Talk:Slipknot discography

Other Albums?

Slipknot had other albums, like "Jump Up!", that were albums and compilation albums. Shouldn't they include these? Also, I think a section should be dedicated to"Crowz", because there is evidence that it does exist, but wasn't released, even though Mick said that it never existed, he meant that it was ever meant to be released into the public domain, and the band is forgetting about it. You want proof of crowz just ask. Please consider my ideas. CrowzRSA 23:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Jump Up! was an unofficial album. Wikipedia does not allow for inclusion of unofficial material. Crowz was recorded, yes, but never released. You said that it wasn't released "into the public domain," which means that it was not released at all. Andre666 (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No it wasn't released, and to add to that I have never seen a single WP:RS which makes reference to Crowz. Forums and fansites are not RSs. blackngold29 01:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

SALES ARE NOT ACCURATE?

99x platinum? Impossible. Someone find the real stats. 128.205.145.159 20:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

On a saner note it says that Vol 3 is 3x platinum, which is contradicted by the RIAA database. I fixed the problem. --220.245.67.7 10:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, Platinum and Gold status is for the amount shipped, not sold. Inhumer (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The debut album is 2x platinum, and Vol. 3 is 3x platinum —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.126.164 (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Anders Era Songs

I think we should include songs Anders wrote before he left the band. Titles like Windows, Heartache And A Pair Of Scissors, and May 17th. Just a suggestion.

This is a discography, as those songs were never singles, they shouldn't be included. Blackngold29 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal Of Crowz

I have removed the Crowz from the discography as there was never an album released and to quote Mick Thomson, "There is no record called Crowz".[1] (Rezter 00:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC))
Agree with Retzer, but searching for 'Crowz' still redirects to this article, why, presuming the above is true? I think this redirect should be removed JDT1991 (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, because people will search for Crowz, and if it doesn't come up with the album then they are going to keep creating the new article. If it redirects to the discography, they will know there is—and should not be—an article on Crowz. Get me? Andre666 (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Actualy, Mick Thompson said "crowz never existed". By that he meant that crowz was an album that would have made slipknot, less of what they are today, and that they shouldn't release it into the public domain. If crowz "never existed" or had no record, where did all those songs from the crowz album come from? Where do you think "coleslaw", "the me inside", "carve", "gently" etc. came from? I mean they wouldn't have recorded and re-recorded thoses songs for no reason. Some of crowz songs have been released into the public domane, and that, is what proves that crowz, in fact, did exist.--CrowzRSA 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but fans and the media blew it way out of proportion and it still stands that it doesn't warrant an article. Andre666 (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't have a term redirect to a page that then makes no mention of that term. It is very confusing. I didn't know what Crowz was, searched for it, ended up on this page, and couldn't find any explanation for why I ended up on this page. 82.69.30.234 (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Songs appearing in popular culture

"The Blister Exists" never appeared in Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. The game featured only 2 Godsmack songs and thats it. I Stand Alone (instrumental) & Straight Out of Line in credtis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.196.61.194 (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Slipknot logo.svg

Image:Slipknot logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Singles: What about "Before I Forget" and "The Nameless?"

Weren't these released as singles, too? At least "Before I Forget," the rock radio station in Atlanta plays it constantly, so I always thought it was a single. Dark Executioner (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Before I Forget" was only released on a promo CD for radio play and 2 individual 7" singles, I have the 2 7" singles and have seen the promo CD on eBay multiple times. "The Nameless" was only released on a promo CD for radio play too, I bought this off eBay as well. So yeah according to Single (music) they are both classed as singles on the terms they have videos and radio play to help promote the songs singularly. Rezter ^TALK 14:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

POV?

"Their second album Iowa was released in 2001, it is a heavier album than their debut."

this looks like blatant POV, doesnt it?the juggreserection ^IstKrieg! 14:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, the lead-in still needs refining. Rezter ^TALK 15:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote that, I was just trying to think of stuff to write, I must of been tired. I'll get if fixed. Blackngold29 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Disasterpiece live b-side...

In the B-Side section a live version of Disasaterpiece is listed as being on the Duality single, is this the same version that was released on the Special Edition of Vol. 3? It would make sense as the rest of the B-sides from Duality and Vermilion were also on the Specail edition second disc. I can't confirm this becuase I don't have the Duality single. Thanks! Blackngold29 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

MFKR move

I have moved MFKR down from studio albums Other Releases... I know there was large debate over were it should be but to fall in touch with all other articles and templates like Slipknot (band) and {{Slipknot}} I feel it should be seperate... it didn't chart and didn't receive any certifications so I don't believe it belongs in that table, plus it was decided it was demo-album so I believe it should be seperate to avoid confusion. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean with that? Do you want to bring up the discussion again?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Aww man, are you really gonna make this a big deal again? It's just confusing for everywhere else to not list it in the same area as the studio albums then for to come over to the discography and it's listed in the same table as their studio albums... it appears as if MFKR is the same and it isn't... there was only 1000, it didn't chart and it's not available, we decided it was a demo.. a "full length demo-album" yes but a demo all the same. The MFKR article is very comprehensive now and if anybody wants to learn more about it they will learn all they need to know there and they will see the difference between Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat., Slipknot Demo and their Studio Albums and to then list it in the same section as the studio albums is just confusing. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I believed that you are one of the honest editors, but I am disappointed. Anyway, you are a lucky boy these days, because I am not interested in Slipknot-related articles. Thus I won't argue with you, so you can feel free to break here the policy of Wikipedia as you like it and as you do it. Good luck! :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The most important thing that came out of that discussion, was that the footnote was added. The footnote is still there, although one of them is listed as the MFKR official website, which is NOT a reliable source (never has been, this is generally agreed upon), although it links to this page which is completely different, so I dunno. As long as the footnote remains, there is no "policy" being broken whatsoever. Blackngold29 16:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize it's been a while, but if the discussion is ever brought up again I have realized—due to my increased experience on this site—that the sources used in the original discussion claiming MFKR was a "real album" were un-reliable (ie. the un-reliable so-called MFKR "official site", Blackgoat.com). And as the comprimise was reached based on un-reliable sources, it is pretty much null. I would really prefer not to re-open that discussion, but if it ever is, I would not settle for the same result based on the same sources. Blackngold29 00:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well if you read through it carefully the unreliable sources are the oens that were used to try and prove it should be declared an album. So I don't see why you wouldn't be happy with the result. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable sources were used on both sides of the argument, however the side supported by myself presented more reliable sources than the opposition. I am happy with the current state of the list, I just wanted to make sure that if this discussion is ever revisited that those who debate it do not make the same mistake of allowing un-reliable sources to be used again. Blackngold29 14:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Results for Belgium are incorrect?

First of all, the link referred too, is not correct. These are not the Belgian charts, but the Flemish charts, which is only a part of Belgium. There are also Wallonish charts, but as far as I know, combined Belgian charts don't exist.

The results for the selftitled album, Iowa and The Subliminal Verses are therefore the Flemish results.

The result for All Hope is Gone is wrong either way. The highest peak in Flanders is 5, in Wallonia it is 8 at this moment while in the article it is said to be 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.144.200 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Music Videos

There are more videos than included in this article. Welcome to our neighborhood has Surfacing, and The Heretic Anthem was featured on it's single and Disasterpieces. I understand that both these videos are live, but so is the Wait and Bleed music video... I don't know if they should be included or not. CrowzRSA ^{17:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}

I'm pretty sure "Surfacing" is a legit music video. It's on the self-titled album's 10th anniversary edition, and the song was also a promotional single in France. I can't back that up, though, it's just something I noticed on discogs.com. AcousticSynth (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

vol. 5

wutever happened to vol 5? im pretty sure its bein made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.151.146 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

MTV list

Why is http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/slipknot/albums.jhtml listing so many more albums than are here? Somebody please fix that before this list gets FLRCed. Nergaal (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That's because that list includes unofficial releases of Slipknot. If you look at all the releases that aren't currently i nthis discography you will see that they were not released by Slipknot themselves. These should not be included in this doscigraphy at all, this is not a fault in the article. --REZTER ^TALK ø 15:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Good topic

Just to let people know, if the (sic)nesses article isn't brought up to GA before December 28, 2010, this will be demoted from GT. CrowzRSA 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

'The Negative One'

Is it just an error, or has this song both been released as a single and a promotional single?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Slipknot discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140812050818/http://www.bauda.com/music-videos/63/ to http://www.bauda.com/music-videos/63
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130630032558/http://www.bauda.com:80/music-videos/27/ to http://www.bauda.com/music-videos/27
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140812080049/http://www.bauda.com/music-videos/2/ to http://www.bauda.com/music-videos/2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130629080141/http://www.bauda.com:80/music-videos/83/ to http://www.bauda.com/music-videos/83

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Slipknot discography. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130630033638/http://www.bauda.com:80/music-videos/69/ to http://www.bauda.com/music-videos/69

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Overhaul

Hi. I just wanted to let anyone watching know that I have overhauled the discography article. I have taken references from the existing version and improved a lot of them to make them more reliable. The music video table was messed up and other elements were a bit of a mess, so I think it could do with it. There were also a few more charts missed off from other charted songs and video albums, and some of the music video directors were incorrect. I have also amended the charts used slightly to reflect overall success and coverage. There should be nothing wrong with it now, so please post here if you are going to make a massive change/reversion. Thanks. Andre666 (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Certification

As of September 23, 2016, the single The Devil In I has been certified Gold by RIAA. It would be better to include this information. DtwipzBchat 18:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And, after writing the above message, I went ahead and did the necessary edit(s). I hope it's ok. Although subsequent changes to the head section is needful. DtwipzBchat 19:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Slipknot discography. 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/20160716112934/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certified-awards.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202022835/http://www.musikindustrie.de/no_cache/gold_platin_datenbank/ to http://www.musikindustrie.de/no_cache/gold_platin_datenbank/
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5nDfynkk6?url=http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin to http://www.ifpi.at/?section=goldplatin
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608144547/http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp?chartNum=1741&chartKind=D to http://rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp?chartNum=1741&chartKind=D

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) 19:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)