Talk:Harmlessness

Requested move 12 October 2015

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.

Not moved, consensus is against the proposed move. bd2412 T 14:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Harmlessness → Harmlessness (album)
• Harmless → Harmlessness

– This new (and not notable) album is not the natural or most notable meaning of harmlessness and is now blocking up searches to other subjects. It should either be redirected to the harmless dab, or the harmless dab moved to the noun form. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• @In ictu oculi: Ditto with page Formless? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Anthony Appleyard, and also Formlessness which was the preceding album by this Harmlessness (album) band. But it was deleted by AFD for lack of notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support/Weak support Support moving the album; though, just moving the album and redirecting to "Harmless" would function just as well or better. Yes, I do understand the WP:NOUN provision preferring noun-form pagenames -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. We have no articles on the words "harmless" or "harmlessness". We do, though, have this article. (Once again, I'd like to refer the nom to WP:NOTABLE if they feel the topic is not notable.) Dohn joe (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I said "most notable" - I don't need reminding that WP:NOTABLE sets a very low benchmark for entertainment articles. Though as noted the other album was deleted. The issue here is whether this album is the "most notable" meaning of harmlessness. Which is what I wrote in nom. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Um, you started with "This new (and not notable) album...." Dohn joe (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose there's no other article, "other uses" should link to wikt:harmlessness. Peter James (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? User:Peter James Which guidelines says that we have to have a standalone article titled "harmlessness"? Please cite the guideline. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There's probably no guideline that says that, but no other article on the Harmless page covers a subject that could be called "Harmlessness", so disambiguation is not needed. Peter James (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Peter James sorry, for clarification: you're saying the concept of harmlessness doesn't exist in any encyclopedia-relevant way, or simply no one has written content into an article with any coverage of it? Or that the content hasn't been linked on the dab? the phrase "principle of harmlessness" alone garners 60 Google Book hits primarily in relation to Jainism. The shorter phrase "harmlessness is" shows over 1000 hits. Should/shouldn't the encyclopedia recognise the existence of "harmlessness" as a subject/topic/concept? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles linked on the disambiguation page say nothing about it. The closest related topics are probably Nonviolence and Benignity, which mention it - should those be added to the disambiguation page? Peter James (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The addition that I made to Harmless serves just about the same purpose as moving the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:09, 16 October 2015 (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.