This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Gdańsk Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Gdańsk |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is affected by the
Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{ Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary. |
This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 28 June 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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)
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)
Because then we wouldn't have a Danzig page...I'm confused. john 21:12, 14 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)
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)
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:
-- 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)
Danzig has 4 different meanings, must be a disambig page 23:06, 21 Jul 2004 User:PolishPoliticians
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)
Please make this redirect to the correct spelling, Gdańsk. Thanks. — Chameleon 2 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Gdańsk Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Gdańsk |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page is affected by the
Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. The following rules apply in the case of disputes:
The detailed vote results and the vote itself can be found on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. This vote has ended; please do not vote anymore. Comments and discussions can be added to Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion anytime. This template {{ Gdansk-Vote-Notice}} can be added on the talk page of affected articles if necessary. |
This redirect was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 28 June 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
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)
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)
Because then we wouldn't have a Danzig page...I'm confused. john 21:12, 14 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)
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)
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:
-- 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)
Danzig has 4 different meanings, must be a disambig page 23:06, 21 Jul 2004 User:PolishPoliticians
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)
Please make this redirect to the correct spelling, Gdańsk. Thanks. — Chameleon 2 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)
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)