Talk:Slipknot (album)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Numbers?

Should the credits include each member's number? Blackngold29 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, they are credited with their numbers in the booklet. I'll do that now. Rezter TALK 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Recorded in Malibu?

Some other articles list Indigo Ranch as being located in Malibu, California; is this true? If so it should probably be added to the infobox. Blackngold29 (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Single's release dates

Amazon.com confirms both, however I am not certain this is a reliable source (for release dates anyway). Also Spit It Out is listed and noted in the article as the first single that was released, however the release date is two weeks after Wait and Bleed, was this simply a mistake? Blackngold29 (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what is true as I can't find a reliable source, I think Amazon's release dates depend on what sellers state. Rezter TALK 09:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Heatseekers Chart???

According to the All Music Guide here, this album peaked at number 1 on the Heatseekers chart. I've never heard of that before, is it reliable? Blackngold29 (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes that should be added, the heatseakers chart is ran by Billboard and AMG are affiliated with them (I think). Anyways AMG is a reliable source. Rezter TALK 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Chart Positions

There are a few chart positions that are listed on the Slipknot discography page that should be added here, but I don't know the exact names of each charts (The ones from Netherlands, Sweeden, Austria, etc.). If someone does that would be great if you could add them or list them here and I could do it. Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just put the country, the sources are from the countries album/singles charts. REZTER TALK ø 19:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I added them in during my copy edit. For future reference, a lot of countries' charts are listed at Record chart. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 04:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Special Edition?

The lyric wiki lists a Special Edition of Slipknot that was released in 1997. link. I am certainly not taking this as a credible source, I was just wondering if anyone would know why they would list such a thing? It would appear that the track listing is that of the original digipak release, do they just have the date wrong? Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 03:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the same track listing but without "Scissors", I'm sure they're mistaken. I haven't seen an edition with that listing and they never released it in 1997.REZTER TALK ø 08:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article status 2nd op

In detail: I've noticed that copy-editing the entire article is on the To-Do list at the top of this page. I think that's a good idea because some of the prose is unclear and a little confusing. In my opinion a serious edit session should take place before this article can receive GA status. However, since English is not my first language I'd like a 'native speaker' to make the final decision. Rien Post (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and have failed the article. Copyediting needed. It could also do with expansion of reception, etc. - I'm sure there's more info on an album by a big band like this one. Gimme a yell if you'd like me to take another look. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Review of article

Following a request at my talk page, I am giving this article a peer review, and will copy edit anything I see as I go along

Green tickYFirst thoughts: There are too many sections, and some could be merged into others: Green tickY Blackngold29 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Revised headings

  • Controversy, Award nominations and accolades, Chart positions and Sales certifications could all become subsections of Reception
  • Eeyore could become a subsection of Tracklisting
  • I would then order it as:
  1. Recording and production
  2. Music style and lyrical themes
  3. Tracklisting
    1. Eeyore
    2. (You could also include a paragraph of similar length to Eeyore about the two tracks that were released as singles)
  4. Reception
    1. Controversy
    2. Award nominatons and accoloades
    3. Chart positions
    4. Sales certifications (Remove the sub-sub-sections of US, Canada and UK, and turn it into a well written paragraph)
  5. Personnel
  6. References

I will post more comments soon. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 02:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Second look
Style
I'll copy edit as I go, but if I find anything that goes against the WP:MOS, I'll list it here, and leave it to you to change. That way, you guys know it for future reference.

  • Green tickY Per MOS:UNLINKYEARS, do not wikilink month and year combinations such as "February 1999".Green tickY REZTER TALK ø 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Sorted (that was the only one, right?)
  • I'm not sure about this one, I'm not sure an extra period is needed after "Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat." to close the sentence. I removed it, but stick it back in if someone knows better
  • Green tickY "[17][10]" Make sure when references are placed together, to order them numerically Green tickY REZTER TALK ø 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Done. (only one?)
  • Green tickY Only capitalise the first word of section headings, so "Original Digipak" should be "Original digipak", "Digipak Re-release" should be "Digipak re-release" Green tickY Blackngold29 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Corrected

Content
Here I will put anything I think is needed to improve on the content, such as additions, references, or removals

  • Green tickY "...performing in the studio as they do onstage, only without the masks and coveralls." Although Slipknot fans will get this, non-fans won't. Can anything be included here about why and when they wear the mask & coverall outfits Green tickY REZTER TALK ø 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I have expanded on this.
  • Right now, the casual reader with think, So what if it includes melody? Is this not typical of the genre, or of Slipknot? Basically, explain why it's important Red XN REZTER TALK ø 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I don't think they do because that whole section describes the musical style and prior to that statement it includes links to pages describing genres which they sound like.
  • Green tickY "The lyrics include many expletives, which has only led to minor criticism." Reference needed Red XN Blackngold29 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) The reference was removed because it was not written by a "professional reviewer"; although one does need not be a professional to critisize do they? I'll wait for a second opinion: Re-add ref or eliminate sentance?
  • Green tickY "on May 2, 2000, the album was certified platinum," Where? The U.S. I presume, but state it. The reader shouldn't have to make assumptions. Remember, "Assume" makes an "ass" out of "u" and "me" :) Green tickY Blackngold29 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Corrected intro paragraph as well
  • I also split that very long sentence into two, so make sure to move the relevant reference to the end of the new sentence, rather than leaving it where it is
  • Green tickY "the band was accused of copyright infringement surrounding the song "Purity"." Reference needed Green tickY REZTER TALK ø 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Green tickY fictional story, or real life story? Green tickY REZTER TALK ø 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Sorted... fictional.
  • Green tickY Why "Frail Limb Nursury"? It isn't explained right now Green tickY REZTER TALK ø 07:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC) I added that it was a short prelude to the song.
  • Green tickY "and a slightly altered mastering" What does this mean? Red XN REZTER TALK ø 17:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) You know.. Audio mastering, I don't think it should be explained what it is in the article.
  • Green tickY I removed the instance of "Surfacing (Live)" in regards to Eeyore. I couldn't see this as a tracklisting, or any other mention of it. If I was wrong, add it back in as necessary.
  • Green tickY The Award nominations and accolades section has to be, in my opinion, turned into prose. Green tickY Blackngold29 03:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Done and merged with Reception section
  • Green tickY Is there any reason why it states, "All songs were written and performed by Slipknot."? It's already been mentioned, surely it's a given that they're performed by Slipknot, and why is the band linked to again? Red XN Blackngold29 14:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC) As per: WP: Albums it should remain; thanks to The Haunted Angel for bringing this up.
    • Green tickYAh. I didn't know that it's a Project requirement. Looking at it, it says it should say "All songs were written by Slipknot". Saying they were performed by is a bit over-stating the obvious, and I couldn't see where it said to do it in that link you gave. Also, was each song written by each member of the band? Green tickY Blackngold29 04:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC) The section states: "If all songs were written by the same person or team, this can be stated at the top as "All songs were written by Gordon Gano." I think we put it that way because it was a quote of the album booklet. I removed "performed".
  • Green tickY Align the digipak with the digipak re-release Green tickY REZTER TALK ø 17:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Consider changing the headings from "Original" to "Standard version", "Original Digipak" to "Digipak version", "Re-release" to "Standard re-release version", and "Digipak Re-release" to "Digipak re-release version" Green tickYRed XN Blackngold29 03:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC) I think it should be left as "Original" because the original is not the standard version, the re-release is now the "Standard". Second opinoin?
    • Green tickYDigipak is a style of casing. The jewel case is the standard casing, which is why I suggested using "standard". "Original" seems to me to mean to both the original release of the standard casing, and the digipak casing. Green tickY Blackngold29 04:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, sorry. I misunderstood that. It's been fixed.
  • Green tickY New Zealand's chart position should be placed above the Netherlands; NZ speaks English, this is the English Wikipedia. Green tickY Blackngold29 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Rearranged
  • Green tickY Is there no Australian data? Red XN Blackngold29 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) It did not chart in Austrailia, I assume it should be omitted?
  • Can any prose be added to the Chart positions, for instance how long it took to reach its peak position in each market?
  • Green tickY The sales certifications should be turned into prose. Green tickY Blackngold29 03:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Done and merged with Reception.

That's all I have for now. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, per a comment here, just popping in to apologise that I didn't leave more comments when I failed the GAN. Basically, the main issue was copyediting - it needed a full run through. It looks much better now...if you nominate it at GAN, I'd be happy to review it. Regards, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article review

(Note: I made a few changes myself, per standards of other album articles)

Part 1

  • Why does that additional album cover need to be there? It looks the exact same as the original cover except for a border around it. It goes against Non-free use criteria #3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Please remove it (and simliar cases from other album articles).
    • I disagree, I feel it certainly does need to be included. It identifies the digipak, which is very different to the CD version. REZTER TALK ø 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The digipak may be different but cover art is the same. We are the free encyclopedia, not the encyclopedia that list every possible version of an album cover even if it is the exact same image. The case isn't like that of the Is This It album covers, which are sufficiently different to warrant inclusion, and there are notable reasons (mentioned in the prose) why they need to be included. This is not the case here. Further, the album covers are too big as of now, and need to be resized to about 300x300. indopug (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Green tickY The Chart positions section needs a little cleanup. Click on each of those charts and check whether they actually should be italicised, I don't think of them are. Also overlinking: "Wait and Bleed" and UK Singles Chart are linked twice? Why?
  • Still incorrect: UK Albums chart should not italicised; neither should most of the others. indopug (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Which ones should be italics? The specific names of the charts? Blackngold29 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Click on the chart names, see how it is in their articles (italics or not), and then follow the same here. Simple. indopug (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I got it. Blackngold29 18:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh sorry I was only looking at the album, not the singles. My fault. Thanks. Blackngold29 18:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Green tickYDo all those release dates and albums lengths need to be there in the infobox? I must say that rereleases/Digipak versions of an album are never nearly as important as the original album itself, and such detail needn't be waxed on them.
    • I removed some, but left others (Special edition length and re-release date), since those are somewhat important. If there are still too many feel free to remove those. Blackngold29 17:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Personnel: keep everthing in one column, because it was a little confusing otherwise. Also follow a consistent format. Either person's name first, what his contribution later; or vice versa (I prefer the former). Are those band-member numbers necessary? they're awful confusing for Slipknot noobs.
    • I personally think the columns distinguish the band members from the additional support they had with the album. I strongly feel their numbers are relevant... they're as important (if not more) than their actual names. If anybody is confused or intrigued by them they can easily find further information in the Slipknot (band) article. REZTER TALK ø 17:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • To add to that: In the album booklet they are credited by their numbers and first names only (as all other releases). Blackngold29 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I am really unhappy about the changes made to this section, I think it is actually more confusing now and I also think the reference shouldn't have been removed. I really don't see any logic behidn any of the changes to that section, it looked neat and tidy, now it's kind of confusing. REZTER TALK ø 17:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yeah I'm gonna have to agree with Rezter on this one. There's really nothing on WP:Albums that says it must be one column. Obviously they weren't thinking about a nine-member band when they wrote that. It seems to me that making it a single column just forces unnecesarry scrolling. And I don't see how the citation hurts it. Blackngold29 19:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
OK change it back. No issues. Could you copy this for a way to make the columns wider apart? (It uses {{col-begin}} {{col-2}}) The reason I asked for a single column was that it was confusing for me because the columns were so close-by.indopug (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I added the columns and dashes. If anyone would prefer the "Mixed by:" over "- mixer" etc. feel free to switch it back around. Blackngold29 03:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The references need to be consistently formatted. Cite templates often only complicate matters and I suggest you not use them (But make sure to either use them always or never. Consistency comes first). Try to be consistent with "McIver, Joel (2001), Slipknot: Unmasked, Omnibus, p. 58, ISBN 0711986770"
    • Could you be more specific? Like what are the faults you have? Are you sayign that we shouldn't use citation templates (which are reccomended) or there is soem inconsistencies? If there is can you poitnthem out for me please. REZTER TALK ø 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the refs need to look consistent, that's all. For eg: I think somethings wrong with #, 10, 16, 17, 18. Why are the dates in that format? indopug (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Track listing section is rather overwhelming. We do not need to list each and every version ever released. Leave the original one as it is (without the "Standard version" sub-section) and only add the additional tracks found on other releases with their track number. Also why is Eyeore a subsection of the track listing? Add it seamlessly to the Themes section.
    • There isn't always just "additional" tracks... soem tracks have been removed and shifted about, I really don't see a logical way of just listing the changed tracks. REZTER TALK ø 16:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I see that the frst seven tracks are the same for all, and the Digipak special has all/most of the tracks of the other digipaks. In any case its not that important to list each and every version ever released, and better to keep it at concise as possible. The original album is more important than any of the others isn't it? I'd say just have a "Additional tracks on Digpak SE" sub-section listting #8 to #20 and remove the rest. indopug (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What about the re-release? You can't just list the original track listing because that isn't available any more. REZTER TALK ø 17:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason I'm insisting on cutting down this section is that for the casual reader, coming across five lists is rather overwhelming and very unnecessary. The interested reader, who wants the other lists, can always go to the official website or AMG to see them. Too much detail simply puts off the passing reader from reading the rest of the article. Besides, the track listing is hardly the most important section of the article, and flooding it is pointless. indopug (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I propose we keep the original standard, the standard re-release, and the digipak special edition. Any thoughts? I wouldn't mind keeping all of them, but I can understand how five are overwhelming. Truth be told according to AMG there are eight different versions, although the official site lists only one. Blackngold29 18:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool. But list them below the original, side-by-side, and from track 8 onwards. indopug (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've changed them, what do you think? REZTER TALK ø 23:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Minor detail: in the track listing and personnel sections, it shouldn't be hyphens (-) but rather endashes (–) (Corey Taylor – vocals). indopug (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

THere concludes the first part of my review, once you're done with these I'll review the actual content and prose of the article. (Note: please don't strike my comments, but mark them as done.) Good luck, indopug (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick note from me per request on my talk page; I have no objection to this being nominated, and indopug is a good reviewer, so good luck all. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Part 2

Ignore the above, I've restated everuthing remaining here:

  • this version of the article References need to be consistently formatted; try to make them in line with "McIver, Joel (2001), Slipknot: Unmasked, Omnibus, p. 58, ISBN 0711986770". #9 "(1999-12) Alternative Press Magazine, p. 116." seems odd, why is the date like that? Same for #16 & 17, while #18 has an error. Why does ref #21 have the publication date after the publisher while the others have it in brackets? Some refs end with "." while others don't. #22 is missing publisher data. "Arnopp 2001"--no need to mention year actually, since its already listed. Make sure you wikilink the first instance of a publisher in the refs.
  • Those are Cite book templates, per WP:CITE I use the different templates for the different template types, I can not alter the way those templates display the information. REZTER TALK ø 08:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
i don't think the date should ever come as (1999-11-06); you must have entered the info in the wrong format, check the Cite template's page for input format. (This is why I recommended not using templates at all; you can type out refs the exact way you want it to be displayed.) indopug (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Per WP:RS, why are the following sources reliable?
  • contactmusic
  • that O2 site
  • CDuniverse
  • I believe only the official reviews from those sites were used. Blackngold29 14:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The word "magazine" should never be neither linked, italicised nor capitalised. (''[[Spin Magazine|Spin]]'' magazine rather than ''[[Spin Magazine]]'')
  • Green tickY Isn't there a link for Rollin Stone in the infobox?
    • Should all links given in the infobox be removed from the rest of the article? Blackngold29 06:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No, what I meant is, why is there no RS link in the infobox? indopug (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Slipknot is the major label debut album"--That's odd because the band's template below lists this as their first album; so why major label?
    • lol. Slipknot self-released a "demo album" entitled Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. prior to this one. There is an ongoing debate whether it is a demo (as the band says it is) or an "album" as other people feel it is, which we really don't want to get into again. This is their first "major label album" either way. Blackngold29 14:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Green tickY The lead makes no mention of the music in the album; add a line about the general lyrical themes, and one about the style (very heavy, large line-up, densely layered sound... whatever stands out the most about the music) A quote from a publisher that sums up the album would be nice too (though not necessary)
    • Added a line about the music, but should there also be one about the lyrics? Blackngold29 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Green tickY Websites should not be in italics-->All Music Guide.
There are a few instances you've done it I think, ctrl+F for it, for thoroughness
  • Some of the prose is a little confusing and needs a little fine-tuning. The following are ones that are particularly awkward, finish these and I'll try to fix the rest myself:
  • Green tickY "The album was the band's first collaboration with record producer Ross Robinson, whose input was regarded as refining the band's current sound as opposed to altering their musical direction."--what is a current sound? The first collab thing isn't needed for the lead. How about "The album was produced by Ross Robinson, who sought to refine Slipknot's sound rather than alter the group's musical direction"? I don't think this is mentioned in the prose again though.
Green tickY Not done in the lead anyway.
  • Green tickY "Band members expressed how anxious they were to record this album due to their annoyance of waiting to be signed." is a very odd sentence. I don't think I understand it clearly too.
  • Green tickY "practicing with their new line-up"--that reads as if apart from Root also were there changes. Just use band instead of new lineup.
  • Green tickY "The mixing stages of the album were considered very challenging."--its rather abrupt can you elaborate?
  • Perhaps it should be: "more challenging than expected"? I don't have that book so I can't say for certain. Blackngold29 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Its just abrupt; if you call something "challenging" and then don't explain why, it leaves the reader in a state of confusion and curiosity.
It was: "The mixing stages of the album were considered very challenging, as drummer Joey Jordison and producer Robinson mastered the entire album by hand with old equipment as opposed to high-tech computer equipment." and I don't know what happened to that. REZTER TALK ø 17:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that makes sense. Re-add it indopug (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "However unlike when they perform on stage the band were not wearing their masks and coveralls."--that's kinda obvious and reads rather silly--can you remove it completely?
  • I altered it slightly, but it still sound odd and unnecessary. Any objections to a removal? Blackngold29 06:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Remove it. Note that you haven't even mentioned before that they wear masks and uniforms, so its confusing for the lay reader. indopug (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "The lyrics include many expletives, which has only led to minor criticism."--again rather odd.
  • Why is Eyeore in the track listing section? Move it to themes. indopug (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, I've moved that. REZTER TALK ø 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think pretty much everything has been addressed, except the citations' formatting which is still awful. indopug (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I went through and changed them all, so either it's good or I completely fudged the whole thing over. Blackngold29 06:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I took care of pretty much everything myself. One last thing before I pass this, "Slipknot has a raw, live sound due to the band ... additional percussionists and electronics the album has a very dense, layered sound." Those two terms are the exact opposite of each other in terms of production! Raw means under-produced (similar to the live sound of a band) while densely layered implies that a lot of production has gone into it. Could you clarify? indopug (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think both terms could probably be used concerning different songs. I don't have the Arnopp book, so I don't know what was originally said. Some songs have very fast, guitar parts, with quick rap-like lyrics which I could see as sounding "live", but there are other songs that have a lot of different instruments playing all at once (heavy bass, samples, various screaming in the background, etc.) which I could see as "layered". Blackngold29 20:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, indopug (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Spit It Out (Stamp You Out Mix)

There is a version of "Spit it Out" (the Stamp You Out Mix) which was released on The Heart of Roadrunner Records album. Should a note be added on this article or only on the Spit It Out article? Blackngold29 04:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of that before but on Amazon (here) it says "Album Version", does that mean it's the one that's from the Slipknot album? REZTER TALK ø 11:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not the same version. It's similar, but there's extra stuff going on the in background. It is on iTunes so you can here 30 seconds at least, if you have it. Blackngold29 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Slipknot (album)/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.

Article requirements:

Green tickY All the start class criteria
Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
Green tickY At least one section of prose (excluding the lead section)
Green tickY A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year
Green tickY A casual reader should learn something about the album.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 22:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slipknot_(album)/Archive_2&oldid=1136233123"