Talk:Mick Thomson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Mick Thomson:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : Clean entire article
  • Copyedit : Copyedit entire article
  • Expand : Expand all sections
  • Verify : Verify and add references

his nickname[edit]

shouldnt it be notified that his nickname is ironface? Slipknot6477 (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That, and his name is spelled Mic Thomson, not Mick. Jn motto (talk) 15:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

  • According to their Offical Myspace, its 'Mick'. 'Mic' the vernacular of a device used to pick up sound. 'Mick' is the familiar form of 'Mickael' --Sdamon (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

death metal?[edit]

why is death metal in the genre? slipknot aren't death metal. he was in a death metal band called body pit but that was only for a very short amount of time so i'm not shore in its notable (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2008 (UTCmick thomson is 7 outta 9 slipknotz

His name is Mick with a "k", Mickael Gorden Thomson, get it staright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


Since when does Mick Thomson play groove metal?=={667}== (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Signature forks and food cutlery?[edit]

Did someone think it'd be funny to write he has his own silverware? -Mason —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahaha that is quite funny actually. I undid the vandalism though. REZTER TALK ø 19:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

info on guitars necessary?[edit]

Does anyone else think all that extra information on his guitars is totally excessive and unnecessary for an encyclopedia article? This kind of information is off-topic and more suited to an article on guitars. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TOPIC, recommend shortening section to just a brief summary and moving content to the talk page as it probably won't satisfy notability guidelines to split it into its own article. OlEnglish (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hes a guitarist so yes its relavent —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

is he a leftie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Heaviest member?[edit]

This isn't sourced and seems unlikely. Clown is most likely the heaviest member followed by Mick and Paul. If this actually true, could we source it? - Xanthic-Ztk —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, he certainly is the most beefy one, but I wouldn't say "heaviest," like, fat. Because he is so big and scary, he actually reminds me of my older sister, who is really muscular and scary. lmao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose split out section on Guitars to its own separate list[edit]

There's been no reply to my original proposal above so I'll try this again. This info, though useful, is not directly related to Mick Thomson and doesn't belong in a bio, but rather more suited to an article on guitars. Let's either trim it, move it to the talk page, or split it into its own separate article. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 18:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well how about we get some sources going first? None of that information is verifiable. REZTER TALK ø 18:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with splitting this section into its own article. A guitarist equipment does belong in his article (see Wikipedia:GUITAR#Article_body). Trimming it is not really necessary either in my opinion, however some refrences would be nice.... Roger Workman (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
You don't think the article is disproportioned? The bulk of the article is detail about guitars. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 21:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Just came across something.. as seen in WP:GVF the standards of both good and featured articles mention, "staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail". This doesn't necessarily conflict with Wikipedia:GUITAR#Article_body either. The main topic is Mick Thompson and his equipment section is important to the article but in my view has too much unnecessary detail. So if I were to review this article for GA status, I'd still say trim it. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 01:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Personally i dont think it would be disproportioned of the actual biography was expanded with more information about his role in the band, his personal life etc... Anyway i played around with some collums to reduce the lenght of the equipment section a bit. However a seperate article for his guitar doenst (in my opinion) have the notability to be split into its own article.Roger Workman (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, seems we don't have consensus on the issue. You can remove the merge tag if you want. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 19:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to to pick up the stick again but the unnecessary detail in the Equipment section is still bothering me for some reason.. must be my strong immediatist tendencies :) I just wanted to take advantage of WP:Third opinion before I let this rest.

I agree that a split into a separate article probably wouldn't meet notability requirements (however I see there's a separate article on Ibanez MTM) so until the article is expanded with more biographical information I propose that the section be trimmed by (temporarily) moving the "crufty" detail to the talk page. But I'd like a third opinion first. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 20:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

From where I'm standing, trimming the equipment section would be the best choice, as most of it feels trivial to someone (like me) who just wants to know why Mick Thomson is notable, i.e. he's a member of Slipknot. Listing every variation on the guitars and other equipment he uses on stage doesn't seem noteworthy, except to the hard core fans, few of whom are likely to be reading this article to learn new things about him. In short, I agree with OlEnglish, the equipment section needs to be trimmed, and that's my third opinion. --Trekkie4christ (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 22:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fender links expunged[edit]

In the section concerning his amps, the links pointed to Fender_Amplifiers. This is confusing to me because there is no relevant link between Rivera Amplification and any division of Fender. Seeing as there is no article about Rivera Amplification of Paul Rivera, I removed the links, leaving them as plain text. the search feature of Wikipedia is being awful right now, so I can't even search for a relevant page. If there is an article on the company somewhere, please link it in. --Sdamon (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Why African-American?[edit]

Any source on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, nothing in this article is sourced. And there is no claim of notability independent of the band (as required by WP:MUSIC). Pretty soon, this one's going to have to go, if sources and notability aren't added... - SummerPhD (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though lots of editors share the opinion that he is African American. Any source on this yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:08, 10 February 2011 - SummerPhD (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, we need reliable sources on this guy independent of the band or it needs to go all together. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the rewrite tag, tone tag, and the original research tag due to this dispute over his nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puggnoxious (talkcontribs) 06:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding a "cite needed" tag to the nationality would address that. Rewrite, tone and original research have nothing to do with that. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

SummerPhD is corect, there are no good sources on this guy independant of the group. He needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

SummerPhD is absolutely correct here. The entire page needs to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puggnoxious (talkcontribs) 15:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What should be done pertaining to the largely unsourced article, mostly not independant from the band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, this article is protected from editing as three of the editors commenting here apparently one-and-the-same]. As such, it is no surprise that Puggnoxious, and agree that the article should read "African American" without a source, need numerous tags having nothing to do with the content in question and/or should be deleted. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

The article: clearly has Mick Thomson listed as african american. I don't think we can really argue with this point anymore. I feel this subject has been exhausted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puggnoxious (talkcontribs) 19:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Puggnoxious has again been blocked for making the same edit to this article. I have just restored the automatic signature removed by one of the previously blocked IP socks. In addition to not being a reliable source, Cracked does not say he is African American. Give it a rest. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

[1] Clearly, not african-american. Jasper420 17:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but an opinion based on a photo is not a reliable source. As we still have no sources either way, we still have nothing to say. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why merely American, yet not African-American?[edit]

Any source on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article keep being changed to merely American? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see the topic immediately above this one... - SummerPhD (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Tags are needed[edit]

This article needs to be sourced, needs to be rewritten, needs to have the equipment section trimmed, among other issues. Please do not remove the tags unless these items are fixed within the article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puggnoxious (talkcontribs) 21:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Puggnoxious has been banned for disruptive editing and sock puppetry. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


"Mick mangina"? are you kidding me? Who put that there? RadiumMetal (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We need to add more to this page[edit]

It has been proposed that this page be merged into the mainpage. Seriously, is this all there is on mick thomson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, basically Mick isn't important enough on his own to merit an entire page about him. There used to be tons of useless rubbish and debris on this page, that were almost completely unsourced and in some cases just flat out incorrect. I tried to add tags to the page to try to get the issues dealt with, and for the most part, it was successful. But now that we have peeled away the fluff that was once on this page, it unfortunately becomes all to clear: the page needs to be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugggnoxious (talkcontribs) 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPHDisafrican (talkcontribs)
There is an on-going discussion about a merge. The problem is not just info about Thomson. To be notable, we need substantial coverage of Thomson's work independent of the band. As WP:BAND puts it, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)