Talk:Laibach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Laibach (band))

Cite sources[edit]

Clearly, Tasic's additions drew heavily on Laibach's VH1 biography, but were not credited in the article to that source. I am adding that citation. Someone else may want to judge whether it drew so heavily on that site as to raise copyright issues. These were Tasic's only contributions to Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:15, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Sources need to be cited on the "drug addicts" comment, potentially libelous. (see Controversy placement)--68.63.162.93 (talk) 04:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also-- Where are the confirmations that Dejan Knez, the founding member, is no longer in Laibach? This seems to me like a particularly important line-up change, even if the line-up itself matters little as they are not necessarily a band. But has Dejan Knez simply receded into the murky margins of NSK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.222.59 (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dejan Knez isn't the member of Laibach any more unfortunally. For sure for more than 1 year.--Amazone7 (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rammstein influenced by Laibach?[edit]

I'm a huge Rammstein and Laibach fan and I don't hear much influence between the two. Also, this is the only place I've read that Rammstein was influenced by them. Can anyone provide any other reference to this? If not I think I'm going to remove it. - DNewhall

  • I'm with you. I say remove it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:29, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Disagreed. The influences from Laibach are obvious, from the usage of symbols to the musical approach. Compare Laibach's metal releases to Rammstein's. Compare the symbolism. It is commonly noticed by Laibach[1][2] fans and deserves a place in this article.
Laibach have even responded to this themselves:
"D: Laibach can’t seem to get Wat reviewed without silly comparisons to Rammstein. I’ve seen lots of arguments about Rammstein stealing elements from Laibach in the past, mostly concerning vocal style and even logo design. I’m curious of your reaction to this.
L: Laibach does not believe in originality and we don’t consider ourselves as sole authors and owners of our own ideas. Therefore, Rammstein could not “steal” much from us. They simply let themselves get inspired by our work, which is absolutely a legitimate process. We are glad that they made it. In a way, they have proven once again that a good “copy” can make more money on the market than the “original.” Anyhow, today we share the territory: Rammstein seem to be a kind of Laibach for adolescents and Laibach are Rammstein for “grown-ups.”"[3]
So, basically, a simple google search would have ended this debate. --:bloodofox: 03:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's an acknowledgment by the influenced band, then we should simply say they are 'compared' to Laibach, no? You can say that Laibach acknowledges their influence in others' music, but I would say leave it at that. Although similarities are obvious, 'influence' implies that one band is influenced by an older band - an alternate theory would simply be that the two draw their influence from an even older band. -Greymanx - 2008-07-26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greymanx (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laibach's metal releases? As far as I know, the only Laibach album that could be considered somewhat metal is Jesuschrist Superstars. They have always aligned themselves more with electronic music than with rock music. --Rivet138 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, industrial music draws it's inspiration from rock. RadiumMetal (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)RadiumMetal[reply]

The article suggests that Laibach appreciate the way Rammstein has been influenced by them. To me that is certainly not the case. The article even deliberately omits the last phrase of the quoted interview: “Rammstein are Laibach for adolescents and Laibach are Rammstein for grownups”. Does this phrase suggest that Laibach hold in high steem Rammstein´s work? I am not sure about it, and I would even think that it is the other way around. If you read between the lines Laibach is saying that only immature kids could enjoy Rammstein. Oh, and Laibach´s “Ohne Dich” cover switch the lines from “Ohne dich kann ich nicht sein (without you I can´t be)” to “Ohne mich kannst du nicht sein (without me you can´t be)”. He is clearly making fun of Lindemann´s pretentious melodrama. --Rivet138 (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While what you are saying may be true, your own admission of "reading between the lines" makes it opinion and original research. --dashiellx (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that Laibach holds in high regard Rammstein's work is not neutral. The article should just point out that Rammstein was influenced by Laibach. Period.--Rivet138 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the article mention something about how Laibach is strongly influenced by Kraftwerk and Ultravox? As for their image... it can be found in a lot of bands from the 80s and is nothing unique to Laibach (Gary Numan, Depeche Mode, Ultravox etc.). I found the Rammstein link to be misleading and something should be added to indicate that while there is a lot of shared imagery between the two bands, and while both bands share the industrial roots of Kraftwerk and Ultravox, Rammstein has taken a more Nine Inch Nails approach to their music while Laibach has remained closer to the work of Kraftwerk. The article's mention of Rammstein is fine but there needs to be a disclaimer that Rammstein's music is a lot heavier/hard rock while Laibach is alot more electronic.

Friedemann's singing style is identical to Laibach. Laibach came first. Rammstein also uses Laibach's cross. It is not hard to see the influence. 184.155.130.147 (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miran Mohar[edit]

The name of Miran Mohar was recently added to the article as a member. I thought he was a member of the IRWIN collective, not Laibach. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here http://www.pulsetc.com/article.php?sid=1479 (and some other sources) is said that he was other founder member with Thomas Hostnik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.23.9.228 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006.
Why you don't write Tomaž Hostnik? With Ž? He was Slovenian...--Amazone7 (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking[edit]

Why link the individual band members' names? Do any of them have fame outside of Laibach? Given Laibach's own opposition to taking individual credit for work, this seems particularly odd. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Burgalat[edit]

I think that you should mention the major influence of Bertrand Burgalat for their work in the eighties. He is really the one who made their classic sound for "Sympathy for the Devil" and "Let it be".

Vberger 11:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article you've linked to simply mentions Laibach in a long list of bands. Do you have something more substantive to suggest as a reference? - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link has changed (from fr: to en:) since I made this remark. - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He made (producing, instruments) for exemple their "let it be" album. He worked with them during 3 years. 85.26.4.148 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So... if you have something substantive (and citable) to say, add it to the article! - Jmabel | Talk 00:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Divided States of America[edit]

i'm adding an imdb link to the latest documentary on laibach. haven't seen it yet, so any additional info would be appreciated.213.172.254.20 02:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and Hitler[edit]

The quote where the vocalist says they're as much fascists as Hitler was a painter... Well, Hitler was a painter. I think whatever they're tying to say aught to be better clarified in the article, but I'm not sure how to word it. Leekohlbradley 08:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really up to Wikipedia to clarify people's own words, particularly with a group like Laibach, who are generally intentionally ambiguous. Better to let people draw their own conclusions. VoluntarySlave 23:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I thought when I read it. As far as I know Laibach never denied nationalism. They like it to be ambigious. So this part should be changed in the text.--85.0.14.33 (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"'We are fascists as much as Hitler was a painter.' It is a well known fact that Hitler tried to be a painter in his youth, but was never recognized to be an artist of any value, which would imply that Laibach are as fascist as Hitler was an artist - only pretending to be." I think this last part is an inaccurate interpretation. Hitler was trying to be a painter, but lacked the talent to be a successful one. I think a more accurate interpretation of Laibach's statement would be that Laibach are trying to be fascists, but for whatever reason (i.e., lack of talent) they are unable to achieve success as fascists. Eriksandall (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not ambiguous at all, Hitler was a painter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbist (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for whatever reason (i.e., lack of talent) they are unable to achieve success as fascists
Have you heard Nazi bands like Skrewdriver and Skullhead? You would think talent were as rare as rocking-horse shite. If Laibach had actually wanted to achieve prominence as fascists, it would not have caused them to break sweat, never mind cost them their genius.
Nuttyskin (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy placement[edit]

Should the controversy section really be the very first thing in this article? I think there is more relevantg information about the band that should come prior to that.Kittynboi 14:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the wording of the MEMBERSS section needs a complete re-working, as it really does not match the tone of the rest of the page. Additionally, the "drug addicts" comment sounds very juvenile ("drugs" is a very broad-sweeping term) and--unless reliable sources are cited--might also be considered libelous. Once these items are fixed, I would move that this section be moved above the CONTROVERSY section. (The only real argument against being that I've read articles in which Laibach states that the members of the band are not necessarily static and should not take precedence over the message their music conveys... which leads into controversy, of course.) --68.63.162.93 (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anybody know how old are they, Fras, Novak and the others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.175.177 (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously controversy is a controversial subject. Unless a specific article, news item, quote, or event is cited, 'controversy' shouldn't be a word used. There are plenty of opportunities in this article for citing interviews. Without examples, 'controversy' is meaningless in describing an art-related topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greymanx (talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zare2/Zare* edits[edit]

A user has requested mediation on this issue. A mediator will be here shortly to assist you. The case page for this mediation is located here.

As mentioned in the revert reasoning, the write-up you added, while containing good information, also contains:

  • basically no citations
  • WP:POV / WP:WEASEL / non-encyclopedic writing
  • mis-wiki-linking (like to web sites)

Please consider honing this large addition in your own sandbox and getting feedback from other editors prior to adding it. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zare2: "For what do I need a citation??? Thanks"

Much like any encyclopedia, you must have your long historical run-down backed by reference. Also, seriously: read the above WP links; read WP:OR; sign your discussion page edits; cite copyrights for the images you've uploaded; and please don't re-add your un-referenced thesis until you've complied with those. Lastly, avoid deleting relevant good material when you make edits in general (like the Japanese language article link). Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so instead of choosing to discuss this Zare2 / Zare* has gone back to pasting in what is apparently the contents of a band promo sheet from a booking agency.

  • Zare2/Zare*: If you read this, it's not encyclopedic, IMO. Could you imagine reading "Rather like super heroes in a comic book, it seems that wherever there is injustice there is also Laibach always attempting to save the day. Saviours of the universe? It could happen yet!" in the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
  • Other editors: I'd appreciate some comments yay or nay on these edits.

Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was a citation from a link I gave. What if I remove those lines? As a fan I'm trying to gave some better information from reliable sources and links. Will you help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zare2 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks for writing. I've asked for outside mediation to clarify whether it is ok to basically put the verbiage of an act's booking agent as article text (I have questions as to where this treads with respect to point-of-view, promotional issues, etc — i honestly have no idea). Beyond that, you're adding such a massive amount of content which is also breaking references (for example, scroll down to the references part of the article here) that i think it would be a lot more sane were you to make a version of the article in your sandbox and then have editors review it there before transplanting it here. In the meantime, it seems like it would be best to wait until mediation or other editors chimed in here. Thanks - Quaeler (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have accepted the mediation request made to WP:MEDCAB. I'm reviewing the dispute and will be getting back to you shortly. Since this seems to be a very simple issue, I will most likely be getting back to you tonight. Trusilver 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the time being I'm declining to edit protect the article. Regardless of the suitability of Zare's edits, they do appear to be made in good faith and I see no reason to protect a page that isn't being abused maliciously. Trusilver 04:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have looked over the dispute and while I'm not sure that MEDCAB was the best forum for airing this disagreement, I will see what we can work out here. The major issue that I see here has to do with a lack of knowledge concerning Wikipedia policies. So I will start with this question: Zare, what is it that you would like to see on this article that isn't already here, and why? Trusilver 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Ambients[edit]

I think the compilation CD "An Anthology of Noise and Electronic Music, Vol. 2" should be added to the discography because there is the Laibach piece "Industrial Ambients" which is unreleased elsewhere. However, I don't know how to add it because there is no section for compilations in the discography. What do you think? Roope (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think is is appropriate, go ahead and add a section. --dashiellx (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the Blutengel page for a format suggestion. --dashiellx (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion! I added the section. There probably are also other compilations that could be added to that section. Roope (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirections[edit]

I did not check them all, but for sure, 300.000 K.V. gets redirected to Laibach. It is their side project, but it is a side project. It has it's own context, feel and musical style. Along with this redirect, is no mention or information really on this side project. Nor is the 300.000 K.V. Discography listed. I am not a writer, and I am far from the authoritarian on this group, but it deserves it's own page. Collision-Shift (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked again, and un the "related articles" section, are "links" to side projects and related nsk. the link for Germania, redirects to this very same page (the Laibach page), resulting in 2 cyclical link backs, at the least. Collision-Shift (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems[edit]

I think there should be a history of Laibach in the beginning of the article. But who would write it? At the moment there is something about the history in the different sections of the article.

The "members" section of the infobox is a bit problematic. At the moment five members are mentioned: Fras, Eber, Saliger, Dachauer, Keller. I think there should be either just the four fictional "official" member or there should be whoever is in the current performing lineup of Laibach. One more possibility might be that there were only Milan Fras and Ivan Novak.

Roope (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laibach[edit]

Being tired of the many ignorant things Wikipedia editors write, I haven't taken time to establish when the city of Laibach (Lubljana) was first referred to as Laibach, but it clearly wasn't WW II as this article implies. Ljubljana had been part of Austria for centuries, probably since the city was founded. The city's name had nothing to do with WW II. In fact Slovenia had a large German population (Laibach probably also did). That is why it was called Laibach. Because it belonged to Austria (of the Austro-Hungarian empire), whose dominant language was German.

I wanted to write something about that, so I'll do it here. Laibach is indeed a historical name of the town, used since the town was established in the middle ages. Please check the page of Ljubljana on Wiki. If you check the middle ages chapter you will see that when it was first mentioned in 12th century, its name was written Leibach. That is not to say that the Slovenian name (Ljubljana) is not old too, but it's to prove that the German name isn't from yesterday either. About this article, something should be done about the chapter Aesthetics, ... in which it's written that the name Laibach was briefly (!) used during WW II (end of 2nd paragraph).--Borutix1 (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the city was refered to as Ljubljana by the government of Kingdom of Yugoslavia. During the German Occupation during WWII, the Nazi's changed the name to Laibach in their official government documents, etc... due to it being the historical German name. Some German media sources still refer to the city as Laibach to this day, even thought the city residence and the Slovinean government call it Ljubljana. --dashiellx (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general you're right. It's just that saying that the name was used during WW2 sort of misses the point, that it was used for centuries (as is true for the Slovenian "Ljubljana"). On the other hand, considering haw the band is using Nazi symbolism, the fact about Nazis using the name Laibach is relavant. I just think it should be stressed that it is (as you've said yourself) a historic name (and not just made up or something by Nazis).--Borutix1 (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Laibach" is as much a reference to German occupation of the capital of Slovenia as "Vienna" is a reference to US & British occupation of the capital of Austria - that is, none at all. Vienna is the English name of the Austrian city, and Laibach is the German name of the Slovenian city. Ds77 (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tico tico[edit]

What is the version of Tico Tico used by Laibach in concerts as interlude? It's also heard on Ljubljana-Zagreb-Beograd album as Tito-Tito and could be heard also here (at 34'15"). 87.95.16.36 (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3Q3v8gkRKQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.33.175.132 (talk) 13:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Laibach (band). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laibach (band). 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2018[edit]

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: moved. Consensus to move. While the opposers provide a valid claim, they failed to prove how Laibach has long-term significance to the city Ljubljana. Quote WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY — Being the original source of the name does not make a topic primary. A topic may have principal relevance for a specific group of people, but not be the primary meaning among a general audience. While long-term significance is a factor, historical age is not determinative. Among the general audience, the band appears to be the primary topic as indicated by search results. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Zawl 10:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The internationally famous band is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of term "Laibach" in English language (maybe not in German, but this is English wiki). The other two articles on Laibach (disambiguation) are the historical name of city of Ljubljana and Laibach (Ruthenbach), a small and obscure river in Germany. While Ljubljana is an important topic, it is simply not often referenced by its historical name in English, so it hardly competes with the band in terms of encyclopedic importance. Even in GBook search the references to band prevail over the city. No such user (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose difficult to see how the band passes WP:PT2. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Relatively few people use the Laibach, Slovenia redirect or the dab page, so the city is not an issue. Pageviews also indicate the band to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Station1 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The primary meaning is Ljubljana. The current setup is acceptable. Making a band the main topic is not. Srnec (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Srnec: Please back up the assertion that "primary meaning is Ljubljana" for English speakers. News search disagrees; GBook search also disagrees; plain search also disagrees. The city is simply not widely known by its historical name, i.e. it's not Constantinople or Danzig. The band is an important cultural phenomenon, widely covered in a number of publications. No such user (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Ljubljana is the primary topic for Laibach "with respect to long-term significance [because it] has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than" a niche band founded in 1980 and rather obviously named after said city. See also Congress of Laibach. It wasn't an unknown village. In any case, currently WP recognises no primary topic, so it is not strictly relevant. Srnec (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    However, Ljubljana squarely fails WP:PTOPIC#1, much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term. While we should exercise caution in promoting popular-culture topics to primary topic status, having the dab page at the base title does not strike me as the right balance between long-term encyclopedic value (PT#2) and readers' expectations (PT#1); as I said, the city is not exactly renowned for its historical name, Congress of Laibach of 1821 notwithstanding. The band's career spans 35 years, it was subject to serious and long-term RS coverage due to their controversial iconography and style, it's far from a one-hit wonder, and certainly passes the "ten-year test". Laibach (band) receives 52,000 pageviews @90 days, almost half of that of Ljubljana (116,000), while the dab page has significant 2700. We're sending ~1000 readers a month to the dab page they most certainly don't expect – let's face it, 99% of them are looking for the band when they type "Laibach". No such user (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If 52,000 read the band's page in the last 90 days and 2,700 the dab page, that indicates that very few people who want to read the band's page are inconvenienced by the current setup. They don't get there through the dab page. There is educational value for those < 2,700 who learn that Laibach is the old name of Ljubljana while trying to find the band. Srnec (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm from the USA and I speak English, and if someone just said "Laibach" to me, my first thought is that they're using the German name for Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia. I wouldn't think of the band (which is itself named for the old Habsburg-era name for Ljubljana), unless you specifically said the band Laibach. This sort of reminds me of the person several years ago who wanted the page on "Sirius," the star, to point to Sirius Satellite Radio. Jsc1973 (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The band gets 92 percent of pageviews over the other "Laibach" articles, disambiguation page included. So it massively passes the pageview test. As for long-term significance, that's related. The Slovenian capital is indeed quite significant. But since so few modern English-language sources use "Laibach" to refer to the Slovenian capital, "Laibach" as a name for that city does not rate nearly as highly. Let's help get our readers where they want to go! Dohn joe (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Dohn joe. The capital goes by another name entirely. Laibach is simply an older, out dated name. People will be looking it up by the current name. A simple hatnote will handle any other (vanishingly small number of) issues. —Torchiest talkedits 18:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Few people refer to the city as Laibach. feminist (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Sturm und Klang[edit]

Mentioned among Side Projects, but not otherwise glossed, this mysterious title (which alludes to Sturm und Drang) I would imagine to be a collaboration between Laibach and Kraftwerk. Any information, folks? Nuttyskin (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2018 (UTC) https://www.discogs.com/artist/247412-Strom-Und-Klang a bit info but i do not know much. sounds like Kapital album 85.194.208.161 (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laibach&oldid=1208078233"