Jump to content

Talk:Slipknot (band)/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 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)

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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[talkcontribs] 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)


– 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)

"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)
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 ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  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.