Talk:Overkill (term)

Split

   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:

1. Obviously, i hope, the talk sections in question need to go to the talk pages of the respective articles mentioned just above.
2. There are no "super-cats", but rather super-sections.
3. The super-sections, of which this section "Split" is an example, are "super" in these senses:
   1. Their titles appear in type equal or very close in size to the page title.
   2. Each of their titles' markups uses a pair of single equal signs rather than of the double ones that are usually used
   3. The previously existing sections are sub-sections relative to these new ones, and ...
   4. that subordinate relationship is reflected in the indentation of the talk page's ToC.

--Jerzy•t 06:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Belongs to "Nuclear weapons"

Nuclear Overkill

I take issue with the following phrase:

"Both nations possessed (and still possess) more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy one another many times over — nuclear overkill."

Nuclear overkill is a Cold War myth created by the fictional work, "On the Beach" As described at "http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82cab/index.html" in the Overkill section, nuclear war could not eliminate the populations of the United States and Soviet Union many times over.
--Diagoras (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

US policy was to be able to drop a nuclear bomb on every Soviet town and city forty times over

Every major Soviet town and city surely ?

It isn't even true if you account for that. The Soviet Union was a very, very big place, with many small, widely-distributed population centers. In fact, the United States was worried about the fact that the U.S. population was more concentrated, and therefore more vulnerable to nuclear strikes. I'd add a "citation needed", but the claim is ridiculous enough it should just be removed.

the term was called "pounding the rubble" or, as military officers sometimes joked, "pounding the rouble.

Might be worth mentioning that similar criticisims were levelled at the later phases of major allied (conventional) air-raids on German and Japanese cities in the closing months of WW2

--86.112.236.189 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Belongs to "Nuclear weapons" section, res ipsa loquitur.
--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Belongs to "Criminology"

"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)

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)

example

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)

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)

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)

Belongs to "In media"

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)

In Movies

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)
Chinagreenelvis (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

Fictional Section

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)

Also the game screenshots are really pointless211.10.18.77 09:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Other

(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)

Link Overkill in Article "Overkill"

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)

77 refers to a vandalistic edit by User:Overkill.
--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

2007-11-6 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 15:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

for some odd reason...

The bit about killing an ant with a rocket launcher made me laugh uncontrollably.
Am I sadistic?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.211.102 (talk) 02:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's just laughably absurd. QX100 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Purpose of Article

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)

I concur. The subject here is highly, let's say, subjective. -- RichNick (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Its topic is lexicographic, and the content is POV & OR.
--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

EXAMPLE

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)

The following contrib is struck thru as off topic.^{--Jerzy•t 06:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)}

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)

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)

Requested move

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Overkill (term) and the dab page as requested. Favonian (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

---

• Overkill → Overkill (slang)
• Overkill (disambiguation) → Overkill

– The slang or colloquial meaning of the term overkill does not appear to be the primary topic for this term. In June, this page had 4620 page views, and the dab page had 1721, suggesting that a significant number of users needed to click through to find what they were looking for. Also, both the band (19894) and the Motörhead album (7498) had more hits than the plain title, and many of the other uses (especially the Motörhead song and the Men at Work song) had significant traffic. Additionally, this page has very few incoming links (18, including redirects), and I recently dabbed six links to this page that were intended for other articles--a notable number relative to the total number of incoming links. The article for the term should be disambiguated and the dab page moved to the plain title. ShelfSkewed Talk 21:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Support a move to overkill (term), the location of the article before it was moved a few years back, since I'm not sure "overkill" is exactly slang. The current article on the term is borderline non-notable per WP:DICTDEF. (The article's only sources are dictionaries—nothing in the article establishes encyclopedic notability.) Anyway, the band and the song are far more notable. —  AjaxSmack  01:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment I'm okay with (term)--or any disambiguator that might be arrived at by consensus. I was just going by the only category the article is in.--ShelfSkewed Talk 04:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Modified Support, for overkill (term), per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and discussion. ENeville (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tank Bunny Death.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)