Talk:Infatuation

From Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion

Admin: material incorporated into talk page for limerance. Please delete this page

RFD resolution

I have resolved the discussion at RFD on this redirect (suggested for deletion 2004-11-22) as no consensus. Here is an archive of the discussion:

Infatuation -> Limerence: a real word redirects to a neologism... something's wrong with that picture. --Joy [shallot] 01:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, it is a neologism, but it's one that is i) not super new, ii) not found only on Wikipedia, and iii) seems to have gained a certain amount of usage - Google shows 1,330 hits, some on serious pages (e.g. Yahoo health pages). Now, maybe the article should be at Infatuation, with a redir from Limerance, but if so someone needs to look at it to make any needed changes in the article text. Noel (talk) 14:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - Regardless, I'm not arguing against the existence of the article on Limerence. I'm saying that infatuation should be relegated to non-existence (and an automatic link to wiktionary) because it's not the same thing. --Joy [shallot] 14:52, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - ~~That's fine with me; I'll delete the redir in a little bit.~~ Noel (talk) 23:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - Now that I look at it, there are a number of pages which reference infatuation, and this page seems to describe that as well as limerence. Should we try and make a real infatuation article (perhaps using in part e.g. the last paragraph from this), or what? Noel (talk) 17:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - WIth a little luck User:Abexy will rewrite Limerance and move the infatuation related material to Infatuation. Rich Farmbrough 20:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed subpage from RFD. Demi ^T/_C 18:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Link

This page directs to "Limerance", saying infatuation is a form of limerance. But the second paragraph of the target page quotes: "infatuation... [does] not refer to limerence" and directs back to this page. Predawn 19:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to limerence

Providing an accurate definition and stubbing the section is preferable to redirecting to a (very) vague approximation.
Limerence is expressly defined as being distinct from infatuation (indeed, that's the whole rationale for its existence), which leads to a direct contradiction between articles.
A broader, established concept should never, ever, ever redirect to a narrower, unstable neologism.

204.161.5.200 18:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: write a page on Infatuation that will pass an afd and move this page to Infatuation (disambiguation). Until then "Providing an accurate definition" is not a solution because disambiguation pages are for disambiguating, not for informing or defining or anything of that nature. Disambiguation.--Hraefen ^Talk 19:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to limerence is a far less acceptable solution, as it's contradictory, circular and the limerence article is riddled with problems. A definition to determine context and a link to the wiktionary article will suffice for now.204.161.5.200 02:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing on an Infatuation Page

Well, I believe that a page should be created on "infatuation," and that at the top of the page a link should be created that the reader can click on to visit the disambiguation stub for infatuation. As with any article, an article on infatuation would require information. Anyone care to visit their local library in search of that information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightskye (talk • contribs) 18:49, 4 November 2006

I added "see also" limerance because the two concepts are supposedly related (although after reading the article on limerence I can't say that I really know). 68.49.208.76 02:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

court case?

What is the significance of the court case [426 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. 1988)] that is listed as a reference for this article? 69.140.164.142 10:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No relationship between court case and infatuation

reference removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hengsheng120 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Improvements

I think they should add in ways people with infatuations can control them in their daily lives if it is an issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsayhawkin17 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete or not?

I'm not sure if this article is that important, possibly redirect to crushes. Can you tell me what to do as quick as possible? Again, maybe this article is good to keep? ChocolateLover193 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's different enough from crushes to keep, it just needs to be TOTALLY overhauled. Quoting novels ("Corridors of Power", "Flight of the Stone Angel") as if they're credible sources of information?! The pages on love are among wiki's worst. I cannot even believe someone wrote all this. -12/16/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.190.68.157 (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. In fact, the excessive number of references indicates to me that the entire article is a joke/prank: Put nonsense and doubletalk in Wikipedia, and nobody can delete it because every (nearly random) sentence is individually sourced.

Example (with two refs in a single sentence):

" Of course 'sex may come into this...with an infatuated schoolgirl or schoolboy'[10] as well, producing the 'stricken gaze, a compulsive movement of the throat...an "I'm lying down and I don't care if you walk on me, babe", expression'[11] of infatuation. "

Verdana♥Bøld 05:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So you suggest we remove some references?--RainbowsAndPonies (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Wikipedia

Wikipedia, who do you have a crush on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedia has a crush on (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is wrong with this guy?--RainbowsAndPonies (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]