Talk:Sunn O)))

Removed repeated links

I have linked the albums only once in each section they appeared; please don't revert. See MOS:Repeated Links.

--200.52.175.129 (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's cool; thank you for your contribution. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

File:SUNN Seattle2008.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SUNN Seattle2008.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:SUNN Seattle2008.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this not post-rock?

Their guitar seems to be mainly for texture and not rhythm so should this be labeled as post-rock?

Not necessarily per se. There would need to be some type of reliable source stating that Sunn O))) is post rock. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 00:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Post-metal has a source (The Quietus) that appears to subsume Sunn O))) under post-metal. Can it be used? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sunn O))) → Sunn (band) – To be moved as per MOS:TM, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one"; "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love")." Sunn O))) is pronounced simply "sun" - the O))) is a typographical representation of the sun; an unpronounced purely decorative special character, and in fact an abstract image. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Moved discussion above to this section to avoid redundancy

I moved this page to Sunn (band) and it's now been moved back to Sunn O))). The "O)))" in the band's name is most certainly decorative. It is not pronounced. The band's name is pronounced simply "Sun", not "Sun O". The "O)))" character is derived from the logo on the Sunn line of amps, it represents the sun; it would be like having a band called "Star ★". Please move the page back, this is a clear case of MOS:TM - "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced [or] are included purely for decoration". Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep as it is. I moved it back originally as there didn't seem to be any consensus for moving it in the first place. However, I'd argue that the pronunciation is irrelevant: whenever the band refers to themselves, it's as "Sunn O)))". This is often typed and not just part of their logo (see this for example, from their record label): it's the band's actual name. For examples from other bands, see Motörhead. The umlaut does not affect the pronunciation, but it's still included (which can also be said of Queensrÿche, Blue Öyster Cult, and Mötley Crüe). I'd certainly agree with you if it was just included as part of the band's logo, but it is always written as "Sunn O)))", and according to WP:COMMONNAME, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." In this case, the common name is "Sunn O)))", not "Sunn". I'd finally suggest that we ignore the rule about special characters (which I think is aimed more at unusual characters like ★) so that we represent that band's actual name. — Richard BB 14:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the distinction you're making between common special characters like ★ and unique ones created with ordinary characters like O))) is arbitrary. A band called Star ★ who always wrote their name with the star character would just be called Star on Wikipedia. Imagine a band called Huzzah \o/, who always wrote their name with the \o/, would you suggest the inclusion of that special character in the article title? Or say, a band called {-=#*^+<WHATEVER>+^*#=-}, would we render it that way? Definitely not. I suppose I'm making a slippery slope argument. The way that Sunn O))) write their name is irrelevant to Wiki (if it weren't then we'd have thousands of articles in all caps or no caps and with all sorts of vanity stylizations, $ instead of s and ! instead of i and things like that). Our mandate is to select from all the styles currently in use, and to pick the one that most closely resembles normal English. That style is Sunn. Remember that the band has been credited simply as O))), without the word "sunn", on several occasions too, which would simply be pronounced "sun". As I've said, I think the distinction you've made between unpronounced special characters (★, ♠, †) and unpronounced special characters created by combining ordinary characters (O))), ;), \o/) is arbitrary. So the questions that remain are: 1) why does this band deserve an exception when it comes to vanity graphical stylizations appearing in article titles; and 2) which style most closely resembles normal English. Imo, the answers are: 1) they don't; and 2) Sunn (see here, here, here and here, for instance). Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

But it's not irrelevant. I have three examples above of bands who use the umlaut despite the fact it's a stylistic choice, and there ARE articles where "$" is used instead of "S" ($h*! My Dad Says, for example, also replaces a "t" with an "!"; or how about the Simpsons episode, $pringfield (Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Legalized Gambling)?). How about bands that include unnecessary punctuation in their name, like The Girls!, The Ergs!, Panic! At the Disco, or Godspeed You! Black Emperor? Or even include other special characters like Ha*Ash, or ellipsis like The Academy Is...? And we do have articles in all caps, some caps, or no caps (e (mathematical constant), troff, djbdns co-NP, iPad, ABCDEFG (album), WYSIWYG, WYSIWYG (album), and ABBA). The band clearly isn't an exception. Also, out of the links you provided, the second one clearly uses the "O)))" name, and the third is from the same website. Although there are some publications out there which eschew the "O)))" (probably for technical reasons), the vast majority of the time it is written with the "O)))". — Richard BB 19:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, how the band chooses to stylize their own name is irrelevant. Which is why Eminem is not EMINƎM, and which is why RZA, GZA and The LOX were recently moved to Rza, Gza and The Lox, because these are the styles in use that most closely resemble normal English. Yes, there are articles with "unnecessary" punctuation, but that is also irrelevant, since this is not a debate about punctuation, but about unpronounced special characters. Several of the all-caps examples you gave are initialisms that fully deserve to be capitalised, since each letter is prounounced as a letter. I would advocate Abba over ABBA, even though it's an acronym, but this is actually all completely irrelevant - you're focusing on an aside about vanity stylizations I put in parentheses. You are suggesting that the band deserves to be an exception to the guidelines. You can't base an argument for allowing an exception to the guidelines by pointing to the existence of other exceptions, you have to justify it on its own terms, otherwise literally anything would be allowed on the basis that there had been prior exceptions. The second link uses SUNN in the article title and Sunn0))) in the body (another aside: on what basis do you propose we opt for O))) over 0))) when rendering the unpronounced typographical image of the sun?). These are the guidelines: 1) we must choose from among all the existing styles and not invent new ones, 2) we must choose the style that most closely resembles normal English. That style is Sunn, without the little picture of the sun beside it. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, O))) is not even remotely close to standard English so it should not be used for the title.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Full support. For the borderline cases we have to hammer out an individual decision on how much artistic license can be taken. But this is too much. The title is absurd. Move. Red Slash 22:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"But this is too much. The title is absurd." So what policy does that violate? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:TM - "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official," as long as this is a style already in use, rather than inventing a new one"; "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love")." Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Keep as is It's part of the name. So what if it's not pronunced? This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

"It's part of the name. So what if it's not pronunced?" "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration, or simply substitute for English words (e.g., ♥ used for "love")." This violates every part of this guideline: it's not pronounced, it's included purely for decoration, and it stands in for an English word (even if it were pronounced, and their name was pronounced "sun sun", it would violate this part of the guideline). And it's not really part of the name, it's much closer to being a logo, it's a little picture of the sun that the band likes to put beside their name, and which sometimes stands in completely for their name. The style that most closely resembles standard English text formatting is clearly Sunn. Wetdogmeat (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A redirect would be most appropriate in this instance, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(music)#Bands.2C_albums_and_songs. ChakaKong^talk 15:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support - The current title is clearly against the MOS:TM. mgeo talk 19:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support the MOSTM is clear on issues like this and there is nothing that I see to make this an exception. Also, the suggestion that this is a solution to a problem that does not exist is simply wrong since if that was the case the MOSTM would have died out years ago due to dealing with a non-issue.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose; I don't doubt that the current title offends MOSTM, but it would be worse to make up our own disambiguating suffix and nail it onto the end of the article. Nobody's going to search for "Sunn (band)", and sources don't talk about "Sunn (band)". bobrayner (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sunn O))) and Sunn 0))) will redirect to Sunn (band). Problem solved. Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Dab pages are for Wikipedia purposes, we don't need reliable sources to use them. By using Sunn (band) we are not calling it sun band but simply refering to the the band is named Sunn and that they are a band. I am not aware of any reliable sources calling the video game Contra Contra (video game) or the ticket service Fandago as Fandango (ticket service) but that has not stopped either of them from being at that title. The only way I could see a reliable source issue here would be if there was a dispute of whether or not this was a band and AFLK that is not the case.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Support article move. While the band is most commonly known as Sunn O))), I believe that the arguments brought up here, such as MOSTM rules, are convincing and reasonable enough to be applied here in a fashion to rename the article Sunn (band). However, I would recommend that the introductory sentence has a pointer about the band's name being stylized as Sunn O))), if this move is to take place. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That is what usually happens in these cases so I don't see any reason that this will be any different.--174.95.111.89 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

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.

Note

Per the deadmau5 discussion, I've moved the page title back to what it previously was. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 15:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is not directly analogous. You can't just go about overturning the results of RMs on your own authority. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is this not directly analogous? I know it isn't a matter of a number, but still WP:COMMONNAME, etc. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You said it yourself. It's not a numeral, it's little picture, that is absolutely without question an unpronounced decoration. Therefore many of the arguments from the Deadmau5 case do not apply, therefore it is not directly analogous. And to sum up the lengthy and complex debate at Deadmau5 as simply "COMMONNAME etc." merely betrays your enormous bias in this case. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bias, as it's my opinion. Now I've asked the closing admin a question about this; lets see what he/she has to say. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 16:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I strongly hold the opposite opinion, yet I would not attempt to one-sidedly summarise the lengthy and complex debate as "MOS:TM etc." That is the difference between being on one side of an argument and being biased in your representation of that argument as a whole. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, admins' opinions don't carry any more weight than regular editors. They are not moderators. They have no more authority to overturn consensus on a whim than you do. Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't an RM. Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is now:

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.

---

Sunn (band) → Sunn O))) – WP:COMMONNAME etc... Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 19:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support changing it back. Told you deadmaus wouldn't last long. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Unlike deadmaus, this has yet to go through WP:MRV ; which is should do first. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

    As I replied below, MRV isn’t applicable here—I haven’t seen anyone claiming that the first RM was improperly closed. —Frungi (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support for all the reasons I listed in the last debate. — Richard BB 19:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this is not like the Deadmaus5 issue. This is far more decorative since in this case we are dealing with a completely unpronounced symbol. Some evidence has been presented that the sources have pronounced the 5 as five over a S but so far there has been nothing whatsoever to show that the this has even been pronounced as Sunn O bracket bracket. The person who closed that RM mentioned that it was not a pure stylization issue (such as replacing an S with a $) but I have seen nothing to indicated that that particular decision means that adding O)) to Sunn is not a stylization issue. I don't see the two cases as comparable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.82.84 (talk • contribs) at 20:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support unless we can cite some substantial reliable sources that do not include the decorative characters. Everything I’m seeing in e.g. Google News does include them, so it seems to me like we’re inventing a style by using “Sunn” bare. —Frungi (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per arguments made above. Ridiculous indulgence of decoration, imo. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

  Agreed, if sources support the name without the decoration. But from what I can find, all reliable sources include it, and so must we per MOS:TM. —Frungi (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's use common sense on this one. It all comes down to whether or not these names are prominent in the reliable sources. Is Sunn even used at all? Or did we make this one up too (based on unreliable sources)? It is very important that we do not create new names to cohere with the rules. I do not have outside knowledge about Sun 0))) like I do with deadmau5, so I will have to do some research. But like I said, it all comes down to the prominence of these names in the reliable sources. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't seem to find a single remotely reliable source that uses the name Sunn. I'm googling "Sunn band -0))) -o)))" and that returns 483,000 hits. However, they seem to be for other bands, such as Seventh Sunn: (wikipedia's filter blocks reverbnation) www. reverb nation.com/theseventhsunnband and The Sunn. I'm not sure the name "Sunn" is supported by any reliable sources. Furthermore, I worry that the current name might cause confusion given the existence of the band called "The Sunn".

However, here are some reliable sources for Sunn O))): [1], [2], [3] [4], [5] MidnightRequestLine (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

^This should be all you need to know for this discussion. Unless someone can demonstrate that reliable sources use the name Sunn more than Sunn 0))) or even use the name Sunn at all this should be game over. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I just discovered that Wetdogmeat had CREATED and SUBSTANTIALLY worked on Noah23... Why support what you claim to be stylisation on THAT page when you oppose it elsewhere? PantherLeapord (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am literally speechless at this behaviour. Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

As am I! MidnightRequestLine (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That name is pronounced exactly as it looks, and I find no mention of style/stylization in that article’s Talk or edit history. I don’t even know what stylization you’re referring to. Conversely, the ASCII sun in this name is definitively not pronounced, and if reliable sources didn’t include it, there would honestly be no case for our including it. —Frungi (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes but ALL of the reliable sources include it. MidnightRequestLine (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That does seem to be the case, but that’s beside the point of his comment about an unrelated article. —Frungi (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I was talking to you, when you said: "Conversely, the ASCII sun in this name is definitively not pronounced, and if reliable sources didn’t include it, there would honestly be no case for our including it." MidnightRequestLine (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The key part of which was that conditional phrase. Also see my reply to Wetdogmeat. —Frungi (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for now - This is different than having a number in a word, it is a emoticon/stylization/decoration at then of the bands name. If a movie or album had ";)" or "\m/" at the end of it we would not replicate that on Wikipedia. I am sure some source could be provided just calling them "Sunn" and if there is not I am subject to changing my vote. STATic message me! 00:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I googled Sunn, and all content relevant to the band came up as Sunn O))) (I went up to page ten). Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 11:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Changed to Support as all reliable sources replicate the style. STATic message me! 16:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per the May-June 2013 requested move #Requested move 1 -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Speedy close this should be a review at WP:MRV instead of being a new move request -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

    I don’t think that’s a rule, and MRV isn’t applicable anyway, unless the argument is that the closer did something wrong (it’s not). And could you be more specific as to your reasoning for opposing? Surely there’s more to it than “it was already moved.” Have you for instance found reliable sources that refer to them without the “O)))”? —Frungi (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What is it with these IP wikivets making up random rules? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What is up with your attitude and flippancy? And why don't you read the archives at WT:RM ? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There are 25 archive pages with anywhere from 10 to 100 sections on each page. I'm not reading all of them. And just because some random person on one of those pages said something does not make it a policy, or even a guideline for that matter. I see you've been editing under an IP address. Do you have an account? MidnightRequestLine (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going by the text of WP:RM and WP:MRV. If there was consensus on the Talk page for one of those that goes against what the page says, please change the page to match and/or link us to the discussion in question. Thanks. —Frungi (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support move back to Sunn O))) - per WP:COMMONNAME. This is not a stylization or pronunciation issue. The question is whether the "O)))" is considered an integral part of the band's name or not. I have found multiple reliable sources (including high quality sources like the The New Yorker) that all present the name with the characters "0)))" added... I have yet to find a single reliable source that discusses the band using the name without the characters. To me this usage in reliable sources is the key. I will offer a comparison to illustrate why usage is key... on many of their early albums (and on Ringo's drum) the Beatles stylized their name more or less like this: BEA_TLES. So... why doesn't Wikipedia use that stylization? The answer is that no reliable sources used that stylization in referring to the band. Because the sources did not use the band's stylization, that stylization is not considered an integral part of the band's name. In the case of "Sunn O))}", however, so many reliable sources use the characters when referring to the band that it seems clear that the characters obviously are considered an integral part of the band's name. Indeed I would say the characters are more than just a stylization. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose until someone explains this. If this isn't them, I'll rethink this. Red Slash 19:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn; neutral Red Slash 07:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That isn't them. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 19:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if it were them, what matters to Wikipedia isn’t how subjects refer to themselves (e.g. on MySpace pages), but how reliable sources refer to them. —Frungi (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

And how do reliable sources refer to them? Red Slash 08:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

All of them use Sunn O))). Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 08:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. As a supporter of the last move in the initial discussion, I'm not partial to either name anymore, as long as the page stays with what is determined. Keep in mind that parties will be annoyed with either option, so it's no big deal if any given person is. This discussion is fine, but this aspect of the article should not continuously be rediscussed. While this is not an official vote for the O))) rendition's use, "Sunn O)))" is used much more often in reliable sources thas "Sunn". Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unlike Deadmau5 nobody pronounces this band as "Sun-Oh-Rightbracket-Rightbracket-Rightbracket"! While an exception to WP:MOS could be made for a single character (5), it cannot be made so easily for O))). PantherLeapord (talk) 02:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That’s not the issue. It doesn’t matter how it’s pronounced; it matters how it’s reproduced. Reliable sources use “Sunn O)))”. They do not use “Sunn”. We must follow our sources and not make up our own styles (even if our own style would make more sense in every meaningful way). Also see the lede of MOS:TM. —Frungi (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, "sun o" and "sunno" are very widespread mispronunciations, thanks to the confusing decoration. Imo, this is another good reason to avoid it. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Deadmaus issue is an exception to the rule. WP:OTHERSTUFF. The guidelines haven't changed based on the consensus for a single article. MOS:TM is still valid. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  “When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should choose among styles already in use by sources (not invent new ones) and choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner.” Is the current title in use by reliable sources? So far, we’ve been unable to find any. —Frungi (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the second part of that sentence that I think is key: "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English, regardless of the preference of the trademark owner". "Sunn o)))" does not resemble standard English. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm withdrawing my "oppose". I'm not actively supporting the move, but as there isn't a single result in a Google search without the "O)))", I'd find it hard to back up my position. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope - reinstating my oppose. Sorry to flip-flop, but "Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced, are included purely for decoration". --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is a policy that overrides this. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 14:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That depends on your interpretation of the policy, and whether "O)))" forms part of the name or not or whether it's decoration. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I would argue that it does form part of the name. Whenever it's simply written in text, such as in a magazine or on a website, it's with the "O)))", exactly the same as Deadmau5. For it to be decorative this would need to be a logo (like The Who logo being accompanied by the roundel symbol, or however many black metal bands being accompanied by pentagrams and inverted crucifixes). — Richard BB 15:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as Deadmaus goes, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Besides it is a completely different issue, as in this case, the "O)))" is not pronounced. If it is not pronounced, it can only be decorative. We don't include decoration as it draws "undue attention to some subjects rather than others". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And I don't believe you can 'interpret' a policy. What's written down on the page should be what is practised. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 15:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

In which case, WP:TITLETM: "Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

..."unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. " Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 15:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"O)))" is not spelling. See what I mean about interpreting the policy? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Any application of policy requires interpretation. You have no other way of knowing whether the general rule applies to the particular case, as no policy makes explicit provisions for particular cases - it's the same in law; there's no law that explicitly forbids John from killing Bob, so you have to interpret the letter of the law to determine which laws apply to the case of John and Bob. In my understanding of the concept of naming (and therefore WP:UCN), decorations and stylisations are not a part of the name, and therefore "Sunn" and "Sunn O)))" are the same name. In which case COMMONNAME doesn't apply, and it's strictly an issue of style, for which we look to the MOS. Wetdogmeat (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy outdent. — Richard BB 15:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Then the policy is rather unclear. It's an error - I'll post something on the policy talk page. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 15:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the point is probably for it to be open to interpretation. It's a judgement / common sense issue. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that – and WP:IAR is there, too. In this instance, I'm of the belief that almost every reliable source goes out of their way to call them Sunn O))), and so that is their common name. People have said above that searching for "Sunn" yields results for "Sunn O)))" instead. — Richard BB 15:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing uses "Sunn", MOS is not policy, which several people seem to be ignoring, it is also inconsistent, unclear, disputed, and outdated. COMMONNAME is policy, and any usage of logic/common sense/etc. would lead us to use the official name of the band, regardless of how "stupid" it may look to certain users. IAR, as mentioned above, is also a valid reason to put this in the right place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

  Arguably, IAR is also a reason to ignore how sources universally style it and keep it at the name that seems to make more sense. But I don't know if sources can be ignored in IAR. I've said it before, but personally, I'd definitely keep it here if it didn't mean inventing a style that no one else uses. —Frungi (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Makes more sense" is a matter of opinion. — Richard BB 21:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Question: how prevalent is "Sunn" in sources? If it does exist in sources, I'm in favor of keeping the article where it is. If there is no style that exists in sources and more closely resembles standard English than the style that uses all those crazy characters as well, then I'd support the move. Croctotheface (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's very rare to ever see the band written by "Sunn" in sources. As has been mentioned earlier in this debate, even if you were to just type "Sunn" into Google, every single result brings up "Sunn O)))". — Richard BB 08:01, 15 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.

RZA and GZA

If you haven't already, you might wanna join the RZA and GZA RM's I've set up. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 06:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sunn O))). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015164437/http://www.southernlord.com/band_SUN.php to http://www.southernlord.com/band_SUN.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)