Jump to content

Talk:Danzig

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of...

[edit]
See Talk:Gdansk for related discussion

Taw would like you to know that: "city existed before 1240 and was Polish-speaking and known as Gdansk for most of its history." All of that is said in the Gdansk article, which is properly cited.

Huh ? I didn't mark it minor edit. And city existed before 1240 and was Polish-speaking. --Taw

It looked like it was marked as a minor edit to me. I'm glad you see you finally decided to talk instead of deleting content. Now, if this page is going to be a tiny stub which merely points at the history of the term Danzig in the main article of Gdansk, what should it say? GregLindahl

I changed this to a disambig page after going through every article (not talk page) linking here and disambiguating appropriately (city or band). As such, no current article links will redirect here. - David Gerard 17:22, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

stop this now. This has already been discussed ad nauseum. I will continue to revert. Nico 17:34, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Not here, it hasn't. Are you stating intent to vandalise? That's how the above reads - David Gerard 17:38, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
As I said before, this has been discussed ad nauseum at Talk:Gdansk with archives. That obscure band does not justify making so an important city name a disambiguation page. Furthermore, it was the vandal User:Gdansk who changed it to a disambiguation page in the first place.
If you like, we can make a link to a Danzig disambiguation page from the main article (Gdansk). Nico 18:00, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
In every other case of disambiguation, the practice is generally to disambiguate properly. Note that there are now no article links directly to this page (Danzig).
Also, I don't see how talk on a completely different article (Gdansk) is somehow binding on this article (Danzig).
The band really isn't that obscure - certainly less obscure than many things that elsewhere rate a mention on a disambig page. And Gdansk isn't actually, ah, that important. If someone types in their name looking for them on a search, should they be forced to an article on a city in Poland, or should they instead get a sensible disambig page?
While User:Gdansk is indubitably a nutter, that doesn't make a disambig page here somehow intrinsically a bad idea or against common practice - David Gerard 18:06, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
There are now two disambiguation pages...this one, and Danzig (disambiguation). You should probably stick with one... Adam Bishop 21:20, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A link to Danzig (disambiguation) will be inserted in the main article (Gdansk) when it is unprotected. Nico 21:53, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)


Danzig is hardly an obscure band. Try a Google search on Danzig sometime, you'd be surprised what comes up first. (Hint: it ain't the city.) RADICALBENDER★ 19:34, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be handled just like Washington and Washington (disambiguation): mention on the main page, but links leading to the articles, not the disambiguation.Halibutt 21:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the main article will be a redirect to an article with an entirely different name (Gdansk). Personally, I think a disambiguation page is fine in such circumstances, so long as we are vigilant that all links intended to be about the city be to Gdansk, rather than the disambiguation page. john 23:34, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

So, how about moving it to Danzig (disambiguation) then? Halibutt 19:36, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Because then we wouldn't have a Danzig page...I'm confused. john 21:12, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why not? Pure Danzig should redirect to Gdansk. I like the way it's done in the temp version of Gdansk.Halibutt 01:37, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But if pure Danzig redirects to Gdansk, you get a situation where you have a disambiguation notice at the top of Gdansk explaining disambiguation for Danzig. Which is weird. john 03:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yup, weird and ugly. Mkweise
It's not weird as Gdansk/Danzig is the same city, which should be clear from the introduction of the main article. Nico 03:54, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If someone try to reach Gdansk by searching for Danzig, with the "Go" function or via Google, they should go straight to the city. Also, other people in the future may use [[Danzig]] instead of [[Gdansk|Danzig]] to link to the city in historical references. I also believe making Danzig a redirect to the city will result in better Google hits for the article. Nico 03:51, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree.Halibutt 07:07, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If you look at the top of Derry or County Londonderry you can find a way of handling diambiguation for multi-named places. I would suggest that the Gdansk article should start:

For other places, things and people with similar names, see Gdansk (disambiguation) and Danzig (disambiguation).

--Henrygb 19:49, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...I agree with Henry - I think with the new disambiguation notice, having this article redirect to Gdansk is fine. john k 21:55, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

4 meanings of Danzig

[edit]

Danzig has 4 different meanings, must be a disambig page 23:06, 21 Jul 2004 User:PolishPoliticians

Danzig is
----
See also: Gdansk (disambiguation)
----

I have signed your message for you, since you didn't. There is no must about it. Gdansk has several meanings, so has a disambiguation page as well as the main article. So does London. Similarly Danzig. People can find the disambiguation pages from the top of the main article of the city. --Henrygb 23:44, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The primary meaning of Gdansk is the city name nad all other Gdansk articles are city related (like Gdansk Voivodship so there's no need to disambig. On the other hand Danzig is tha band name and an unimportant outdated city name. Why not redirect Danzig to Danzig (band)????? DIsambig is a must here. PolishPoliticians 23:51, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree with you that Gdansk is or has been an unimportant outdated city, though parts of it have needed to be rebuilt from time to time. And for many of the times when it was important, it was and is called Danzig in English. No doubt Glenn Danzig ultimately took his surname from the city and then passed it to the band. And people can still find the link. --Henrygb 12:10, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Gdańsk

[edit]

Please make this redirect to the correct spelling, Gdańsk. Thanks. — Chameleon 2 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

move to disambiguation page.

[edit]

I really don't care if the Gdansk article is called Danzig or Gdansk, that is something I don't know enough about the history to comment on. However, as the article is currently named Gdansk then it does not need/deserve the main use of the name Danzig.

When performing google searches for the name Danzig, the band offers far more hits than the place. That would make it seem as if the band should be the main article, especially as editors have decided that they prefer to use Gdansk, rather than Danzig.

Going to a disambiguation page seems like a nice compromise that will keep all but the most petty editors happy. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page views in the past 90 days: 81090 for Gdańsk, 13969 for Gdansk (total about 95000), 156374 for Danzig (band), 31185 for Danzig (if you add to the two Gdansks, about 126000), 8087 for Danzig (disambiguation). TimBentley (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, doing a requested move at Talk:Danzig (disambiguation) would be the proper way to request the change to avoid a malplaced disambiguation page. TimBentley (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nice of you to start a discussion by announcing in advance that anyone who does not agree with you is among "the most petty editors." Is it possible that you could assume good faith? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I guess that came out wrong, for that I apologise. However, assuming good faith is not that easy when you reverted me, asked for other people to get involved, waited for someone else to revert me, and then protected the article. I would suggest that you involved yourself in this discussion/reverts and because of that involvement you should not be protecting the article. Are you using (abusing?) your rights as an admin to back up your position on this article? Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Accusations of admin-power abuse when you aren't working with WP:CONSENSUS is still failing to assume good faith. See also WP:BRD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have a case for changing the primary topic to either no primary topic (by moving the disambiguation page here) or the band (by moving the band article here), based on the stats TimBentley has provided. But the claim that an article named one thing cannot 'need/deserve the main use of" another thing is incorrect, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It is perfectly possible for a topic to be primary for one title (e.g. "USA") but be titled a different thing (e.g., United States). {{redirect}} exists for exactly that purpose. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have to move the dab page here, we could just point the redirect at it. Josh Parris 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the proposition that Danzig should be a disambiguation page; however, I disagree with the haste and combativeness of the proposer. I think this issue can be worked out in a more thoughtful and orderly manner. bd2412 T 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My read of TimBentley's figures is that 31k visitors used the Danzig redirect, and 8k of them managed to follow the hatnote to the dab page. Based on those figures it is my opinion that the redirect is targeted incorrectly. Josh Parris 18:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Danzig&oldid=1259528275"