Talk:Iron maiden (disambiguation)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Two of the support votes are actually supporting a move contrary to this move request, i.e. Iron maiden (torture device) → Iron Maiden so the arguments are pretty evenly divided three ways. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Iron maiden (disambiguation) → Iron maiden – User User:Passive moved Iron maiden to Iron maiden (disambiguation) and created new redirect to Iron Maiden on 15 August 2006 with rationale: most of the time (if not all of it), it's meant as iron maiden the british metal band.. so i'm moving this to Iron maiden (disambiguation) and making Iron maiden redirect to the band's page...). To me, this is like saying Java (programming language) should take the place of Java. The band was named after the torture device, so the torture device has historial precedent. Either the disambig page or the torture device should be at Iron maiden (I propose the disambig page), with Iron Maiden staying the band. pfahlstrom 00:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. If anything, Iron maiden should redirect to the torture device. --Usgnus 02:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support For reasons given above. -- Beardo 02:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The torture device should be at iron maiden. Capitalization takes care of the bands, songs, films, etc., which can be listed on the disambig page. (Most if not all? Does listening to heavy-metal music make you short-sighted as well as hard of hearing?) Bolivian Unicyclist 23:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Although straw polls are frowned upon... the band is almost certainly more searched for than the torture device. --PopUpPirate 17:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment But anyone who searches for the band name without capitalizing the M in "Maiden" does so by mistake. Those people can get where they want to go via the disambig page. —pfahlstrom 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, plus also consider a lower case search --PopUpPirate 03:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support — I love Iron Maiden greatly, but as Bolivian Unicyclist said, it's delusional to think that most people looking for "iron maiden" mean the band. --Piet Delport 15:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Iron Maiden, the band, is much more popular than the torture device. Also, we have put a disambig link at the band article page. --NRS^{(talk to me,mail me or award me a barnstar)} 03:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Popularity alone is not what makes something a primary topic or not. The fact is, there are at least 4 independently notable "iron maiden" articles: the band has no special claim to the name. (The only article that can even think about making a claim to being the primary topic is the torture device, since it's what most of the other entries' names refer to, but i think we all already agree that the disambiguation page is a more relevant destination than the torture device article, in this case.) --Piet Delport 08:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • My sentiments exactly. —pfahlstrom 20:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, it was fine the way it was. Recury 16:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I believe such a strong majority of users searching for "iron maiden" are looking for the British band, that this move is not necessary. Although I was quick to revert before even noticing this discussion, I don't have a strong opinion on this matter. Prolog 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment I just noticed that while currently the article page for Iron maiden redirects to Iron Maiden, the talk page redirects here. —pfahlstrom 00:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This has all happened a bit quick, a 5-3 vote on a subject that shouldnt even have been voted on (ie concensus vs voting) --PopUpPirate 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consensus sought

Since no one could agree on the move request, it would be nice if we could agree afterward. A little background: I came to Wikipedia looking for the torture device's article, so I typed in iron maiden, and it went to the band article. The torture device has historical precedent of over a hundred years, and the band itself is named after the torture device, so I do not see how the band name can be seen as a primary use of the term. Because the band is named after the torture device, this is the very definition of "secondary." The band article itself already has a clear claim to Iron Maiden (capitalized) which no one is arguing against. If someone mistakenly types a lowercase m while looking for the band article, they can easily arrive at their desired location via the redirect page.

I think the only real question is whether iron maiden (not capitalized) should be the name of the redirect page or of the torture device's article. I am personally fine with either one. —pfahlstrom 23:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, in the absence of consensus, it should be put back to how it was before one lone user — one with a "metal music" user box on his user page — unilaterally moved it. This was one instance where being bold paid off, and trying to follow procedure clearly produced the wrong result. Bolivian Unicyclist 23:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved back. The Wikipedia:Manual of style trumps these inconclusory discussions. A disambiguation page should never sit at "Foo (disambiguation)" unless "Foo" is occupied by an actual article (not a redirect to another article). Cheers! bd2412 T 23:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Piet Delport 03:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 00:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

iron maiden (disambiguation) → iron maiden — This move was originally proposed as uncontroversial by M3tal_H3ad with the reason: "Moved this page after reading the discussion on it (should be Iron maiden), need an admins help to remove it back, thanks." I don't believe that the move is uncontroversial, and am therefore re-establishing a formal discussion for the proposal. Tevildo 16:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support. (But I would accept Tevildo's second alternative.) The device is primary; the band is named after it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support. What? Again? So soon? Put it back already. Bolivian Unicyclist 04:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Strong support as per Septentrionalis. --Asterion^talk 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Strong support. While the band may be a modern usage, the Iron maiden (torture device) device is clearly better known. So with two well known articles, the dab page is the better choice. This solution does not redirect readers to the wrong article and it makes cleaning up links to point to the correct article much easier. Vegaswikian 07:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose. I consider it very unwise to distinguish articles solely by captialization. If the consensus is that the band is the primary reference of "Iron Maiden", we should maintain the status quo, with iron maiden redirecting to Iron Maiden and the disambig page explicitly named. If, on the other hand, the consensus is that the band isn't the primary reference, the band's article should be at Iron Maiden (band), the disambig at iron maiden, and Iron Maiden should redirect to the disambig page. Whatever happens, iron maiden and Iron Maiden should point to the same article. Tevildo 17:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose, what Tevildo says above is actually a Wikipedia guideline (see: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions). I consider the band to be the primary use of "Iron Maiden", so I believe things should stay as they are. PC78 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose I moved it before reading the discussion, but now that its here i Oppose. About 99% of people will be searching for the band, and as Tevildo said, Iron maiden and Iron Maiden should direct to the same thing as most people don't capitalize their searches. M3tal H3ad 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose as above --PopUpPirate 11:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• So let me get this straight. You move a page against the consensus of a previous survey and then oppose the move back since the page is already here. Am I the only person that finds this illogical? Vegaswikian 03:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I moved it before reading the discussion, what does 'better know' mean? Please make sense M3tal H3ad 06:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Precedents

If you type "ac/dc" (in minus.) you are directed to AC/DC (the band) and not to high voltage stuff. I can't understand why there are so many people bitching about the "iron maiden" disambiguation and not about other more important ones.80.28.202.37 15:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because AC/DC (electrical) is only a redirect and not a stand-alone article like iron maiden (torture device)? In any event, your position is not bolstered by describing statements made by those who hold a different view as "bitching". Bolivian Unicyclist 17:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Formatting

Reginmund, can you please explain here why you don't agree with the existing formatting of the Resident Evil 4 creature entry? --Piet Delport 23:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems unethical to put the link under text referring to the list rather than the name of the creature itself. This also prevents the availability of a link to the videogame itself. Reginmund 02:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This is standard convention, though: articles (or potential articles) get article style entries, sections of larger pages get anchor notation style entries. The videogame itself should not be linked, unless there are no other available links for the entry (see the entry style guide). --Piet Delport 03:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)