Talk:Laibach (disambiguation)

The following discussion is an archived 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.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move. Neither of the two major uses appear to have primary topic status.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Laibach → Laibach (disambiguation) — So that Laibach can be redirected to Ljubljana, which I believe to be primary usage. — Srnec (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Conditional support. The google results for a "Laibach" search shows that most hits are for the band. The German name for the Slovenian city is clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, at least not English. I support moving the dab page currently at Laibach to Laibach (disambiguation), per the proposal, but not to make room for a redirect to the Slovenian city, but, rather to make room to move Laibach (band) to Laibach. Also add hat notes for the other uses of that name (see Laibach (disambiguation) -- Laibach's album Laibach (album), the Slovenian city and the obscure historical congress -- at the top of that page. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to give Google hits any weight in this instance. Srnec (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

By what criteria do you decide whether to give Google hits any weight in a given instance? According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, google hits is one of the ways cited to determine whether a given topic is primary. Why wouldn't it apply here? What reasoning supports the position that the German name for the Slovenian city is the primary topic, in English? --Born2cycle (talk) 09:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In an instance where we are comparing the (until relatively recently) historic (but not current) name of a city with the name of a recent and rather obscure pop culture entity (like a band), I trust the internet about as far as I can throw it. In this case, I believe WP:RECENTISM would suggest my proposal is the appropriate one. The band is notable to some, but the historic name of a city is just plain notable. By way of explanation: any out-of-the-blue reference to "Laibach" must be understood as a reference to the city, not the band. Srnec (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - How it is done right now its ok, yet it appears that that the primary topic in English (This is English Wikipedia -Captain Obvious) is the band. Hence in any case I would support Laibach going to the band, not the city. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support The primary English meaning for Laibach is as a historical name for the city. In the long run, it may be useful to divide it off a s a historical article, like Constantinople or Byzantium, slightly further south-east. I've never even heard of the band. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apparently Laibach can mean a multitude of things (city, band, album, and congress). Besides, this is the English Wikipedia, and Ljubljana is the common term, not Laibach. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 00:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Reluctantly moved here from WP:RM. I do not believe this "voter" has understood the thrust of the arguments for the move. Srnec (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. No evidence of primary topic. --Una Smith (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Until 1980 Laibach could mean only one thing. Suddenly that's not even the primary topic? Srnec (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

1980 was almost 30 years ago. That might be "suddenly" in terms of geology, but not in the context of an online encyclopedia that itself did not exist even 10 years ago, and which is updated in real time. Just because a change in notability is recent, does not mean it is short-lived. Now, it might be in the case of a band, but that's a different (though related) point. Here you're arguing that simply because it was the only usage in 1980, it must still be primary today. That's simply not necessarily true. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how a minor band is of this great significance just because it has Google hits. Try GoogleBooks or GoogleScholar. And yes, 30 years is suddenly enough on a historical timescale. Srnec (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The question we must ask is: What is a person, who goes to the article "Laibach" in English Wikipedia, looking for? Before I saw this discussion, I would have thought "well, the band of course, what else is there?". This is of course due to ignorance on my part; I understand now that they might be looking for the city. However, I see no evidence of primary topic. According to http://stats.grok.se/ ([1] vs. [2]), the article Ljubljana was viewed 20,603 times in October and Laibach (band) was viewed 9,219 times. So by these stats, the articles' popularities are on the same order of magnitude – Ljubljana is (not surprisingly) more often viewed than Laibach (band), but importantly, the band is called Laibach; the city is called Ljubljana. I therefore support the current solution (Laibach as disambiguation page) as a reasonable "compromise".

Discussion

Any additional comments:

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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Laibach (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)