Jump to content

Talk:Trivium (disambiguation)

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

What should this page redirect to?

[edit]

This is a printout of an edit war that seems to have developed. Can we discuss it here please?

Since then, up to now this edit war has run to 14 more edits. Anthony Appleyard 09:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17:43, 23 June 2007 User:Reginmund (38 bytes) (I don't understand you. What are trying to convince me that I am arguing about?)
  • 17:20, 23 June 2007 User:Maurauth (28 bytes) (Please accept your own arguments.)
  • 16:52, 23 June 2007 User:Reginmund (38 bytes) (Undid revision 140131841 by Maurauth (talk))
  • 16:33, 23 June 2007 User:Maurauth (28 bytes) (Redirect per reginmunds gramatical instructions.)
  • 20:08, 21 June 2007 User:Maurauth (38 bytes) (new page to provide a third option)
  • 17:39, 21 June 2007 User:Reginmund (37 bytes) (Undid revision 139703309 by Maurauth (talk))
  • 17:02, 21 June 2007 User:Maurauth (28 bytes) (The band is much more notable than an obscure latin word meaning something to do with Trivia,)
  • 20:38, 19 June 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard (37 bytes) (Reverted edits by Maurauth (talk) to last version by Reginmund)
  • 18:00, 19 June 2007 User:Maurauth (28 bytes) (Undid revision 138603914 by Reginmund (talk))
  • 18:57, 16 June 2007 User:Reginmund (37 bytes) (Undid revision 137699998 by Maurauth (talk))
  • 16:06, 12 June 2007 User:Maurauth (28 bytes) (Undid revision 137329641 by Anthony Appleyard (talk))
  • 22:11, 10 June 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard (37 bytes) (Put back to Trivia (disambiguation). I do not see that a routine pop music band is dominant enough over the other meanings. Or discuss.)
  • 18:10, 10 June 2007 User:Maurauth (28 bytes) (?Redirected page to Trivium (band))
  • 18:10, 10 June 2007 User:Maurauth (27 bytes) (who changed this?)

*Trivium has four meanings including the lexeme. All of these meanings come from the singular for of trivia which should be indicated at the top. Directing trivium to the band is pushing PoV. Reginmund 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

  • I have provided the discussion to date below that has carried out on my talkpage about redirects from Trivium and iron maiden. The band has won multiple awards, multiple high selling albums and toured the world multiple times. They are one of the most famous Metalcore bands of the moment and have had spots at most acclaimed music festivals, such as playing the mainstage of the home of rock and roll, Donnington last year. The band is not named after the Latin word for trivia as Reginmund has wrongly stated. I'm sure a famous band is more notable than an archaic plural of "trivia" in a dead language, and still, it's been mentioned in the disambiguation. Please take a moment to read the below section to hear the various arguments and tests of notability. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 21:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay then, for now I'll take your cue of having "
    "iron maiden" redirects here. For otheruses, see iron maiden (disambiguatiion).
    "     on Iron maiden (torture device) and put "
    "Trivium" redirects here. For otheruses, see Trivium (disambiguation).
    " on the Trivium article. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 23:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've placed links on all the different pages saying first about the primary other use of the term, then a further link to the disambiguation page, to provide a temporary third option.
We have to be consistant, I think to solve this we should either:


1. Have "Trivium" and "Iron maiden" redirect to "Trivium (disambiguation)" and "Iron maiden (disambiguation)".
or
2. Have "Trivium" and "Iron maiden" link to "Trivium (band)" and "Iron maiden (torture device)" and keep the links at the top of the page that say that this is the page redirected from X, for Y see linkY else see disambiguation linkDisambiguation. (If you see what I mean, sorry about the code-esque writing.

I think that it would probably be best to have every ambigous redirect go to the disambiguation and on each of the major articles with the same name have the suggested "for" templates at the top of their pages. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 23:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution so far:

DAB on all Trivium pages to the band and Trivia (disambiguation).
Trivia (disambiguation) containing all of Trivium (disambiguation).
Iron Maiden (band) has topdab to Iron maiden (torture device) and Iron maiden (disambiguation).
Vica versa on Iron maiden (torture device).


However, I think that:

Either Iron maiden and Trivium should go to the relevant disambiguations, or neither should, there must be a consistancy.
Iron maiden (disambiguation) should be in alphabetical order.
Trivia (disambiguation) should be in logical order; Singular then Plural then off-shoot of Plural. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 02:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued

[edit]

Regardless of which is more popular, and especially by your perspective, the band and anything else that has adopted the name from the device itself. When someone searches for the band, in their right mind, they would capitalise the "M". Otherwise, they would be taken to the disambiguation page. Popularity among certain persons doesn't make it necessary to style the articles in their favour. I'm reverting your edit again. Don't start an edit war unless you can contest as to why it should be moved back and popularity is not a reason. Not everyone thinks of the band when they think of an iron maiden. Reginmund 18:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly my perspective, lets have a little looksee at google:

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,980,000 for iron maiden
Results 1 - 10 of about 901 for iron maiden "torture device"

That's including out of the 901 the pages that are mirrors of wiki pages with the disambig to the device from the bands page, or sites about the band stating they were named after the torture device. ≈ Maurauth (nemesis~☆) 18:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

From your search of iron maiden, you have no authority as to whether or not all of the "iron maiden" pages (which actually brings 3,220,000 hits) link to the band (and from reviewing the search pages themselves, many link to the torture device). When searching for "iron maiden torture device" (which actually brings 227,000 hits), many articles will be omitted seeing as the latter two words are redundant. The usage of the "obscure" Latin words and apparatuses is only your PoV and less of those who could care less about the metal bands. Apparent to your edit history, several other users have reverted the names "trivium" back to "trivia (disambiguation)" and "iron maiden" back to "iron maiden (torture device)" while in combat to them and me, you start an edit war. I also note that you have pushed your PoV so far as to have vandalised iron maiden (disambiguation). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_maiden_%28disambiguation%29&diff=137698728&oldid=123406942

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise either pages, I will report you to an administrator. Thank you Reginmund 18:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, I've broadened the search terms to give a further insight:

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,640,000 for iron maiden band
Results 1 - 10 of about 449,000 for iron maiden medieval
Following the search for just "iron maiden" out of the first 25 pages of google search there are only two links not about the band, one of them being about a frozen seafood company. The other being the wiki page for the torture device, the most probable reason for this being people searching for the band and being redirected there! I stopped checking after 25 pages as this was just a quick look. You say that "many link to the torture device." 1/250 is many?

After clearly asserting the notability of the band over the torture device, I'm kindly asking you to not make personal attacks that I am "vandalising" pages by editing the order of them to show the more notable parts first, if you think that the notability is in question then I'll gladly place them in alphabetical order. Also a side note, if you state I am in an "edit war" then it would not be vandalism, but a conflict of interests. Several other users have also reverted your changes back to this way too. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Maurauth, here's my view of the matter. Your searching takes into account the Internet only- however, in terms of book sources, there will be far, far, far more references to the torture device and the latin word. In the case of Iron Maiden, I think it is clear cut that people will be more interested in the torture device. Look at it like this- if we fast forward to 2100, are many people going to care about the band? No. However, right now, hundreds of years after it was in use, people still care to research the iron maiden. I think, as a fan of heavy metal music, you are biased. I am trying to think of an example from the realms of non-metal music... Oh! Bauhaus. As far as I am concerned, nobody cares about some German school, but, Bauhaus, the band, are the founders of gothic rock- how could you not care about them?! Also, it is worth noting, in both cases, the bands are named after the archaic meaning. J Milburn 21:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case the third option shall do for now and I'll take a trip to the Winchester public library and my local library in the next week or so and have a look at how many books there are written about the torture device. Well you can hardly make predictions about the next century, as there wasn't exactly a popular culture that revolved so greatly around music up to the last few decades well people don't exactly still care to research that much as I looked through the first 250 results of google and only one of them was even talking about the device and that page also refered to the band! I also think that he is biased as he expresses his interest in history and British history. Now you point it out there should probably be a disambiguation when you search for "Bauhaus" but the example is very different because the school of Art is much more notable not just because gothic rock has dried out these days, but if you also google search "Bauhaus" the results are more talking about the school than the band. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Skimming through the search hits on google is not an approximation, especially when you insert terms to limit the amount of hits. A search engine is not a reliable source to start with about how "popular" something is, seeing as the countless unofficial fan clubs and forums will raise the amount. Since when does the Internet have forums and fan clubs about a torture device? Unless lynching is more popular than music, there wont be any. As for the idea that an iron maiden is obscure, its iconic image has given way to many references in popular culture (e.g. an obscure band. its occurence has been seen even in the stereotypes of mediaeval society and how it is percieved by aficionados of a band named after the apparatus, causing them to create forums and vandalise Wikipedia's pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_maiden_%28disambiguation%29&action=history) gives absolutely no consensus whatsoever as to the band being more popular. Reginmund 23:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't limit the hits, I typed in "iron maiden" without even capital letters to notate that it's the band, rather than the torture device. Exactly as you say; countless unofficial fan clubs and forums will be about the band, and none about the torture device - this clearly asserts that the band is much more notable as more people know about it and to be honest nobody knows about 'stereotypes' of medievil society, nobody has vandalised the page that was an edit and if you continue to refer to my edits as vandalism I will report you for it. It also gives no consensus that the torture device is more popular, what do you suggest as a way of testing who is more notable. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 08:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Without capital letters makes no difference. Google searches are not case sensitive. Don't try that defence again because it just doesn't work. As for the amount of forums, there is no say as to how many more people know about something, just because they are an aficionado. Simple apparatuses have no merit to have fan clubs unless lynching and torture were still popular methods of murder today as they were for several hundred years. Take a look at the Google search for Franz Ferdinand. Most of the pages that come up are about the band, but Franz Ferdinand is better known as an archduke. Remember that the Internet is not a poll to see how popular something is. Regardless, the apparatus is well-renowed, and enough to be so that we use it in the objective form on Wikipedia. That means necessarily putting the "m" in lowercase. Writing it in lowercase is just incorrect when referring to the band and if one does, they will simply click on the disambiguation link and then the link to the band. As for your vandalism (which yes, it is), I think it is necessary to report blanking pages (i.e. iron maiden disambiguation don't deny it again) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron_maiden_%28disambiguation%29&diff=137698728&oldid=123406942 Reporting me for warning you about vandalism is unusual seeing as you were the one who commited the vandalism. There is no policy against reporting vandalism, in fact we encourage it here on Wikipedia. That is why we have templates. If you are unsure about what personal attacks are this might help you as it is from the WP:NPA page...

<User copied from NPA page here>

Now there is no need to try the "reporting defence" either. Reginmund 13:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You said I limited the amount of hits, I did not, I typed "iron maiden". You said that people know about something, surely that's completely against your argument, people who know about it won't be searching wikipedia so all those 'Maiden fans will be going to the wiki to become knowledgeable about it. The notability of a subect compared to another has nothing to do with the knowledgeable people on that subject. Franz Ferdiand is better known as the historical figures among people who like to learn about history, but the band is much more well known in popular culture being one of the most famous indie bands of the current century! The internet may not be a poll to see how popular something is but it does give a fair approximation. I guess I agree with you there then, they can click it from the disambiguation link - I've provided a third option, "Iron maiden" will link to the disambiguation page and people searching for the band can click the correct link. I guess that's solved then. However when you are in an 'edit war' with another member, do not refer to their edits as vandalism as neither of your edits are vandalism, but a conflict of interest what you are doing could be considered by slandarous and insulting to some people. The diff you provided is from weeks ago and I removed the redirect as the Disambiguation page redirected to the torture device article which is not wikipedia policy. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 18:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say in your second sentence. It sounds something like "I said some people were aware of something and that saying that is against my argument and those people that know that something will not use Wikipedia and the Iron Maiden fans are all going to Wikipedia to learn about their favourite band"... could you clarifly that? However, I never said anything about whether or not the people searching for Iron Maiden aren't knowledgeable. There is absolutely no consensus, whatsoever as to say that Franz Ferdinand is better renowned than his musical counterpart moreso than an iron maiden is. For the sake of the people who could care less about the band (including me) and even care less about the torture device, they would have more knowledge of the torture device. The apparatus has been in use for centuries and has even had an obscure band named after it. The band has peaked thirty years, yet the apparatus retains its iconic status in popular culture. Remember that the Internet "poll" is not a poll to decide whether or not a subjet is more popular. Remember that as much Google hits on Franz Ferdinand were on the archduke as there were for the apparatus. That doesn't give reason to be that the band is more "popular" than the archduke. As I think we all know, both bands were named after the main subjects that should stay the main articles. To refer to "iron maiden" as a band is just incorrect unless the "I" and "M" are capitalised and unless you can think of a beter excuse to use a grammatical error when redirecting a page, an iron maiden will not be considered the same thing as Iron maiden. As for your vandalism, I think you misunderstood me. You blanked the disambiguation page. That is vandalism and you can consult the Wikipedia guidelines if you do not believe me. Reginmund 00:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay then if you're arguing gramatically "Trivium" should definitly go to the band not the latin singular form of trivia as that's incorrect, fine I'll go and change that redirection then.

In my second sentence I was replying to "how many more people know about something, just because they are an aficionado" which doesn't make sense and I was trying to understand your babble.

You can't say that if people don't know about the band they won't know about the torture device, a significant portion of the populations outside of europe will be much more likely to have heard of the band than the obscure torture device.

How is the torture device iconic in popular culture OTHER than down to the band? I'm sorry but I've never seen it refered to before on television, the radio, in any modern books or in the newspaper.

Also, you can't be comparing Franz Ferdinand to Iron Maiden because you're saying that there was an equal ratio of person to band as there was object to band... when you search for "iron maiden" on the first 25 pages of results there is only ONE link to the torture device.

I did not vandalise the disambiguation page, it only says I blanked it because all it was was a redirect, you do NOT have a disambiguation page if it is just a redirect to an article! ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about how trivium should go to the band, instead of the disambiguation page. Don't misconstrue that. It is the Latin singular form of trivia; that is definitely something worth mentioning in the beginning of the article and it has other meanings besides a band. There is again no consensus as to whether or not more people outside of Europe know more about the band. Don't think I don't know because I do, I am currently residing in Los Angeles. Just because you haven't heard of the apparatus is mass media, doesn't mean it isn't there. In fact I have seen several references to the apparatus in The Simpsons, the Saw films, at least three Edgar Allan Poe stories, and not to mention its iconic status in Nuremberg. As for Franz Ferdinand, it had as many more links to the band when I searched for it on Google as the apparatus does compared to the band. The apparatus has as much credibility as the archduke and it should stay that way. Franz Ferdinand is an archduke. An iron maiden is a torture device. Any other meanings are on the disambiguation page. That's why there is a link to it on the iron maiden's page. As for the blanking of iron maiden (disambiguation), that is considered vandalism. If it was a dead link, you could have just provided the right links or left it alone. Reginmund 18:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You said that "Iron Maiden" should link to the band and "iron maiden" should link to the torture device, by that logic "Trivium" should link to the band and "trivium" should link to the archaic form of trivia.

Of course it has other meanings besides the band so I've put them in alphabetical order, and added to the end that it may also refer to the latin word for trivia.

I didn't say anything about consensus but I made a practical assumption that people outside of europe will know more about an item of popular culture rather than an obscure european historical device. I never said that it doesn't feature in mass media, however that Iron Maiden is much more often represented in mass media.

When you google "franz ferdinand" there are slightly more hits for the band than the historical figure, but when you google "iron maiden" in the first 250 results only one of them refers to the apparatus.

I removed an error in a page, that is not vandalism the version that I blanked was a redirect to the torture device rather than an actual disambiguation page. Now, excuse me but I'm missing Doctor Who. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 18:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's default, the first word in the search is automatically capitalised. In this case, there is no way of distinguishing trivium from Trivium. However, iron maiden has two words so the second word may be capitalised or miniscule to avoid confusion. As for "trivium", one might wonder what it actually means, well it is the Latin plural of "trivia". That is why it should be directly indicated at the top. Same thing with iron maiden. The only reason that there are other things called "iron maiden" is because they were named after the apparatus and it should that should be indicated at the top too. That goes for the same as Franz Ferdinand and there are as many links to the archduke compared to the apparatus in contrast to the bands. Just because you "practically assume" something by your PoV, doesn't give enough merit, and that doesn't even make it obscure. To me, the band is completely obscure and until I came across this dispute, I only knew of an iron maiden as an apparatus. I, myself would also "practically assume" that the iron maiden is better-known arond the world as a torture device and lesser known as a band with a cult following. You also have no merit whatsoever to say that the apparatus has less recognition in popular culture. I have never seen the band in any mass media form before although I have seen several occurences of the apparatus. It is still vandalism what you did because if there is no disambiguation on iron maiden, then you can at least create one or leave it be since a redirect is better than a blank page.

P.S. I don't need to be informed of your personal affairs (i.e. Doctor Who). It is dead weight emphasis on your point.

Reginmund 20:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is the Latin plural of trivia, but it is also the name of a Band and has two other meanings, stop pushing your point of view by insisting that that is at the top of the page. Franz Ferdinand is a completely different situation and I don't see why you are mentioning it. You say my assumptions are PoV, as are yours! You think the band is obscure, I think the device is obscure, you think the band is not mentioned in popular culture, I think the device is mentioned less in popular culture; hence I provided a third option for both the edit wars. "iron maiden" -> "Iron maiden (disambiguation)" and "trivium" -> "Trivium (disambiguation)", and as the greater notability of either of the bands to the device/Latin word cannot be decided to provide a disambiguation in alphabetical order.

It was not vandalism, it is better to delete an erroneous link than to leave it there because you do not have time to write a whole page.

P.S. I was giving a reason for not responding to you for a while. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It is at the top of the page because it is the literal meaning. Same concept with iron maiden. That is what those two names originally mean. Anything else that is named after it should be included below. Franz Ferdinand is no different that an iron maiden. I am mentioning it because Franz Ferdinand is an archduke and happens to have a band named after it. An iron maiden is a torture device and happens to have a band named after it. Since the original meaning of "iron maiden" is a torture device, it should be included at the top of the page. When I include my PoV, I am trying to convince you that PoV doesn't make a difference. Just because you or me have different opinions about something, doesn't give it merit and I have as much opinion against your PoV as you do mine. That proves that my perceptions or yours have no merit. As for the disambiguation link 1. "iron maiden" is not ambiguous, however "Iron Maiden" is. The only object on the disambiguation page is the torture device. 2. The original meaning of "iron maiden" has been and always will be a torture device and just because a band names themselves after it doesn't make the apparatus inferior. As for the link, it is not necessarily erroneous since it goes to the iron maiden itself. Regardless, page blanking is vandalism. Plus, you had the ambition to write the Trivium (disambiguation) page. You could have done the same as iron maiden. How were your motivations different? As for your reasons for not responding for a while, I find it uneccesary to mention your personal affairs as it seems like you are just boasting about your hobbies. You don't need to mention why/that I wont hear from you for umpteen minutes. Reginmund 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivium (band) is not named after the latin for trivia, there is no reason "trivium" should be at the top, a current band is more notable than an archaic plural of trivia.

If you're just trying to prove my PoV is as meaningless as yours, then why can you not accept the third option, linking to the disambiguation pages rather than the PoV decided notable one? Also, PoV doesn't mean it has no merit, it just means that it is biased.

How is Iron Maiden ambiguous, the object does not have capital letters so infact if you are searching for "Iron Maiden" you definitly know that you are looking for the band. "iron maiden" however is ambiguous since there is the device, there are 2 bands, and there are multiple other things named after it.

I never said either the band or the device was inferior, just that the band was more notable.

For the last time, stop trying to bait me by saying that I'm a vandal, I was deleting a redirect. Disambiguation pages are there to show what other things may be found under the name "iron maiden", it does nothing to help this by having a redirect to one thing instead of a list of things. I didn't exactly write Trivium (disambiguation), I seperated the parts of Trivia (disambiguation) that relate to Trivium, and those that relate to Trivia. Looking back to my contribs at that point in time, I am mistaken I didn't not make a new one because I was busy, but I was actually in the process of trying to fix the redirects (see my contribs between 17:00 and 17:02 that day).

I will also say for the last time that it's not very nice to say I'm "boasting" by telling you that I'm going to be away for 2 hours and still welcome your input to the discussion and I will be back to give my response later. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In defence of an iron maiden, I might say "The apparatus has been used for at least one thousand years to torture criminals throughout Europe. It was among one of the most iconic and popular methods of torture all throughout the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages and has become somewhat of an icon to represent brutality during those times. It has had such influence in popular culture to make appearances on several occasions on The Simpsons, in Edgar Allan Poe's stories and other works of famous Gothic literature, in the Saw film series, in several Tim Burton films, on The Addams Family, in the Resident Evil franchise, and it is the name of two rock bands." It doesn't matter that you think that the band is more notable. I think that the device is. The use of PoV is useless in this discussion so just leave it out. Linking to the disambiguation page for iron maiden is pointless as the apparatus is the only thing that is an object and not a proper noun. Therefore the first letters in the words are miniscule and not capitalised. There is already a disambiguation link on the page to the torture device. Plenty of bands have won plenty of awards and have earned their places in popular culture, Iron Maiden just happens to be one of them. However, those awards don't make Iron Maiden more iconic than the apparatus they named themselves after. As for trivium, you are wrong about stating that I am wrong. The band was named after a three-way intersection that connects three schools and as a plural it is trivia (i.e. three-way intersections that connects three schools on each intersection). Stop using weasel words such as being "sure" about something. In that case, I am certain that most people I know either don't know about the band(s) or could care less about them and know more about the apparatus. No need to boast about how well-renowned the band is. This is not a fanclub. Latin isn't as dead as you think. 60% of English is derived from Latin. "Trivium" has been adopted into the English language to be the plural for of "trivia" (don't tell me that you don't know what "trivia" is). As for your blanking the page, I wont revoke my statement that it is vandalism because it is. If we do not have a disambiguation page on something, it is more convenient to redirect it to the main article than to just leave it blank. In the case of the two hour break, it is unnecessary to tell me what you are watching, what marque of motorcar you drive, what colour your shoes are, etc.. If you are, it sounds like you are "boasting" about your personal affairs. Instead, you can just tell me that you won't be on for a couple of hours. In fact you didn't say that at all the first time. You just said you were going to go watch a television programme, seemingly you were putting more emphasis on me knowing about the programme itself than the amount of time you will be gone (since you didn't mention the amount of time). Reginmund 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how multi-platinum records, playing over 2000 concerts, playing with a consistantly huge fanbase for over 30 years and winning multiple awards does not make them more notable than a device used years ago. You said below that all of your friends will not have heard of the band, this isn't a valid argument as anyone who's friends listen to music will have heard of the band. Also, the awards don't make a band iconic, but they do recognise the bands iconic nature and praise them for it.

For someone who had never heard of the band up to this dispute, you are being a bit silly, I've been a fan of them since their first album and have seen them multiple times, and own most magazines they have had articles written about in; they chose their name since trivium is the meeting of the three schools of knowledge implies an openness to many different things, in this case styles of music.

You tell me not to use weasel words, yet you talk about how that "mos tpeople you know" "could care less about them" and "know more about the apparatus". Also you say "no need to boast about how well-renowned the band is" that's the whole point of the discussion, how well renowned the band is, than the latin word or how well renowned the other band is than the archaic device.

I could say the same thing, wikipedia is not a fanclub for people who are interested in the apparatus; it is an encyclopedia that aims to provide free knowledge about everything including popular culture and ancient devices, wikipedia should be accessable by everyone; historians who wish to read about the device, music appreciators who want to find out further about the band, and everyone between these two sets, people like students who are studying history but also wish to go out and see a band to relax and want to know more! This is why it should link to the disambiguation, so that everyone can find out about what they want- they can choose it from the disambiguation page.

Also, try to cool it down a bit, there's no need to say things like "don't tell me that you don't know what "trivia" is". ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 23:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're pushing PoV again. I don't see how a machine that was used as the main torture device of choice for over a millenium by France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, and all of Scandinavia does not make it more notable than a band that probably will be almost completely obsolete by the end of the century. After all, Stardust is considered to be one of the most commonly recorded songs in music history and who listens to it now? Yes I say that they don't know about the band because they don't listen to heavy metal and just because you listen to music, doesn't mean you know who Iron Maiden is. Now how exactly is that not a valid argument. I listen to music and until this dispute, I have never heard of Iron Maiden as a band. Oh, sure the band may be recognised and praised but the awards aren't authority to say that the band is more popular than the apparatus. Pardon me for not hearing about the band, but it turns out that I don't listen to hard rock. If I were to criticise you about things that are iconic in my opinion that you have never heard of, I would probably think you live under a rock if unless I didn't push PoV as you are doing. When I am using weasel words, I am contradicting the ones you are using. In fact I mentioned this before. Also, could you provide reference to where I quoted that there is no need to boast about how well renowned the band is? I'd be glad to reflect on it. I also never said that this is a fan club for the apparatus. If you think I like the apparatus, I don't. There is no reason to have a "torture device" fan club since there is no reason to be an aficionado of a torture device, unless you are sadistic and proud of how well it impales your enemies, nosy neighbours, and tax agents. To me it is a daft piece of machinery, but it is quite relevant in history... a millenium of history. Remember again that this is not a fan club. It matters how prevelent something is and as an encyclopaedia, it should provide information as to the lexeme and not something prevelent in popular culture that was named after it. Google hits are not a way to determine this. Otherwise we would have to completely disambiguate Franz Ferdinand and Nirvana. Now what would make "iron maiden" any different. Wikipedia also doesn't base article on what is more famous or popular (not implying that the band is more famous than the apparatus) (e.g. Kenneth Fearing's novel The Big Clock is the primary link, although most people would probably be searching for the film which is undoubtedly more popular. Remember that there is nothing else that means "iron maiden" in miniscule font. Everything else is a proper noun, therefore, redirecting "iron maiden" to the disambiguation page is rather daft and silly. Moreso, "Iron Maiden" should be a disambiguation page instead of linking directly to the band since "Iron Maiden" capitalised is ambiguous, moreso than "iron maiden" miniscule. I am not enraged about whether or not you know what "trivia" means but since you think that an iron maiden is much less prevelent in popular culture, I would say, in a tounge-in-cheek way, that you can't deny that you don't know what "trivia" means in contrast to "trivium" in reference to the band. Reginmund 00:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. You keep saying that in the future people will forget about the band whereas people will still know about the torture device, but you can't speculate on it's prevalence in the future and what happens in the future has no relevance on what links to what now, that is what the encyclopedia should be documenting.

As you say you listen to music and haven't heard of the band, I love history and enjoy reading about it, and still had only heard of the device in passing.

The awards are more of an authority on how notable a band is, than you and your bunch of friends are. I never criticised you for not knowing about the band so don't make out that I did, and you're pushing your PoV as much as I am. The reason I told you you were using weasel words is because you criticised me for using them and then used them yourself, it is hypocritical to say that I can't use weasel words and you can use them to "contradict the ones" I am using. Press CTRL+F and paste in "No need to boast about how well-renowned the band is." to see where you wrote that.

You say "It matters how prevelelent[sic] something is" that's what we're trying to establish, however it should provide information on something "prevelent[sic] in popular culture". Google hits are a good way of determining the notability considering over half of the population of europe are connected to the internet. Also; wikipedia does actually base articles on how famous something as, created articles have to meet notability criteria or they can be speedily deleted.

If you say that "iron maiden" should redirect to the device then "Iron Maiden" should also redirect to the band, and it already does!

Also; I've requested that you stop making the snide remarks and other things that could potentially be considered personal attacks multiple times, so please could you refrain from that language.

Summary: This argument is just a repeat of the same thing over and over again, can you not settle for the current third option, and have your input in my above suggestion. ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 00:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that people will forget about the band. I was just giving you a prime example of popular music (much more than Iron Maiden in comparison to their time periods) which is now completely obsolete, therefore, combating your argument that the torture device is obsolete compared to the band. I never said my friends are authority on the band being less popular than the torture device. I used the example of "my friends" in combat to your filibuster that "your friends" think of the band when they think of "Iron Maiden". Also, you did criticise me for not knowing about the band. You said that was "silly" that I didn't know about the band and that anyone that listens to music knows about the band. When I used the weasel words, I was using them sarcastically showing you that they are useless in this debate in contrast to your weasel words (e.g. how it is silly that I never have heard of the band up until this debate). I still can't find my quote, which paragraph is it in. I also said that it would be necessary to redirect the band to a disambiguation page instead of going directly to the band moreso than directing it to the band since "Iron Maiden" (capitalised) is more ambiguous than "iron maiden" (miniscule) which isn't ambiguous at all in contrast to redirecting "iron maiden" (miniscule) to "Iron Maiden" (capitalised), thus referring to the band. Although I feel it is fine to keep the band name where it is. As for my "threats", they are not personal attacks and I kknow what personal attacks are. If you think it is snide to say tongue-in-cheek "don't tell me that you don't know what trivia is", than consider you saying "I think it is silly that you have never heard of the band and anyone that listens to music has heard of the band." as much snide as what I said. We have already been to this "personal attacks" dispute and what (you and) I said doesn't even scratch the surface. The reason I am not settling for the third option is because 1. Writing "iron maiden" is not ambiguous but "Iron Maiden" is. 2. We already have been over whether or not the band is more popular than the apparatus and as far as it is going, it seems redundant since "Iron Maiden" goes directly to the band and "iron maiden" goes directly to the apparatus. 3. Even if someone who is searching for the band accidently puts their words in miniscule, they have a link at the top that goes directly to the band page. The same applies to someone who is searching for the apparatus and mistakes it for a proper noun. This is something I have no problem with and I don't see what is so unfair about it. Reginmund 01:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I'll adress your arguments that are ad hominem, I never said it was silly you hadn't heard of Trivium, I said it was silly that you hadn't heard of Trivum and then said that I was wrong about what they were named after, and you were right! Secondly it's very hard to portray sarcasm in text, so just refrain from using weasel words please. You were also the first to mention that your friends haven't heard of the band, not I.

The argument of a 1920's song that was recorded many times but unknown now isn't relevant due to the prevelance of music on popular culture, everyone in the developed world will have heard music now, not just the rich as it was back then, here I'll give you an example. Burning Love is still a very famous song known by many, despite being decades old.

That's the point of a third option, it's a comprimise, it doesn't fit my best interests and it doesn't fit your best interests but for the sake of the encyclopedia there should be something decided upon. Also, your 3rd point isn't valid as you keep removing the links and changing them around at the top of the pages.

I don't see what's so unfair about having searches for "iron maiden" and "trivium" going to the disambiguation page, as their notability is so contested. The first time I even change one of the redirects was because an IP address editor posted on the talk page of Iron Maiden asking why he couldn't get to the band by searching "iron maiden" and that it confused them! ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 01:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

using weasel words such as being "sure" about something. In that case, I am certain that most people I know either don't know about the band(s) or could care less about them and know more about the apparatus. No need to boast about how well-renowned the band is. This is not a fanclub.

≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 01:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said it was silly that I haven't heard of Iron Maiden. The only reason I was using weasel words was to contradist the ones you used, but I'm done with them, unless you use them again. I would have never brought up my friends as that is PoV unless you did first. The song "Stardust" was not relatively unknown as you said but was played consistently for two decades. Saying the "rich" only had access to music is just daft, since the song was released at the peak of the U.S. economy and the Roaring Twenties; everyone had radios at that time. It was a common accessory as a television is today. In fact, music was a much more popular accomidiation as there were no televisions at this time so more people listened to the radio. That is why most music recorded before the introduction of the television is much more obsolete compared to music recorded after the introduction of the television. "Burning Love" was recorded twenty years after the introduction of the television. Just because there is a third option, doesn't make it fair hence a "compromise". I kept the link to the band on the apparatus's page and the same for the link on the band's page. I never removed them. It is unfair to put "iron maiden" at the disambiguation page since "Iron Maiden" goes directly to the band, especially because "Iron Maiden" is more ambiguous than "iron maiden" and not the other way around. As for "trivium", it is a lexeme of "trivia", just like "boxes (disambiguation)" would redirect to "box (disambiguation)". As for the confused person searching for the band, I have no problem at all providing a link to the band at the top of the apparatus's page. It is a practice commonly seen on many articles here on Wikipedia. Reginmund 02:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, I said:

For someone who had never heard of the band up to this dispute, you are being a bit silly, I've been a fan of them since their first album and have seen them multiple times, and own most magazines they have had articles written about in; they chose their name since trivium is the meeting of the three schools of knowledge implies an openness to many different things, in this case styles of music.

Which says that it's silly for you to think you know more about a band (that you'd never heard of until today) than I, (who've known about them for 4 years). If you didn't understand what I said, I apologise for any insult you had taken.

You were the first to mention that people you know have not heard of the band. You were the first to start complaining about weasel words after having used them yourself. However I will disregard these things now.

Yes but modern radio is very different, in the early days of radio there would be lots of story and talk shows, and very little music played, also how accessable music was to the younger generations has changed greatly, these days many people's lives are influenced greatly by listening to music and playing music and this is increasing even more as the years progress!

You say it is unfair for "Iron Maiden" to not go to the disambiguation page, this is not so: you showed so many examples such as books and films of the same name, as they would have capitals the most notable would be redirect to, with the others mentioned as well AND a link to the dab.

Also; your example of Box and Boxes: if we want to compare it let's say; there's only one thing called a Box, a device for holding objects, but "Boxes" is the name of a jazz band, a 1950's slasher film, a science fiction book from the 80's and a monument in the south of france. You would place the film, book, monument and the band on "Boxes (disambiguation)" with a link to "Box" saying it's plural. You would not place it all on "Box (disambiguation)" as that's not what they're called!

Finally, I know it's a common practice; its a practice that I've been doing, and you've been removing from every page I add it to! ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 02:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, you said I was being silly which is a weasel word. I have never heard of the band until I came into this dispute; that is what I said. Obviously since you are a fan of heavy metal, it is probably difficult not to encounter the band, although if you don't care for heavy metal (like me), it is possible and even likely not to know about the band. Again, there are things that I can interrogate you about and be completely shocked that you have never heard of them (I was never insulted by the way).

I was saying that you were using them, I didn't use them first.

Actually, music was more common than you think. It took up the majority of most station's radio format including the Columbia Broadcasting System and considering how much people watch television (and how much they watched it when it was first introduced), it almost unanimously replaced the radio. Compared to how much the radio is listened to now, add that to how much television is watched, and that was how popular music was. Not to mention that at the time, Art Deco restaurants would often play jazz music, and among one of the most famous early jazz songs of that time... Stardust!

I said that it would be unfair that if "iron maiden" went to the disambiguation page, then it would be unfair that "Iron Maiden" didn't. As for the books compared to the films, don't forget that books and films are proper nouns so their titles cannot be distinguished from capitalisation. Therefore, the article title would direct to not the supposed most popular name, but the original name. As for the band vs. the apparatus, they can be distinguished.

All objects in reference to a "box" (the lexeme, e.g. boxes) would be placed at "box (disambiguation)", it doesn't mean that the object has the same name of the title, but of one of the lexemes. You will find that this is common policy on Wikipedia (e.g. cat (disambiguation), dog (disambiguation), bird (disambiguation), etc.)

Since you agree with the common practice, why don't we just leave Iron Maiden at the band and iron maiden at the apparatus and give them links to each other at the tops of the pages and just leave it at that? Reginmund 02:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the? I never said it was silly for you not to have heard of the band, I said it was silly for you to think you knew more about the band than me after you stated you hadn't heard of them before. Shoot away, I'll probably have heard of nearly anything you can ask about.

It may have been common on the radio, but with websites like myspace which are situated around music and the fact that the majority of people under the age of 25 use such social networking sites really shows how prevelant music is in culture these days. MP3 players, CD players, file sharing, online music stores, mtv, digital radio etc All of these inventions/buisinesses mean that music is so much easier to access. There are pubs and clubs everywhere with live music, and concerts very frequently which was just not the case before the 60's and has increased exponentionally in the 90s. For example, artists like The Beatles will probably never be forgotten as their music is played on every form of media, and sold in every possible method nearly half a century later.

Exactly, the original name of a band with capital letters is "Iron Maiden" and hence the search should go there, by your logic.

No they wouldn't go on "Box (disambiguation)" the in this case, french monument(not real, my example) would be on the same page as the horror film on the disambiguation "Boxes (disambiguation)" not "Box (disambiguation)". The word may be lexeme, but it is nothing to do with a box(container).

As we are in agreement, why don't we also just leave Trivium at the band too, and give links to the other meanings at the top of the page and just leave it at that? ≈ Maurauth (Ravenor) 03:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I knew more about than you did. That is something we probably figured out a long time ago. I assure you, I know very little about the band and if I need any information, I know who to ask.

During the twenties, the radio had as much popularity as the Internet and television combined since neither of the aforementioned two existed at the time. Include all of the public houses, bars, (jazz) clubs, (jazz) concerts, restaurants (since playing music in a restaurant is much less common than it was before) plus the Internet and television combined in lieu to the prevelance of music at the time, not to mention since jazz music was flourishing during the Roaring Twenties and was undoubtedly one of the most popular genres of music at the time (alongside swing), especially since this was the time that the gramophone and radio was an affordable accessory by all classes of people and since this was the time that they were both introduced, they became phenomena of very popular use. Also, the two main popular genres of music (by a longshot) were jazz and swing, and among one of the most popular and most recorded (jazz) songs in history... Stardust!!!

I agree that "Iron Maiden" should go to the band; that also serves as to much reason why "iron maiden" should go to the apparatus.

Since they are lexemes, it is neccesary to merge them. After all, the article on "Box (monument)" wouldn't be named "Boxes (monument)" just because it is disambiguated on a page using the lexeme. You will find that this is common policy on Wikipedia (e.g. cat (disambiguation), dog (disambiguation), bird (disambiguation), etc.). All of those pages have merged their plurals and singulars.

"Trivium" has an ambiguous meaning, therefore it should be disambiguated. I can understand why it would seem strange though to put it at the disambiguation of trivia but it is neccesary for the two aforementioned reasons. There are other occurences of this phenomenon (e.g. "cats" redirects to "cat"; the disambiguation is under "cat" but when searching for "cats (musical)" this occurence would be encountered). Reginmund 03:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please cool things down

[edit]

Shouldn't this go to the band Trivium?

[edit]

Far, far more people will want information about the band than about a "synchronous stream cipher" (what?) or some "medieval educational theory". And those wanting "trivia" will surely just enter "trivia", but the word "trivium" is most closely associated with the band. Shouldn't we put the band Trivium on this page, and have a disambig link at the top saying something like "For the Latin singular form of trivia, see Trivia, for other uses, see Trivium (disambiguation)"?

I don't pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia's policies, or what makes subjects more notable than others or whatever, but I just don't see why a word with no other meanings anywhere near as common goes to a disambiguation page. Silverpizza (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the possible exception of the educational theory, all the others are named after the Latin word, so on the contrary, I'd argue that the singular of trivia would be the primary topic. However, feel free to disprove me using evidence for the guidelines of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry I didn't reply, wasn't really expecting a response. Thanks very much for the response and the helpful link! The guidelines say,
"When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other topic covered in Wikipedia to which the same word(s) may also refer (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article."
and I would expect that the band is the primary topic. I had a try at using the tools suggested on that page.
1. Incoming wikilinks from Special:WhatLinksHere - A significant proportion of what links to "Trivium" is band-related, and there were 559 links to "Trivium (band)" compared to 108 to "Trivium", 89 to "Trivium (cipher)", and 120 to "Trivium (education), which makes it by far the most common of these, more than all the others put together. However there were 583 links to "Trivia". I guess it depends whether you think people are likely to visit the "Trivium" page looking for "Trivia", but the singular form is rarely used.
2. Wikipedia article traffic statistics from http://stats.grok.se/ - (from February this year, the last complete month) "Trivium (band)" got 59486 views compared to 1097 for the "Trivium (cipher)" and 5972 for "Trivium (education)". "Trivium" got less than half as many views as the band page (23384), and a significant proportion of these would have been looking for the band. The "Trivia" article got just 9588 views. "Trivium (band)" a clear winner here.
3. Google web, news, scholar, or book searches from http://www.google.com/ - googling "trivium" gives 3,980,000 hits. The related searches are trivium lyrics, trivium tabs, trivium songs, trivium music, bullet for my valentine, slipknot, iron maiden, and metallica - all band related.
But it also said these aren't determining factors, you need consensus or something right? To be honest, I'm not sure how this whole thing works. Silverpizza (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the views stats at [1], the band seems to be miles above all other uses of the word.

It's pretty apparent that most people who find this disambiguation page are looking for the band. I would suggest at this time redirecting straight to Trivium (band) with a hatnote to this page at Trivium (disambiguation) is logical at the moment - if, in the indefinite future, the band fades from view then the decision can and should be revisited. ~ mazca talk 20:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. Quoting from the disam guideline: "If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic". Judging by this talkpage, I'd say Trivium qualifies in droves. Also, Google hits and page traffic are not the end-all be-all of determining primary topic-ness (WP:POPULARPAGE, WP:GOOGLEHITS); the policy explicitly states they "are not determining factors" . And, though there's no official policy to support this, I would venture that being named after something usually (but not always) gives the source of the name precedence over the nameee. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really consider the fact that there was an argument about it two years ago to be valid justification for rejecting a change now - particularly considering the discussion above raged way beyond the specific dispute about this disambiguation. I'm generally of the opinion that our disambiguation system should minimise inconvenience to readers; and to me it seems pretty plain that the vast majority of visitors to this page are being momentarily inconvenienced by it. Slightly worrying as it might be; most people who look for Trivium are looking for the band at the moment. ~ mazca talk 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not redirect anywhere

[edit]

Trivium (education) should be renamed to Trivium. All other uses of the word Trivium are too trivial to warrant notice on Wikipedia. Rwflammang (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trivium_(disambiguation)&oldid=1233286255"