Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X band

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somebody moved this old page to X (US band), breaking lots of links to create an unnecessary disambiguation page. Mackerm 02:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move (or redirect) X (US band) back to X (band) and note the Australian band, but don't delete -- BCorr|Брайен 03:12, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • What makes the disambig page unneccessary? Rhymeless 06:27, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • So fix the links. This method makes sense. If this isn't there, someone will create it again and again - David Gerard 08:00, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • What are the odds that someone will type out "X (band)"? Realistically, they would type X, which would take them to X which is already a disambiguation page, and which had straightforward links to both bands already. Mackerm 08:10, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the sort of entry that will be created if it doesn't already exist. Deleting it would be futile and annoying for this reason. Fixing the links is a better idea. - David Gerard 13:06, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • I created the dismbig page; there was at least one link to the old "X (band)" page which related to the Aussie band, and the brief reference to that band was buried at the bottom of the article. I thought this would confuse those looking for information on that band. I apologise for not getting around to fixing the links; rather than spending time on a debate like this, wouldn't it be easier to just fix the links? Or is that too simple? :-) Cheers Grant65 (Talk) 12:38, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • As I prefer the current situation and Mackerm is mainly complaining about broken links, I went through and disambiguated all the X (band) links. If, as he hypothesises, another significant US band called X (and the trouble is both X'es are significant bands) shows up, I submit that whoever creates that article gets to fix the links too! :-D - David Gerard 13:49, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
    • It just means I'll have to undo this further vandalism. Mackerm 17:03, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • The broken redirects were your concern, I thought. Please clarify. - David Gerard 22:08, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
      • For one thing, links don't necessarily come from inside Wikipedia. Can you be sure external web links haven't been broken? Mackerm 01:01, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes, I can: because they'll get a link to the disambig page. Greatest problem: they have to click again. - David Gerard 13:06, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • If people click an outside link they will get the disambig page and clink the link there, what's the big deal? "Vandalism"? I don't think so. From the above comments it looks like you're outvoted, Mackerm. Assuming this is a democracy :-) Grant65 (Talk) 02:50, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Suppose you had an external link to X (band) saying, "The drummer from this band is GREAT!" Before the page move, there was no question it meant DJ Bonebrake. But the page move created ambiguity. Mackerm 06:04, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm sure there would be enough information on any external page to indicate which Wikipedia page to go to from the disambig; the worst case scenario is that they would look at two pages.Grant65 (Talk) 11:50, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • Dude, the old version of the page linked to both bands anyway. Realistically, external links have to cope with Wikipedia. It's unlikely they'll never find the link again, because you can get to the right one from the disambig page easily enough. And "The drummer from this band is GREAT!" example will almost certainly have further context indicating which band we're talking about. - David Gerard 13:06, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
        • "Dude" (and Grant), The old page had info on the Ian Rilen group only because you (David) put it there. You were right to make a dismbiguation link a X, but moving X (band) created ambiguity. You can't reasonably expect that an external link name will be more than a "this is cool". As far as having to "cope with Wikipedia", wouldn't you get angry if someone moved pages you'd worked on? Mackerm 16:39, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to change X (band) to a redirect to X (US band), so external links aren't ambiguated. I hope nobody changes it again. I've left the info about the Ian Rilen group, because people need to hear more punk music. Mackerm 16:39, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this. So far, it's you versus everyone who cares to comment. - David Gerard 18:13, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
Actually its Bcorr and me versus y'all. Mackerm 19:30, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
Point. Nevertheless, it's hardly consensus or even close to it - David Gerard 19:46, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
Note that just yesterday somebody made a new link to X (band), clearly indicating the non-Australian one. Mackerm 19:57, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
Link fixed. X (band) reverted until there's something more approaching consensus here. I've pointed to this discussion on Talk:X (band), Talk:X (US band) and Talk:X (Australian band) so as to facilitate it actually being found by interested parties. - David Gerard 20:13, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
And BTW, that link should still have been sent to X (US band) with either version - redirects should not be preserved. - David Gerard 21:19, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
I'm more interested in Wikipedia's policy on continuity than on the opinion of music fans. (God bless punk fans tho). Re. your repeated comments on consensus: Grant65 didn't get consensus to do the improper move, and you didn't get consensus to change the links to it. Mackerm 20:26, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
No, but you were the only one really fussed about it - David Gerard 21:19, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • User:Mackerm has removed this debate from the VfD page. Is the discussion over, or was he acting in error? --Ben Brockert 23:41, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • It seems to have become a general discussion on what to do with the article. - David Gerard 23:49, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • I moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment because it was full of arguments instead of votes. Since you're apparently a moderator, I'd appreciate any suggestion you have. Mackerm 23:56, May 6, 2004 (UTC)
      • I prefer custodian, but no, I'm just a VfD elf. I just wanted to make sure you weren't "cheating" to try to win the argument :). If it's being mediated in another way, I'm happy. --Ben Brockert 02:42, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, It's not getting fixed.Reading the above comments, what would you recommend I do? How do you prevent people from arguing on the VfD page and just vote?Mackerm 03:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Errrr *scratches head* ... Mackerm why bother putting the X (band) page up for debate if you are then going to make unilateral changes, as you have just done? I created the disambig page because I happen to own records by both bands and I didn't like seeing them confused and sharing a page. The disambig expanded Wikipedia with correct information, which you have just deleted.

If I had envisaged that it would even upset one person so much, I would have suggested the disambig on the X (band) talk page before I did it. But my experience is that talk pages are watched by few people. There is no point in having a note about the Australian band at the bottom of the US band's page, so I've moved it to the top. Please feel free to delete it entirely and restore the disambig page at the same time Grant65 (Talk) 04:44, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

OK. I finished up a revised introductory paragraph which I hope will produce more votes and fewer arguments. I'd prefer to use THIS page, which would mean I would erase almost everything which isn't a vote. (This page WAS intended for voting) Let me know if that's a problem, in which case I'll start a blank page. Mackerm 07:09, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'd say leave this page as a record of the discussion. I've linked it from the new one so people can see what's gone before - David Gerard 10:36, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/X_band&oldid=1138716032"