Talk:The Slip
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
- Moved from Talk:The Slip (band) --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there's now two topics with the same name, the band and the Nine Inch Nails album, which should inhabit this un-disambiguated namespace? The options are:
- "The Slip" for the band, and "The Slip (album)" for the NIN album – as it is right now
- "The Slip" for the album, and "The Slip (band)" for the band – swap the two as they stand now
- Create a disambiguation page and relegate both articles to "The Slip (band)" and "The Slip (album)" respectively.
My preference is for #2, since ultimately the NIN album is a much more high-profile topic then the band, so 99% of readers searching "The Slip" will be looking for the NIN album, not the band. I believe this is a slightly better option then #3 simply because of the large divide in notability between the two. If the band and album were of similar prominence, and neither meaning of the term could be determined to be the "more popular one", then #3 would be the obvious choice, but I think it's clear that this is not the case. Any other opinions? Drewcifer (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I lean towards #3 - a google search shows [1] The band is the #1 hit while the NIN album is second. It will also eliminate some quibbling - as the notability of the band is established, and we can avoid a "Who is more notable" argument. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- As there are only two articles to disambiguate, I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary; a disambiguation link at the top of each page is sufficient. I think the articles should stay where they are, as deciding which is more notable is a subjective exercise and moving the articles simply creates work without making either article any more accessible. The drop-down menu in the search bar makes it easy to find the article one is looking for anyway. Strobilus (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Two topics with the same name are enough for a disambiguation page. I support #3. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- As there are only two articles to disambiguate, I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary; a disambiguation link at the top of each page is sufficient. I think the articles should stay where they are, as deciding which is more notable is a subjective exercise and moving the articles simply creates work without making either article any more accessible. The drop-down menu in the search bar makes it easy to find the article one is looking for anyway. Strobilus (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I support Idea #3 (disambig). There was a similar argument for the Endless Wire page a few years ago. StevePrutz (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
(←) Actually, I know this is a little late in the game, but we can tell how many people are coming here for the NIN album, versus the band. link The graph pretty much speaks for itself. Before May 5, when the album was released, the average hit count was about 60 per day. On May 5 it bounced up to 4 and a half thousand (to be expected I suppose), and has since dropped down to around 300. So, it could be argued, that after the initial surge, there is still about 250 additional hits per day since the album's released. Compare that to the album article's hit counts (link), which lingers around a thousand per day, and I think it's obvious which is the more popular topic. It could be argued that the difference will die down farther along after it's release, but even Pretty Hate Machine, NIN's earliest album released 19 years ago, still gets 600 a day. (link) Drewcifer (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've created the disambiguation page. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)