Talk:Avatar (disambiguation)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: discrepancies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: See this.  It was a pretty heated debate. It certainly hasn't been resolved. Oldag07 (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avatar Redirect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Changing layout. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Avatar (Band)

message: The Last airbender should be included on talk page because people still call the Airbender film, "Avatar", despite the cameron film.  
*http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938283/news#ni0917150
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo85qZm-Zuk
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The hatnote that i added. . . I am not going to push it. Oldag07 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Last Airbender film 

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I asked this same question 7 months ago, but was voted down. See Talk:Avatar (film). ...comments? ~BFizz 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Seriously? 

message: Top 5 results on Google Web search for "Avatar site:wikipedia.org", and their respective page views in August 2010:
#Avatar (2009 film) 394297
#Avatar (computing) 17403
#Avatar 146095
#Avatar: The Last Airbender 361478
#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)
replies: text: 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) 
*Support outside of India, avatars are the computer things that you use to represent yourself in online environments or games. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

text: In July 2010 Avatar (disambiguation) was viewed 66117 times (compare Avatar at 162711).  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)

text: *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)

text: *"Originating meaning" does not mean primary topic.  see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  If that was the case Amazon, would refer to the mythical all female tribe. Sandwich would refer to the Earl of Sandwich.  Language evolves.  So should wikipedia. Oldag07 (talk) 02:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

text: **The originating meaning can be a factor if it's the most basic or fundamental of several closely-related meanings.  But I agree that in this case, the derivative meanings have diverged to the point where this application doesn't hold.  Powers T 13:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: Misunderstanding?  I removed it.  69.3.72.249 (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Undue 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just under 600 links represents a significant decrease already.  Good work, folks. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Some of the redirects belong here.  Avatar (film) is an example of this. Oldag07 (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:FIXDABLINKS]] 

message: 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 . 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Made minor fixes to my links, and argument Oldag07 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldag07's final thoughts 

message: 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)
replies: text: I strongly agree with the above suggested move back. Dazedbythebell (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avatar move request again 

message: 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)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Avatar (Hinduism) was moved to Avatar, please update the page accordingly. Hoverfish Talk 19:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fragment removed. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Redirect from [[Avatar (film)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Replacing Avatar (2009 film) 

message: '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)
replies: text: 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. —  (t • e • c) 22:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014