Talk:Dio (band)

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

Dio or Dio (band)[edit]

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 PAGE MOVED per discussion below. There is sufficient disagreement over the primacy of Dio (band) to say there is no primary topic, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Please let me know if there are any questions. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not redirect this (or any) page with a discussion and consensus. On 3/8/09 this page was redirected to Dio (disambiguation) and the text was moved to Dio (band), this was done without any mention on the Talk page. This move resulted in >100 links to the disambiguation page. I (and am sure others) redirected those links to Dio (band) and now it has been redirected back to Dio. Making bold changes should certainly be encouraged, I am sure that we all strive to make Wikipedia better whenever we make a change, but a consensus should be reached before the change is made. -J04n (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, many classical scholars would find it disgraceful that, when searching Dio (that is to say, Cassius Dio or Dio Chrysostom), they are redirected to a 'heavy metal band'. I believe that importance and chronology alone allows these two personages to trump the 'heavy metal band'. Therefore, I will continue to redirect the page. Thank you. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The top 10 searches for the word "Dio" include 8 hits for pages related to the artist Ronnie James Dio. The first hit being his home page and the second hit being the Wikipedia article for Dio. The Wikipedia searches for Dio and page counts indicate the majority of readers searching for "Dio" are looking for the band article and not any other topic. Per Wikipedia rules this covers the disambig page remaining the way it is and that 'Dio' should direct to this article first. GripTheHusk (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ludicrous argument. That is similar to saying that, because more people search for Franz Ferdinand the band, that Franz Ferdinand should therefore redirect to the band's wikipedia page. Clearly, there is no solution to this, other than to have it redirect to the disambiguation page -- as it is done in the aforesaid article. I am going to change it again fairly soon in light of the Franz Ferdinand example. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the earlier statement. Based on the page read statistics for Wikipedia the overwhelming lead for 'dio' articles is this page and it should remain as is. Peter Fleet (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, how do you account for Franz Ferdinand, Peter? You cannot ignore the pretext. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, if someone were looking up Cassius Dio or Dio Chrysostom they would not type in just Dio, whereas if they were looking up the band they would. That said, I actually have no problem with the band's page being called Dio (band), my protestation was in changing it without discussion. So, I guess I'm on the fence and will certainly not argue with the majority in either case. -J04n (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Cassius Dio is known simply as 'Dio' by many classical scholars. His name is more often seen simply as 'Dio' than 'Cassius Dio' (for example, Dio's Rome). I am not proclaiming that he is superior, I simply believe that a disambiguation page would be the best, and the fairest, solution. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, I find the Cassius Dio argument more compelling than the frequency of hits argument. I looked around for precedent and found that Jethro Tull links to the disambiguation page with separate pages for Jethro Tull (band) and Jethro Tull (agriculturist). IMO Jethro Tull is a much more noteworthy band than Dio, and Cassius Dio also appears more noteworthy than our favorite agriculturist. So, I am officially off the fence, I vote for the Dio to redirect to the disambiguation page. -J04n (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Jethro Tull example, J04n. That is even more valuable than the Franz Ferdinand example. Therefore, I suppose that voting is in a progress, and I vote : * Redirect. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: refer to WP:VOTE before preceding. I will post this to a wider audience for more contributions to this conversation. Using Jethro Tull as an example is actually not a very good foundation to base a push towards re-direct on as, quickly viewing the stats for that page, the Jethro Tull dab page should actually re-direct to the band page with an {otheruses} link to the agriculturalist. But that is a conversation for another page. With the Google search support and the number of page reads/day for this page vs any other the page should stay as it is. I will invite members of the music project to weigh in on this conversation. Fair Deal (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing other interested parties into the discussion is a good thing but IMO only inviting from project music will likely lead to a one-sided discussion. Based on Ambrosiaster's comments members from WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome should also be invited in. -J04n (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, J04n. I was going to say that as well. I believe that the final decision would be inordinately biased if we were to discuss it in Project Music. In my opinion, I believe that historical value and chronology have more importance than mere popularity (but do not suggest that Cassius Dio be the article to which it redirects). It appears that you are at variance with your 'Wikipedia rules', Fair Deal. (No. 3 : 3 It's an encyclopedia....not a teen magazine!). By virtue of that 'rule', if one were to search 'Dio' in Britannica, one would find Diu, India as the first article, and Cassius Dio as the second. Dio the band is nowhere to be seen. Yet, there is an article for LL Cool J on Britannica. I understand that, to you, Dio is important, as you are a 'Led Zepplin fan'. Nonetheless, you need to respect the interests of others, as well as historical value. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the band should be at Dio (band) and Dio point to the disambiguation page. (FWIW from the Music Project) --Kleinzach 03:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of those other Dios. Yes, I've been around a while, and I pay attention to matters other than music. The requirements for page naming do not involve chronological criteria, only the likelihood of search targets. However, it does appear to me that Cassius Dio has a pretty good claim on general importance. I think making Dio the DAB page is a good idea. (I don't feel the same way about Jethro Tull, though). -Freekee (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dio is Italian for God! Anyway, considering it's such a short simple name with so many varied connections, the reader is surely best served by a link straight to the disambiguation page. --Kleinzach 03:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I had never heard of Dio the band until I searched 'Dio' on wikipedia, in search of the Dio Chrysostom page. Therefore, one can only ponder my initial reaction. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with other commenters that Dio should be a disambig page; I would make sure that Dio (band) is one of the first entries, because it's true that a lot of readers will be searching for it. I think the order at Dio (disambiguation) is about right, actually, and I'm a much bigger fan of classical literature than heavy metal... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this article is any different than the article for U2 or Iron Maiden. If the prime search and page reads for this article are overwhelming, and they appear to be, then the page should stay the way it is right now. Wether B (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my earlier concern. Quickly comparing this page to the earlier mentioned Cassius Dio as another notable 'Dio' search I see that in the first full month of this year this page was averaging 1500 reads per day whereas the Cassius Dio page was barely 100 reads/day. Those numbers are not insignificant. This page is the first Wikipedia page listed in a Google search for the Dio topic. Should this page be re-directed it re-opens the discussion to re-direct U2 or other similar "primary topic" pages. Wether B (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Dio ought to be a disambiguation page. Many editors above have better summarized the arguments for this. I can only add the example of Dion, a disambiguation page which includes several figures from the Classical world and a notable musician who used the stage name "Dion". Aramgar (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics show that Dio got 36,122 hits last month and Dio (disambiguation) only 852. If the band was not the primary meaning, readers would have had to access the dab page much more often. The current situation is in line with our disambiguation guidelines. Prolog (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes casual readers understand disambiguation pages, which may not be the case. (Indents added — please use them to show the flow.) --Kleinzach 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like those readers who click a dab page link out of curiosity or boredom, this group is likely not statistically significant. (Indents removed because my comment was not a reply to Aramgar.) Prolog (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Prolog's post, I believe that this article and the disambig article are appropriate. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste move[edit]

Whatever the outcome of the above discussion, a cut-and-paste move of the type attempted on 8 March should never be done. When a page is moved that way it loses all the edit history of the old page and appears as if it were just started by the mover on the day of the move, especially if there is no edit summary on the new page. If the Move function is unavailable, due to edit history on the destination page or other reasons, the best thing is to list it at WP:Requested moves where an admin can move the page. Station1 (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is a general consensus among us to redirect the article. The past several posts have all been in favour of it. And, of course, the disambiguation page shall remain as is, with Dio the band appearing first. Therefore, to any administrator: please rename this article Dio (band), and redirect Dio to the disambiguation page. Cheers. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I received a request to do with and will see to it shortly, unless someone else gets it first.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See comment on your talk page. Wether B (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. By "see to it" I meant check to make sure it's appropriate. I suggest follosing the guideline at WP:MOVE.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that a great deal of human energy has been allotted to a simple redirect. Therefore, let's have a survey and have done with it. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Names of pop bands:disambig or not? for a discussion of the Primary topic question in relation to bands. --Kleinzach 22:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Can someone please state exactly what proposal is being surveyed here? older ≠ wiser 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: change Dio to Dio (band) with Dio redirecting to Dio (disambiguation)
Oppose: leave as currently stands Dio is the page for the band Dio
see discussion above-J04n (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  • Support. For reasons specified above. A disambiguation page seems to be the fairest, and most sensible solution. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The fact that Cassius Dio is at times refered to as Dio (as evidenced in the opening sentance of his page) was the main point in formulating my opinion. I do not see how renaming to Dio (band) will diminish the page. Kiss (band) get close to 6,000 hits per day and Jethro Tull (band) also get more hits per day than Dio (by about 500). Saying that Jethro Tull (band) is a bad example but U2 and Iron Maiden are good examples seems a bit disengenuous. I say this not as an "owner" of the page (which I am most certainly not) but to show my point of view, I am the most frequent contributer to the Dio (the band) page Contributors:Dio. -J04n (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Cassius Dio would be commonly known as "Dio", and if he would be much closer to the band in terms of page views and Google visibility, having the dab page at Dio would make sense. But that is not the case. Prolog (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was leaning towards the same decision as your until Ambrosiaster's above comment from 17:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC) "In fact, Cassius Dio is known simply as 'Dio' by many classical scholars. His name is more often seen simply as 'Dio' than 'Cassius Dio' (for example, Dio's Rome)."-J04n (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per guideline on Primary topic: "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, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)"." --Kleinzach 13:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The band page was created in 2002 and the dab page in 2005. Yet, there had been no discussion at all until the cut-and-paste move two days ago. Prolog (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, re: stats. Fair Deal (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comments above. The page view statistics and the Google test suggest that the large majority of readers searching for simply Dio are looking for the band. Thus, it is still the primary topic. Prolog (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, you are arguing that, if one were to start a band by the name of 'St Ambrose', and subsequently become popular, the article St Ambrose the band should be primary. I cannot agree with that. For I believe that Dio (Cassius Dio) is an individual of great historical, and encyclopedic, importance. We cannot simply neglect the man, and allow a band, that will likely be fade out of human memory in 40-50 years, to trump his notoriety. In conclusion, I believe that a disambiguation page is the best solution -- à la Kiss (band) and Jethro Tull (band). ¶ Just because most people are more familiar with Brittney Spears than Aristotle, does not make her more important. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Prolog's comment and the page statistics. Wether B (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article Ronnie James Dio which is included in Dio (disambiguation) has over 40,000 hits last month,[1] over the band article's 36,000.[2] dissolvetalk 22:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, particularly the sentence adduced above by User:Kleinzach. See the dab page Dion for a model. Aramgar (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. With 36000 hits for this article and 40000 hits for the article about Ronnie James Dio himself, it is quite obvious that the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia readers are seeking information relating to this band in some way and very few seeking information regarding any of the other links listed in the disambiguation page. The disambiguation page itself receives few hit showing that readers seeking Dio aren't going beyond this page to find another Dio topic. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, that means that an overwhelming majority is seeking for Ronnie James Dio, and not the band. Therefore, it is only logical that his full name should be entered, and that his last name should be redirected to a disambiguation. If one searches Hendrix, Osborne, or Spears, one will be redirected to a disambiguation. The same applies for this. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I don't believe that a hit counter should determine page naming. As much as I would like to believe that it is, the band does not seem to be significantly more important than the historical figure. -Freekee (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per Kleinzach. Also, I know that classicists are probably not as numerous as heavy metal fans (of course, some classicists are heavy metal fans), but there is a significant body of scholarship that refers to Cassius Dio simply as "Dio"; I'm pretty sure if you were to do a survey of academic literature, "Dio" would almost never ever mean Ronnie James Dio or the band. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per Kleinzach. Popularity and recentism are not appropriate measures for an encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 01:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See my earlier comment. GripTheHusk (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The subject related to this page is the one that over 90% of readers are searching for. As for these "Per Kleinzach" comments... I can't see where that realistically applies because there is only debate among 3 people over what the primary topic is. Everyone else seems to be able to comprehend the statistics without any problem. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have a non-heavy metal fan oppose this move? --Ambrosiaster (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Only two options are debated here: (1) Positive/pro band, or (2) Neutral/ pro disambiguation. No one is suggesting that 'Dio' should point to Cassius Dio or any other non-band page. (Perhaps to my shame? I had never heard of either the band or the Roman before this discussion started!) So, my position (and I think that of the other 'supporters') is not pro Classicism or anything else — It's neutral. --Kleinzach 00:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the vagueness of my comment. I was commenting on the fact that Wiki libs is part of Project Motorhead, and therefore a heavy metal fan. And, yes, I would agree that the 'supporters' appear neutral, whilst the 'opposers' (a majority) are biased toward heavy metal. However, even some heavy metal fans (such as J04n) have supported the move. --Ambrosiaster (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thou shalt not stereotype. I am a bigger fan of Rossini than I am of any heavy metal artist. And I pad my engineering professor/librarian salary by playing guitar in local jazz clubs. It has nothing to do with the subject and everything to do with the numbers. Plain and simple. The numbers clearly show that readers come to Wikipedia looking for info related to this band or its miniature prime member. If readers are typing in Dio expecting something else... sorry... the numbers just don't show that. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, let's see the big picture here. This debate is important because it concerns articles right the way through Wikipedia, even if bands exemplify the problem because they (often) derive their names from people and things that are already notable. Actually, I'm wondering whether we should open it up by making it an WP:Rfc, especially as it seems to be 50:50 here. Any thoughts about this? --Kleinzach 01:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wiki libs, I concede. I shouldn't have mentioned it. However, I was only making an observation, which (though it may be coincidental) seems to bear some truth. And yes, Kleinzachl. As it appears that we have 6.5 supporters and 6 opposers, perhaps you should. — Also, Wiki libs, it should be noted that popular culture articles will always trump the classical articles in terms of hits. However, it is the classical articles that are more encyclopedic, as an article like Dio (band) appears in no other encyclopedia save Wikipedia. Thus, a redirect to disambiguation seems the fairest solution. In brief, read the discussion above for further examples (such as the St Ambrose example). --Ambrosiaster (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. The Google test is misleading here and is being misused. Although Wikipedia is to some degree a "more informative Google," it is also an encyclopedia of knowledge. Maybe the band clobbers the author on Google, but the author utterly clobbers the band by some other tests--for example, go into the world's greatest libraries (or their catalogs) and find all the materials on "Dio." You've got a mountain of books on the ancient author. For these kinds of Google-duels, it is always instructive to compare Google Book search, where the band can't compete. My point here is to acknowledge the evidence on both sides, by both standards. Since the evidence is at least as overwhelmingly on the author's side by some relevant tests as it is on the band's side by others, the author is just too notable for the disambiguation page to be entirely bypassed via the link Dio. Wareh (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2009 (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.

[edit]

I think some discussion of their logo is warranted. I believe their logo is noteworthy because when rotated 180° (i.e., when viewed upside down) it spells "DEVIL". Would be good to put the logo up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenehey (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The logo (and the inversion of it) is discussed in the opening paragraph. I see no reason why you couldn't put the logo into the article, the logo for Kiss is in their article. J04n(talk page) 22:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

Band Picture is lost, please do something whit this" WillyTheHurricane (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The images that were uploaded for the page were stolen images that were not taken by the uploader. Only images that the user has taken themselves can be uploaded. If a user is caught (and they always are) uploading images they have stolen from the net or scanned from books/magazines... they are permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dio (Band) - disambiguation page[edit]

I was reading the discussion on the Dio being main page vs. a disambiguation page. The Dio (Band) side won, ok. However, it won by too much; the disambiguation page now starts with Cassius Dio, and Dio (Band) is number 16 or 17 on the list, while still being, by very very far, the one that people are most looking for.

The alphabetical order ("Ancient history" vs. "Music") is not a valid argument, because there's "Places" and "People" in the middle.

So, it seems this is simple prejudice - "ancient history" being more "important" than "Music".

The disambiguation page is, in this case, already against the normal rules, so it certainly should have first what comes first in terms of searches - Dio (Band) and Ronnie James Dio. Nunoni (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:DioDreamEvil.jpg[edit]

The image File:DioDreamEvil.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Power Metal[edit]

I'm pretty sure Dio was power metal with his epic/positive/uplifting songs such as Mystery, Sacred Heart, I Could Have Been A Dreamer, Dream Evil, All the Fools Sailed Away, ect. with their keyboards and fantasy/medieval themes. American power metal at least. The speed was there in some songs. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.229.64.148 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources that indicate this?--SabreBD (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well Encyclopedia Metallum says Dio is Power Metal. I don't know exactly how reliable that is. 174.229.64.148 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not very reliable. Anyway, it's been removed. Dio has some elements found in power metal, but not enough to be considered power metal. They'd be proto-power, if that's even a thing. 80.203.56.165 (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dio is not power metal. Dio is traditional metal, influenced by the New Wave of British Heavy Metal, and predates the emergence of power metal as a separate sub-genre by a decade or so. The roots of power metal were starting to emerge late in Dio's classic period, but Dio was not one of the bands participating in that movement. 72.21.198.64 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ /

Band members[edit]

In the lists of "Personnel" on band pages, I very much prefer just seeing the members listed in chronological order. It makes it a lot easier to read and understand, especially as opposed to grouping them by instrument, which doesn't make any sense to me. However, I've noticed that every time I set it up this way, someone invariably changes it. What are some others' thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnakeRambo (talk • contribs) 06:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

20 million records when they only have 3 platinum records and a gold record[edit]

That’s 3.5 million. If you add world sales, it couldn’t be more than 10 million and likely isn’t more than 5 million. This was a minor band. I suspect a manager made this edit to sell them to festivals when people who hire bands glance at wiki to determine the value of a band. Is not encyclopedic, is fraud, or a mistake at best 2600:1012:B1CC:D9A4:6167:9116:F2F2:34B4 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dio_(band)&oldid=1206977867"