" meaning in Hinduism is the primary meaning for more of the world's population than a poll of Wikipedia editors may suggest. But in this case we don't even have to step beyond Western sources, because the Hinduism meaning is the first meaning listed in many most dictionaries and encyclopedias, as User:Redtigerxyz pointed out. So it would take a really strong case to say that this isn't the primary meaning. But what clinches the argument for me is the roughly equal number of page views quoted above (24k for Hinduism versus 28k for "computing", discounting the recent movie stuff). If the "computing" page had had 5-10 times more views than the Hinduism topic, we may have had good reason for disregarding common sense and the lead of other dictionaries and encyclopedias, and deciding that it's unclear what the primary topic is. But the difference we have here is too small. [And finally there's also the fact that the page Avatar was originally the Hinduism page, and several previous discussions never resulted in decisions to move it to a disambiguation page (November 2009, December 2009, etc.), and the move only happened in Spetember 2010 because of an insufficiently advertised discussion effectively hidden away on (what was then) Talk:Avatar (disambiguation), with quite a few editors later expressing disappointment that there was insufficient notification on the main Avatar page (see here and here).] Shreevatsa (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I believe that Avatar on its own would mean the Hinduism concept. For example. yes, that movie was huge, but don't confuse that with huger. The Hindu religion is supported by a lot of people, to understate it, and the use of avatar in other uses are much relatively smaller. Remember, there is a cultural bias here, if we weren't savvy internet users, would we even know what a computer avatar was? And, from a non-western POV, the movie is so much more less recognised than the avatar concept. Harry Blue5 (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Avatar has many avatars I originally considered supporting the dab, but emphasising the original hindu concept [17], due to the sheer number of articles having "avatar" in their title. Disambiguation pages have an educational value of their own, for instance I learned there are two other movies of the same name, an Italian from 1916 and a Singaporean from 2004. As the discussion has evolved, and going through old discussions, I have however become more convinced that it should be moved. Quantitavely it is about equal with avatar (computing) in page views. It seems to be a central in concept in Hinduism. Others have already mentioned wp:systemic bias. Mercury is a dab because the god, the element and the planet can be considered equal wp:primarytopics. When it comes to Avatar, all other articles are but manifestations or appearances of this one. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Been six months since the last debate for this. [18] Avatar should be called Avatar (disambiguation) since that is clearly a disambiguation page, and Avatar redirected to that page. Most people who come here aren't looking for the Hindu Avatar, but one of the other listings for it, be it that cartoon, the popular movie, computer term, the main character for what was once the most popular computer game series ever, or whatnot. We need to help people get to the page they want with as little fuss as possible, and a disambiguation page works fine for that. Since the name change back in September, how many page views has each thing on the list gotten? How many did it have before, people ending up on the Hindu page by mistake, and then having to go and look for what they wanted elsewhere? Dream Focus 16:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Aside: having Avatar redirect to Avatar (disambiguation) would make it a malplaced disambiguation page, which would then be fixed by moving the (disambiguation) page to the base name. Disambiguation pages for titles that have no primary topic go to the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Oh, never mind that then. Dream Focus 16:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Most people who come here aren't looking for the Hindu Avatar" — this sort of statement, made without substantiation, is exactly the sort of narrow parochialism that counts as systemic bias and which the project ought to try to avoid. I can assure you that if I look for "Avatar" on Wikipedia I expect to read about the Hindu term, and that the same is true for a large part of the world's population. BTW, your argument—about the total of views on all pages other than the primary topic having more views than the primary topic—would apply to making most titles disambiguation pages, even when there's a clear primary topic (as there is in this case IMO, but we'll see). Shreevatsa (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• I must emphasize (quoting from myself from an earlier arugment,

"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."

To paraphrase, assuming that the only people who want to find the Hinduism page, only go to this page by typing in the word "Avatar" and using the DAB, only 1-6 people could possibly be doing that. Considering the fact that there are close to 1000 interwiki links to this particular page, that ratio is probably even bigger. Possibly, 1-10, 1-20. So Shreevatsa, the statement " 'Most people who come here aren't looking for the Hindu Avatar' — this sort of statement, made without substantiation" is simply wrong. In a bigger sense, I ask the question, "Is it biased to claim that those types of numbers are merely a result of "systemic bias" or "recentism"?" If one were to read WP:BIAS the guideline is targeted toward wikipedians, not average readers (**EDIT it does mention internet users vs non users, but not to the same level of that of wikipedians.**). An argument could be made stating that moving back (something that merely looking at traffic makes no sense) is an example of systemic bias in itself. Bias toward the preference Wikipedia edtiors over that of the average reader. Oldag07 (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I was replying to Dream Focus, not to you (Oldag07). I didn't say that you made a statement without substantiation. :-) Anyway, I'm not sure how you got numbers like "1–6 people" (six people? so precise?), but I already remarked about the sort of stats comparing the number of views to the dab page (which in this case is effectively the total number of readers who may be visiting any of the articles) to the views on a single page: it's an argument that would equally apply to replacing a large number of Wikipedia articles with dab pages: Messiah, etc. Anyway, since I'm unhappy with the process that resulted in those stats being gathered, I'll not comment on them any further; I'll only say that the ratio (1/8 to 1/4) is large enough for me to support making the page that of (what we think is) the primary topic rather than a disambiguation page. Shreevatsa (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"An argument could be made stating that moving back (something that merely looking at traffic makes no sense) is an example of systemic bias in itself. Bias toward the preference Wikipedia edtiors over that of the average reader." Please see the graphs of internet users in WP:BIAS, which establishes that internet users and so-called average reader of wikipedia may be one of the developed nations, where Hindus are scare. It again boils down to the question: who are we writing wikipedia for? Are we writing for the internet users (the current average reader) or for everyone, even those without wikipedia/internet access? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Are we writing for the internet users (the current average reader) or for everyone" - I guess we have to agree to disagree. That is exactly what I am saying. The average English speaking internet user is exactly who we are writing for an English internet based encyclopedia. Oldag07 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you: we can agree to disagree. I interpret wikipedia as "a reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge," a compilation of human knowledge for everyone, rather than "Encyclopedia for Internet users". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of your: Article content written for a reference work of all branches of knowledge, and web page placement on the web-based version (i.e., primary topic determination) for the English-speaking Internet readership. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

About "English-speaking Internet readership": India (2011 population estimate): 1,192,783,000, official languages: Hindi, English. Please notice that people from India use the English Wikipedia mainly. When I was active in WPFilms I was impressed by their level of participation. Hoverfish Talk 09:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I fully expect the Indian English-speaking Internet-using population to outnumber any other countries English-speaking Internet-using population in the new very few decades. The traffic and search criteria will reflect that shift, once it happens. It could also be that some of those billion-plus have also been looking for the film and computer avatar articles, even if they would be unsurprised to land at the Hindu article from the search. So that prediction doesn't change the current state. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Avatar_(computing) has been viewed 29,354 times in the last 30 days. Avatar_(Hinduism) has been viewed 24,258 times in the last 30 days. Avatar_(2009_film) has been viewed 394,873 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 178 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. Avatar has been viewed 117,664 times in the last 30 days. Most people typing in Avatar, aren't going to the Hindu page, but one of the others, clearly. Makes no sense to drive traffic to that page, and have people then have to click something to find the page they want. Dream Focus 15:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One year ago for the month of January, Avatar_(2009_film) was viewed almost 5,000,000 times. That's already quite a drop. It's one reason why people are quoting the policy, "consensus may determine that the article should be treated as the primary topic regardless of whether it is the article most sought by users." Avatar (Hinduism) has been the "primary topic" for about 2,500 years. It still is, even though the film article has been the most sought after article for .... one year ("recentism"). "Educational value" is also more than validly applied in this case, just as it was for recognizing Nirvana as the primary topic, rather than Nirvana (band). First Light (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Primary topic here is a Wikipedia concept, so nothing has been a primary topic longer than Wikipedia has been around. And Avatar (Hinduism) has not been the primary topic since 4 June 2006. WP:RECENTISM talks about both the negative and positive impacts on article content. Page moves do not affect article content, but are an aid to readership navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I well understood that point about Primary Topic, but it also has a real life meaning that is not utterly divorced from the Wikipedia concept - I've added quotes around it so nobody is confused by my intent. In that sense, and in a sense that it does have relevance to this discussion, "Avatar (Hinduism)" has been the "primary topic" for 2,500 years. Today it is the "primary topic" for at least one billion Hindus, and also for many others who have a broader education. First Light (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

But this move request will also not affect any real-life meanings or "primary topics" (in quotation marks), only (possibly) the titling of the articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:The Internet is not Serious Business -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So, "primary topic" is a mere Wikipedia-specific technicality and all we who do not understand this are merely holding a mistaken point of view, because we think that primary topic is a value statement about an article. Right? This comment (in Talk Disambiguation) implies that I am simply off-topic, I do not understand something all too obvious and that actually I am in support of nothing at all. I do not consider this very nice. So I ask here too, if one asks for "Apple" and is taken to a disambiguation page, does it not make Wikipedia look poor? Is it a really mere technicallity? Does it not show something about Wikipedia? I love to have a user-friendly close-perfect technically Wikipedia, but I do not think that technicallities should override the cultural aspect for the sake of convenience. So once again (as if I insist being technically ignorant): to ask for Avatar and have to start from a disambiguation page is poor, culturally, educationally, academically and encyclopedically. Hoverfish Talk 19:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That was also my point - that Wikipedia should describe real life and have meaning for real people. One of its main purposes is to educate people, thus that policy on "educational value". It's an encyclopedia, not a database, a Ghit analyser, or an internet pop-culture phenomena that is "not serious business". The internet is only the medium. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should strive to be a serious one. First Light (talk) 20:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this boils down to a question of Wikipedia's identity. Navigationist: Wikipedia's goal is to be an ideal reference tool. If a majority of people typing in a term are searching for a certain article, that topic is primary. The primacy of a given article can be offset by recentism, systemic bias, or educational value, but the focus is on ease of navigation. In a case like this, recentism etc would nullify Avatar (2009 film)'s claim to primary topic and justify a dab page at Avatar. Idealist: Wikipedia's goal is to become the respected encyclopedia of everything. Even ease of navigation is a secondary consideration to this. An idealist believes certain core articles are so important to an encyclopedia that they overrule pageviews and ghits, especially when those pageview stats are skewed by recentism, systemic bias, and an undue weight for pop culture. In this case, Avatar (Hinduism) would be moved to Avatar.

These are both perfectly good points of view. The main difference between the navigationists and the idealists is the weight given to recentism, systemic bias, and educational value. The idealists' approach causes concern because it has a heavier emphasis on value judgments, but Wikipedia is all about trust in its community. --JaGa^talk 22:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, small technical point; regardless of the outcome of this discussion, Avatar (2009 film) and Avatar (computing) are one click away with the proper hatnote. --JaGa^talk 22:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's a little clunky to get two other uses plus a disambiguation pages into a hatnote. Avatar (Hinduism) would be no more than one click away. The dab page renders as 37K of text data on my browser. The Hinduism article as 154K of text data, plus images. Since most of the readership are looking for something else when they search on "Avatar", they will reach the destination faster with the current arrangement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support The fact that this concept is the namesake of all the other avatars and that most of other avatars reference this concept is decisive in this particular case. In general, namesake-hood is one of several factors that ought to be considered when determining primary topics. I recognize that the guideline does not presently include this criterion; it ought to (again, as one of several factors to be weighed). I note that the current guideline also gives significant deference to the raw consensus outcomes of Requested Move discussions, like this one ("There are no absolute rules for determining how likely a given topic is to be sought by readers entering a given term; decisions are made by discussion between editors, often as a result of a requested move."). --Cybercobra (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support due to "educational value" and "recentism". --배우는사람 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Avatar [avatāra] is a Sanskrit word and a Hindu concept, period. The movie borrowed that concept. Kanchanamala (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strongly Support I was going to write a brilliant polemic, but I find that Cybercobra has synthesized the argument calmly and coherently. Hear, hear, Cybercobra: thanks for making the case articulately and concisely. --Nemonoman (talk) 01:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per the page view statistics of Dream Focus. Such a move would clearly disadvantage a majority of Wikipedia readers. Tassedethe (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  How? Hatnotes would make it one click away, should the reader choose to ignore the concept for which the movie was named. The movie clearly isn't the primary topic, so redirecting to the dab page means it's still one click away. It was mentioned above that the dab page is much smaller, and thus faster to load than the (Hinduism) article. Is that what you are referring to as well? Also note that if the user is googling for Avatar, they can easily pick the link that takes them directly to the film anyways. Putting myself in the shoes of someone who had no idea the Hindu concept existed (and I'd bet that most people who type in Avatar into the search box expecting to navigate to the 2009 film would fall into this category), I might be pleasantly surprised to find myself reading about Hinduism. Wikipedia doesn't have advertisements, but if anything, Wikipedia advertises culture and education. It's not our place to force readers to see given topics, but it's also not a crime to expose readers to something they might be interested in reading about. I've given my reasons for supporting the (Hinduism) article as the PT above; I'm not stating here why (Hinduism) should be the PT. I'm simply stating a few thoughts on why I think the "disadvantage to readers" argument is bogus in this case. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as JaGa put it above, there could be "navigationist" and "idealist" disadvatages to it. Wikipedia is not all about navigational perfection, however. Its cultural and educational aspects should be a priority whenever they happen to be an important factor, like in this case. Hoverfish Talk 21:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that it is not a foregone conclusion here. Google Books and Google Scholar searches, for instance, do not show a predominance of the Hindu meaning, for example. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't bring those up again. They're an inherently biased source in this situation, as I outlined exhaustively in the above discussion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Don't dictate what people bring up -- your "exhaustive" outline above is not Wikipedia policy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You disagree, yet you never explained why. My explanation of the Avatar concept's precedence several days ago, to which you never responded, outlines the facts plainly. You are attempting to use a Google search to deny the primacy of a central concept of the world's third largest religion—a concept known to over 1 billion people. Also, we aren't talking about policy here, but guidelines. They're designed to be ignored when necessary, and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC section in particular follows this template. It states in easily-understood language that Google searches "may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors". You insist otherwise, but that stance is not supported by common sense, Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia guidelines. In this case, we should ignore English Google searches, as they give us nothing but biased numbers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As I explained before, Google indexes English-language results. This might weigh against some concepts and for others, but it is in line with English-language Wikipedia, and the book and scholar results are not otherwise biased in ways that are contrary to English-language Wikipedia. Wikipedia primary topic is not a value judgment or a contest or a prize to be won; it's a recognition of which topic would be most expected by our readership (more than all other topics combined, and much more than any one other topic), whether this is expected by traffic or educational value. Since there is no such topic for this title, none of the topics should be recognized as primary (in the Wikipedia sense) here. Being a central concept of the world's third-largest religion and being known to over a billion people are not PT criteria. Just because I have explained my position before, I do not go around telling people who disagree with me to stop bringing up their disagreements. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Since there is no such topic for this title," is an opinion. Other opinions in this page show that there is one and that it is the Hindu article. Hoverfish Talk 13:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Other opinions don't "show" that, but other opinions are that there is one and it's the Hindu article, and other opinions are that it's the computer article. That's the purpose of this move discussion, to voice opinions, not to voice opinions and tell other editors to stop voicing theirs, as JimmyBlackwing did. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read the above statement of JimmyBlackwing as a dictate or an effort to stop you from voicing your opinion, but rather as a casual suggestion. However your phrase that I quoted above, starting with "since..." is not formulated as an opinion but as something that ought to be absolutely clear, this is why I used the word "show". Please take my statements with a bit of salt. I do not intend to heat up the discussion. Hoverfish Talk 13:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoverfish is correct about my intentions, Hunter. Also, the fact that it is known to 1 billion people is proof of its educational value; I wasn't talking about a popularity contest. Surely, such a widely-known, ancient and heavily-referenced concept is more educationally valuable than a recent movie and, again, a niche computer term? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Google searches are biased as more web pages, blogs, news about Avatar the movie. Google scholar is biased towards the internet concept as white papers are written more on Internet and related topics as compared to Hinduism in general. But why the list of mainstream English encyclopaedias and dictionaries -all of which place Avatar the Hindu concept as the primary meaning - compiled by Shreevatsa and me being ignored??? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Because, as JHunterJ will no doubt say, no one happens to have placed dictionaries and encyclopaedias on the page WP:PRIMARYTOPIC :-) (Even though what it gives is a non-exhaustive list, starting with "Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion, but are not determining factors, include", and of course, consensus on individual pages ought to always have more weight than project-wide consistency based on policy).

Anyway, since Google Scholar is being mentioned again, let me point out another problem with the way it's being used here. Firstly of course, as Redtigerxyz said, Google Scholar shows only what people are talking about in recent years (their coverage of stuff from the pre-digital decades is still shoddy), and also what people are talking about in journals they index — which again does not cover journals from countries like with poor digital archival online. But most importantly, the way Google Scholar has been used here is based on the presumption that a search for "Avatar Hinduism OR Hindu OR Vishnu" covers all sources for the Indian concept, and the fact that the total number of results is higher means they must be talking about some other topic, perhaps Avatar (computing) or even the film. This of course is not true. (If you think that this search time is a precise one for the Hinduism topic, how would you search precisely for the other topics? Searching for [avatar "video game"] (say) actually gives fewer results than Hinduism. Besides, among the results for "avatar" on Google scholar are (1) on the first page, there's a book by the great sociologist M. N. Srinivas, called "Caste: Its Twentieth Century Avatar". Now Srinivas is obviously not talking about the film or the video-game/internet-world idea, but the general everyday Indian meaning of "avatar" as (roughly) "incarnation" or "manifestation". This is none of our topics, but is closest to the Hindu idea on which it is based. (Srinivas is Hindu and writing about a Hindu phenomenon, incidentally.) So a general Google Scholar search does not distinguish such everyday-meaning uses. (2) It has some chemistry papers by people like "Avatar Tulsi", "Ram Avatar Sharma", which again is obviously none of our topics. (3) Various other uses of the word which are again not any of our topics. So Google Scholar cannot be used to determine relative "popularity" (as flawed as that is) of our topics here. Better to trust sources which do indicate what primary topics may be, such as dictionaries and encyclopaedias. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Very well put. I don't know how anyone could argue against that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And just because something is number 1 in a dictionary does not mean it is the "primary topic". Take for example the word Georgia. Are we talking about the state or country. Webster puts the state first. The free dictionary lists the country first. Which one is it? One could argue the same thing about paper based encyclopedias. The internet version of Avatar on Britannica actually puts the parenthesis (Hinduism) around its version of Avatar: see [19]. Unlike paper encyclopedias, dabs do exist. And while a good argument could be made that this is still the "primary topic", it clearly isn't the primary interest of the English speaking internet using public. In my mind, making the dab the result people receive when they type in the word "avatar", is really a compromise. Making Avatar (2009 film) the "primary topic" would be an example of recentism and systemic bias, that I would argue against. Oldag07 (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Encyclopædia Britannica shows "(Hinduism)" only in its search results for convenience; the actual article is titled just "avatar"! (Look for yourself.) In the search results it also puts "James Cameron (Canadian filmmaker)" even though its article title is just "James Cameron", it puts "Vishnu (Hindu deity)" in the search results even the article title it uses is just "Vishnu", similarly "Vaishnavism (Hindu sect)" (article title: "Vaishnavism"), "Wii Sports (electronic game)" (article title: Wii Sports), "Victoria and Albert Museum (museum, London, United Kingdom)" (article title: "Victoria and Albert Museum") etc. None of the articles shown with parentheses in the search results you linked seem to have parentheses in the actual article title. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

But that is the point. This is a computer based encyclopedia, not a paper based one. We can change the pages to fit our "convenience". Oldag07 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You alleged that Britannica's article title has "(Hinduism)" in it; I showed that the claim is false. I don't see how "that is the point". Shreevatsa (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I will also argue against the derivative argument. Pages like Amazon, Pluto, or Trojan are examples of words in which the originating meaning does not reflect the primary topic. Xenos, honestly is an even better example. It would seem that every topic on that page is derived from the originating meaning. Oldag07 (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there seems to be some disagreement about the primary topic of Georgia is, but no dictionary all of the list of so many thinks so about avatar. Nowhere is avatar the Hindu concept the second choice as in case of Georgia the state or the nation. Please enlist dictionaries where the primary importance of avatar the Hindu concept is challenged and the Hindu meaning put in a second spot.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia should uphold encyclopedic standards, even when reader preferences are otherwise. But if you look the top results on Google books, there is not much about Hinduism. As others have pointed out already, even you dismiss pop culture usage as non-educational shlock, the computing usage by itself outweighs religious usage. Kauffner (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments on the requested move

I'd like to highlight Oldag's suggestion:

“

If consensus on this talk page indeed does determine that this is the primary topic than I do recommend turning the page title "Avatar" into a redirect and keeping this page.

”

I strongly agree; for the sake of not re-scrambling wikilinks every time we have this discussion, Avatar should simply be a redirect to the primary topic, whichever page we deem that is. Links to the primary topic should use its disambiguated name, rather than simply linking to Avatar. A bot could easily manage the task of modifying links to Avatar to point instead to the primary topic page. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No wikilinks will be scrambled. Links to the primary topic (if there becomes one) can use Avatar (Hinduism), which would redirect to the primary topic. Having the base name redirect to the same title with a disambiguating phrase is what the disambiguation guidelines call "malplaced". Past proposals to add disambiguating phrases to all topics (including primary) for ambiguous titles have not made any headway. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere in the guidelines where it says this is "malplaced". Instead, I find, "If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic." Consensus can change; maybe we'll make headway here. I understand your argument that "no wikilinks will be scrambled"; you are correct, but generally people try to link directly to an article rather than linking to a redirect to it. Either way we do it, a bot could and should be employed to prevent links to the moving target. I envision it like this: give it an article name, like [[Avatar]], and tell it to modify links to that to instead point to [[Avatar (___)]]. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Bots can't fix that. The most effective way to insure that every link to the word "Avatar" is properly linked is go every few weeks, click on the "what links here" tool, click article, and to manually redirect articles. A bot can not discriminate what definition needs to link to a film, what the a computing definition or what a film is. Oldag07 (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Why isn't this same logic applied to Prophet, Messiah, Maitreya, Advent, Christ, or Jesus? Avatar is a 2300 year old word used in Hinduism from the 3rd century B.C., only very recently applied to products and web icons in the west. This seems like discrimination against Hinduism (with 1 billion adherents) rather than scholarship to me. Why is this logic stated above not applied evenly across ancient primary religious concepts. In Hinduism it is even more ancient than Christianity, and is in fact even a sanskrit word. The ambiguity over what is primary I do not see. Also this was not what the vote was about. Read the statements that go with the supports that outweight the objections three to one. This is changing the ballot after a vote count. Dazedbythebell (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

"Avatar should simply be a redirect to the primary topic, whichever page we deem that is." The problem may be that a controversial redirect can be redirected to another Avatar page by someone and nobody would immediately know. Instead I suggest that the primary topic should be moved to Avatar page, which should be move-protected. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Redtigerxyz.Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What about redirect protection? Also, anyone interested in the redirect can put it on their watchlist, and "immediately know" when it is changed. ...comments? ~BFizz 20:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been redirecting avatar pages for a while. I wouldn't mind if my alternative proposition is accepted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldag07 (talk • contribs) 02:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with JHunterJ, Redtigerxyz, and Dazedbythebell - If there is consensus for this page to be treated as the primary topic, then this article should simply be moved to Avatar. There is no good reason for redirecting Avatar here, and Dazedbythebell and Redtigerxyz give good reasons for not doing that. First Light (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be treated like the primary topic. There is just a very disproportionate number of new links going to pages that don't relate to Hinduism. This solution makes it far easier to fix them, would save editors a inordinate amount of time fixing Avatar-> Avatar (Hinduism), and hence please everyone. Oldag07 (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not how this problem is solved on Wikipedia. You don't do things incorrectly because others have done something incorrectly, i.e. in this case linked a term carelessly. Fix Avatar, then worry about those pages that are currently, as it is now, all merely going to a disambiguation page anyway, which, is also not correct linking.Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The way to keep every link going to the exact title is to keep all the titles as they are, and the way to do that is to keep the disambiguation at the base name. If one of the topics becomes primary, it can be correctly linked by using its actual title (which would be the base name) or through one of its redirects (which would include its current title). Links to its actual title would not necessarily be careless. If there's a concern about new links going to the wrong place as a major detriment, the disambiguation page should remain at the base name. That's what it would be there for. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is somewhat moot as there is a vote underway which is showing a clear consensus. The objective now by Oldag is to keep the extention "(Hinduism)" attached to the word Avatar, rather than make it the primary topic in the style used in such other religious terms as Christ, Messiah, Maitreya, Prophet, Advent, Incarnation, Jesus, Buddha, Brahman, Krishna, Arjuna, Joab, God, Zeus, Hera, Deity, etc. Why is the Hindu equivolent different? Because there is a movie, a video game, a cartoon, and a race horse named after it? Most of the words I just listed have an disambiguation page linked to at the top of them. This is the convention for primary topics. Please check all those links I provided and see how they are done. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right, since consensus is to make the Hindu concept the primary topic, then it should be done following the convention used for other terms. If the main reason for doing otherwise is that it would be "far easier to fix them" (incoming links), and "save editors a inordinate amount of time fixing Avatar-> Avatar (Hinduism)", then I suggest those who are on the support side of the issue would be happy to volunteer to fix that problem. First Light (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

When Avatar was moved to Avatar (Hinduism), Oldag07 graciously went to every page fixing links. When Avatar (Hinduism) is moved to Avatar, I can do the same. Anybody else wants to volunteer? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify the "fix" that needs to be done: everything that currently points to Avatar needs to be adjusted to point to Avatar (disambiguation). Unless, of course, they shouldn't link to the dab page in the first place; in that case you can adjust the link to go wherever it should. Links to Avatar (Hinduism) don't really need to change since after the move they will just redirect to Avatar. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There would be very few cases where they should be linking to the disambiguation page. Ideally they'd all be changed to point to the correct destination and not just the disambiguation page. That's something that should be done regardless of whether or not the page is moved. Reach Out to the Truth 16:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. I've updated the links to be updated and removed links that didn't need to exist at all. Reach Out to the Truth 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

If the discussion closes for the support vote, I volunteer. We'll somehow have to coordinate to avoid edit conflicts. Hoverfish Talk 12:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

..."everything that currently points to Avatar needs to be adjusted to point to Avatar (disambiguation)"... I see only 22 articles linking to Avatar, 120 article talk pages, 5 portals, 88 Wikipedia, 110 User pages and a big number of User talk. Does a move include all links in User space? Hoverfish Talk 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I am trying to compromise. This isn't some sort of battle. Please assume good faith. Oldag07 (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith - my apologies if I came across too strongly. First Light (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I second Hoverfish's nomination of himself to do the fixes necessary. I've seen his work and he's very very good and efficient. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

To answer Dazedbythebell's question "Why isn't this same logic applied to Prophet, Messiah, Maitreya, Advent, Christ, or Jesus?", these sites don't have wrong links going to them left and right. I, since the first move, have fixed all new incoming links to the term "Avatar". And the vast majority of them have nothing to do with the Hindu topic. That is why only "22 articles linking to Avatar" all of them redirects. Keeping a redirect page merely allows us to keep these links clean. This isn't exactly as wikipedia policy would suggest, but considering the unique situation this page is in, WP:IGNORE might make sense in this situation. Oldag07 (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Closure

Have we established when we will bring this discussion to a close? There are opinionated people here (myself included) that could keep talking in circles and rehashing both sides of the argument, but general consensus appears to support the move. Are we waiting for an uninvolved admin to come along and close the discussion? Should we request one? ...comments? ~BFizz 06:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I too would like to see the end of this debate. It's gone on more than long enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It's in the growing backlog of Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Amy admin that hasn't voted here could be asked to close it. There are useful things being said here, as well as in Dab Talk, but I think the main points have been made and each side has heard the other. Hoverfish Talk 10:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The move of the dab, i must concede seems like what consensus wants. The proposal to keep this page where it is and just turning Avatar into a redirect. . . . probably could use a little more input. Oldag07 (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If after 11 days, 23 support to 7 oppose is only a "seems like", how much longer should it go on so that one is convinced beyond doubt that the consensus is for "support"? However, as I read above, even the "oppose" side does not agree with the alternative you suggested. Hoverfish Talk 11:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

As discussed above, I would suggest that if consensus is established, Avatar (Hinduism) to Avatar and the current Avatar to a dab page. Redirect of Avatar to this page is a bad idea and I suspect various anon film fans may time and again redirect it to the Avatar (2009 film).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's time to close this, and to also follow the common practice of having Avatar go directly to this article on the Hindu concept. There is no consensus for turning Avatar into a redirect to Avatar (Hinduism). There have been many examples in this discussion of parallel article/topics to this one. They all follow the more common practice of making the primary topic the name of the article and not a redirect: Nirvana, Christ, Messiah, Maitreya, Prophet, Jesus. Those who have studied comparative religion understand that the topic of Avatar is quite equivalent to those in terms of importance to the respective religion, as a religious/philosophical concept, and in relative number of adherents of the religion. There seems no good reason to make this topic an exception. First Light (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Move protection isn't difficult to do, and putting a (Hinduism) right next to the word Avatar does not degrade what seems to be determined as the primary topic (certainly not the primary usage among readers) of the word Avatar. It merely makes easier navigation (as for fixing bad links) without changing the primary topic. Oldag07 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I also oppose having the article at "Avatar (Hinduism)". It should be at "Avatar". I think you'll find there's no consensus for the parenthetical title either. In fact, the Requested Move above was specifically about moving "Avatar (Hinduism)" to "Avatar", not to making the latter a redirect for the former. Shreevatsa (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of repeating here a suggestion that was rejected above. I disagree with it. What is now Avatar (Hinduism) should be moved to Avatar. Hoverfish Talk 22:10, 27 February 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.