Talk:Tech N9ne/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Tech Nine → Tech N9ne – per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:TM (read the lede about choosing a style)—there do not appear to be sufficient reliable sources that use “Tech Nine”, so neither should we; but the majority of reliable sources do use “Tech N9ne”. To reiterate: “Tech Nine” does not seem to be in use by sources, so we should not use it. Frungi (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose vanity styling per MOS:TM. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To clarify - I see Frungi's point about the lead, but MOS:TM also states that we should "avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words". "Tech N9ne" uses "9" as a special character, it is not pronounced, it is there for decoration only, and it is a substitute for the letter "i". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

So we should invent a style based on how we think it should be written? The styled name frankly doesn’t sit right with me, but this doesn’t seem right, either. —Frungi (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing's ideal in these situations. The problem with indulging vanity styling is it goes against the spirit of MOS:TM in that it draws "undue attention to some subjects rather than others". --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:TM and every word I wrote re: Deadmau5. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support - This is the same exact case as Deadmau5, it is a number in a name and it was moved to a title NO RELIABLE SOURCES or sources at all call the subject. This is a pretty ridiculous and confusing title, and if more N9ne fanboys were on Wikipedia like deadmau the RM would not have passed in the first place. Someone typing in [{Tech Nine]] would more likely look for TEC-9. WP:COMMONNAME is all you have to refer to. Need I go on, 526 hits on Rolling Stone searching Tech Nine gets nothing related to the rapper. Google news search, 649 Tech N9ne... again same case for the opposite. Googling Tech Nine redirects your result to Tech N9ne, why would we do the opposite? Tech N9ne is the clear policy backed title. This artist has never been referred to as "Tech Nine" in any since reliable source in the article or online ANYWHERE so that should not be the title of the article. Why would we make up and use a name no reliable sources use? Again MOSTM is a guideline not a policy and there is and WILL be exceptions to it, this is one. STATic message me! 15:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you ought change your vote (as you said you would change) at Talk:Sunn O)))#Requested move 2, since I've made some points. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Further replies moved to #Discussion by Frungi (talk)

• Support Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• weak support as I'm unfamiliar with this artist. In the deadmau5 case, COMMONNAME was very clearly in favour of the form with the numerics and there were overwhelming sources to support this. The naming choice came down to which of two applicable, but contradictory, policies had the greatest claim. In that case, sourcing clearly showed that COMMONNAME should be chosen in preference to MOS:TM. In particular, notions that we should exclude stage names in some dogmatic bonfire of the vanities makes no sense for as long as we have Lady Gaga and Madonna.

I'm unfamiliar with the usage in this case and the strength of sourcing. However if it's anything like what we had for deadmau5, then the same choice would be appropriate, i.e. Tech N9ne, per COMMONNAME. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, and because the MOS various people keep pushing is disputed, it isn't policy, it is unclear, and is, frankly, outdated. Tech Nine and Tech N9ne are not even the same; Tech N!ne or Tech N1ne could be argued to be the same. User:STATicVerseatide hits the nail on the head, for me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Tech Nine and Tech N9ne are not even the same; Tech N!ne or Tech N1ne could be argued to be the same." - What? Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I was looking at things from your "letters only" viewpoint. 9 and i are simply inconceivable to interchange, whilst !, 1, and i it would be possible to interchange. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The '9' is pronounced as an 'i', so it's obviously not inconceivable. I've never heard his name mispronounced either (unlike Sunn O))) and Deadmau5), so the decorative character substitution can't be that counterintuitive. Maybe the closed circular part of the numeral is meant to approximate the dot over the 'i'? Tech Nin9 would appear to be the more obvious substitution choice, but who am I to say. It's really beside the point; whether the letter is replaced by a !, a 1, or a 9, these characters are equally unpronounced and decorative. Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, unless someone can demonstrate that the name "Tech Nine" is used more commonly than "Tech N9ne" in reliable sources. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  Not even more commonly—at all commonly. Sources just don't use it. —Frungi (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support His name has always been Tech N9ne and a search of Tech Nine on any website would turn up nothing. Koala15 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support I am simply getting to old never heard of this guy ..... so support after a simple look at some music reliable sources Billboard Bio - Rolling Stone article - Vibe magazine article - XXL magazine article. Clearly the name to use as per policies - WP:COMMONNAME and WP:VERIFIABILITY. Lets not mislead our confuse our readers please - let try and see things from the readers POV - who have no clue that we have a guide on stylization (need this guide to be updated to match our policies on this matter) .Moxy (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. As has been said, MoS isn't policy while WP:COMMONNAME is. — Richard BB 17:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose; WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to stylizations. Powers ^T 18:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

So instead we should just have it at an incorrect and confusing title? If someone is searching Tech Nine they would be looking for a TEC-9 gun. No one is gonna search Tech Nine looking for the rapper. We should just ignore that Exclaim!, Kansas City Star, Wyoming Tribune Eagle, USA Today, Argus Leader and Miami New Times among all the other sources above, all use Tech N9ne and none use this made up name of "Tech Nine". STATic message me! 19:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Stylizations are a matter of aesthetics, not accuracy, like the asterisk in "Macy*s". Powers ^T 21:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Show me precisely where in COMMONNAME it says that stylizations aren't part of it. That's right, it's not there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  It doesn't have to be explicit. If COMMONNAME included stylizations, we'd end up with article titles stylized differently in the title than in prose, because COMMONNAME only applies to titles. That's an absurd result, so obviously COMMONNAME cannot override MOS:TM. Powers ^T 15:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Do not base arguments around WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Macy*s is used just as much if not less then Macy's. While Tech N9ne is always used and Tech Nine is never used. STATic message me! 21:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Frequency doesn't matter, because this is not a COMMONNAME issue. Frequency of use also doesn't determine what is "correct", just what is "common". If an incorrect title were the most common, which would you be preferring? Powers ^T 15:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm really confused right now. Who's this "Aaron Yates" guy? I searched "Tech Nine" looking for "Todd Terry"?!?! Okay... that was sarcasm. However, it does raise another tiny issue with the current naming. Todd Terry has released work with the name "Tech Nine," whereas the artist in question has not. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Todd Terry's All Music bio: "Terry later resorted to dozens of aliases for dozens of club hits -- [...] Tech Nine's "Slam Jam,"...". – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Hahaha, yeah I had seen that too. So now there are two other much more plausible searches for Tech Nine rather than this rapper. It is very clear Tech N9ne is completely precise, completely easily recognizable and undeniably the best title according to WP:AT. STATic message me! 21:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Along with the gun and Todd Terry, "Tech Nine" also appears to be a fairly notable snowboard brand (saw them at Zumiez!). Yes, it can be argued that the brand name is actually "Technine", without the space, but if the article already needs a "distinguish" template to avoid confusion with TEC-9, how much more confusing would the difference of a single space be? "Tech N9ne" really ought to be the article title to avoid confusion, without COMMONNAME even coming into play. I always thought that Wiki policies override the MOS guidelines if there is a conflict, but what do I know ~Helicopter Llama~ 18:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support My god, that's what the artists call themselves, that's what we should be calling them! Our naming conventions should not interfere with the precision with which we present article subjects. I see the same foolish arguments people used at Deadmau5. Why are we even having these conversations? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Hopefully this gets moved back to it's proper title per Deadmau5. PantherLeapord (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
• Note – I opened a discussion at ANI regarding what to do about possible effects of canvassing upon this discussion; there was no consensus about any particular course of action, and the discussion was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive804#Canvassing regarding Talk:Tech Nine#Requested move 2. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose It is clearly a Style choice. Wikipedia should not follow other people's styles. Perhaps, like over in the Eminem article there should be a "often stylized as..." WP:DIACRITICS does not discourage alternatives. But using personal style choices are not a place for Wikipedia. -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it’s a style choice whether to spell it “Nine” or “N9ne”, but the issue is whether sources sufficiently support the “Nine” style. From my and others’ searching, they don’t seem to, so we’d be just about the only ones using it, which kinda seems a counterintuitive practice for a reference work. —Frungi (talk) 07:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Discussion moved from above by Frungi (talk)

• Comment. There is an important distinction between this case and Deadmau5, and that is that a major point of contention in the latter case was whether the numeral is sometimes pronounced (as in "dead mau five"), and, if so, whether that was a mispronunciation or an accepted alternative. The closing admin took this point into consideration. This point doesn't apply at all here; no one pronounces (or mispronounces) Tech N9ne as "tech n-nine-ne". The point is actually applicable to Sunn O))) though, because "sun o" and "sunno" are very widespread mispronunciations, thanks to the confusing decoration. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This was not the reason for the Deadmaus move. Deadmaus was moved because there was overwhelming local consensus for it, and because there were no reliable sources that used the name deadmaus. The third and final reason is because "it might not be a simple stylization issue". The closing admin did not mention the "dead mow five" pronunciation. And I don't think this is a simple stylization issue either. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You have quoted the closing admin stating that it "might not be a simple stylization issue". There is nothing this could be referring to other than the much-discussed possibility that the numeral is sometimes pronounced (because if it were a remark on the semantic arguments about 'spelling' and 'style', then the admin counterposing the example of "Ke$ha" would be a nonsequitur). This was cited as one of the two "most convincing arguments". It doesn't apply here. Though all the other arguments re: Deadmau5 can be applied here directly, I think. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There two pages are the best example for a change to MOS:TM. Again remember there will be exceptions and this is definitely one. Especially since there is no backed proof that the 9 is a i, so the argument for Deadmau5 does not work here. There is a difference between it being used half and half (Ke$ha, Se7en) and being used in EVERY SINGLE RELIABLE SOURCE AVAILABLE. NY Times, LA Times, as stated above and bellow Billboard, Rolling Stone all use Tech N9ne none use Tech Nine. STATic message me! 18:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean there's no proof that the '9' is an 'i'? His name is pronounced "tech nine", there's no ambiguity or uncertainty on that issue as there is (allegedly) with Deadmau5. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, fwiw, he's credited as Tech Nine on this new single on iTunes. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen a 9 and thought it looked like an "i". As for the other minor countries iTunes (a WP:SPS source) is a clear typo if I have ever seen one, even the cover of the single says "Tech N9ne". Again, we do not move pages based off typos just because it meets the outdated MOS. Find a newspaper or a reliable online source that calls him Tech N9ne and spot falling back on WP:SPS and user generated content. STATic message me! 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are you talking about countries all of a sudden? And, I'm sorry, iTunes is a self-puplished/unreliable source now? So, what exactly did you mean in the previous RM when you said "Still waiting on that reliable sources that cover him under any of those names. You have yet to provide any. That is not an official album by anyone. It is not available for purchase on retailers such as Amazon.com or iTunes."??? Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, whether you agree with Aaron Yates' decision to substitute the letter 'i' for the numeral '9' instead of the letter 'e' or whatever, could not be more irrelevant. Are you suggesting that the numeral does not stand in for an 'i'? That his stage name is not pronounced "tech nine"? I'm amazed that this is emerging as a point of contention. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes the artist/record label that posts it chooses how everything is named/listed and it is not even on the US iTunes, and either way that is not any bases for how we name him on Wikipedia. I still see no independently published reliable third party source calling him "Tech Nine". What makes you ignore the fact there is another artist actually named "Tech Nine" that would confuse readers by leading them here. I never said it was not pronounced Tech Nine, but that is clearly not his name based off countless sources from Rolling Stone, Billboard, NY Times, LA Times, USA Today and many other newspapers I cited. If actual newspapers replicate it as Tech N9ne that makes it his name not just a stylization. STATic message me! 22:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Your last statement is just arbitrary and wrong, imo. It's a stylisation that those newspapers opt to reproduce. The fact that they reproduce it doesn't change its nature as a stylisation. And I'm ignoring the fact(?) that Todd Terry is also known as "Tech Nine" because, a) there's no mention of that in that article, it's not listed under his AKAs, and b) even if he is, so what? That's what DABs are for. It's a non-argument, and I actually thought the user who brought it up was joking. Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There is the difference between a stylization and a official name that is always spelled the same way as proved in reliable sources. Per COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." That clearly Tech N9ne and every argument in Deadmau5 applies here (except pronunciation but that is irrelevant in the end). You are ignoring the fact that there are two more likely searches for Tech Nine being TEC-9 and the alias of that DJ, just because it is not in his article is irrelevant as Tech Nine is not used in a single source that builds this article. But if someone is searching for Tech N9ne 100% they will be looking for the rapper, and this is clearly the most natural, commonly used and recognizable name. He was joking as he thought this debate is ridiculous, the article should never have been moved in the first place. STATic message me! 01:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

1) The existence of another artist with the same name is absolutely irrelevant. That's what DABs are for. 2) Please provide a quote from WP:RS distinguishing between styling and naming. 3) I can't remember if you were very involved in the Deadmau5 discussion, but my central argument throughout was that "Deadmau5" and "Deadmaus" are the same name styled differently, because the numeral is just a stylised letter (logically no different from any of these symbols that might also stand in for an S: $ § Ƨ ݢ Ֆ), and that therefore COMMONNAME does not apply. My argument is the same in this case. Though, as I've conceded, this is essentially the same case, so the outcome seems like a foregone conclusion, and I'm not interested in going through the whole song and dance again. Wetdogmeat (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant? Definitely not when this article has two way more plausible redirect purposes then to be the title for a rapper that has never used the name to release his material. You seem to still not understand COMMONNAME or the importance of the name used in reliable sources (I am still not sure you even know what reliable sources are). Yeah I did not think you wanted to go through this again, thats why you should have held your conceding. STATic message me! 07:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

1) Yes, irrelevant. 2) I understand COMMONNAME. Do you understand that there are distinctions between concepts of styling, spelling and naming? Obviously not if you don't understand why "Tech N9ne" and "Tech Nine" might be considered the same name styled differently and therefore why COMMONNAME might not apply. 3) Where's my quote from WP:RS? It's easy to blather about "you don't understand this, you don't even know about that" when you have no intention of backing anything up. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• 1 is incorrect, Wetdogmeat; the fact that another band/artist exists using "Tech Nine", when this band is located at "Tech Nine" without ANY sources pointing to this, is clearly relevant. But then, you are very much a WP:IDHT editor, it seems. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no sources indicating that name in the Todd Terry article either, genius. And if he is in fact also known as "Tech Nine", and Aaron Yates is known as "Tech Nine" (Lukeno94 begs the question in 3, 2, 1...), then the appropriate course of action is disambiguating hatnotes in each article. That is how artists with the same name are handled. That is routine. There being another artist called "Tech Nine" is absolutely irrelevant when determining what this artist's name is. And back up that fucking vacuous allegation of disruptive editing or just stop making it. Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• You back it up every time you refuse to drop the stick, and trot out the same arguments that most people have refuted, being unable to see that they have been dismissed. Your implacable desire to confuse Wikipedia's readers with ridiculous titles is baffling in the extreme. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

1) The only user who has even attempted to seriously engage my argument has been Frungi. The fact that most users have ignored or failed to understand my argument does not amount to refutation (I'm also not the only one making this argument, it is also being made by LtPowers and Masem). So, again, back it up or shut up about it. Show me how stressing this point, which barely anyone has even bothered to attempt to refute, qualifies as WP:IDHT behaviour, that is, as disruptive editing, in the form of labouring a point long after consensus has been achieved. Firstly, I am not even editing the fucking article. And last I checked, this article was moved by consensus a few weeks ago, and is currently in the process of pursuing consensus again. So how is my position in this discussion 'disruptive' in any sense other than that you disagree with it and maybe find it frustrating that you're unable to refute it? Show me where I have pursued this point long after consensus has been achieved or stop making vacuous, bad faith, antagonising allegations. 2) Am I to take your silence on the issue of the relevance of Todd Terry's alleged stage name as a concession that you are wrong? Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Look below there is a source to AllMusic (definitely a reliable source) calling him that, and yet there are none in this article or available online in the slightest. All your points are wrong and completely irrelevant. At least with Deadmas there was a couple typos in reliable sources here and there, but here all reliable sources replicate his name as "Tech N9ne". There is no need for unnecessary hatnotes when we can just have it at the correct title, and be done with it. Watch your mouth too by the way, because your points are refuted every single time but you continue to have you WP:IDHT attitude. STATic message me! 18:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, a single released over twenty years ago. I'm sure there are millions of bewildered Todd "Tech Nine" Terry fans arriving at the Tech N9ne article every day. You (and most other editors) haven't even attempted to engage my argument, which is and has been that COMMONNAME does not apply to stylisations, and that stylisation is the only difference between "Tech Nine" and "Tech N9ne". So the claim that my points are refuted every time I make them is either a deliberate fabrication or entirely a product of your imagination. That said, of course the outcome of the Deadmau5 RM is likely to be repeated here, as the only non-pertinent argument is the uncertainty about the pronunciation. (LOL at "watch your mouth", hahahahaha.) Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's face it Wetdogmeat - you just don't like it, do you? And sarcasm really doesn't help. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My, we're all very touchy about sarcasm aren't we. I think I'm pretty courteous to other editors as long as they're not telling bald-faced lies or throwing unsubstantiated allegations at me. And my argument is based on MOS:TM and the inapplicability of WP:UCN, so while it is true that I "don't like it" (as I've said before, reproducing vanity stylisations does not befit an encyclopedia, imo), my argument is not reducible to that. However, I am not going through the whole song and dance of demonstrating that again, as the outcome of this RM seems to be a foregone conclusion. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder - you are the one who started all this. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Started what? Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The move discussions (i.e. this song and dance). 20:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So? I didn't move the articles myself, they were moved by consensus. The song and dance I'm referring to is the semantic argument around styling, spelling, naming, etc, and whether WP:UCN is even applicable to these cases. It's clear nobody gives a shit about it and would rather just assume that the policy does apply. And if it was ignored/misunderstood, with much hand-waving and question-begging, at Deadmau5, then it's very likely that it will be here again, as these are interchangeable cases in that regard. So the community has obviously spoken on that issue: we don't care what the specific wording of the COMMONNAME policy is, and we assume it applies to cases like Tech N9ne and Deadmau5. Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

These disruptive edits borderline vandalism edits come to mind. And no just the majority of Wikipedia editors have common sense in that the article title should be the name most natural, recognizable and more used in reliable sources. Noticing your comments above you need to remain more civil. STATic message me! 20:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I am civil to those who are civil to me. Making unsubstantiated allegations of disruptive/bad faith editing is not civil; I don't do it to others and others should not do it to me. And if I respond with sarcasm that's the least of what they should reasonably expect for such antagonistic behaviour. And that move was a mistake, it was not vandalism, as you are fully aware, but don't let that stop you making more unsubstantiated bad faith allegations. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, do you understand what question-begging is? Repeatedly appealing to WP:UCN when the applicability of that policy is what I am questioning is begging the question, or assuming what is to be proved. But, again, the community has expressed its overwhelming indifference to this line of argument (which is not, of course, tantamount to a refutation), so there's little point in rehashing it here. Wetdogmeat (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Why would we go out of our way to get it wrong is still beyond me. Really need editors to think of our readers over self preferences. Use redirects for wrong spelling - its why we invented them in the first place so we could avoid things of this nature. Simply put stop what people see as disruptive editing - stop moving long stable articles to made up titles...use redirectsMoxy (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The debate is deciding which is the "wrong" title. You believe the redirect should go one way, and other people believe it should go the other. Also, I'd add that it's far from a "made up" title, as it's not us that's named them this. — Richard BB 14:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Richard, you appear to have missed the fact that Moxy is agreeing with your viewpoint; Tech N9ne was the stable location for a long time. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not clear - Proper investigation should take place before a long stable article is moved because of a style preference. Not one source was even provided for the first move - only an internal style discussion - not what we should be doing. We use the title that is most common as per our founding principles and policies behind these. We dont simply ignore our founding principles and there policies because Wikipedia has a style guide that is being contested as we speak. Must always keep in mind that, in determining proper weight for anything, we consider its prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors. We are here to simply regurgitate/mimic what the majority of reliable sources say - thus we have invented redirects when Wikipedia was founded to help with non common spelling/style - Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. Us choosing a minority spelling should only take place when its about accessibility. If a letter/symbol/number can be type by the average person on there keyboard we have no reason to try and force a minority spelling/style. So for examples FcεRI has characters that cant be typed into the average keyboard without some effort and should be moved to a better title - where TRG@ characters are all very assessable to all keyboards. Moxy (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, apologies! I completely misinterpreted what you said. — Richard BB 18:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

And on top of that there are two articles that would be a much better target page than this one for the redirect. STATic message me!

Just hoping to mediate and dispel some of this hostility… I fully believe that User:Wetdogmeat is trying to do what he thinks is best for the encyclopedia and its readers, and I think I can understand his point of view: Article titles should use standard words, or as close to them as possible, and standard words in English exclusively use letters; therefore, our titles should exclusively use letters even if sources don’t. I disagree with this viewpoint, but I can still respect it. But frankly, respect seems to be something that is sorely lacking on both sides of these debates, and that makes me a little sad to be a Wikipedian. Please, people—both supporters and opposers—calm down. Before responding to a comment, go for a walk, do some breathing exercises, and try to understand the other side. You don’t have to agree with someone else’s viewpoint to respect it. —Frungi (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I totally understand and get the other side -- that we should represent the artists' preferred nomenclature and styling precisely. It's an appealing position for many reasons. But what frustrates me to the point of exasperation is the complete inability for most of those proponents to acknowledge that maintaining a consistent style within the encyclopedia has value. There's also the lack of recognition that following sources on these sorts of questions opens up a huge can of worms and impacts many areas beyond these noms de scène. Powers ^T 00:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand the reason for keeping a style guide to govern the way an encyclopedia is wrote. However as we all known, we must use common sense and there will be exceptions to it, and this is clearly one. We should not use a made up name, in place of a name used universally in reliable sources. STATic message me! 04:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I went through some of this above, few points I want to make an an official street member of Tech N9ne's and that is that iTunes download is not an official release of Strange Music, you won't find it for purchase on their Strange Music Store, nor is it something that is related to any album, it's a collabro in which someone put a different name down on the listing for iTunes when listing it as an item for electronic purchase. I also am a Web Developer and sometimes things such as developer APK (those are what are called Applications for people not knowing web and application development) will not allow you to put in a number for an text field box. It's quite possible that that the person who listed this, made a mistake as well. Also, I have a tattoo on my arm, that you can find here... That specifically has it signed Tech N9ne, that's his autograph, on my arm. So, I think if the man himself called himself N9ne, then that's his artist name. You don't see me calling Marshall Mathers M&M do you? No, because that's not his name. I can provide multiple examples of his uses of his name, which as well is incorporated name and copyrighted name. Same as his label Strange Music Strange Music Autograph 2BARQUACK.COM (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

One more thing I wanted to bring up and it's on lawsuits, legal documents and how a company is displayed. Tech has had lawsuits against him, his actual name is Aaron Yates, which then proceeds by AKA Tech N9ne, it's a legal name, and being a legal legitimate named used to describe him. Also in official press releases against such lawsuits, the CEO and President of Strange Music Inc. Travis O’Guin, has used his name as "Tech N9ne". Need a resource, no problem, I can do this all day. Lawsuit letter

The Purpose isn't to in anyway dispute the claims that Wet Dog Meat has said, just to show him that the term "Tech N9ne" is a legal name and has a domain based off it meaning the Rapper "Aaron Yates". Being Legal and owned, copyrighted and recognized as the stage name of the artist. It's not set up for 9 to mean the letter I, it's just the way that Tech wanted his name to be displayed. and since he started the business, going back to old cd's that aren't even available to purchase I have never seen it displayed as Tech Nine, if you can show me official merchandise or cd that has this displayed as "Tech Nine" from Strange Music Inc. Directly, then I will agree but until then, I honestly think this should be moved back. 2BARQUACK.COM (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why the full protect

Why is this article full protected? I thought is was just going to be move protected. Ross Hill 22:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Ross, that was an error; I've fixed it now. Thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries SlimVirgin Ross Hill 22:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

That's the second time I have seen full protection accidentally included with move protection! Has a default setting been changed or something? PantherLeapord (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two drop-down boxes, one for article protection and the other for move protection. There is a check box "Unlock further protect options." If you don't do that properly, it protects the article to reflect the move protection. Or it's something like that. It can be quite fiddly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

A note

I've turned the Tech Nine redirect into a DAB page, since there are multiple potential targets. Hopefully that should end this farce once and for all! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Another note

I've started RMs at Talk:RZA and Talk:GZA. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 14:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

To whoever removed Eminem and B.o.B. as associated acts

An IP editor removed Eminem and B.o.B. as associated acts saying that Tech N9ne has "never even interacted" with them. I am providing the following references as proof that he has, in fact, collaborated with both these artists. Although, anyone who knows how to use Google could have found this in 2.5 seconds. Tech N9ne & Eminem Break Down Their New Collaboration On Sway In The Morning (Video), Eminem To Appear On "Worldwide Choppers 2," According To Tech N9ne, Listen to Tech N9ne's "Hood Go Crazy" f/ 2 Chainz and B.o.B, and believe me, there are many more. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You are correct in that these artists have collaborated with him. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that they "are significant and notable to this artist's career." If we were to list every artist that he has collaborated with, then the list would be in the hundreds. However, the other artists currently listed in this section of the infobox have had a significant impact on the artists career. They have collaborated countless times over the past 15-20 years and have otherwise help shape the artists career in some fashion. B.o.B is getting to the point I might consider him an associated act, because he is building a track record of collaborating with him -- and not just getting a verse from him but instead getting a beat and hook from him and then making a song from that. Eminem on the otherhand, way too early to consider him. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 10:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, the person who deleted them did so because they had "never even interacted" with them, which is not the case. However, I recall an Eminem song featuring Tech N9ne from probably 10 years ago. I'll see if I can find a reference later (short on time at the moment), but I highly doubt this is the first time they've collaborated. Either way, if we're going to remove them from the list, we should at the very least be doing it for the right reasons. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The only two tracks currently existing featuring the two are Speedom, and then there was "The Anthem" from the Wake Up Show, which was a "posse cut" put together by Sway & King Tech, and Tech and Eminem had no direct working relationship in regards to that song -- which was back in 1999. Still not a significant connection to the artist(s). – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, if the community believes there is not enough association to list them in that section that is ok, but let's just not do so under false pretenses such as "never even interacted" which is clearly not the case. I have no quandaries about removing them, also ok with keeping them. -War wizard90 (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Associated Artists discussions

This article suffers from several issues, but let's address one in particular that might be easier to tackle. The Associated Artists field is one that frequently sees people added, often with no explanation. Thus, I'm proposing that we go through and vet the ones already listed and then before adding any in the future, it be proposed here on the talk page so consensus can be found. Anyone else on board for this idea? Let's see how many jump in... – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Regime

This one is a given, I think. It fully fits under the terms of this field. It's a group that he belongs to, and has belonged to for 16 years. Any objections? – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Krizz Kaliko

It would be hard to deny that these two have a significant working relationship. Kaliko has been all over every album, and interviews from the two show that he's often involved in Tech's creative process when it comes to songs. There's also the fact that Kaliko has been on of his hype men on tour for over 10 years. Certainly seems "significant and notable to this artist's career." – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Kutt Calhoun

Much like Kaliko, Calhoun has been right there at his side for the majority of his career. Frequent collaborations between the two, and Calhoun has been a large part of Tech's stage show over the years. Thoughts? – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Big Scoob

I guess the argument to be made here would be that they were both a part of the Rogue Dog Villians. Scoob has been around Tech from pretty much the beginning as a friend and professional collaborator. Scoob is also signed to Tech's label and Tech "presented" his debut solo album. I'm not sure Scoob has had a "significant and notable to this artist's career." It wouldn't really matter to me whether he stayed listed, or was cut. I can see the point of having him, but don't think he's necessarily that significant, so I'm on the fence. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They have collaborated enough times together and also toured together once if not multiple times. STATic message me! 22:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Brotha Lynch Hung

Tech is a fan of Lynch, and Lynch is signed to his label. They've collaborated quite a bit since Lynch signed with the label, but he's done this with pretty much everyone on the label. I just don't really see Lynch as having had a "significant and notable to this artist's career." I would probably vote to remove him from the list. Where does everyone else stand? – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion him and Lynch have had enough collaborations to meet the Template: Infobox musical artist guideline. Just by a five minute search I found at least five Tech N9ne songs he has been featured on. He seemingly is featured more prominent than other artists signed to label besides Kutt and Kaliko. Also judging by this [1] they are currently touring together which satisfys two of the criteria. STATic message me! 22:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Twista

There have been several collaborations, only few of which have actually made it onto an official release. There was the reported collaboration mixtape from the two, but nothing ever came of it. The only weight this one really has is the few songs they've done. We can't really list everyone he's collaborated on a song with more than once. That doesn't necessarily make them significant, you know? I would vote to remove. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. If the mixtape had been released or had more songs released he would be more significant. Seems not to be. STATic message me! 22:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yukmouth

Both are members of the Regime, a group actually started by Yukmouth. They have been collaborating since the late 90's. Up until one point, Tech had been on every studio album from Yukmouth. While "done some songs together" shouldn't be the only factor to justify inclusion on this list... I think there seems to be a pretty evident connection between these two. I'd vote to keep. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

E-40

This one... is another where I would be on the fence. They had the Independent Grind tour, and have done some songs over the years. They appear to be close, personally, but professionally I'm not sure their relationship is the relevant to each other's career. Need some more opinions here. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The Independent Grind Tour seems to have some backing however if I was to add anyone from that tour it would Jay Rock as he has appeared many times on Tech's albums since he signed to the label. E-40 on the other hand has not really had a significant part of his career. STATic message me! 22:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

B.o.B

Okay... so, three (potentially four, counting the unreleased Strange Clouds remix), a video from one of those videos... just doesn't seem strong enough for me at this point. This just seems like an attempt to get "established names" promonently featured on the page. Why not list Lil' Wayne in that case? Vote to remove, for now, until a point where their working relationship proves more significant. – Mizery Made ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

He definitely is more significant than Lil Wayne and it looks like they will be working together more considering he will be on at least two SE tracks. However it does seem BoB is not that significant yet. STATic message me! 22:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Wiz Khalifa

They made one song together. That is not enough for him to become an associated act with Tech N9ne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.1.121.138 (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Nobody calls him Yates

This needs to lose that WP-splaining right fast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.48.102 (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is there no article for Planet?

The album is already released, received, and should have it own article. I would do it if I was allowed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:75:2E70:7347:4014:79A4:CF47:6406 (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2020

Change children from 2 to 3 kids. Both daughters are featured in the song "The rain" where they also mention his son Little Donnie" Ravengod123 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Removed: this information is not particularly encyclopedic; and interpretation of a song is WP:OR in any case. This could be mentioned succinctly in the "personal life" section, but it requires citing a reliable source. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Relationship

His current girlfriend is Kristen Lehman of klean concina 8.40.170.188 (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)