Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapunzel (film)


 * 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 keep by default, this was just a botched page move and shouldn't have been listed here. &mdash;Xezbeth 12:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rapunzel (film)

 * Delete. A cut-and-paste move made by Rapunzel Unbraided to an unnecessary title. Georgia guy 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be new user who does not know how to do a page move. This should be quickly deleted as all page history gets lost in this type of improper move. Fan-1967 17:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, with the hope of upgrading to Speedy if the author (User:Rhynchosaur) realizes the mistake. Powers 20:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, the copy-and-paste thing was wrong, but now this new title is official so it should be kept unless Disney changes it again. I take back what I said, this article actually should be deleted first then we move the Rapunzel Unbraided article back here. Chris1219 11:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What mistake? The title Rapunzel Unbraided has been changed to just Rapunzel not just on Wikipedia, but also on imdb. It is also simply called "Rapunzel" elsewhere on the net. "Unbraided" was original added because of the Shrek-like plot, but now when the movie is going in a more serious direction, the name has changed with the plot. My suggestion is to not delete anything before it is documented that the movie will keep its original title. (And just to mention it; Georgia guy has a bad habit of calling all edits for "vandalism" for some reason, which is NOT the correct way to use Wikipedia.) Rhynchosaur 00:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If I had considered all edits vandalism, I would have simply taken Wikipedia off the net. However, study the history of Rapunzel Unbraided within the last few weeks until Rhynchosaur's edit and they were all good edits. Rhynchosaur's edit is vandalism because it is a cut-and-paste from the right title to a wrong title. Georgia guy 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact is that you are using the word "vandalism" far too frequently. Quote: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." And as you may know, my intention was to improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it. Rhynchosaur 01:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Rhynchosaur, the mistake was in performing the pagemove incorrectly. It is improper to do so by copying the text to the new name and redirecting.  See Help:Moving a page.  It would expedite discussion of whether the page should be renamed or not if you would agree that the new page should be deleted (pending a possible proper page move).  Powers 00:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know see how to do it. This was my first attempt in removing a phage, so I'll do it correct next time. But I'm pretty sure the phage will be renamed in the future nonetheless, even if there are few who are accepting this for the moment. Rhynchosaur 01:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Great. Can I ask you to put a db-author tag on the article Rapunzel (film) so that we can end this AfD and start discussing a proper move on Talk:Rapunzel Unbraided?  Thanks.  Powers 19:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Rapunzel Unbraided article should have been moved to Rapunzel (film) instead of being copy-and-pasted. This is now creating a huge amount of confusion and I hope people won't do this anymore. Chris1219 10:44, 10 August 2006 (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.