# Talk:Superunknown

Why is the spoonman paragraph here? -- Brianhe 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

coz thats where it wants to be, so nerrrr

I've heard that Superunknown was originally supposed to feature 26 tracks on 2 CDs, but was scaled down to 15. Will the other 9 (not counting "Flutter Girl" & "She Likes...") ever see the light of day? Regards, --199.29.6.2 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I recall reading on the tracklist of the album that the Track "SUPERUNKNOWN" was written with "UNKNOWN" being vertically flipped. Using Cyrillic letters and other symbols, it is possible to recreate - or at least, emulate -  that effect. With this method, should the track name be changed to "Super∩ИКИОMИ"?
The main problem I can find with this is some browsers may not support certain characters... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.83.164.22 (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC).
?
no, because that's basically a logo and not the actual NAME of it. Wikipedia doesn't recreate logos and gimmicks like that in the text (or it shouldn't). just check out the logos of Eminem (backwards second "E") and Toys R Us (backwards R as we all know) and compare to their wiki articles which don't reflect these features.
Please sign your comments with four tildes. Furthermore, Korn's article uses a reverse 'R' in the title, so perhaps the song's title should be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.204.75 (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC) 

We should put a PNG of the stylized "∩ИKИOWИ" lettering in packaging section.Text mdnp (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Both Limo Wreck and Superunknown were in the chart listing section. To my knowledge, both were removed, and only recently has Superunknown been re-added. I re-added Limo Wreck myself. It was never an official single, but neither was Betterman from Pearl Jam. And that's listed in the chart section for Vitalogy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.172.234 (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 

I think the relevant policy is WP:CHART. I think an important point to note is "The number of charts should include no more than ten national charts, and up to ten additional charts, but no more than eighteen charts total." I would say this would be more applicable for a song article. For an album article like this, try to include not more than five charts per single (because there are so many singles) to prevent clutter. (The length of the "Black Hole Sun" table is especially very long BTW) In all honesty you can just remove the entire singles chart from here and nobody would complain, they are already there in the songs' articles aren't there?
As for that singles template in the infobox, I think its fine to add the months (unlinked), unless of course there is controversy regarding the release dates themselves. I am basing this on the fact that the FA Adore (album) has detailed dates in the infobox. indopug (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
So we are goin to delete the single chart because it's so big, okay.--Freedom (song) (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're averse to deleting the whole thing, cut it down to about 5-6 charts per song. I suggested deletion only because it isn't mandatory as such, but it is ugly. indopug (talk)
I'm going to remove the single release dates because those are the release dates of the music videos, and not necessarily the release dates of the singles.-5- (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I put the singles chart back. If Nevermind and Adore (album) have it, then I believe its OK.-5- (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you reduce the number of charts for each single? The table is huge. indopug (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll get rid of the ancillary charts and just keep the main ones for each country. Anything like Top 40 or Hot 100 Airplay can be kept in the chart for each song article. I believe that's how it was done for the Nevermind page. I think that's a fair way to resolve this.-5- (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Superunknown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hey there - just a few notes on getting this to GA standard.

"Regarding the change in producer, guitarist Kim Thayil said, "We just thought we'd go for a change." - context - who were the previous producers? The casual reader (eg. me) isn't aware it's their first time with Beinhorn or anything like that.
Addressed.-5- (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
"The individual band members would work on material on their own and then bring in demos which the other band members would help work on." - the repetition here "band members" and "work on" is a bit annoying...
Addressed.-5- (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Second and third paragraphs of the "Recording" section contains a lot of "the band..."... can you get some variety ("Soundgarden...", "they....")?
Addressed.-5- (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... only the release date for one of the singles is known? (infobox)
Unfortunately, yes.-5- (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
"The song "Spoonman" is notable for featuring a performance by Artis the Spoonman..." - sources for this paragraph?
Addressed.-5- (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
In the Release and reception section can you link the songs the first time you name them?
Addressed.-5- (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you really need the singles charts table?
As a completist, I'm going to have to say yes.-5- (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's about it. Please leave me a note when done... cheers. —Giggy 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, everything seems fine. Passing. —Giggy 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

As the personnel section is so cluttered, I feel that columns are necessary for clarity purposes. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 03:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I would rather go by Wikipedia policy for this. I'm awaiting clarification for what that is.-5- (talk) 04:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Superunknown's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "rollingstone":
From Toni Braxton (album): McAlley, John. "Toni Braxton review". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2011-10-17. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
From Down on the Upside: Fricke, David (December 2, 1996). "Soundgarden: Down on the Upside". Rolling Stone. Retrieved March 26, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
From Pearl Jam (album): Metivier, Michael (2006-05-01). "Pearl Jam: Pearl Jam". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2010-06-10. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

King Animal and Down on the Upside both have been proven to warrant "Psychedelic rock" as one of their genres and I'm wondering if Superunknown falls under this same category. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Definitely does not sound like grunge. --Vitzque (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The United Kingdom release date was 7 March (Monday), a day before the stated release date of 8 March. I haven't edited it because I can't find a source. My information comes from reliable sources but I am unable to cite them because they have been lost in the mists of time. I collected the information before Wikipedia was invented, in the days when nobody worried about sources. Oh well. --Jameboy (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I may have that completely wrong. It charted on 19 March, suggesting that it was released on 14 March. Forget that one then. --Jameboy (talk) 6:31 pm, 12 March 2014, Wednesday (1 year, 7 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−4)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Superunknown/CommentsTalk:Superunknown/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 07:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Superunknown. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/6862/35223/45231
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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 21:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)