Jump to content

Talk:Sunn O)))

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.95.111.89 (talk) at 21:37, 16 May 2013 (Requested move). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I have linked the albums only once in each section they appeared; please don't revert. See MOS:Repeated Links.

--200.52.175.129 (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool; thank you for your contribution. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 04:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SUNN Seattle2008.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SUNN Seattle2008.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SUNN Seattle2008.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not post-rock?

Their guitar seems to be mainly for texture and not rhythm so should this be labeled as post-rock?

Not necessarily per se. There would need to be some type of reliable source stating that Sunn O))) is post rock. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 00:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Sunn O)))Sunn (band) – To be moved as per MOS:TM, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one"; "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love")." Sunn O))) is pronounced simply "sun" - the O))) is a typographical representation of the sun; an unpronounced purely decorative special character, and in fact an abstract image. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion above to this section to avoid redundancy

I moved this page to Sunn (band) and it's now been moved back to Sunn O))). The "O)))" in the band's name is most certainly decorative. It is not pronounced. The band's name is pronounced simply "Sun", not "Sun O". The "O)))" character is derived from the logo on the Sunn line of amps, it represents the sun; it would be like having a band called "Star ★". Please move the page back, this is a clear case of MOS:TM - "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced [or] are included purely for decoration". Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back originally as there didn't seem to be any consensus for moving it in the first place. However, I'd argue that the pronunciation is irrelevant: whenever the band refers to themselves, it's as "Sunn O)))". This is often typed and not just part of their logo (see this for example, from their record label): it's the band's actual name. For examples from other bands, see Motörhead. The umlaut does not affect the pronunciation, but it's still included (which can also be said of Queensrÿche, Blue Öyster Cult, and Mötley Crüe). I'd certainly agree with you if it was just included as part of the band's logo, but it is always written as "Sunn O)))", and according to WP:COMMONNAME, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." In this case, the common name is "Sunn O)))", not "Sunn". I'd finally suggest that we ignore the rule about special characters (which I think is aimed more at unusual characters like ★) so that we represent that band's actual name. — Richard BB 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the distinction you're making between common special characters like ★ and unique ones created with ordinary characters like O))) is arbitrary. A band called Star ★ who always wrote their name with the star character would just be called Star on Wikipedia. Imagine a band called Huzzah \o/, who always wrote their name with the \o/, would you suggest the inclusion of that special character in the article title? Or say, a band called {-=#*^+<WHATEVER>+^*#=-}, would we render it that way? Definitely not. I suppose I'm making a slippery slope argument. The way that Sunn O))) write their name is irrelevant to Wiki (if it weren't then we'd have thousands of articles in all caps or no caps and with all sorts of vanity stylizations, $ instead of s and ! instead of i and things like that). Our mandate is to select from all the styles currently in use, and to pick the one that most closely resembles normal English. That style is Sunn. Remember that the band has been credited simply as O))), without the word "sunn", on several occasions too, which would simply be pronounced "sun". As I've said, I think the distinction you've made between unpronounced special characters (★, ♠, ) and unpronounced special characters created by combining ordinary characters (O))), ;), \o/) is arbitrary. So the questions that remain are: 1) why does this band deserve an exception when it comes to vanity graphical stylizations appearing in article titles; and 2) which style most closely resembles normal English. Imo, the answers are: 1) they don't; and 2) Sunn (see here, here, here and here, for instance). Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not irrelevant. I have three examples above of bands who use the umlaut despite the fact it's a stylistic choice, and there ARE articles where "$" is used instead of "S" ($h*! My Dad Says, for example, also replaces a "t" with an "!"; or how about the Simpsons episode, $pringfield (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling)?). How about bands that include unnecessary punctuation in their name, like The Girls!, The Ergs!, Panic! At the Disco, or Godspeed You! Black Emperor? Or even include other special characters like Ha*Ash, or ellipsis like The Academy Is...? And we do have articles in all caps, some caps, or no caps (e (mathematical constant), troff, djbdns co-NP, iPad, ABCDEFG (album), WYSIWYG, WYSIWYG (album), and ABBA). The band clearly isn't an exception. Also, out of the links you provided, the second one clearly uses the "O)))" name, and the third is from the same website. Although there are some publications out there which eschew the "O)))" (probably for technical reasons), the vast majority of the time it is written with the "O)))". — Richard BB 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, how the band chooses to stylize their own name is irrelevant. Which is why Eminem is not EMINƎM, and which is why RZA, GZA and The LOX were recently moved to Rza, Gza and The Lox, because these are the styles in use that most closely resemble normal English. Yes, there are articles with "unnecessary" punctuation, but that is also irrelevant, since this is not a debate about punctuation, but about unpronounced special characters. Several of the all-caps examples you gave are initialisms that fully deserve to be capitalised, since each letter is prounounced as a letter. I would advocate Abba over ABBA, even though it's an acronym, but this is actually all completely irrelevant - you're focusing on an aside about vanity stylizations I put in parentheses. You are suggesting that the band deserves to be an exception to the guidelines. You can't base an argument for allowing an exception to the guidelines by pointing to the existence of other exceptions, you have to justify it on its own terms, otherwise literally anything would be allowed on the basis that there had been prior exceptions. The second link uses SUNN in the article title and Sunn0))) in the body (another aside: on what basis do you propose we opt for O))) over 0))) when rendering the unpronounced typographical image of the sun?). These are the guidelines: 1) we must choose from among all the existing styles and not invent new ones, 2) we must choose the style that most closely resembles normal English. That style is Sunn, without the little picture of the sun beside it. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, O))) is not even remotely close to standard English so it should not be used for the title.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]