Talk:Franz Ferdinand

Previous discussions

Should this really be a disambiguation page? Is the band famous enough to be of equal standing with the Archduke? john k 02:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Certainly not as famous, but since going by his article, the Archduke is not officially called just "Franz Ferdinand", disambigging here is as sensible as anywhere. Alternative would be to have a link to the band at the top of the Archduke's article, but it seems like it would be a little odd-looking to have a link to a band that's not called "Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria". Stan 05:29, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my other thought. And the band's pretty good, so I don't particularly mind. john k 05:34, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The band have said in a interview that their aim is to replace the arch duke in popular memory...Looks like they are suceding. --Josquius 11:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That sounds like fancruft to me. This page now has 3 possible meanings for "Franz Ferdinand" so it can be promoted to a disamb page. Is there some reason not to redirect "Franz Ferdinand" to the Archduke's article and insert a link in that article to the disamb page? Phr 00:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we really label Franz Ferdinand (the band) as an indie band? They started out this way, but are signed to a major record label and their debut album is famous and a best seller. I'm gonna make it say they are an alternative band rather than indie, I think that would be a little more acurate. Revert back if you think this is a bad idea. --Doughboy 12:58, 24 Aug 9 (EST)

"Alternative" is even more ridiculous. The term is completely meaningless, and I don't think anybody says they listen to "alternative" anymore. Why don't we just call them a rock band? john k 21:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, our Indie rock article mentions Franz Ferdinand. I think that "Indie rock" as a term has gone the way of alternative - it no longer actually has to do with being with an indie label. I'd prefer "indie rock" to "alternative rock." john k 21:14, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I think "alternative rock" is the best description. But there reference to Top 10 singles was irrelevant for a disambiguation page - stuff like that goes in the article about the band itself. Deano 18:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I just thought someone should know that now clikcing on the archduke link leads back to the disambiguation page. Since this is my third time using wikipedia, I've no idea how to fix this, but I assume someone does. --Anon., Monday Aug. 21, 2006, 13:55, Chicago time

From Indie rock:

Currently, the term "indie rock" is sometimes used to refer to the current wave of New Wave-influenced alternative rock such as Franz Ferdinand popularised by the media on the music channel MTV2 and in the rock music tabloid NME. The core of this movement has mostly been the resurgence of spiky 80's post punk rhythms and riffs akin to those played by Gang of Four, Television and Wire. Current bands of this type include Franz Ferdinand, and Fend, along with Bloc Party, The Futureheads and Razorlight. Often this style has been blended with other even more alternative genres such as garage rock (Death From Above 1979), synth rock (The Killers) and post-punk (Interpol). Some would also classify the Scissor Sisters and many others within this genre, which is very popular in the UK, forming the backbone of the Zane Lowe show, a popular evening radio show on Radio 1.

Our alternative rock article basically discusses it as a phenomenon which died out due to the mainstreaming of grunge in the early 1990s. Referring to a current band as alternative rock is anachronistic. john k 22:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirection

I have redirected "Franz Ferdinand" to the disambiguation page rather than the person. It's only one click extra for the person, and one click less for the ever-more-famous band. Deano 18:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Redirect pages for only two people are discouraged, because there are absolutely no benefits to it: one of the two possible candidates is just as easy to reach (because either way it requires an extra click to get to him), and the other is easier to reach. In other words, by having a disambiguation page for only two articles rather than simply listening to each article at the top of its page, one article's status doesn't change, and the other's is worsened by making it more difficult to reach him. Lose-lose situation. This page should either:

1. Be a redirect to Archduke Franz Ferdindand, and link to the band at the top of his page. This is consistent with articles like Dante Alighieri and Napoleon Bonaparte, who have "Dante" and "Napoleon" redirected to them even though there are many famous people with both of their names, because they're the most historically important person with the name, by far.
2. Have the information on Franz Ferdinand (band) moved to here, and link to the Archduke at the top of this page.

I recommend the first option: remember that Archduke Franz Ferdinand is one of the most important articles on all of Wikipedia. However, one could argue for the second option by pointing out that the Franz Ferdindand article is much closer in name to this one than the Archduke one (though this could also be an even more effective counter-argument, since that makes the band's name a lot easier to type out into the Search bar than the Archduke's!). I don't care overmuch which person we have this page go to, but it absolutely must be one of them, because having the page like this is just ultimate inefficiency. -Silence 01:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that's fair enough. I didn't realise there was a list of "must-have" articles! Deano 12:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

Two unregistered users continually rv this page from a redirect to the Archduke to a redirect to the band. The obvious solution is to move the disambiguation page here as per WP:DAB. I'm going to do that now, but feel free to revert it if there is serious opposition. I am primarily concerned with this annoying revert war, and this seems the simplest solution. Deano (Talk) 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No article should link to "Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation)" anyway anymore, so just delete that page and continue using the above solution of having "Franz Ferdinand" redirect to the archduke and link to the band at the top of the article; a dab page is totally unnecessary where only two articles are involved, clearly the band is less significant than the person (the person is one of the very small number of Wikipedia's "required articles", in fact!), and where only two pages are involved, it's almost always preferable to simply link to each from the other rather than bothering with an extra step that will do nothing but inconvenience a lot of users without making it any faster for them to find the page they're looking for than if there was no dab page. You've reversed all the good work and the excellent solution that was arrived at earlier; let's restore the fix. Reprimand the edit warriors, don't appease them or assume that the "middle ground" between two disputing parties is always the best solution. -Silence 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What's going on?

The "Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation)" article redirects to "Franz Ferdinand" which contains disamb links, but the talk page comes here. Why are they different? An editing error (maybe mine, I started to change the page name but thought I cancelled before committing)? Can someone fix this? IMO "Franz Ferdinand" should redirect to the Archduke's page and that page should contain a link to the disamb, but that seems to already be a discussion in progress that I won't mess with for now.Phr 00:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Because of sloppy edits. The pages should all be restored to the agreed-upon compromise from Talk:Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation)#Redirection, and delete Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation) to eliminate possible edit-warring, as the page should be orphaned anyway. -Silence 00:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Page necessary? (Merge Proposal)

I've just cleaned up this page a bit per MoS:DP (which I either have déjà vu about or I already did once and the move war has screwed with the edit history). I was just wondering whether this page is really necessary if Franz Ferdinand isn't going to redirect here (which I think is the consensus and I'd probably agree). The other two uses could be consigned to a hatnote to save people the trouble of coming here for two other uses, one of which is only mentioned in an article.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 14:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this page be merged into the hatnote on Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria as:

"Franz Ferdinand" redirects here. For the Scottish rock musicians, see Franz Ferdinand (band). For the cartoon character, see Alfred J. Kwak.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 04:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Necessary?

The page that used to be here was merged into Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand_of_Austria as a disambiguating hatnote. Is there any reason it has reappeared as a separate page making it more difficult for readers to find the band?

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, either 'Franz Ferdinand' should point to the disambiguation page, or there should be a link to the band on the 'Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria' page. Matt J ^User|Talk 13:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Scottish/British edit war

I've noticed that this has been going on for years (on different incarnations of this page) and has probably been changed thousands of times (yet another reason why we don't need this page). Please stop edit warring over this as it is so unbelievably trivial given no one reads the descriptions on disambiguation pages anyway.

If putting where they are from is really necessary for disambiguation (which I guess it just about is as there is a very small chance that someone might have heard of them as the "British/Scottish Franz Ferdinand", as opposed to the Austrian one, without further context), can we stick to referring to them here as they are referred to in the preamble of Franz Ferdinand (band) in line with the Manual of Style.

If you disagree with how they are referred to then please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Franz Ferdinand (band)#British or Scottish? as opposed to changing it on some dab page that no one reads.

Thank you,

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 01:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Please note that Glasgow/Glaswegian is not a suitable compromise (and wouldn't be even if Franz Ferdinand (band) used that) as an insignificant number of people (globally) have heard of Glasgow yet alone know what Glaswegian means, and, most importantly, it wouldn't aid disambiguation at all.

The rule for things from Scotland is, if it's good, it's British, but if it's shit, it's Scottish. So Franz Ferdinand are Scottish. 91.109.149.132 (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Archduke or Band

There has been a recent debate about primacy of the article which now appears to be settled. Although more incoming links within wikipedia and externally, from search engines, point towards the band, the archduke is of significant historical importance, therefore the page now points towards both articles. Wardroad (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Has you guys's previous debate been deleted? That's very annoying. I think this is a case where search engines are going to mislead about primary topics. I don't really care, though, so long as the redirect isn't to the band. john k (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just had this brought to my attention by someone, so I'll offer my viewpoint: The Archduke has clearly had a much more important impact on the world as a whole, but despite that fact it is simply not sensible to have the page 'Franz Ferdinand' point directly to the article about him, so I'd be thoroughly against that option. The current state (i.e. disambiguation) is probably the best, but for what it's worth I feel it's probably more sensible to have it link directly to the band page (with, of course, a link to the Archduke's page at the top, as I believe it currently has anyway) than to the page about the Archduke - although the disambiguation is preferable to either. Not because the band are somehow 'more important', but in my opinion they very much are more likely to be what somebody wants to see when they type 'Franz Ferdinand' in the search bar. Hengler (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the disambiguation page is best. As you can see "Franz Ferdinand" could also lead to the album or DVD by the band. It makes sense. Stan weller (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

On what basis can the claim that the band is the primary topic be made? I think that's a very dubious argument. john k (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Both subjects are equally notable (although it's quite clear the Archduke is far more important; it's not everyday someone is indirectly responsible for setting off the greatest war the world has ever known). The band article might even receive more page hits. Keeping it a disambiguation page instead of redirecting to the Archduke is sensible to me. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary mis-statement

"your edit harms dab & conciseness"? Franz Ferdinand (archduke) is more concise than Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. And it does not harm the dab at all. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very minor and really doesn't make any difference in the big scheme of things. However, I think you have misinterpreted that guideline, the general purpose of which is to ensure that the real titles of linked articles are used on disambiguation pages (for consistency, so people know exactly where they are going and because dab pages are referring more to the actual articles than their subjects). Addressing your specific point "Franz Ferdinand (archduke), the archduke of Austria whose..." is not more concise than "Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria whose..." which has two less words. The former is confusing whereas the latter tells you its the archduke we are talking about in the first word. Common sense—and, I believe, MOS:DP— dictate that repeating the same word is to be avoided (particularly in quick succession and for no apparent reason). There is a reason we have consistency rules for disambiguation pages and we try to make them as simple as possible to read (without any clever formatting or lengthy explanation): to ensure that users spend as little time on them as possible (i.e.: can easily disambiguate). —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 03:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, the dab page guidelines show preference for "Dab title (phrase)" links before "Some words dab title some more words" links. Yes, very minor here. Here, I'd actually prefer that the dab go to Franz Ferdinand (disambiguation) and the base name redirect to the archduke. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I sort of see where you are coming from. The guidelines suggest that if you have lots of entries (and I think that means too many to easily order by approx. likelihood as is the case here) one way of sorting them is to put "Dab title (phrase)" entries first. However, that doesn't make that form somehow better than others and certainly doesn't mean you should link to redirects of that form (which is effectively the same as piping). Anyway, interpreting that loosely, I would say Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria is in that form as it contains "Franz Ferdinand" even if the other text is not in parentheses in the same way that "Place, State" would be considered in the appropriate form to go to the top when ordering entries in that way. If you really think the guidelines suggest that you should prefer redirect links or think they are unclear you may want to move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages).

Regarding your second point, that I agree with (although keeping it going to the dab page might stop the edit wars which result in novice editors not completing page moves properly, and destroying copyright history and talk pages). I see you were involved in part of the recent discussion over the move, but it doesn't look to me like there was real consensus (which was achieved over years of discussion for the previous arrangement), so you could move it back.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)