Talk:SlipKnot (web browser)

Reqphoto

Does anyone have a screenshot of this? I think a screenshot would be appropriate for the article. --Anthony5429 02:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move 23 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: No consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

---

SlipKnot (web browser) → SlipKnot – The capitals should make for diambiguation enough - see LoveGame for example. Unreal7 (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Small differences like this are enough technically, but not great for the reader. Disambig pages are great, and so is the parenthetical disambiguator on this article's title. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose – verbatim as User:Dicklyon, and per WP:TITLE five criteria. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support – WP:DIFFCAPS has always been used for disambiguation. For example, Ice cube is not Ice Cube, Lemon drop is not Lemon Drop, Blank page is not Blank Page, Fallout shelter is not Fallout Shelter. A hatnote is all that is needed to guide readers to other topics. SSTflyer 07:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

But this is not just caps, it is Camelcase. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support As SSTflyer observes, WP:DIFFCAPS is sufficient for disambiguation. The distinction between CamelCase and other kinds of differences in capitalization is not a meaningful one here. TypoBoy (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Support. For many years now, the trend in programming has been to move away from decision trees and disambiguation pages and toward anticipating what the user wants. On Wikipedia, this idea is codified in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:DIFFCAPS. Don't let the Luddites tell you different. Gulangyu (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

As Steel1943 points out: the band's logo looks like "SlipKnoT", thus many users would be likely to type this in to try to get to the band, and arrive here instead.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:DIFFCAPS and the above. Dohn joe (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Fails WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. Nobody would see that title and think it meant an obscure browser from the 1990s, rather than the knot or the band. The current title is better, and just take the user over to the Dab page.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Recognizability says, "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize." The principle is intended to apply to the name itself. It's not about adding parentheticals or sending users to disambiguation pages. Gulangyu (talk) 17:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

    That's your interpretation of it, but I prefer to take it at face value. "SlipKnot" doesn't suggest a browser to me, it suggests a knot. Whereas "Slipknot (web browser)" as a title really does suggest a browser. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

    • If the recognizability guideline overturns the primary topic and disambiguation guidelines, why do the other guidelines exist at all? Moreover, I have to wonder if you actually believe this argument yourself. If this parenthetical is for recognizability rather than for disambiguation, why send the reader to a disambiguation page? Gulangyu (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DIFFCAPS. I can't imagine anyone typing in or clicking on "SlipKnot" looking for any other topic on the dab page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DIFFCAPS. CookieMonster755 ^{📞 ✉ ✓} 18:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECOGNISABILITY, and arguments by Amakuru, and Dicklyon above.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment and reply to WP:DIFFCAPS arguments: WP:DIFFCAPS also has several examples much like this that were not kept at their original titles, such as P!nk->Pink (singer). The policy clearly states Ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings and this is up to us to decide for or against. This policy does not blankly support caps differences, but rather argues that it totally depends on the article in question. As many here are arguing that the title fails WP:RECOGNISABILITY, this invalidates the WP:DIFFCAPS arguments, as clearly the ambiguity it warns against has arisen.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  22:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. The alternative capitalization is not enough to distinguish this subject from the band or other subjects at the disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Of course it is. Have you looked at the dab page? What's the problem? --В²C ☎ 01:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• No it's not, considering that the band's logo looks like "SlipKnoT". Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would object to two articles having identical titles (if there wasn't a technical reason to not be able to use the same titles), much less titles that differ only slightly. If we could, why not title the planet, element, rocket and car model all with Mercury, for example? That's the most common name for each. So what's the problem? Here, we can uniquely identify this article with SlipKnot. Great! What's the problem? And I don't want to hear some mumbo jumbo explanation. Walk me through a realistic reader experience where this might be a problem. Should such a scenario surface, I reserve the right to change my mind, but until then, Support. --В²C ☎ 01:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Your long term inability to understand a widespread objection is reason alone for you to find something else to do, please stick to things you do understand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• These RMs always seem to focus on navigation issues, but the main purpose of a title is the tell the reader the name of the subject. Since parentheticals are a Wikipedia-only thing, they are presumably not what the uninitiated reader expects to see. Gulangyu (talk) 02:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, thanks for the mumbo-jumbo. For the record, that's not an answer, much less a description of a scenario that exposes a problem with nearly identical titles.

    Gulangyu, what navigation issues? Yes, the main purpose of a title is tell the reader the name of the subject. That's exactly what SlipKnot would do. --В²C ☎ 23:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Except that the current title does it better. It is pretty hard for a reader to mistake "SlipKnot (web browser)" for anything else. Some readers, even if looking for this article, might not realise that the 'K' is capitalised for the web browser, and will thus end up at another article, when they see the parenthetical dab in the list however, they will know that it is the one they are looking for.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The drop off rate for a disambiguation page is something like 40 percent. So there is a definite downside to a DAB-oriented approach. A good title tells the reader the name of the subject without bringing excess baggage along. Figuring out how readers get to articles should not be our problem. Any Website developer is hoping to get as many clicks as he can. Meanwhile, Wikipedians worry that we might be getting clicks intended for something else. Gulangyu (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Insertcleverphrasehere, the current title does not tell the reader the name of the subject better than the proposed title. The current title tells the reader the name is or might be SlipKnot (web browser). That's incorrect. The proposed title is unambiguously correct: SlipKnot. That's the name, period. Better. With the parenthetic remark you're going beyond telling the reader the name, and perhaps suggesting the parenthetic remark is part of the name. How is the reader suppose to know it's not part of the name? That's clearly no better (in telling the reader the name of the subject), and arguably worse. --В²C ☎ 20:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

В²C Only an idiot would assume that '(web browser)' is part of the actual title, (are you saying our readers are idiots?). You say that the current title does not tell the name to the reader any better than the proposed title, but the job of the title is to do MORE than just tell the reader the name, it also has the job of distinguishing the title from other closely named (and in this case far more common) topics. Your argument is complete bullshit, and this is what happens when an utter pedant decides to go down the RM rabbit hole and decides to bring no common sense with him.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

B2C: To answer your "Mercury" question, we wouldn't title our articles that way because that word by itself doesn't clearly indicate to the reader what the article is about... and whether you agree with it or not, Wikipedia policy says that that is the purpose of the title. The importance of having reasonably clear titles should be self-evident; imagine picking the right volume from a stack of books on all meanings of Mercury if all their spines simply read Mercury. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you happen to read the policy that you linked to? It says, "This page in a nutshell: Article titles should be recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent." "Natural" is Wikispeak for phrasing that you might find in possible sources for the article. WP:NATURALDIS gives parenthicals as a third choice, something you use if all else fails. Other reference sites, including IMBD, AllMusic, or Encyclopedia Britannica, will happily publish two articles on different subjects with exactly the same title. Gulangyu (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

But Britannica does disambiguate: from their list of Mercury articles you can see the planet, the plant, the space project, etc. IMDB often disambiguates too: see Mercury (2012), Mercury (2010), or Sherlock Holmes (2010), Sherlock Holmes (2009), Sherlock Holmes (1922), etc. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Britannica`s software allows them to display internal search engine results in a different format than the actual title. So your first link is not really relevant. Britannica`s subtitles are not considered part of the article title, as you can see from the copyright legalese at the bottom. The articles on the planet and space program are titled "Mercury," while those on the plant and the element are titled "mercury." (The online title has to correspond with the one in the print edition, which of course doesn't use disambiguators.) Even though there is only one "James Madison" article, it still gets a "President of United States" subtitle. Gulangyu (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Not to get too deep in the weeds here, but I don't see the copyright legalese you refer to – and I'm not sure that legalese would be particularly relevant anyway. The point is simply that, in practice, Britannica certainly does add clarifiers to its titles in many places:

• To article titles in lists
• To article titles themselves, through use of an accompanying element known as the "topic title identifier"
• To the page title (e.g., "Mercury | planet | Britannica.com")

That Britannica chooses to present these clarifiers suggests they have value to the reader, and (to return to the subject of Wikipedia) we're the same: even if we could do away with all disambiguators, we wouldn't because they serve a useful purpose for our users. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Huwmanbeing interesting that you choose the bookshelf analogy. It's not applicable here. We don't ever give the reader a list of plain unadorned titles from which to decide which is the one they are choosing from. On our dab pages we include descriptive information. On our article pages they are already there plus there is the intro. In Google results they see parts of the intro. The fact that you can't tell which Mercury is which from the list 1) Mercury 2) Mercury 3) Mercury is irrelevant - no WP reader would ever be faced to choose such a list. Our title choices should address actual scenarios readers encounter, not imaginary ones that never occur. SlipKnot does that perfectly. --В²C ☎ 20:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite true. If you type "Mercury" into the search box, you get a list of autocomplete possibilities. Wiki's disambiguation system was created long before autocomplete and is intended simply to prevent title clashes. You would use more descriptive parentheticals if the idea to help the reader select a choice from among the autocomplete possibilities. Gulangyu (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Autocomplete is HUGELY pertinent, as it is one of the primary ways that readers fond articles (the other being google). In my mind, article titles should be recognisable on an autocomplete list. From WP:AT: Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The guideline is referring to descriptive titles, which are used in place of a name, if, for example the subject doesn't have a widely used name. That's not relevant to this issue. Is the argument that recognizability trumps primary topic? I mean, wouldn't it be more honest just say that you oppose the primary topic guideline? Immediately after the clause on recognizabily, we are directed to WP:DISAMBIGUATION if we encounter "a name that could refer to several different articles." Surely, this is section that is relevant to the issue at hand. Gulangyu (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

B2C: What? Wikipedia does exactly that, prominently, and in many places. Not only does the search feature give users a list of plain unadorned titles (as others have already noted), but so does every single category page. Choose a category like Sherlock Holmes films and your identical titles scheme would leave users especially baffled, with at least seven identical Sherlock Holmes entries to (somehow) choose among. Or check out your watchlist, which also shows you a list of plain unadorned titles. (Was it Mercury, Mercury, or Mercury that just got edited?) ╠╣uw [talk] 22:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I wish there was a way to specify additional descriptive information to be used in these specialized contexts instead of polluting the title. --В²C ☎ 04:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I say this with as much respect as is possible given the circumstances... Fuck off В²C. This is NOT the place to argue whether a core part of wikipedia should be completely overhauled. Follow the goddamn guidelines that have been set up for very good reasons and have proved extremely successful for over a decade.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

May I recommend a reading of WP:CIVIL as this juncture? WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is a well-established guideline, and your interpretation is obtuse. This guideline was of course written in the days before autocomplete, so by all means propose an WP:RFC if you see a need a to update it. Gulangyu (talk) 07:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Textbook WP:DIFFCAPS, The CamelCase K in "SlipKnot" is strongly visually distinguishing from the ambiguous "slipknot"/"slip knot". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Exactly. --В²C ☎ 23:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too many people think the band name is spelled this way.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Where on earth is your evidence for that? Unreal7 (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Unreal7: See File:Slipknot (logo) 2.jpg. In the band's own logo, the "K" looks capitalized. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dicklyon and In ictu oculi. Omnedon (talk) 19:25, 14 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.