Talk:"Holy..."

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 5 August 2018, see discussion.
keep, 11 August 2013 (UTC), see discussion.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comics: Batman Bottom‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Batman work group.

"Holy rusted metal, Batman."

There was a spoof of the "holy" exclamations in the Batman Forever film. Should it be included in the list?--69.157.154.242 (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this regarded as a spoof? Was this the only one? Perhaps a dedicated section for Batman Forever is called for. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was an in-joke, not an exclamation—he was pointing out holes in the rusted metal.</nerd mode> – iridescent 2 10:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such reflexive self-parody begging for a reliable source (.. the original comment I mean, lol). I must admit I saw the whole thing as a self-parody. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates

Yes, it probably makes sense to remove "Holy Masquerade - 2", "Holy Mush - 2" and "Holy Smokes - 2". What about "Holy Jack In The Box - 2"? The only argument for retaining might be to demonstrate how few duplicates there were. Some readers might find it a surprise that there were very few script repetitions. I think many might assume that some of Robin's Holys were oft repeated, like a catchphrase. But, apparently, they were not. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have now removed it. But I still think the article should make clear how many were unique and how many repeated. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Kofax should read "Koufax", a reference to baseball pitcher Sandy Koufax. BurkeDevlin (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. While it seems this name may not be perfect, there does not seem to be a substantially better alternative option at this time. It seems adequately noted that there isn't much room for confusion at the moment. -- tariqabjotu 04:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of exclamations by Robin → List of exclamations by Robin (comics) – I'm not at all sure that this is the best title, but we need to clarify the title somehow. See Robin, first off — Batman's sidekick is a rather minor user of the name, and there are tons of other people and other entities known as "Robin". Moreover, as I said at the AFD, I would expect this title to be a list of things like "tweet", "cheerily carol", and fluting and warbling. This list needs to demonstrate that it's not a list of bird sounds, and it needs to show that it's Batman's friend and not some other real or fictional person named Robin. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - not a perfect title but two steps nearer meeting WP:CRITERIA. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - simply because we have an article called Robin (comics) for this character. I think any risk of ambiguity with Turdus migratorius (whose song is "commonly described as a cheerily carol, made up of discrete units, often repeated, and spliced together into a string with brief pauses in between" - sound clip available!) is twitteringly small. One downside with the proposed title may be that it suggests the character made such exclamations in printed form, which I don't think he did. But the only other possibility that sprang to my mind was List of exclamations by Batman's Robin, which looks a bit clumsy. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "fluting and warbling" is Erithacus rubecula, a totally different species. I only suggested this title because it was the title of the article on the character, and I think I'd prefer "by Batman's Robin" to "by Robin (comics)" — if nothing else, it flows normally, unlike my proposed title. But either one's better than the current; I don't want this to get in the way of moving the page in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support the move, but I'm not sure about either of the proposed titles. I agree that "Robin (comics)" isn't right, because we're talking about a character in a TV series, not a comic. And "Batman's Robin" seems open to misinterpretation... I think "Robin (Batman)" would do the trick. DoctorKubla (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, now we have three possibilities, all being voted for? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Remember that we're all supporting some kind of move. We don't have to have a majority in favor of a specific option; the closer should make whatever decision seems to be closest to what people want. If lots of other people come and support the move idea, nobody would be happy with a "page stays where it is" decision, since we will all have opposed it; accordingly, a proper close in that situation would inevitably end up with a pagemove to somewhere else. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think (comics) is fine; the character originated in comics. bd2412 T 17:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of Robin's exclamations in the Batman TV series and italicize "Batman" using {{italic title}}. No need for a parenthetical disambiguator (and in this case, one that appears inapt) when we have the luxury with a descriptive title of tailoring the name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. None of the suggested titles are better than the current one. All the forms with parentheses are out, since there's nothing to disambiguate from, and they can add additional confusion. Robin largely made these exclamations on the Batman TV series, not the comics, and he made them on other TV appearances besides the 1960s series. As "List of exclamations by Robin" would already redirect to the new location, we're not accomplishing anything besides potentially incorrect or misleading verbiage. The capital "R" and the fact that it's in the singular form distinguishes the article from bird sounds (which would be something like "songs of the robin", "sounds made by robins", etc.) - and more importantly, there aren't any existing articles for those to distinguish this from.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- both the European and the Amercian birds are Robins? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  - In usual speech they are "robins", and again, in this context it would be something like "sounds made by robins", "the robin", or similar, not "exclamations by Robin [singular]". I may be amenable to another descriptive title, but I can't think of a more suitable one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - In usual speech, there's no writing. But I tend to agree with you. (Although, have I just imagined the use of singular common species names? It doesn't sound obviously wrong to me.) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cuchullain. This isn't CfD; I don't see a need for trickle-down disambiguators. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a named title, it's a descriptive title. As such, it needs to tell people what it is from reading the title and "Robin" is not nearly descriptive enough, alone, to inform people that it's about the Batman character. Although the article's text implies otherwise, if Cúchullain is correct that it's not all from the TV series, then Support "by Batman's Robin", as suggested above. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the topics listed at Robin the only others who this title could apply to grammatically are Robin (answering machine) and Robin (singer). When we have an article on a list of exclamations by one of them, I'll change my mind. Besides, I share the concerns with "Batman's Robin" above. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of Robin's exclamations in the Batman TV series and italicize "Batman" using {{italic title}}. per Fuhghettaboutit. Consistent with the opening words of the lede, this topic is specific to Batman (TV series) and disconnected from the comics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC). Otherwise, support the nomination as a lesser improvement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is only one topic covered by WP that is a "list of exclamations by Robin", and that's this one. The disambiguation process does not even apply here. --B2C 05:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. The standards per WP:PRECISION can seem a bit counterintuitive when considering a title like this in isolation, but disambiguating only as necessary avoids disambiguating all titles from all topics in existence, as opposed to just those on WP, which would get out of hand. We want titles only as long as necessary. Given the specialized nature of the topic in this case, almost all readers will likely reach the article either from a link (with context implied) or from experience (with acquaintance implied), and any remaining uncertainty is quickly clarified in the first sentence. ENeville (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a solution looking for a problem. There is nothing to disambiguate from and the proposed titles are more opaque or inaccurate than the current one. — AjaxSmack 23:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parenthetical disambiguation is used only when natural disambiguation is not possible. There is nothing here to disambiguate from. Rejectwater (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per the nominator. I'd also support an alternative move, as suggested above. However it's accomplished, I think it's desirable to add some kind of clarification as to what the "Robin" in the current title refers to. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Holy Smoke(s)

This is hardly a Robinism. It's been around a long time (for example, Mickey Shaughnessy's character Maxie Stultz uses it in the 1957 film Designing Woman). Kostaki mou (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't claim he instigated or invented them, merely that he used them. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Holey Wikipedia article titles, Batman"

I think the new article title is too cryptic. Maybe we need a bit of discussion here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue why it was moved without a discussion. Move it back I say.★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]