Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight (disambiguation)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Dark Knight (disambiguation)
- The Dark Knight (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
- Dark Knight (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Created by new editor who tried to rearrange a number of Batman related pages. ThuranX 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Seems like a reasonable disambig page. Nominator offers no valid reason for deletion. Resolute 04:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)- Oh, I get what you are aiming at. This is a duplication of The Dark Knight, which is already a disambig page. Delete as redundant, and highly unlikely search term. Resolute 04:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Hmm, keep as a redirect to The Dark Knight? FrozenPurpleCube 04:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both, per duplication of The Dark Knight. Carlosguitar 05:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both as duplicates created by newbie user. Doczilla 07:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment can we move the DAB page to Dark knight and prevent Dark Knight from being redirected to Batman? (There's no hatnote on that page, and DC comic fans today seem to want it redirected) 132.205.44.134 22:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Reply. Sinice nothing is called 'Dark Knight', and all Batman related items and articles rely upon the Article as part of his moniker, or as their titles, based on said moniker, using a phrase that's NOT going to be serached for so often is a bad idea. Further, Dark Knight was already established as redirect to a sufficent Disambig. ThuranX 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, that's talking about Batman as "The Dark Knight" but the question was about "Dark Knight" as a disambig over having one at "The Dark Knight" . Since we could redirect to either title just as easily, I think that's a fair option to consider. Certainly there's no need for *two* pages on the same content. FrozenPurpleCube 23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, the problem with this particular article is that it has the word 'Disambiguation' in the title. NO ONE is going to search for it that way, who doesn't know it's already there. It should be deleted. As to the second point: So why should we change it? The phrase, even by The creating editor, and the IP's assertion, is primarily associated with Batman, and then with the musician and the charaters from the video game. Why should we reverse it, so that the less popular phrse becomes the disambig, and the popular becomes a redirect? that's contradictory to common sense. The way it's been has worked fine for a long time. THis is a case of 'It's not broke, so don't break it.' ThuranX 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the likelihood of a particular search term doesn't mean much, redirects are cheap. So that's not a real problem. Sorry, but I just don't see a need to delete on that basis. Besides, it might be worth doing something like George Washington or University of Wisconsin does, with the main page to a real article, and the disambig on its own. In any case, it seems to me you're adopting a position of "It's always been that way, why change it" which isn't very convincing. Frankly, I might be convinced to have The Dark Knight as a redirect to Batman with Dark Knight as the disambig page. This is because "the Dark Knight" is associated with particular things, but "Dark Knight" as a term does apply to a broader set of usages. FrozenPurpleCube 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Except that 'The Dark Knight' would refer directly to both Batman, the Character, and the film, as well as closely tying to the Frank Miller projects, and the musician. 'Dark Knight' alone refers to two character types in games. IF you want to split it, have 'The Dark Knight' link 'Dark Knight' to a disambig for the video game, and 'Dark Knight' link 'The dark Knight' to the disambig for the Batman related topics. that's a compromise I can live with, which more accurately than any current solution reflects the most exact ties at the right sites. ThuranX 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- The Dark Knight refers primarily to Batman though (even most of the alternatives are Batman related), as such the disambig would serve in the same way as the disambigs for the pages I mentioned above. Not sure what you're saying in the alternative, it's not very clear what you're proposing there. FrozenPurpleCube 04:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Except that 'The Dark Knight' would refer directly to both Batman, the Character, and the film, as well as closely tying to the Frank Miller projects, and the musician. 'Dark Knight' alone refers to two character types in games. IF you want to split it, have 'The Dark Knight' link 'Dark Knight' to a disambig for the video game, and 'Dark Knight' link 'The dark Knight' to the disambig for the Batman related topics. that's a compromise I can live with, which more accurately than any current solution reflects the most exact ties at the right sites. ThuranX 03:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the likelihood of a particular search term doesn't mean much, redirects are cheap. So that's not a real problem. Sorry, but I just don't see a need to delete on that basis. Besides, it might be worth doing something like George Washington or University of Wisconsin does, with the main page to a real article, and the disambig on its own. In any case, it seems to me you're adopting a position of "It's always been that way, why change it" which isn't very convincing. Frankly, I might be convinced to have The Dark Knight as a redirect to Batman with Dark Knight as the disambig page. This is because "the Dark Knight" is associated with particular things, but "Dark Knight" as a term does apply to a broader set of usages. FrozenPurpleCube 00:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- First, the problem with this particular article is that it has the word 'Disambiguation' in the title. NO ONE is going to search for it that way, who doesn't know it's already there. It should be deleted. As to the second point: So why should we change it? The phrase, even by The creating editor, and the IP's assertion, is primarily associated with Batman, and then with the musician and the charaters from the video game. Why should we reverse it, so that the less popular phrse becomes the disambig, and the popular becomes a redirect? that's contradictory to common sense. The way it's been has worked fine for a long time. THis is a case of 'It's not broke, so don't break it.' ThuranX 23:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- On May 10, Dark Knight was a DAB page, on May 11, Dark Knight was redirected to Batman. 132.205.44.134 22:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Neither a The Dark Knight nor a Dark Knight page is needed; redirect the terms to Batman and, if necessary, link to Mark Knight there. JJL 02:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems that the vast majority of people here are unclear as to the problem with this page. It's not the content. It's the fact that the TITLE ITSELF has the word DISAMBIGUATION in it. No one is searching for "The Dark Knight(disambiguation)", they search for "The Dark Knight". I found the page through my watchlist, when the editor moved the content of 'The Dark Knight' to "The Dark Knight(disambiguation)", which he made. The content at The Dark Knight was restored. It really is that simple. A new editor made a page with a bad name while moving stuff around, ruining an existing disambig by moving it's content to one he chose to label Disambiguation. It should be deleted for that reason alone. ThuranX 03:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- That's just a problem that needs to be fixed by a move, I'd think. Is an afd necessary for this? Is it controversial? JJL 03:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm done. do what you want. I'm the only one reading the page history and editor's contribs. I keep summarizing what happened, and no one here gets it. the title of the article os four words, not three. the three word version existed. as a disambiguation page. which he made into a redirect. like he did to a bunch of other pages. then he made useless new pages. into redirects. to replace the disambigs he made into redirects. but his new pages all have 'disambiguation' in the titles. for no reason. I'm done with this. I nominated the damn thing, I've explained it over and over and over, and everyone here is like 'well, yeah, i'd never search for 'The Dark Knight' when i could be searching for "The Dark Knight(disambiguation)". And since the disambig should list both the character and the film and quite reasonably the frank miller works, there's no good reason to eliminate the page that was there, and no reason to expect people to get to the disambig page otherwise easily. Expected a three step hop from The Dark Knight>Batman>The Dark Knight(film)/The Dark Knight Returns(Comics)/Whatever, is foolish when we can reduce it to >The Dark Knight>what reader wants. Forget it, I'm done explaining this. whatever. bye. ThuranX 03:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, it seems to me that you're taking this a bit too personally. Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. I just don't think it means much. Adding (disambiguation) or (disambig) to page title doesn't make for a bad page. It doesn't create a real problem, and there are many cases where this sort of thing happens. If instead of focusing on an editor's decisions (whoever they may be, and whatever their reasons), you took an approach of "How should this information be presented" you might get better results. Me, I'm not sure if "The Dark Night" should lead to Batman, with a link at the top to a disambig page elsewhere or not. But whatever decision is made, it's not a serious concern if this page exists or not. FrozenPurpleCube 16:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm done. do what you want. I'm the only one reading the page history and editor's contribs. I keep summarizing what happened, and no one here gets it. the title of the article os four words, not three. the three word version existed. as a disambiguation page. which he made into a redirect. like he did to a bunch of other pages. then he made useless new pages. into redirects. to replace the disambigs he made into redirects. but his new pages all have 'disambiguation' in the titles. for no reason. I'm done with this. I nominated the damn thing, I've explained it over and over and over, and everyone here is like 'well, yeah, i'd never search for 'The Dark Knight' when i could be searching for "The Dark Knight(disambiguation)". And since the disambig should list both the character and the film and quite reasonably the frank miller works, there's no good reason to eliminate the page that was there, and no reason to expect people to get to the disambig page otherwise easily. Expected a three step hop from The Dark Knight>Batman>The Dark Knight(film)/The Dark Knight Returns(Comics)/Whatever, is foolish when we can reduce it to >The Dark Knight>what reader wants. Forget it, I'm done explaining this. whatever. bye. ThuranX 03:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep reasonable disambig page per Resolute Feydakin 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment if there is to be a DAB page I think it would be better sitting at Dark knight or Dark Knight. The pages The Dark Knight (disambiguation) and Dark Knight (disambiguation) can either be redirected to the proper DAB page or deleted. The Dark Knight should either redirect to the DAB page or point to Batman. Batman itself should have a hatnote explaining that The Dark Knight redirects there, and point to the DAB page. 132.205.44.134 22:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment. I still don't see why we're going to bounce people three times, when we can do it in one. ThuranX 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
