Talk:Slipknot (disambiguation)

History note

The page which is now at Slipknot was created as a cut-and-paste from the page which is now at Slipknot (disambiguation), which however was reverted to its full text and after that edited much more, causing parallel versions. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Argument of symantics and spacing, while technically correct by MOS guidelines, do not seem to be by the community the reason to modify search results. Disambig kept at Slipknot. Keegan^talk 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make the band the dominant meaning?

Whether to make Slipknot redirect to Slipknot (band)? To me, a slipknot is a slip knot, and a routine music band playing routine ephemeral popular music is not the dominant meaning of the word. I have seen hundreds of popular music bands come and briefly be a sensation, and go and be forgotten. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in Talk:Slipknot (band)#Slipknot (disambiguation) and Slipknot redirect, Slipknot is a different term than slip knot at first. Disambiguation is for articles with the same title, as for example Machine head, Machine Head (band) and Machine Head (album). Articles with similar titles are solved for example this way: Nailbomb / Nail bomb. The knot does not involve the disambiguation page of Slipknot (band). Thus Slipknot (band) is the most notable out of the other pages with the same tile - Slipknot (band) should be moved to Slipknot with its own disambiguation page (according to Wikipedia:Disambiguation). -- LYKANTROP ✉ 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh??? To most people a nailbomb is a nail bomb, and the band page should be Nailbomb (band). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that you think that, but disambiguation pages are not search indices. They are for articles with the same title. Slipknot is not the same as slip knot. And Nailbomb is not the same as Nail bomb. Have a look on Slayer (featured article). Is that the original meaning of the word? No, and it was also discussed on the talkpage. I also recommend you to read Wikipedia:Indentation. Cheers.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 22:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Slipknot and Slip knot, i.e. space or no space, is a small not very noticeable typographic difference, comparable to a difference of case of a letter, and it seems in Wikipedia that difference of case of a letter, and often singular versus plural, is not usual to distinguish two topics. Anyway, most popular music is ephemeral. I am 64 and I have seen hundreds of popular culture sensations come and go and become old litter and dust at the bottoms of older people's braincases. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really talking about the popularity of the band i am talking of their fucking awsome music especilly [Dead Memories]. According to the Redirect policy it is wrong to do as you want it. Wikipedia is also to bring the information to the people as easy as possible: "Slipknot" has been searched 160,000+ times (link); "Slip knot" 6000+ times (link) and Slipknot (band) 231,000 times (link). So you can easily find out what are people looking for if they write "Slipknot". So I would not make their searching unnecessary complicated. But this statistic is secondary. Above all is the Redirect policy. I won't argue with you, although you are obviously wrong (and breaking the policy); act as you think it is good. Good luck :) -- LYKANTROP ✉ 08:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent)Speaking of WP:REDIRECT, it would seem to me that Slipknot (band) would be suggested by everyone in the world:

So we prefer "Italy" over "Italia", and "Pope" over "Pope of Rome". However, it is often better to have an article at a well-defined, unambiguous term, with redirects from looser colloquial terms, rather than vice versa.

Also, since colour redirects to color and Al-Jazeera redirects to Al Jazeera, I don't see how Slipknot redirecting to Slip knot would be out of line. It seems to me that the disambiguator (band) is a good idea and is in keeping with naming conventions. Please also note the discussion of the disambiguator (band) here. Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the colour or Al-Jazeera redirects are at all analagous to Slipknot. Do you have evidence that Slipknot is the British English spelling alternate of slip knot? DigitalC (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Primary Usage, the band should be at Slipknot. A simple google search will revealed this. (19 million hits for slipknot, 16 million for 'slipknot -tie' [ie - pages that mention slipknot, but do NOT mention the word tie, as in how to tie a slipknot], 2.7 million for 'slip knot -band -metal -music' (which STILL turns up band related hits). So, the article on the band should be at Slipknot, and the DAB should be at Slipknot (disabiguation). A separate hat note link to Slip knot may be appropriate. DigitalC (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The band should not be at slipknot. Note this Merriam-Webster dictionary entry: [1] 70.51.9.151 (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that Slipknot (the band) isn't notable, I'm just saying that a user looking for information about the knot shouldn't be first directed to an article about a band that happens to have the same name. Indeed, slipknot is a notable variant spelling of slip knot, and it's not necessarily a British variant, it's just another English language spelling of the word. Note the Merriam Webster reference above, and the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, also lists slipknot (the knot), but does not even list slip knot, even as a variant spelling. Of course they do not list the band at all either, because these are books of reference. It should be remembered that Wikipedia, too, is a work of reference, and should give preference to the most notable (or most durably notable, as the case may be) sense of a word. The current configuration of Slip knot (about the knot), Slipknot (band) (about the band), and Slipknot (dab page) seems to work well. I don't see that any change is needed here. Wilhelm meis (talk) 17:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree -- I do not see any change needed here. Slipknot should remain a disambiguation page. There are other articles besides Slip knot that are disambiguated by it including: Slipknot (comics); SlipKnot (web browser); and possibly more in the future. Slipknot (band) should not be the primary meaning of the page and it should remain a disambiguation page. WTucker (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Second Slipknot band

I'm not really a new user but because I barely use my account I can't edit the page. But could someone include the 80s crossover band by the same name who, to my knowledge, only released a self titled EP in 1990. CarrionRoc (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Slipknot (band) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knots

Some discussion above in #Make the band the dominant meaning? -- e.g. the point that was emphasized (and, so far IMO, admitted to) in discussing the affinity between nailbomb and nail bomb -- IMO remains relevant to the affinity between the knot-related senses of slip knot, slipknot, and slipped knot.
With that in mind, i'm putting off tagging for, or doing, more routine Dab-CU. IMO, a largely distinction-clarifying article like Slippage (knots) or Roles of slippage in knots (or something more subtle that has not yet occurred to me) may be fruitful in aiding navigation, by making clarifying distinctions that are beyond the scope of a Dab page. Note that while, with good reason, we make Dab pages, Dab entries, and Dab hat-notes very narrowly circumscribed tools, the navigational problems stemming from ambiguity can be broad enuf that those tools are not always adequate to solve them alone.
--Jerzy•t 23:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Slipknot"

The usage and primary topic of slipknot is under discussion, see talk:Slipknot (band) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"SlipKnot"

The usage and primary topic of SlipKnot is under discussion, see Talk:SlipKnot (web browser) -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2016

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

Redirecting Slipknot to Slip knot makes little to no sense, it is fairly evident that the vast majority of searches for Slipknot will be looking for the band, and will not be a typing error when they were actually searching for a certain type of tie knot. It would even be sensible to redirect Slip knot to Slipknot, in any case, but certainly not the way around. I suggest this redirection to be removed completely, maybe leaving an annotation above Slipknot's article. EdLukas (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done this was discussed in 2008 (see above) when the current arrangement received consensus - If there were only 2 uses of Slipknot on the disambiguation page I would agree, a hatnote would suffice, but there are 10 - Arjayay (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Slipknot disambiguation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slipknot disambiguation. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. DannyS712 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]