Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Texas Chainsaw Massacre


 * 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. There are a number of solutions here, and I have my own suggestion. However, the consensus is that the current solution works fine, so we might as well go with that consensus and keep the current solution as impose any other.  SilkTork  *YES! 19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Completely unnecessary and virtually useless disambiguous page. Every Texas Chainsaw Massacre article has a template (Template:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) that links every single Chainsaw related page. We also have The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise), which is linked in the first sentence of each of the film pages. Having a disambiguous page that does nothing but link film pages that are already linked like that twice is unnecessary. This page should be deleted so that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film) can take over this title, with a "This is for the 2003 film, for the 1973 film see.." added to the top.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I wish that I could say that there will never ever again be another film, game, book, etc. that has the words Texas, chainsaw and massacre in its title, it would be easier to add that to a disambiguation page than to alter each of the articles referred to above. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. If they have a new game, and it gets an article, or a new comic/movie/etc., then it's just as easy to create the space on the template as it is to put it on this disambiguous page (it'll happen regardless). The same goes for the franchise, it's going to be listed there no matter what, because those two pages chronicle all those topics/articles. There's only one "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", and that's the movie franchise. The video doesn't actually have an article, it's redirected to the franchise page to the section where it is mentioned. The comic page is misleading to start. There is only one comic with the name "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and that was a few years ago. The first was just called "Leatherface", and the next was called "Jason vs. Leatherface". It wasn't until 2005 that the listed title was even used. Plus, the page appears to be nothing but plot info, and should probably be merged to the franchise article anyway. A similar discussion is happening with a Nightmare on Elm Street page. It's unnecessary. If someone is looking for a "game", then they're likely to put "Texas Chainsaw Massacre game" or "...comic", because they probably realize that "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is typically associated with the two movies that share that title.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant dab. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a redundant page, however, to disagree with the nominator, the original, 1973 Texas Chainsaw Massacre film should be the one to get the undisambiguated article title. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  18:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? You mean The Texas Chain Saw Massacre? I'm saying they both should, because of the similarities. The original film puts a space between "Chainsaw" --> "Chain Saw", so it's already undisambiguated. It's the 2003 remake that doesn't have the space, and is the only film with just "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" as its title (no subtitle).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see how this is in any way redundant simply because other articles have a template containing these links at the end (which won't be visible immediately when those articles are opened). If you want to move this to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation) and then put a link to it at the top of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre that's fine, but don't expect people to search through to the end other articles to find what they're looking for via a template, or search through the franchise page.--Michig (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They also all have a link to the franchise, which lists everything that has a page and doesn't have a page, right at the top of the article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you have bigger monitor than me or a smaller font, but the only link to any of these that's immediately visible when I open the franchise page is to the 1974 film. Even if those links were evident in the first few paragraphs of the franchise article, a disambiguation page is a much easier way of navigating to the required article, which is just what it's there for. Ther may be a link to the franchise page near the top of all the other articles but if for example I was looking for the video game, it certainly isn't obvious that I'm going to find that by clicking on a link which simply reads "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".--Michig (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What I said was that there is a link on all of them "to" the franchise page. The franchise wouldn't link to itself. From there, you have the Table of Contents that navigates that page. The video game is irrelevant, because it doesn't have an article anyway, I don't know why it's even on the disambig page still. The comics are the only other thing besides the film, and again the TOC has a link directly to the comics section of the franchise page (which, at least on my screen is visible without having to even scroll down). This disambig is unnecessary.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I can see I'm not getting through. The disambiguation page is by far the easiest way of navigating to the required article. It will take little or no effort to maintain, so there's no case that I can see for deletion.--Michig (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with Michig on this one. I don't see the logic in deleting a disambiguation page on the grounds that there is a "see also" template on each of eight different articles.  Yes, I suppose that each time a Texas Chainsaw Massacre article is created, someone can be sure to make eight edits (and a ninth "to grow on").  Or you could go to a dab page to figure out which article you're trying to find.  When it comes to helping people navigate Wikipedia, redundancy doesn't bother me at all.  I'm sure there are plenty of counterarguments, but I've taken up more space now than the dab page did. Mandsford (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're referring to? At most you'd have to click twice to get to whatever article you wanted. Your initial try, if that wasn't where you wanted to go, and then the second time for the article you wanted. Kind of like how many times you'd have to click in a dab page, except you have the list in front of you instead of the table of contents of another page...so yeah, it's basically the same which makes the dab page unnecessary.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 14:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation) and either redirect the base name to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre or move The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film) to the base name, and either way with a hatnote on the (target of the) base name page to link to the dab. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mostly agree with JHunterJ's suggestion except that the name "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (sans space in Chainsaw) should redirect to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (the 1973 film) as a typographical variant. older ≠ wiser 15:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the move, which would more properly be undoing a redirect made a couple of years ago by someone who was concerned that it would be "superfluous" to use the word disambiguation in a disambiguation page, rather than "helpful". Of course, the title continued to exist as a redirect, so I don't know what was accomplished.   Move it on back.  Mandsford (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then the "sans space" title should be given to the 2003 remake, with a "for the 1974 film see" added at the top.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care all that much. But as the 1973 film was the primordial ooze from which all the other, um, err, derivative stuff came from, and as the article points out, the 1973 film is presented with both spellings with some frequency in various reliable sources, and as the 2003 film is not particularly more notable than any of the others, the variant spelling should go to the original. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, because we'd have that nice little link at the top saying "if you meant the 1974 film then go here". Claiming that people are looking for the original over the remake is subjective. Yes, the original is more notable, but naming conventions are based on popular searching, not notability and frankly most people that saw the 2003 remake didn't know it was a remake (exception being the people who were already fans of the series).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not irrelevant when the 1973 film is arguably the primary topic for either variant spelling. As others have pointed out, primary topic is what this discussion should be about rather than deletion. older ≠ wiser 03:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the primary topic, but it's not the way the film is spelled. There are two films in this series that share a name, but are distinguished by how they spell said name. As per the naming conventions, each should have their own undisambiguated title, but given the similarities between said titles there should be a "for other use.." note at the top of each article's page. It's as simple as that. The notability of the 1974 film is irrelevant to the naming convention discussion, as the unspaced version of "Chainsaw" is not how the film spells its title. Yes, some people spell it that way, but that's neither here nor there since we have a film that does spell it without the space.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple because the 1973 film is commonly known by both names with and without spacing by various reliable sources. The goal is to make it less confusing for readers, not more confusing. older ≠ wiser 04:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not going to be more confusing with either solution. Who is going to put in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", be taken to the 2003 remake page where a big sign says "This is for the remake, here is the 1974 film"....and stop and go "I'm confused"? It's plain English, and easy to understand: "There are two films, they share a similar name, you just came to the wrong page so here is the right one." If anything, and I like to think the average reader has a bit more common sense than I think you're giving them credit for, they'd more likely be more confused when they type in the title without the space (maybe even looking for the 2003 remake) and get taken to an article that uses a space to separate "Chain" and "Saw".   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you have your opinions, I have as well. That's why there are discussion pages. The point is that the 1973 film is arguably the primary topic regardless of the spacing. In April it had some 64K page views vs. about 15K for the 2003 film. The 1973 film is spelled without the space in many reliable sources (for example ). If it is indeed the primary topic, then it should have the base name, regardless of irrelevant typographical variants. older ≠ wiser 04:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter the number of page views for the original film, because you don't know how they got to the page. They could have typed it in exactly the way it's spelled. They could have typed it in without the space and used the disambig page. Again, that's irrelevant. The fact remains that the unspaced version of the name goes to another film. That takes priority, because you cannot make a subjective call on what someone intends to search for, when you have no data to support such a position. I'm away that there are sources that refer to the 1974 film with no space, but guess what, every source that refers to the remake does it without the space as well. If these two films shared a name and nothing else, this discussion wouldn't even be taking place, because you'd have two completely different films with a similar name that is distinguished by a space.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  05:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of the page views is that the 1973 film is by a fairly wide margin more looked for than the 2003 film. That is what primary topic is about. And if the 1973 is commonly referred to in reliable sources by both the spaced and unspaced name, it should be the primary topic rather than a derivative work. older ≠ wiser 12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It IS the primary topic, but that doesn't change the fact that another film exists that uses the name of the proposed redirect you want. That is why, per naming conventions, we have those templates for "If you were looking for this" at the top of pages. You cannot simply ignore the fact that another film has that title just because another more notable film exists that shares a common title that is often misspelled. It's precisely those instances that Template:Otheruses4 was created.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is precisely what primary topic means -- When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article. If both films were uniquely named and there were no risk of confusion, then there would be no question of a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 13:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here the problem with your argument. You cannot show that "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (sans space) is their intented search option for the 1974 film. You can show that the 1974 film is more trafficked than the 2003 remake. You can show that people in the past, and some currently, still spell the 1974 without the space. What you cannot show (at least you have not been able to show) is that those things are inexplicably linked. In other words, that people type in the title sans the space with the intention of going to the 1974 film. You are trying to use synthesis to prove your point, and you cannot do that. That is why both articles should be nondisambiguated, and "Otheruse" should be used to point to each respective article.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no. What you incorrectly consider as synthesis is used all the time to determine primary topic. Synthesis is primarily about article content. The considerations for naming article are different. There is objective evidence (Google and page views) supporting the proposition that the 1973 film is the primary topic for the title regardless of spacing. If there is no consensus that there is a primary topic, then perhaps the disambiguation page should be at the base name with a redirect from the other base name. older ≠ wiser 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because "it's used all the time" doesn't make it any less synthesis. Synthesis is when you take two separate points and use them to prove a third point that is not backed solely by either individual point. To quote the policy, you are taking argument A (1974 film is most popular) and argument B (people spell said film with and without the space) and using them to draw conclusion C (that people searching for the name sans the space will be looking for the 1974 film). That's synthesis, plain and simple. As for consensus, it appears from the above that you are the only one still on the side of making the sans space redirect to the 1974 article. JHunter doesn't mind either option, Mandsford agrees with using the "Otheruses" option, and myself. Since this isn't a controversial issue, it doesn't require community wide consensus, because it's a subjective call.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And that is specifically prohibited with regards to article content. Evaluation of evidence from sources such as Page views, Google hits, and internal links are precisely what is prescribed for determining primary topic. EVERYONE, including reliable sources and even movie posters for the original movie get the spacing confused. Why should we expect readers to behave any differently? older ≠ wiser 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, hence the "Otheruse" template.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which might be just fine if there were not such confusion over the title. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There can be confusion of just about every title that shares similarities with other topics. The fact that these two articles are basically on the same topic, one is just updated, it makes better sense to use "Otherstuff". You have a popular 1974 film, that's 30 years old and a popular 2003 remake - I mean, if you throw Google searches out there then box office performance counts for something as well, and a 9 mill. movie making over $100 million constitutes some strong popularity.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  15:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep because this is what disambiguation pages are for. This should be a discussion about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: The 2006 movie is getting just as many hits as the 2003 movie (according to http://stats.grok.se ), and the 2nd 3rd and 4th movies are close behind. As a reader, I'd rather initially go to a short disambig page, than a long page for the wrong movie (irregardless which of the 6 I'm actually looking for). -- Quiddity (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * keep per Quiddity. We must remember that readers of the 'pedia may not understand our naming conventions. This is the place they will start, the name they will enter the search box first. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  21:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - good use of disamb page. I see above there is disagreement over which article would have dibs. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect. I've just typed "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" expecting to find the first film in the series and came across the desambiguation page instead. I think we should create The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (disambiguation), and redirect The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (which is known by both names as the poster of the film shows). The first film is by far the most notable so it should be the default. Then we can add a hat note with a reference to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (disambiguation) on top of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Laurent (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you delete it, there's no point to rename and put a hatnote at the top. Each already already has a template that lists all of the related articles.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is what disambiguation pages are for. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (disambiguation) and add a redirect from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre to The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Fences and windows (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2009 (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.