Talk:McFly (disambiguation)

That line was necessary to avoid confusion, wik. Anthony DiPierro 16:09, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

McFly is also Marty McFly's last name. Rickyrab 18:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it should be made into a disambig page or redirected. Anthony DiPierro 18:25, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's already mentioned on the "see also" - but if you really want to make a big deal out of it (who's gonna link to Mcfly looking for Marty McFly), move it to McFly (band)... ugen64 22:38, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

From VfD, Feb 2004

Little-known band. Article was created by Anthony sockpuppet just so he could put a mention of his fork on there. --Wik 16:04, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC) +
Delete. Muriel 16:44, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Or redirect to Back To The Future, if the cultural reference is strong enough. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:52, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I guess someone alread has done so... These vfd conversations are always confusing, because people keep changing the articles while they are under discussion. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:54, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Redirected to Marty McFly. ~~Keep as redirect.~~ Anthony DiPierro 16:53, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ - Keep but delete reference to fork - Page does not appear to be a redirect - seems to have morphed from a vanity/advert to the little known band and possibly to a redirect and back to an article - delete this mess and let someone else start over without bias - Texture 17:27, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- It was a redirect but wik kept reverting it. Anthony DiPierro 17:28, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep until unprotected. Anthony DiPierro 17:45, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- On the request for page protection you want the page deleted and here you vote to keep it? - Texture 17:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - I also understood the same thing... Strange. Maybe Anthony needs some sleep? :) or he just changed his mind? Optim 18:20, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  - That was before I realized it should be a redirect. Anthony DiPierro 18:24, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Non-famous. Moncrief, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete, due to not being notable. Ambivalenthysteria 12:22, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Delete: not notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:13, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
<pcb21> You know there was an Anthony-related fuss about the band McFly? They were on UK tv this morning - not such a small band after all - from IRC.
"McFly are tipped to be one of the biggest bands of 2004." - BBCi [1]
- This definitely needs to be a disambig page. Anthony DiPierro 14:58, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Keep. We know that the reason for listing is inaccurate, so it's no longer a deletion candidate. Jamesday 00:08, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is clearly a notable band. There's no reason to delete this page.—Eloquence

Please respect the consensus. --Wik 15:09, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly there is no consensus, and new information contradicts some statements that have been made. This page cannot be deleted until that evidence is carefully reexamined. In the meantime I ask that you and Anthony recuse yourselves from this article as you clearly have personal problems with each other to work out.—Eloquence

You have got to be kidding. Consensus is not unanimity. By the way, it wasn't 5 days on VfD. Why was it removed? --Wik 15:19, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't removed. It's still there now. The discussion was moved because VfD was 110kb. Angela . 15:28, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Then why did Eloquence remove the VfD header? --Wik 15:34, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

This is a completely different page from what was on VfD. Even if it were deleted, this new page could still have been recreated. Anthony DiPierro 15:47, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to recuse myself from a page just because Wik vandalises it. Anthony DiPierro 15:15, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW, "rv and protect"? That's so against policy. Anthony DiPierro 15:17, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure you guys don't want to join forces? You'd make a great comedy team.—Eloquence

McFly was the last name of the family in Back to the Future.

Some characters from the movie:

Many things have been named after this character:

I'm not too happy with the name index, but otherwise it seems OK to me.—Eloquence

Well, Marty McFly is the main character, but George McFly is called "McFly" in the movie. As for Lorraine McFly, it really doesn't matter if she's listed or not, but this would have to be rephrased then. Could maybe even leave out Marty McFly and just mention George in the first sentence. Anthony DiPierro 15:24, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to unprotect this now, but if you guys start edit warring again, I will re-protect the present revision.—Eloquence 15:28, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Why?

I am going to throw my hat into this circle of snarling pitbulls and ask: was McFly removed from VfD prior to the 5-day voting period as Wik claims? Why was it removed if the majority was voting to delete? Can it be deleted at the end of 5 days? Why does the current page continue to reference the vanity/advert website posting that was voted for deletion? When the 5-day period has passed and the vote (now in the talk page) remains strongly to the "delete" result, can I delete it? - Texture 23:26, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The reason for listing was Little-known band. Article was created by Anthony sockpuppet just so he could put a mention of his fork on there. We now know that it's the name of one of the hot prospects for a UK boy band and that makes the reason for listing no longer valid. So, not deletable. If you delete based on a reason which no longer applies, someone would have to undelete the inappropriate deletion. Since it was not deletable, removal wasn't problematic, though a note that it was removed and why should have been left there for a while. Jamesday 00:06, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you can. Please do. --Wik 23:29, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

Clearly there is no consensus that it should be deleted. Anthony DiPierro 23:31, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

McFly is a real boy band that deserves an article [2], [3]. This information was discovered in the middle of the VfD process so I don't think we can just go ahead and delete the page based on comments made before that finding. Some information about the band can be found in the page history.

Whether we need a disambiguation page here can be debated. I personally think there's established precedent to have an article about the website McFly. Basically, we try to have descriptions for all sites listed on Wikipedia:Sites using MediaWiki. Anthony has been very accommodating to meet the terms of our license. He has registered a domain name for his project. He is actively making edits there -- more active than some of the other MediaWiki sites. It seems to be a real project, so I would object to deletion of the page for similar reasons I would object to deleting Wikinfo. However, as a compromise I would accept it if we only allow McFly (website) to be kept if it is created by someone other than Anthony.—Eloquence 23:33, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

I have written a decent start of an article for the UK boy band. The quickest search of Google indicates that there is sufficient material for an article on the 80s cover band. I personally would prefer to have Anthony's site featured in the Wikipedia: namespace than the article namespace (same goes for Wikinfo). The two projects are just too low profile right now - best not to afford them special privileges just because they are related to Wikipedia.

Texture, on the more general points, please stop being so dogmatic about VfD. VfD is not a simplistic vote-by-numbers. Early votes on an article often become out-of-date. New information is uncovered, updates to the article are made. What are you trying improve about Wikipedia by effectively saying "All pages must remain listed for five days. We must not use common sense, we must operate a simple majority voting?" Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:46, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The same reason that each person arrested gets "a speedy trial" and other such rules. If a vote is listed for less time people may miss the vote. I would rather see everyone get to vote by following the 5 day guideline. If a listing becomes "out-of-date" then note that and people can reevaluate. - Texture 13:55, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Around 500 edits are made per hour on Wikipedia. It is not possible for every user to monitor every decision made. VfD does not have privileged status in this regard. If a listing becomes "out-of-date" then the list is (often) pointless. People do re-evaluate - new people making comments take into account the new information. But there is a ludicrous tendency amongst some people to do a "one person one vote" count regardless of how "stale" the original votes are. Removal from VfD can actually prevent bad decisions being made. In the month or so since we first had this conversation, there has still been no example of a listing that has been prematurely removed and then needed to be deleted. You were about process, when there is nothing currently wrong with the outcome of that process. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:14, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind I am only asking questions. If they seem obvious this is a sign that they are not. Let me ask a few more. I still don't understand why the original page we wanted removed by a majority is now linked in the article (even if not yet created). That seems to fly against concensus. - Texture 15:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sadly, I think the current en passe exists because of a clash of two of Wikipedia's least co-operative users. To delete the link would be to inflame Anthony, to create the article would inflame Wik. My proposed solution is to have the article in the Wikipedia: namespace (along with Wikinfo). Erik's solution is to wait to see if someone other than Anthony or himself creates the article, thereby giving it greater validity. There's no great hurry to pick which. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Should this be relisted? Wik obviously still wants it deleted but to return it to its former position would give it about one day for review. Wik, would you like to relist it at the bottom of VfD? A resampling of votes may make the disambiguation page legit or deleted. - Texture 15:36, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No it shouldn't. What possible grounds for deletion are there? It would simply add extra cruft to the VfD, which is hardly the most manageable page anyway. And why is a page only "legit" if it has survived the VfD gauntlet? 99.9% of pages haven't done that. Again, you are attaching too much importance to VfD. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:54, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

VfD is a nomination for deletion. If a page remains on the same topic and does not "survive the VfD gauntlet" then the concensus is that it should be gone. If a page is not nominated then it is legit by definition. - Texture 15:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Geesh, why should I care anymore. List the thing. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:00, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This has already been decided. People are free to change their votes, but when they don't do so, the vote stands. It is to be deleted immediately, and when sysops fail to do so I will blank it whenever it's unprotected. This "new information" line is ludicrous. Pete apparently thinks whatever is new to him must be new to everyone else. It's as if someone creates an article titled "2+2" with the content "4". Ten people vote to delete, then Pete comes and says "Wait a minute! I just found out two and two actually is four! I can confirm it! The previous votes are invalid in the light of this new information!" --Wik 15:43, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

For my part my vote has changed. While I would like the reference to the fork removed (since that is what we all agreed must go) I do not agree that the disamb should go. I looked at it trying to decide if we really need it or if it should just be a page about the band and I could go either way but without the fork I don't see a need to remove it. It was removed before everyone got to vote (5 days, yes I still think the rule is a good one) so it is not a valid tally to delete. Think of the change in the article as titled "4" with the content "Bush is a four letter word". Everyone votes to delete. Two days later someone takes it on themselves to delete it and a day later it is recreated with the content "2+2". Now it is not the same article but it has the same title. If it needs to it can be relisted. (Maybe I'm rambling and should sit back now...) - Texture 15:57, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Let people change their own votes. The original article was about a band. And the people who voted will have googled for bands of that name and found that none is relevant, so I don't see how the addition of another band of that name changes things. And an article about the fork had previously been deleted months ago. That Anthony included this again is just another reason to ban him. --Wik 16:04, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

That article was deleted because there was no evidence for the site's existence. Now there is. Really, Wik, none of your arguments here makes sense. It seems to me that this is more about your ego than anything else.—Eloquence

Where did anyone say "there was no evidence for the site's existence"? Obviously the site exists. It's just irrelevant. --Wik 16:11, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

At the time, Anthony's site was not reachable. Now it has been for several weeks, and it's clear that it is an active project. I agree that it's not a particularly important site. Several compromises have been proposed to account for that fact (page in the Wikipedia: namespace, page created by someone other than Anthony etc.). It would be a very welcome change if you would try to work with us to implement one of those compromises.—Eloquence 16:19, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think you're confusing this with Anthony's listing of McFly on another page. It was temporarily not reachable then. As soon as it was, Anthony relisted it on that page. But he did not recreate the McFly page until now, although it was deleted in January. Unfortunately the VfD history is unreachable, but I believe it was deleted not because there was no evidence of the site's existence but because it was irrelevant. Otherwise Anthony would have recreated it immediately when it was reachable again. And as to "active project" that is ridiculous. How many people do you think are active there besides Anthony? It is pure trolling. He made a copy of Wikipedia months ago, meaning that by now his copy misses tens of thousands of useful edits made on Wikipedia since then - and in their place he added maybe a dozen vanity articles about random people that got deleted here. Yeah, that's some serious project. --Wik 16:32, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Well, as far as I remember, I voted to delete McFly on VfD because it didn't exist. I don't know what Anthony's goals are with McFly, and thanks to the fact that we don't allow him to create an article about it, it's very difficult to find out ;-). But I doubt he did create it for the purpose of trolling only, as he spent quite some time refining the license, importing the page histories etc. Besides, Wikinfo also has lots of articles that were deleted from Wikipedia - the two projects seem very similar to me, both are more inclusive than Wikipedia. Please understand that having these forks is actually a good thing. Many of the most persistent trolls on Wikipedia are now on Wikinfo.—Eloquence 16:42, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

Inclusion

If an article has been deleted once for obscurity, please don't list it here and invite re-creation, okay? --Jia ng 10:49, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't know the history and haven't figured it out. Was McFly (website) ever specifically tapped for deletion? I found it as a link off the list of wikis using MediaWiki. It seems like a real (albeit pathetic) Wiki project, and as I understand it we cover such things. Someone above said something about how the site was down for a bit, which created confusion as to whether it actually existed, now resolved. -- V V 04:25, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, McFly the fork was put on vfd and deleted.--Jia ng 22:49, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The issues Texture raises about temporary inaccessibility you feel are a non-issue? -- V V 22:28, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

unprotected

McFly - unprotect. Last revert by sockpuppet only. --Wik 03:18, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
- unprotect. Kingturtle is once again protecting pages without a legitimate reason. anthony (see warning) 11:54, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  - (cur) (last) . . 22:00, Apr 9, 2004 . . 67.101.146.58 ((rv))
  - (cur) (last) . . 16:36, Apr 9, 2004 . . Maximus Rex
  - (cur) (last) . . 16:34, Apr 9, 2004 . . VeryVerily (i guess this needs to be protected for life)
  - (cur) (last) . . 15:15, Apr 9, 2004 . . Wik (rv)
  - (cur) (last) . . 13:17, Apr 9, 2004 . . VeryVerily (rv; same issue)
  - (cur) (last) . . 11:51, Apr 9, 2004 . . Wik (rv)
  - Looks like enough reason for me. Until you use the talk page, I see no reason to unprotect. I doubt anyone else will either. →Raul654 16:04, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
    - I have used the talk page. So has wik. So has VeryVerily. Why should VeryVerily be allowed to get a force a page to be protected for life? Again, I don't see a legitimate reason. The page has been protected multiple times already. Page protection has failed. It is only doing harm, and is not causing anyone to cool-down. anthony (see warning) 12:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unprotected per request. Martin 18:09, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cover band and fork removed "as per vfd"... in that case this page should be about McFly the number 1 band in the UK... it obviously doesn't need to be disambiguated against the name of the family in Back to the Future. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, delete it and then move the band page here. --Wik 18:50, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)

I find it hard to see how the original and more popular use of a name "obviously doesn't need to be disambiguated against". And as for VfD, there was no decision made on VfD. The page was taken off before it was listed for the proper amount of time. anthony (see warning)

About the second point, the person who removed the two red links said in his/her summary comment "removed as per vfd" - I was responding to that here as I don't follow vfd anymore so don't what was actually said.

About the first point, there is no need for an article McFly (family name of the main family in Back to the Future), so we are not disambiguating two names. In any case, if McFly (UK band] were moved here, we would still have a mention of the use of the name in BTTF as that article mentions it! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:02, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

McFly isn't disambiguating to the family, it is disambiguating to the fictional people, at least two of whom were called McFly. anthony (see warning) 09:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It seems Wik should not be taking the initiative here, as he seems too strongly involved in this dispute. -- V V 22:45, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

McFly Redirect Discussion from March 2007

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Disambig Page

I have yet to find one article that links here looking for Marty McFly of almost 200 disambig links. I recommend pointing all Mcfly links to McFly (band). --Knulclunk 13:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I (still) recommend reversing the move of McFly to McFly (band). — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I second that. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm for redirecting McFly to McFly (band) and having a {{other}} at the top of McFly. --Indolences 04:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I very much agree. Nobody who's searching for "McFly" is looking for Marty; they'd search "Back to the Future" or "Michael J. Fox" sooner. Thor Rudebeck 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for handling this, Indolences. :) --Knulclunk 23:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add topic