Talk:Iron Maiden (disambiguation)

Lame edit war

Please, stop this revert warring. Since there is obviously no agreement that either the torture device or the band is primary, the disambiguation page seems to be the only sensible choice of destination. Reginmund, would you agree? --Piet Delport 06:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, were coming close to a resolution. I had also stated reasons as to why "iron maiden" should link to torture device, see Talk:Trivium and User talk:Maurauth. Reginmund 06:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing the debate is demonstrating is that neither of these topics are clearly dominant, so neither of them deserve special treatment: "iron maiden" should go to disambiguation. --Piet Delport 08:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the debate is about. The reason it shouldn't is because "iron maiden" in not ambiguous at all, however, "Iron Maiden" capitalised is. Also, if "iron maiden" would go directly to the disambiguation page, why wouldn't "Iron Maiden", especially since when capitalised, it is more ambiguous. Reginmund 17:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should, then. --Piet Delport 18:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are very bad with capital letters. Inevitably people will type "iron maiden" when looking for the band, or "Iron Maiden" when looking for the device. There are other uses on top of that (Margaret Thatcher springs to mind), so it seems to me that the disambig page is the best solution. bd2412 T 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the miniscule text would go to the disambiguation page, then so should the capital text too. Reginmund 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. --Piet Delport 00:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Target of redirect

Reginmund, I already know what your opinion on this matter is, so please stop pointing me to an old discussion you had with another user; I disagree with your reasoning, and so to it seems did Maurauth. Much of your argument seems to be based around the original meaning of the name, which tends to mean little on Wikipedia, and your belief that users should capitalize their search terms. As I've pointed out to you elsewhere, this redirect never pointed to the torture device until your involvement, and there has been nothing but edit wars and controversy ever since. Looking through the edit history of this page there have been several users besides myself who have reverted your edits, while few or none seem to share your views.

As current consensus seems to favour the band as the primary subject, I believe it's more appropraiate to redirect this page to that article, as a redirect from other capitalization. In addition, there was no consensus to move the torture device article to this page, and redirecting to that article goes against that decision since it's essentially the same thing.

Having said that, I'm more than happy redirecting to the dab page as a compromise, which seems sensible given the apparent strong feelings on either side of the argument. It's just a shame that you don't agree. PC78 02:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there also have been several other users who restored the redirect to the torture device. Yet Maurauth did not agree with my reasoning, however he could not counter my point and my point is the original meaning of the name does mean a lot on Wikipedia. The "consensus" is to keep the page "iron maiden (torture device)" where it is and not to redirect iron maiden to the band. This is based on the fact that the original name is not necessarily more obscure because of the Google results. The apparatus doesn't have fan clubs, CDs, lyrics, music downloads, performance tickets, etc.. It only has a half-millennium history. However, the band has all of the aforementioned except it has a thirty-two year history. "Popular names" aren't necessarily superior to primary names. That is why we keep such articles as Franz Ferdinand at the archduke, not at the band. Reginmund 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there has only been one other user who restored the redirect to the torture device, and then only once. There is no consensus to keep the redirect at the torture device, this a complete fantasy on your part and the edit history proves it. Don't bring WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments into this, what's good for one article isn't necessarily good for another. The truth is that the torture device is a realtively specialized subject area, whereas the band is not - what do you think the average user is more interested in, methods of torture or popular music? Policy disagrees with you regarding original meaning: WP:NC clearly says "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." PC78 02:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a fantasy. There have been two who restored it. Please remain civil by refraining from using slanderous hyperboles. I should take into account that you have a fantasy that somehow the vote to move iron maiden (torture device) to iron maiden was a vote to where the redirect should point. Now you have a question for me. I, personally was unaware of the band at a time I knew about the torture device. I guarantee that plenty of Wikipedians would want information on the apparatus. Enough to disambiguate by capitalisation and that doesn't include the lazy people who are alienated from the shift key. So, not only is it the original usage, but not as obscure as you might think. Reginmund 02:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second user did so in error, and you can refer to the relavent discussion on my talk page to confirm that. The move request isn't entirely seperate from this debate, and I fail to see how you disagree. You have nothing to guarantee with regarding other users, and kindly refrain from calling other people "lazy", people who may be unaware that capitalization is an issue regarding searches, or people who may not have the same command of the English language as you or I. I never said that the torture device was "obscure", but it is a specialized subject area, and the band are more well known than you tend to think. You can go on about original usage all you want, but I still don't see this supported by policy. PC78 02:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a WP:3O for you all. Leave it at the Disambig. Those readers whi capitalize both words are likely aware that IM is a band. those who search as 'Im' may be looking for any number of topics. Leave it as a disambig, because, as the disambig shows, there are a number of potential topics. ThuranX 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then if we move iron maiden to the DAB page then how about Iron Maiden to keep consistensy. the fact is these two articles both have their own relevance and commonality and whether or not one is better known than the other is not an issue. I would agree to directing to the DAB page but then to keep consistensy, direct Iron Maiden there too. Whether or not these people are lazy, they should figure out sooner or later how to use their search terms correctly. Otherwise, the best choice is to throw the links into a big pile of options. Reginmund 03:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to accept the dab page as the target of this redirect. Frankly, this argument between you and I is getting us nowhere, and this seems to be the best solution for all. But of course, if you want to disambiguate the band's article, then that requires a move request of its own. PC78 11:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dab page should be moved to the base name, then, to avoid being one of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages‎. -- JHunterJ 13:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. A vote is currently in progress at Talk:Iron Maiden. Reginmund 19:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Move rejected. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Iron maiden → Iron maiden (disambiguation)

WP:NC(P) recommends "adding a parethical (bracketed) disambiguator to the page name: for instance when both spellings are often or easily confused." In this case, only one letter capitalization separates Iron maiden, a disambiguation page, from Iron Maiden, the band. This would not affect the location of the band article; it would only entail moving this disambiguation article and having Iron maiden redirect to Iron Maiden. — AjaxSmack 05:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Strong Oppose. The page is correctly located and the band is not the primary use. Don't change what is not broken. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above, perhaps the band should be moved back to Iron Maiden (band) --Closedmouth (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Normally I'd agree, since I believe that the band is the primary use. However, the current situation seems to have provided an amicable compromise over a couple of seriously lame edit wars regarding the target of Iron maiden as a redirect. Unless a concensus can first be reached for moving the band to Iron Maiden (band), this move would only be re-opening a can of worms. PC78 (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as already discussed. older ≠ wiser 17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as already beaten to death. bd2412 T 18:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and move the band page back as User:Closedmouth suggests. Iron Maiden is not nearly enough disambiguation. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

What is all this "already discussed" and "beaten to death"? This article was originally at Iron maiden (disambiguation) and was moved a few months ago unilaterally with no discussion at all. If you're referring to debates over the band or the torture device, as the nomination states, this has nothing to do with either moving the band or the torture device. — AjaxSmack 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, yes it does, although somewhat indirectly. A major point of contention in those discussions was whether the band or the torture device was the primary topic. The present situation (having the lower case spelling as a disambiguation page) is a direct result of those earlier discussions. (BTW, there are 74 deleted edits excised in multiple deletions which may make it confusing to trace out exactly what title the disambiguation page was under at any given point.) older ≠ wiser 00:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those other debates decided that the band was the primary topic and that the torture device should have a parenthetical (or failed to decide otherwise). The present situation (having the lower case spelling as a disambiguation page) did not result from those debates — it was done later. The closing admin specifically said here that Iron maiden should redirect to Iron Maiden. I can't believe this is even controversial since its a textbook example of WP:NC(P). — AjaxSmack 00:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other discussions determined (not without strong objections) that Iron Maiden (both terms capitalized) unambiguously referred to the band. Despite the opinion of the admin who closed the previous debate, there was clearly no consensus one way or the other as to the uncapitalized form. older ≠ wiser 04:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the earlier controversies, this is also a textbook example of WP:IAR. PC78 (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline disambiguating things not only by capitalisation should be followed. I would support a move to place the band at Iron Maiden (band). Dumrovii (talk) 04:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 09:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iron maiden → Iron maiden (disambiguation) — This page not only refers to iron maiden (torture), it also refers to several articles partially named "Iron Maiden" (both words capitalized), only some of which relate to the English band. E.g. songs, book, film. Putting these under "Iron maiden" is incorrect. Facts707 (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what page would you then have here? Iron maiden (torture)? Garion96 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see the point you're trying to make. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no point in moving the page. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As mentioned in the earlier discussions, lots of readers (or most?) use lowercase letters when searching. This dab page is in line with WP:MOSDAB. Prolog (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Don't see any reason the discussion should even be reopened. Consensus was clear last time, and the result sensible. Andrewa (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And perhaps I should point out I didn't participate in the previous discussion. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An amateurish move request, since it only makes sense if we then assign a primary meaning to the term "Iron maiden" with that capitalisation. Possibly we should, but the person who made this request should have clarified what that should be. PatGallacher (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It might even be a speedy close candidate, under WP:SNOW. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Not amateur, little things make the entire more perfect, and all disambiguation pages need to been described as it has to, starting with its page title. You would want to know if you're in a disam page or not. sehbueno (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not entirely sure I understand the point being made here, but I think this is a support vote based on the assumption that all disambiguation pages should themselves contain the disambiguator (disambiguation) in their names. Of course Wikipedia naming conventions don't mandate this at all, rather it is only necessary when there is a clear primary topic, which then goes at the undisambiguated name, with a hatnote. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding to disambiguate gives Joker as an example of the disambiguation page being at the undisambiguated name, and there are numerous other examples. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification "Iron Maiden" is a proper noun and the English band is the primary target for this entry. "iron maiden" (lowercase) was a historical torture device. Having "Iron Maiden" and "Iron maiden" along with "iron maiden (torture)" is confusing. "Iron Maiden" should stay as the primary target, but this page should by "Iron maiden (disambiguation)" note the lowercase "maiden". Not all entries here are "Iron Maiden" the proper noun. Facts707 (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification 2 Basically the point is we have both Iron Maiden and Iron maiden, which are too similar in name for two very different entries. Facts707 (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification 3 Although we should still have an Iron maiden entry which just redirects to this disambiguation page. Facts707 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facts707 you are getting very confused. For a time I thought you were proposing to move iron maiden (torture) to "Iron maiden", but your 3rd clarification contradicts this. Are you proposing that there should be a primary meaning of "Iron maiden", and if so what, or are you proposing to treat it as a disambiguation. You made some changes to the page which presupposed some moves, you should have waited. PatGallacher (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification 4 No, I don't think I am getting confused, and the edits I made were to point out that the device "iron maiden" is distinct from usages of the proper noun "Iron Maiden" (capitalized). Facts707 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification 5 Here is what I am proposing, by example. User types in:

"iron maiden" - goes to "Iron maiden (disambiguation)" (did the user mean the band, the torture device, or another use?)
"Iron maiden" - same
"Iron Maiden" - goes to the English band. User then has a chance to go the disambig page to find a song/work by the same name but by a different artist, or to the torture device.
"iron Maiden" - goes to the English band as above.

I hope these examples clarify things. Facts707 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying things to some extent. However the logic of what you have just said is that this move should be rejected, as "Iron maiden" should be a disambiguation page. I think you are getting confused about how disambiguation works on Wikipedia, see WP:DISAMBIG. I therefore oppose. PatGallacher (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Proposal seems to be based on the false principal that a disambiguation page should have (disambiguation} in the title. That is not the case. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:MOSDAB. We do not redirect "foo" to "foo (disambiguation)". When we find such redirects, we fix them. bd2412 T 23:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understand, but however, I think that the fact a disambiguation page does not need to be titled with (disambiguation) is out of standard purposed by Wikipedia. This could not be compared, for example, with "Brand New Eyes", an album with no (album) suceeding, and it is for sure due to the fact there is not another article which could be ambiguous. We are here talking about a DISAMBIGUATION page, not another common article. sehbueno (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compare with Red Meat vs. Red meat vs. Red meat (disambiguation). "Red Meat" is the name of a comic strip and is the primary article for that spelling. "Red meat" refers to meat that is the color red when raw. "Red meat (disambiguation)" lists another use, Red Meat (band), a country band that apparently is not as famous as the comic strip. The idea is that someone looking for Red Meat the band should be redirected to "Red meat (disambiguation)", not to "Red meat". I.e. The user has just typed in "Red Meat" which is the correct name and capitalization of the band he is looking for. Why would he be redirected to "Red meat", which is farther off in name (and does not mention that it is a disambiguation page) than he was before? Facts707 (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, WP:MOSDAB does not cover this. The correct guideline is WP:Disambiguation#Naming the disambiguation page. WP:Article titles also has some info. But neither of these guidelines is clear about this specific combination (main article is proper noun and capitalized, other article is noun and not capitalized, other articles exist which are proper nouns and capitalized). This is all I am going to say in this section. I think it would beneficial to request further comments from experienced Wikipedians, so I will post an rfc in a new section now. Facts707 (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I see no reasons presented to reject the previous decision to not move this page. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

RfC: Disambiguation page naming guidelines are not clear in this case

Question on naming disambiguation page: Iron Maiden exists as primary topic. Non-proper noun Iron maiden (torture) also exists. There are also other pages Iron Maiden (comics), etc. Talk page is divided as to whether disamb page should be Iron maiden or Iron maiden (disambiguation). Submitter questions if someone entering "Iron Maiden" to find the comic book character should be sent to a page named "Iron maiden" after first landing at the primary topic article Iron Maiden (choice of primary topic is not being questioned). WP:Disambiguation#Naming the disambiguation page does not cover this type of case explicitly. Facts707 (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty making sense of Facts707's ramblings. However, if I understand the last question correctly I think the answer is "yes", and I also think this is consistent with existing guidelines. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to be personal, I have some doubts myself. Neither of the two identical Requested Moves above relate to this RfC, nor it to them. The only relationship seems to be that Facts707 has chosen to use the varous iron maiden topics as an example of a completely different question to that raised by the rejected RMs. This is confusing to say the least.

But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. There's a lot of policy etc out there, and little of it is perfect. I often come across unrelated things I want to fix while researching, be it research into Wikipedia policy to assess a tricky RM or research into tropical butterflies to answer a nephew's probing curiousity. That's how wikis work best. If anyone wants to work on these issues, now's their chance.

I've often thought that a concise, easy to find section on the naming of disambiguation and disambiguated pages was something we could do with. I suspect that's what is needed here, just something to clarify and centralise the conventions rather than necessarily changing any of them. Just beware of instruction creep. Maybe an essay, similar in function to WP:official names, might be a start? Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference with Red meat is that this term has a primary meaning, it is not a disambiguation page or a redirect to a disambiguation page. By comparison, you are not proposing to give a primary meaning to "Iron maiden". PatGallacher (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is there an RfC? Consensus seems to be clear. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically If I type in "Iron Maiden" with the first letter of both "Iron" and "Maiden" in CAPITAL LETTERS, I will land on Iron Maiden (the band). But assume I want Iron Maiden (comics) (again with the first letter of both "Iron" and "Maiden" in CAPITAL LETTERS) because I want the fictional Russian super villain from Marvel Comics. So, I then click on "For other uses, see Iron maiden". Now, I am redirected to a page called "Iron maiden", with the SECOND WORD IN ALL lowercase LETTERS. Since I first typed in "Iron Maiden", why should I now go to "Iron maiden"? That is not what I typed in and not what I am looking for. If I instead end up at "Iron maiden (disambiguation)", then I would know that I am in the right place. Facts707 (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there have been no rebuttals or comments on my last post over a month ago (which was as clear as I could possibly make it), one would have to assume the opposers have no arguments left. Thus this disambiguation page should be renamed to "Iron maiden (disambiguation)". Thanks all, Facts707 (talk) 08:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, a lack of response does not mean you win. The previous consensus is pretty clear and you have not actually raised any new points that have not been previously addressed. older ≠ wiser 13:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Iron maiden (torture device) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 May 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Maiden (disambiguation) → Iron Maiden
Iron Maiden → Iron Maiden (band)

– There is no primary topic for this capitalization; the supposed torture device has greater long term significance, but the band has greater usage - about four times the pageviews. WP:SMALLDETAILS doesn't apply as this capitalization is not sufficient to distinguish topics, due to the most common capitalization prior to 1975 being Iron Maiden - see ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as you pointed out, the band has greater usage (capitalisation) than the torture device. I would also argue the band has long term significance as well (though not as much as the device). Sahaib (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current spelling of iron maiden seems only lowercase. There is no proof that it is commonly spelled with uppercase words in the modern day, which is what truly matters here when determining primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zxcvbnm: Looking at the summaries when searching for the device on Google Scholar suggests that both capitalizations are used currently. For example, this article from last year uses uppercase words. BilledMammal (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support All right, that is sufficient hard evidence to me that there is simply no primary topic. I certainly do not think that Iron Maiden should be a primary redirect, but the pageviews of the band compared to the device are not significant enough to say it is primary on views alone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. There 18 entries listed upon the Iron Maiden (disambiguation) page, thus denoting that the least confusing path for researching all the meanings is via direct access to the dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think this proposed setup is bad. Iron maiden should not remain where it is if the decapitalized form isn't deemed suitable as disambiguation, because there is no way it is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to the band. But, then again, there is no real evidence all the readers of Iron Maiden want the torture device either. If there is an issue here, I would prefer undoing the 2015 RM linked above. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. WP:DIFFCAPS is perfectly adequate here. Both subjects are primary topics of their respective capitalizations. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support per Zxcvbnm, I was the one who suggested this example at DIFFCAPS but like Friendly Fire it may be safest to disambiguate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this RM passes, should WP:SMALLDETAILS be amended immediately to remove the mention of Iron Maiden? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no evidence that the torture device is a proper name, which would require capitalization. Even if it does, the band is still most certainly the primary topic, due to the fact that it is the most sought-after topic by a large margin. The torture device is largely hypothetical, having no proven existence prior to the 19th century, and does not appear to have any long-term significance compared to such other devices as the guillotine, for example. Bneu2013 (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Bneu. Unreal7 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all above, and previous discussions on this point. BD2412 T 06:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per various arguments above, and to put it simply, I do not see how WP would be made better by doing this. KConWiki (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.