Talk:Fall of Berlin

2005

Surely there is somewhere else this can be merged into. Kelly Martin 04:57, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I would say Battle of Berlin. mhunter 05:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert of page move to (disambiguation)

I have reverted the move from Fall of Berlin to Fall of Berlin (disambiguation) under the provisions of WP:RM#Undiscussed moves. See the text there: "Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves.

Actually, I reverted your bold change and you have redone it, exactly the sort of thing hat is discouraged. I only created the dab page so that only one hat note had to go on the Battle of Berlin page instead of two, which seemed to be your major concern here. SpinningSpark 21:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You did not revert my change to the page, you moved a page. If you had simply reverted my change, then I would have opened up a discussion on the talk page and discussed it. I reverted the move, per the directions at WP:RM, and then started a discussion on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

user:Spinningspark , there is no reason for this page to redirect to the article Battle of Berlin. I user my alternative account user:PBS-AWB to link all the article which used this as a redirect to link directly to Battle of Berlin or one of the other articles listed as possible disambiguation links on the 29 August 2015. There was in total less than a score of article links, so I see no advantage in this page being a redirect to the Battle of Berlin and keeping it as a redirect removes the need for a head at the top of the Battle of Berlin article. -- PBS (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's where I'm coming from; anyone putting fall of Berlin into the search box is almost certainly looking for the article about the WW2 battle, and not an obscure Soviet era propaganda film. Battle of Berlin is the overwhelmingly primary meaning, so that is where they should be taken. There is nothing wrong with disambiguation by hatnote, that is a perfectly normal way of dealing with it in these circumstances. SpinningSpark 21:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It is unnecessary clutter at the start of the article, for what is a small minority of links (before I ran AWB there was less than a score). There are well over 1,000 links for Battle of Berlin. There are about 30 links for "battle for Berlin", but as yet there no need for a hat for "Battle for Berlin" because there is no other alternatives to the main article. If we were to follow your logic, we could end up with dozens of hat links in many articles where there are alternative names with more than one meaning. If "fall of Berlin" was a common name for the battle then there would be some justification for the hatnote (as there is for example with Boer War), but when the number of links is less than 2%, I see no purpose in cluttering up the lead of an article, when a dab page can serve the same purpose. -- PBS (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, 20-odd incoming links (as there were before you removed them) is evidence that it is a likely search term for this subject. Would you be agreeable to settling this with a third opinion? SpinningSpark 13:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be a problem now that it is a dab page and besides there are over 100 links to The Fall of Berlin (film) and the other has four so the evidence is that as far as internal links are concerned even before my AWB changes the film was the more likely search. If one searches externally using Google then the first page returned is the "Battle of Berlin". -- PBS (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)