Talk:Flower of Life (manga)

Review(s)

Comics Village vol. 1-4 --KrebMarkt (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Just in case the work(s) listed here is/are notable.

• Burke, Thomas (1929). The Flower of Life. London: Constable & Co. OCLC 1058517.

Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 15:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Lost article?

Any discussions about the recently deleted article are not relevant here. It was deleted and the proper remedy is to ask for restoration or other remedies at WP:DRV. If there's further questions, this is not the place for that. Please let this talk page stay on topic so that the editors about this article can do they volunteered to do. Please. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This article was recently moved. There seemed to be a different article here recently, on a geometric shape, but no sign of it now. Its archived here at least: [1] Tom Ruen (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC) The article about the geometric figure was deleted, see here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (2nd nomination). As it was deleted by consensus at AfD then re-creating the same article is not allowed without discussing first. The manga caled "Flower of Life" is now the only topic with that name, so it gets the article title Flower of Life. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Hmmm... that's surprising to me. MathWorld talks about the geometry at least [2] Tom Ruen (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC) I continue to be surprised the geometry article was deleted, however much its "sacred geometry" content was over the top and needed trimming. Its clearly an old symbol, even if the name isn't old, and pretty much every google search shows the geometry NOT the comic book. Artists are copying it and using the name, for instance [3]. Its named in this book Sacred Geometry Design Sourcebook: Universal Dimensional Patterns Bruce Rawles. Stephen Wolfram names it in his 2002 book A New Kind of Science So (1) it has an ancient interest (2) it has modern interest (3) It has a modern name (4) Diverse people are using that name. What more could you want? Tom Ruen (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC) This book references it, citing Bruce Rawles. Clearly this name isn't going to disappear and be replaced by someone else making up something completely different that already has a widely used name. Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Second Edition By Eric W. Weisstein

Facebook likes as secondary source

This discussion has nothing to do with improving this article, but complaining that another article was deleted through the AfD process. This talk page is not WP:Deletion review. Under WP:TALK guidelines, I am closing this topic. —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have 7,669 likes listed on my Facebook account, the majority of which are pages on Wikipedia. The other day I noticed a new image from the manga series Flower of Life on my page of likes. I did not recognize this image, so I clicked on the image. To my surprise the Flower of Life page on Wikipedia, that I had originally liked, had been replaced by this page on the manga series. I then learned that the original page had recently been deleted because of a lack of secondary sources. Don't thousands of likes by Facebook users such as myself serve as as appropriate secondary source according to Wikipedia guidelines? If they don't, then they should. The tyranny of the few be damned. “Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage.” - John Locke (Two Treatises of Government) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.246.41 (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC) No, Facebook likes won't help on Wikipedia. I don't know how "popular culture" terms or symbols can gain recognition into Wikipedia. Google shows something close to 100% of references of "flower of life" are towards this symbol. [4] Tom Ruen (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC) The question is whether or not Facebook likes qualify as a secondary source. According to the Wikipedia page on secondary sources, "Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_source . Analysis, synthesis, interpretation and evaluation adequately describe the processes that I use to decide whether or not to like a Wikipedia page on Facebook. Is there documentation in the Wikipedia that explicitly states that Facebook likes do not qualify as secondary sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.246.41 (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Documents like this would be the place to look: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources or Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources. I've never heard of anyone who hoped for such a thing, but if you prod, I bet a policy against it will be made, even if you had a way to prove likes had something to do with real people. Facebook_like_button#Fake_.22likes.22 Tom Ruen (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Sources for what? What is the claim? "This article has a bunch of likes on Facebook"? I don't understand. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Indeed, apparently "The Sacred Geometry & the Flower of Life facebook page has 275k likes." [5] and "The Flower of Life facebook page has 164k likes." [6] proving that Facebook deserves an article on this sacred geometry pattern. ?!?!?! Tom Ruen (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I now have 7,723 likes on my Facebook page. Yes, can you institute a policy against using Facebook likes as a secondary source, even though the guidelines describe quite well the process I use to decide whether or not to like a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.246.41 (talk • contribs) You're barely making any sense. Please try to stay on topic of improving the current article. (Which has nothing to do with any of this...) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC) To be fair, this is the only clear place to express opinions (good or bad) about a deleted article. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC) OK, you win. This page deserves to be deleted. I also just deleted my Facebook account. The likes didn't matter anyway, right? What about all my friends? Do their voices matter? Who decides? You? Wait, I almost forgot. Wikipedia is not the real world. Neither is Facebook, nor the Internet for that matter. They only amplify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.246.41 (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC) You can't make this up. I go and create another Facebook account and proceed to like over 250 pages. Facebook then notifies me that since I have liked too many pages too quickly, it has unilaterally deleted all but 240 of my likes. How is this arbitrary enforcement of Facebook's policies any different from your actions to unilaterally delete this page, let alone decide that my content is off-topic? I get it, you are simply following the rules. Rules are superseded all the time. I anticipate your deletion role will be made redundant by a more democratic process that enables users to vote whether or note a page should be deleted based on the body of evidence. The last time I was censored to this extent, I ended up voicing my concerns directly to the editor. He took care of the situation by overhauling the entire comment system (e.g., by replacing the human censors with a more democratic, self-correction process). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.246.41 (talk) 06:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

reinstate the geometry flower of life

As with the discussion above, nothing said here has anything to do with improving this article. This is not a place to complain about the deletion of a different article through the AfD process. If you disagree with the deletion of that article, got to WP:Deletion review. —Farix (t | c) 03:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The style in which you have removed this article is shameful, obviously you wiki users are not much into these types of subjects, and could not care less if the article is about a symbol written and talked about by millions in the world, and if it is a manga series. All those who have contributed and read the article in the past years have done so because they have an interest in the subject. if all people taking an interest in the subject logged on and gave their opinion, you would be outnumbered by thousands. This symbol was not invented by drunvalo melchizedek, it is a naturally formed symbol that has many stories attributed to it, one of the people who has written about it is drunvalo. i dont believe you are entitled to remove it BECAUSE he wrote about it no matter what his story is. It exists in many places of the world, one of the oldest is thousands of years old, on the column of the osirian temple in abydos, egypt. It predates modern civilization. Maybe drunvalo coined the term flower of life but it is now generally accepted around the world and literally millions of people talk about it, draw it, read about it, tattoo it etc. www.google.com/search?q=osirian+temple+flower+of+life www.google.com/search?q=leonardo+da+vinci+flower+of+life also, leonardo da vinci has written and illustrated the flower of life long time ago so what is the issue here?? there are many geometric figures in this subject https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron%27s_Cube metatrons cube is one Odarcan (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC) There's an archived copy here of one of the last versions, [7], if anyone has the nerve to start a new article on the geometric figure, but who wants to work on an article that can be purged in an instant? I can see there's a problem of original research and synthesis (WP:SYN) whether by one obscure modern author, or editors collect together parallel symbols under a modern name. But it does seem like Drunvalo's name has stuck, and will continue to be reused, as any google search will instantly show, like [8]. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC) Well it doesnt really matter i doubt he carved it into the osirian temple thousands of years ago or that he invented it before leonardo da vinci it wasnt created by him its a universal symbol, and even if he has coined the name, every symbol in existence that has a name was coined by someone. How do i reinstate it is a discussion required? How can tens of people have a saying in a matter they obviously resent and have never had so much as an inkling in improving this article . Also there is a huge drop in traffic to the article fro over 20k to 7k for 1 month, assuming 7k people come to flower of life artice to read a few lines about a anime seriesOdarcan (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC) AS YOU CAN SEE NONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED TO REMOVE THE FLOWER OF LIFE PAGE ARE FOLLOWING THIS PAGE, AFTER 5 DAYS I WILL CREATE A DISAMBIGUATION PAGE212.253.189.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Nope, you can't do that. We have disambiguation pages only when we have several articles on the same title. Because that's what disamb pages are for, for linking to different articles. But in this case we only have this article about the anime, we don't have an article about the symbol. Because it was deleted after a deletion discussion. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC) You can make a new article in user space like User:Odarcan/Flower_of_Life_(geometry) and then move the contents to an article when you're ready to defend it. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Excuse my French, but WTF? This comic book, what is that? Flower of Life is first and foremost a world famous geometrical pattern made out of intersecting circles! This pattern is known in just about every culture across the globe and have most likely been so since the invention of the compass. The (archived) deletion discuss page is mind numbingly ignorant reading. This is a pattern so basic and so important that it forms the very basic building block, or skeleton pattern, for multiple other patterns that can be derived from it, see e.g. the page on Girih, especially the image example in the section "Construction". IMHO you will be able to ask any professional working in the Creative Arts anywhere on the globe the question "What is the T.o.L?", and the answer will be this specific geometrical pattern, not that utterly misplaced comic book. As for the person/author being discussed on the deletion page, none of his authorship is relevant to the professional use of this pattern in the Creative Arts of today, and it was not relevant either when the pattern was used a thousand years ago (edit: a thousand years may be exaggerating. But then it may not be so. It all depends on the date of invention of the compass, my guess is that we've had the compass for longer than 1,000 years). This pattern is just as important to the graphic arts, and pattern making in general as water is to ice making. So, please delete this utterly irrelevant and embarrasing comic book page, and (re)create a basic page featuring the geometrical pattern. Thx clsc (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC) Uhm, sorry about the emotional language used above, but this should really fall under the heading/credo "Don't be stupid" if such a credo did exist, that is. The example above with water and ice isn't the most precise analogy: What this page amounts to by analogy is a single Wikipedia page on the word "Sun" mentioning only the British newspaper, without as much as a single word on the celestial body in the middle of our solar system. This page about some comic book is really extremely misleading! (also edited comment above; as the weird expression "sacred geometry" may actually have some merit I will not recommend to totally ignore it, see e.g. the "Girih" page linked to above.) clsc (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC).

Vote to reinstate Flower of Life geometry

See closures above. Off topic. -—Farix (t | c) 03:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
reinstate it has been referenced by leonardo da vinci is popular among many people, it is very old. doesnt matter if drunvalo wrote about it people come here to read about it. Odarcan (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Requested move to Flower of Life (manga)

This is not the place to discuss the deletion, nor would it be if it was still the talk page of the deleted article. As I was the one who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (2nd nomination) this can be discussed on my talk page. Alternately you can challenge the deletion of deletion review. Please do not post about this deleted article further here as it is off topic. HighInBC (was Chillum) 22:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I recommend a move of the book article back to Flower of Life (manga) and the article Flower of Life can be a redirect there. Then this talk page can continue discuss the obvious need for a reinstated article on the geometric version, and the Talk:Flower of Life (manga) page can contain a reference to this page. A google search [9] finds literally millions of references to the geometric figure and ZERO references to the comic book. People are going to continue coming to this page for information until the geometric figure is restored in some way. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC) The nonenglish wikipedias still have many article on the geometric figure an:Flor d'a Vida, de:Blume_des_Lebens, es:Flor_de_la_Vida, fr:Fleur_de_Vie, hu:Élet virága, pl:Gwiazda heksapentalna, and tr:Yaşam Çiçeği. Support Tom Ruen (talk) Reject Discussion This talk page is not for discussing deleted articles. The page you refer to was deleted by consensus here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flower of Life (2nd nomination). To discuss the deletion you need to do so on the talk page of the deleting admin, myself, or at deletion review. If there is a decision to restore the article then there can be a discussion about moving this page. HighInBC (was Chillum) 22:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC) This topic is about a move not a deleted article. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC) You said in your reasoning for the move that you wanted to use this talk page for discussion about undeletion. Even if this article did not exist the talk page of a deleted article is not the place to discuss it. This discussion does not really belong here, this talk page is for this article. Take a hint at the last 3 threads being closed, you have been told where you can discuss this and creating a 4th thread after 3 have been closed is getting into the realm of disruption. HighInBC (was Chillum) 22:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC) I did take the hint, and I suggested a solution. Tom Ruen (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)