Jump to content

Talk:Dio (band)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 22:31, 13 April 2009 (Signing comment by Lenehey - ""). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Overhaul

I did a moderate to major restructure of the page, adding subdivisions in the history, and moving some random info in the middle to a "popular culture" section at the end. Also added a couple more refs. It still needs quite a bit more work, in terms of structure, information and refs, but there is a framework now. Hopefully someone who is a lttle more familiar with the band will come and help clean up after me. H2ostra (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added references and removed items that I couldn't verify, also removed "needs references" tag. J04n (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kick start

This page needs some urgent help. There are no cites! I've started doing a clean-up. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little cleanup at the beginning of the bio. put a piece about Jake lee under chronology, because it seemed to fit there better, and added a supporting refference. I'll do some more later.

H2ostra (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Picture needed

Is it acceptable to use a promotional picture of the band from RJD's official website? The picture appears on a "media" section of the website so I believe it is ok. J04n (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I added the picture, if it was improper I'm sure it will be removed. J04n (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dio vs Dio

I was just re-reading this article and noticed that the word "Dio" in some instanes refers to the band and others refers to the person. For folks who aren't familiar with the subject this may be confusing, does anyone agree? Also under "Cutural references", I believe the South Park section is appropriate here BUT the Tenacious D part sounds like it shoud be on the "Ronnie James Dio" page (although I must admit that I never saw the movie, did the person or the band appear?). J04n (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed several uses of Dio to Ronnie James Dio and removed the paragraph about Tenacious D which is described on the Ronnie James Dio Page. J04n (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power Metal

So is Dio power metal or not. His music is classic metal that is about dungeons and dragons, and I've seen him been called power metal before. I don't know if he really fits the label or not. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I remember there was a consensus that he wasn't power metal. Maybe if you have a source.

RandySavageFTW (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I can think of is on the second disc of the movie Metal: A Headbanger's Journey that has lists of genres that bands are labeled under and Dio is under power metal. I don't think this is a very reliable source though because Judas Priest is under power metal and they are not power metal. Look the movie up on Wikipedia. 68.102.235.239 (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hard rock because on the holy diver compact disc edition it says "for some of the finest moments in hard rock history;..." so I have reason to believe it is hard rock

SaiyanEmperor2008 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dio or Dio (band)

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

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

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.
  • 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]
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]
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.

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dio_(band)&oldid=283662065"