Talk:Overkill (term)

message: In preparation for dividing this clusterfuck multi-topic article, united only by its lexicographic approach to the topics, the talk sections need to be identified as to whether they should go to the nuclear overkill article, to the overkill (criminology) article, to the overkill in media article, or some other status. I am making the first cut by grouping those that should be non-controversial, and leaving the rest under "Other", for further discussion, with a comment appended as to why. (It will be simpler to leave the temporary super-cats, like this one, "higher" for now than what we normally use, since the moved Cats can thus stay at their present normal-top-level status.)--Jerzy•t 06:14 (text) & 06:41 (reformatting), 29 July 2010 (UTC)
*    I already included strike-thru above, so rather than edit the wording of that contrib (using strike thru to preserve the bad portion of the old text and bold to distinguish the new) i'll make clarifications in this separate contrib, modifying the original only with italics, to mark what i clarify here:
# Obviously, i hope, the talk sections in question need to go to the talk pages of the respective articles mentioned just above.
# There are no "super-cats", but rather super-sections. 
# The super-sections, of which this section "Split" is an example, are "super" in these senses:
## Their titles appear in type equal or very close in size to the page title.
## Each of their titles' markups uses a pair of single equal signs rather than of the double ones that are usually used
## The previously existing sections are sub-sections relative to these new ones, and ...
## that subordinate relationship is reflected in the indentation of the talk page's ToC.
:--Jerzy•t 06:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: === "Proverbial" red mist ===
The "red mist" is not a proverb.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.49.49 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Belongs to "Criminology" section: Corresponding edit changed only the "Criminology" section, where the expression occurred.  (That talk section was added at top of pg, & must be moved to the end of wherever it lands.)--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, I feel that "A classic example would be a frenzied stabbing where the victim had suffered over 40 separate, deep abdominal wounds, plus deliberate facial mutiliation (e.g. nose or ears cut off) and several deep stab wounds to the victim's vagina." is sort of overkilling the example (a Meta-overkill?). The counting of stabs, and describing various mutilations just makes it gross, and not necessarily "classic" or generic... As the article states, overkill isn't necessarily gross or gruesome, but "In criminal profiling, the term "overkill" refers to the wounds or mutilations inflicted by offenders (especially serial killers), which go beyond what is necessary to kill the victim" I'd say a sufficiently "classic" example would be something along the lines of "a frenzied stabbing where the victim has suffered a very high count of abdominal wounds." By all means, revert my edit if you disagree... Loial (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Belongs to "Criminology" section: The first talk comment in this section not only applies to the article's lead rather than an article section, it also is insubstantial & contributes nothing but the section heading to the discussion, so its military content is irrelevant. The 2nd documents a removal in the "Criminology" section that has stood for a couple of years, and that removal is the substance of this talk section.--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belongs to "Criminology" 

message: The "red mist" is not a proverb.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.49.49 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Belongs to "Criminology" section: Corresponding edit changed only the "Criminology" section, where the expression occurred.  (That talk section was added at top of pg, & must be moved to the end of wherever it lands.)--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Proverbial" red mist 

message: lol the ant/rocket launcher example is awesome. we need more of this stuff in wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.164.152.2 (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, I feel that "A classic example would be a frenzied stabbing where the victim had suffered over 40 separate, deep abdominal wounds, plus deliberate facial mutiliation (e.g. nose or ears cut off) and several deep stab wounds to the victim's vagina." is sort of overkilling the example (a Meta-overkill?). The counting of stabs, and describing various mutilations just makes it gross, and not necessarily "classic" or generic... As the article states, overkill isn't necessarily gross or gruesome, but "In criminal profiling, the term "overkill" refers to the wounds or mutilations inflicted by offenders (especially serial killers), which go beyond what is necessary to kill the victim" I'd say a sufficiently "classic" example would be something along the lines of "a frenzied stabbing where the victim has suffered a very high count of abdominal wounds." By all means, revert my edit if you disagree... Loial (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Belongs to "Criminology" section: The first talk comment in this section not only applies to the article's lead rather than an article section, it also is insubstantial & contributes nothing but the section heading to the discussion, so its military content is irrelevant. The 2nd documents a removal in the "Criminology" section that has stood for a couple of years, and that removal is the substance of this talk section.--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  example 

message: I'm inclined to split that article section out to Overkill in media, and ProD that new article as a catchall of WP:OR and coinages. We certainly need no coverage in the criminology-oriented article of fictional portrayals of the behavior that section "Criminology" covers (which will be covered in the section's article successor).--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Belongs to "In media" section: This concerns material now in section "Film" whose super-section is "In media". --Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Also the game screenshots are really pointless211.10.18.77 09:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Belongs to "In media" section:  Presumably this concerns material either removed and discarded, or now somewhere in section "In media". --Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belongs to "In media" 

message: I'm sure someone can think of a much better example of a horror film series that uses overkill. Most of the deaths in Friday the 13th are short and sweet. Jason and his mom are efficient killers rather than brutal ones. I really don't feel like this rings true for the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinagreenelvis (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Belongs to "In media" section: This concerns material now in section "Film" whose super-section is "In media". --Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Movies 

message: There seems to be no point to the Fictional section since it does not differ in usage from the so called common use211.10.18.77 09:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the game screenshots are really pointless211.10.18.77 09:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Belongs to "In media" section:  Presumably this concerns material either removed and discarded, or now somewhere in section "In media". --Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional Section 

message: (These are most likely to require further discussion, or depend on the details of the article splitting.)--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other 

message: Is this supposed to be a funny comment on what Overkill means, or why are even the most mundane words linked to other articles? -- 77.7.134.150 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 77 refers to a vandalistic edit by User:Overkill. --Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other This talk section should go to the talk page of whichever article has that edit (and presumably the rest of the current article's history) as part of its edit history.--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Overkill in Article "Overkill" 

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 15:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other. Should be included with the article that gets the overall history. (If the history were to be split up, the disposition of the revision current at the time of the transwiki operation would determine which talk page needed this talk section.)--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-11-6 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: The bit about killing an ant with a rocket launcher made me laugh uncontrollably.<BR>
Am I sadistic?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.211.102 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just laughably absurd. QX100 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I liked the nuclear landmine better, every aspect of using a nuclear bomb is so absurd, that I just had to laugh :) LuciusMare (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

text: The examples in the lead (one verbal, one an image) are discardible because they are premised on the idea of the article as having a lexicographic topic. --Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other. This section is similar to an earlierlater one (below, at this writing). The material of these examples is two military items, so its affinity is with "Nuclear weapons". If no one objects, i'll throw this and the similar "EXAMPLE" talk section in with the "Nuclear weapons" talk sections.--Jerzy•t 06:14, & 06:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  for some odd reason... 

message: I see no reason for this article to exist.  It is a poorly-constructed, long-winded dictionary entry. Delvebelow (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The subject here is highly, let's say, subjective. -- RichNick (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its topic is lexicographic, and the content is POV &  OR.--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other. Should be included with the article that gets the overall history. (If the history were to be split up ... hmm.)--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of Article 

message: I see that since my previous visit to the article, the examples (ant/rocketlauncher etc.) swelled up to a huge size and where deleted. Now, I think we can limit ourselves to one example without it compromising the article so I have chosen the one that existed first --Armanalp (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The following contrib is struck thru as off topic.--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

text: I ALWAYS kill ants with laser guided Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) bombs, there's nothing wrong with that --Richard B. Cheney 64.222.116.23 (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Other. This section is similar to an earlier one (above, at this writing). The material of this example is military, so its affinity is with "Nuclear weapons". If no one objects, i'll throw this and the similar "for some odd reason..." talk section in with the "Nuclear weapons" talk sections. --Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  EXAMPLE 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion