Talk:Akamai

Edit war

We are getting into an edit war here with Niceguyedc and SwisterTwister tag teaming for multiple reverts of the same thing on one side, with me trying various expedients to address the multiple items akamai refers to, on the other side. Can we talk this over on a Talk page--here or elsewhere--to resolve this in a collegial manner rather than getting into an arbcom ref over this? It makes no sense for us to keep reverting one another. And tag teaming the edits doesn't make it any better.

We have a situation where a user is looking for something about akamai. It might be the company, as SwisterTwister appears to think. It might instead be the lawsuit, as I think. Or it could be the toy (also listed); or just the word that migrated from Hawaiian to English, as Wiktionary says. I think the compromise best thing to do is take no position on what the user should want, and instead send him/her to the disambiguation page to decide what he/she really wants to look up. What's wrong with that? Why do you guys insist on doing things your way instead of compromising? Or am I missing some important point that I failed to understand? If so help me out, please. Thanks. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@PraeceptorIP: As I mentioned in the edit summary, this is (in my view) a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. If you feel that the disambiguation page should be at Akamai (the redirect should never go to the (disambiguation) title per WP:MALPLACED), then start a move discussion at Akamai (disambiguation) to propose that the page should move to Akamai.

Also, there was no "tag teaming" or "edit war". I came across this situation because your pointing of Akamai to the disambiguation page created 10 ambiguous links. As far as I am aware, I have never interacted in any meaningful way with SwisterTwister. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 22:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@Niceguyedc: I didn't understand your proposal above. I just thought that an entry of Akamai should not automatically send a user to the company article, but should instead alert the user to the fact that there are several Akamai possibilities -- the compoany article, the case article, the toy, the Foundation article, the Wik. article -- and thus let the user go to wherever he wants. How would you accomplish that and not "create 10 ambiguous links"? Thanks. PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@PraeceptorIP: If you feel that Akamai should not point to Akamai Technologies, you should follow the procedures at WP:RM to request a move of Akamai (disambiguation) to Akamai. If consensus determines that the move should happen, then the 10 links to Akamai will be updated at that time. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 01:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Niceguyedc: Thank you for trying to explain this to me. I don't think a move of the disambiguation page is the right idea. It is perfectly ok as it is. The problem is that the Akamai redirect is inappropriate, because of the multiple Akamai pages. Since the present disambig page is ok and the Akamai page is the problem, I now think the best thing to do is delete the present Akamai (redirect) page and let the disambig page take care of the problems. I will delete the Akamai (redirect) page after a reasonable wait for comments. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi PraeceptorIP. I've reviewed the discussion above, and see that you just recently created the article Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. – an impressive-looking article, which you obviously put significant time into. I understand that you consider this 2015 en banc decision so significant that you feel it is just as likely someone searching for Akamai will be looking for the court decision as the company itself. Sorry, though I'm not familiar with either, I'm skeptical. I also see that (other than the two redirects you created), it's an orphan. Can you incorporate a summary of this case into the company article, or at least link to it from a "See also" section at the end of the Akamai Technologies article? Or, as you're more familiar with the topic, maybe you can think of another article or related articles to link to this from. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)