Talk:Slipknot (band)/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about Slipknot (band). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

My recent genre change (-groove metal)

The reason I have removed groove metal from the infobox and style section is that the sources given had no support to groove metal. All Hope is Gone being groove metal was just a generally agreed-upon thing that was personal opinion of random editors. And that's not how WP works. Even on the album's own page its accuracy was challenged, and there were only a few individual songs from the album that had support, and that's not enough. I hope my action is understood. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Slipknot (band). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge from Tattered and Torn

I don't think Tattered and Torn passes WP:NCOMPANY, but it probably can be mentioned here. I suggest a merge and redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2016

This edit request to Slipknot (band) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

108.56.153.153 (talk) 02:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC) The sentence "While working in the studio, Slipknot continued prforming at local shows,;" is not spelled correctly.

Done Datbubblegumdoe^{[talk – contribs]} 04:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

"SlipKnot"

The usage and primary topic of SlipKnot is under discussion, see Talk:SlipKnot (web browser) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 April 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Slipknot (band) not moved. Slipknot moved to Slipknot (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Because this close is incomplete - what goes at Slipknot once these moves are completed is not stated - I declined the speedy deletion of Slipknot (disambiguation) and have asked the closer for clarification. Fences&Windows 10:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Done Fences&Windows 11:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Slipknot (band) → Slipknot
Slipknot → Slipknot (disambiguation)

– Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Slipknot" with no spaces. The article currently at slip knot will not be moved. I understand that the band is named after the knot, but nobody would confuse "Slipknot" the band and "slip knot" the knot. You know the current approach is not working when the disambiguation page receives more views than the article about the knot. SSTflyer 14:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose primarytopic grab for an obscure band, when the generic slip knot seems more likely and there are plenty of other ambiguities. Dicklyon (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Obscure"? No, sir, this band is extremely successful and one of the biggest names in nu metal. One multi-platinum and three platinum albums in the United States, and many more in other countries. Just saying, not obscure. dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 16:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

"Obscure" is subjective, I admit. I've never heard of nu metal, either, so I'm not one to judge its biggest names. Dicklyon (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by usage and significance - although it's closer on usage than you might think. Not because of the knot article, which gets tiny relative viewership, but because of the comics character, which gets about 1/3 of pageviews for "slipknot/slip knot" articles. That leaves around 56% for the band article. Which by itself would be a borderline primarytopic by usage. When when you add in the album article, you get around 2/3 usage for band-related articles. Further, this is a Grammy-winning group with double-digit nominations and several well received albums. That's enough for a primarytopic - especially given the relatively high percentage of views of the dab page. We can fix this and get more of our readers where they want to go quicker. Dohn joe (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note that the high number of views of the comics book character is due to a number of spikes in page views. The band usually has higher page views than the comics book character on a given day.
Oppose. A slipknot is a sort of knot, as anyone who handles ropes knows. The band and its music is as likely to be as ephemeral as most pop music is. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I blame the readers myself. Why are they so interested in ephemeral things, anyway? Gulangyu (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per this page diagram on how to tie a slipknot and many similar. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose the knot is the primary topic, and is also spelled with and without spaces -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Support. Of the 26 results that appear on the first page of DuckDuckGo, only one is not related to the band. Gulangyu (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment from nominator – if Slip knot is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Slipknot", Slipknot should be moved to Slipknot (disambiguation), with Slipknot redirecting to Slip knot. SSTflyer 10:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Support. It looks like the primary topic, and the comic character is likely spiked because he's making a film appearance soon. Nohomersryan (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Second half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC anyone? Sorry but on the readings of one half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, pageviews only, why do we have the second half of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at all? Why not replace all base-name/real name subjects with bands named after them? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, 10 Grammy nominations and one Grammy award - over 15 years - means that the band does have long-term significance. Dohn joe (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

IIO, I'm bored of your "I don't like it" attitude and other nonsense. Slipknot are one of the 4 or 5 most famous metal bands on the planet - and this is coming from someone who's never listened to a single one of their songs. Unreal7 (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Support Sorry In ictu oculi, I have to disagree here, this band is super famous and highly notable and even has long term significance to rival the knot itself. The pageview statistics do indicate an overwhelming usage toward the band. Note that I grew up on a sailboat, am a serious knot connoisseur, and am not a metal fan, so I definitely have no inherent bias here. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Support - I'd never even heard of a slip knot until I saw the diasmbiguation page. Unreal7 (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose move of band, support move of dab page, make Slipknot redirect to Slip knot. Clear primary topic by long term significance for the knot here. This is an Apple / Apple Inc. scenario if ever I saw one. — Amakuru (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't compare this to Apple/Apple Inc. Firstly, the magnitude of difference in page views between the fruit and the company is less than that between the knot and the band. Secondly, comparing one of the most common fruits in the world to a likely WP:PERMASTUB topic seems like too much of a stretch. SSTflyer 12:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also, Apple has more Wikipedia language versions than Apple Inc., but Slipknot (band) has more Wikipedia language versions than Slip knot. SSTflyer 05:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  Long term significance doesn't require it to be as commonplace as an apple fruit, merely that it be the major long term subject of the name in question. For slipknot, this knot is what they were talking about 200 years ago, and likely the knot will still be around in 200 years from now, when people will have probably forgotten the band. — Amakuru (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. "Slip knot" is the same as "slipknot". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose move of the band, but move the disambiguation article and redirect Slipknot to Slip knot. Obviously the knot is the primary topic, spelt with or without a space. Ignorant music fanboys not realising the band named themselves after a knot used for hanging people is not a reason to make the band the primary topic, however well-known they may be! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just because something is named after another thing does not mean that it must be less significant than the thing it is named after. SSTflyer 05:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  - And I didn't say it did. I said the knot was the primary topic. The second comment was related to the fact that several people here bizarrely don't seem to have heard of the knot that the band was named after! Not having heard of something does not make it less significant! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Support - Usage of the name in relation to the band is far more well-known, and numerically more significant, than its relation to the knot. Plus, there hasn't really been any evidence presented, by those opposed to the move, that the use of the name in relation to the knot is actually the primary topic (besides simply repeating the statement ad infinitum). --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- So where's your evidence that "Usage of the name in relation to the band is far more well-known"? To heavy metal fans maybe (although I should imagine even many of them know what a slipknot is!). To the rest of us, almost certainly not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The band is hardly obscure, but neither is the web browser; Both are of great interest in their respective areas. But the knot is of far more enduring significance than the band, to the point a case might even be made for it being the primary topic, and the claims regarding usage are debatable, see User:Andrewa/The Problem With Page Views. Best to keep the DAB right where it is. Andrewa (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The knot will forever be more important than the band. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agree... and in order to justify the proposed move, we'd need to establish that the band has a better claim to the undisambiguated name than all other meanings, taken together. It's just not on. Andrewa (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment - the knot almost never receives more than 200 views a day. That doesn't sound to me like it's anywhere near as sought-after as the band. Saying that Slipknot should redirect to the knot is a bit like saying Fall Out Boy should redirect to a list of minor Simpsons characters. Unreal7 (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Support per InsertCleverPhraseHere. Let's face it, our readers don't care about knots, as the pageviews indicate. While we do give certain weight to long-term significance, the knot is not an inspiringly significant item either, and the band is one of world's most famous. No such user (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Besides there seemingly being no clear consensus right now, there is currently a ongoing move request discussion at Talk:SlipKnot (web browser) that could potentially have an indirect effect on clarifying this discussion's consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in order to serve the readers per data and arguments provided above. The fact that slipknot is an alternative spelling for slip knot is irrelevant to the question of which use is the primary topic. Historical significance between a knot with an article nobody cares about (per views) and band I never heard of but has a grammy is a wash. Usage is clear, per Dohn Joe. --В²C ☎ 01:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose move of band, support move of DAB page, redir Slipknot to Slip knot: It is not true at all that no one will confuse the one with the other, because English is greatly increasing the degree to which it is fully compounding multi-word terms. This has been going on for over a century, and it has really ramped up in the last decade and a half. The primary topic is clearly the knot, of which orders of magnitude more people are aware (even if they can't tie one) than are aware of the band (yes they are a major band, but so is Biohazard (band), also in metal. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 07:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.