# Talk:Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.

User:Dude527 recently removed the period after "Repeat" in the title, saying he "corrected the title." Is there a source for this? Amazon, Opium of the People, and MFKR1 lists it with a period, Allmusic lists it without. It is contested that all of the sources are "reliable", but I would like to know what the album says, anyone? Blackngold29 01:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the re-issue of it and it has the period at the end of Repeat. See here [1] that is a scan of the back inlay for the CD and you can clearly see it has the period. REZTER TALK ø 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I requested this to be moved due to the fact that there is a redirect currently at the name I'm trying to mvoe it to per the album cover art. So it's clear that it's been moved before. REZTER TALK ø 14:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I should make it clear that I requested the page to be moved to Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat. which includes spaces because the title does include spaces REZTER TALK ø 19:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


### Personnel
Do we really need all that information in the personnel section. Specifically what I'm talking about for example is things like "cover photo concept, cover photo cage, middle panel". Granted all these are credited for in the album booklet, it's just that section is just so messy and those things look way out of place. REZTER TALK ø 17:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need it. Just the instumentalists, vocals and stuff like producer, mixer, etc. It's too cluttered and overwhelming (like track listing for Slipknot (album) used to be. Blackngold29 17:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Wording
In the statement, "...release party at the Safari...". Is it "The Safari" or just "Safari"? If "the" is part of the club's title it should be capitolized, if not it should read "party at Safari". Blackngold29 02:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The statement "The most significant example of this is evidenced by the band's third studio album..." seems kind of odd to me. As a fan, I easily understand this, but a GA reviewer will probably require a source. It might be alright if we just took out "most significant", and just say "An example of this..." Blackngold29 02:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


### Reception
Should we include a reception of the album? AllMusic has a review, although beyond that finding additional sources would probably be difficult. Though with searching I could probably find something. Blackngold29 02:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well try looking for some sources if you find enough I guess we could do one. REZTER TALK ø 09:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the only good source that we have for a Reception section is AMG and it's a retrospective review... I really don't think that we are in a position to write anything about this because it wasn't really released per say. REZTER TALK ø 17:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

"1000 copies." → "1,000 copies." per MOS:NUM
Done
En dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH
Done
Publishers are required for references per WP:CITE/ES
Done
Why no Reception section?
I wouldn't think 1,000 copy demos would usually have too many reviews. Allmusic has one and I think there might be one more that we found, but not enough to pull from for an entire section. Blackngold29 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, good point :| Gary King (talk) 04:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Gary King (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty short article, but everything seems in order. Passing! Gary King (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Would avant-garde metal be the best genre for this album? --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 12:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you'll need a source. Blackngold29 13:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The current genres are unsourced. --↑ɻ⅞θʉɭђɥл₮₴Ṝ 19:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Most are covered in the "Musical and lyrical themes" section. Though I guess I can't say I would be opposed to adding avant-garde to the list. I don't think it should replace the current ones though. Blackngold29 19:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a nu metal album, not a heavy metal one.190.17.15.111 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It definitely is experimental, though I agree that the current genres need not be removed; however, maybe re-arranged. I'll go ahead and add Experimental metal in the genres and slightly revise the order of the genres, while keeping the first one the same. 100loves (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see that a number of the songs on MFKR contain elements of funk, but I do not believe the album could be classified as funk metal for that. The introduction of these elements, I believe, is covered with the inclusion of experimental metal; Slipknot are a metal band, and adding the funk, disco, etc. makes this album experimental, not separate genres altogether. See what I'm saying? Andre666 (talk) 05:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I made an edit changing -ismist Recordings to Pale One Music, as that is the 'label' (independent) MFKR was originally released under by the band. It was removed due to lack of a reliable source. However:

-ismist doesn't actually have its own source either; and
The first label the album was released under should be mentioned, so surely -ismist should be replaced with "Independent" or "Self-published" or just removed.
Well? Andre666 (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is explained in the Legacy section. They self released it and I believe "Pale One Music" is just their own name they came up with for a label because they used to be called "The Pale Ones". And to quote the article "On June 13, 1997, -ismist Recordings took over the distribution of the remaining copies of the album." Which is sourced. In that case why not list them both? REZTER TALK ø 10:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am all for the section but do you not have any sources at all to back up the information? Otherwise it fails WP:OR. Sorry. REZTER TALK ø 12:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

should we have a section saying what songs were reworked? like slipknot was made into (SiC), gently became... well, gently, and killers are quiet became iowa.... should we include this? and if so, can anyone find a source?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastermarth (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC) 

Well it is already mentioned in the Legacy section that they reworked most of the tracks to appear on later albums. I don't think we need to say "this song became this song". Because we don't have sources for every song like that. REZTER TALK ø 10:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In the "Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat." (credit page) part of the booklet, it clearly states: "Guitar leads on tracks t, 6, & 1o, as well as other rhythm guitar tracks performed by Donnie Steele."  Isn't this considered crediting? CrowzRSA 01:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I removed it. REZTER TALK ø 18:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this was recently made, but allmusic has made another review page for MFKR that states it was released through "HEATBEAT" records in 2005... It has an odd catalog number too, "000-2." You can see the page here. No idea what is up with this, just lettin' everyone know. CrowzRSA 02:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The genres in the infobox are kind of crazy. Can we limit them to make it more specific? Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As no one replied, I'll assume consensus. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Again nothing in those genres currently mentioned are cited or mentioned with in the article. I'll be removing them. 174.116.201.87 (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 2 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=UIDMISS70405182320011793&sql=A60q6g4jptv4z
http://allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=UIDMISS70405182320011793&sql=A60q6g4jptv4z
--CactusBot (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done The links are not dead anymore. T.R.Elven (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There is Colsefni inside the article and Colsefini in the Personnel section.

I've found multiple sources that cite this album as "Industrial Metal" as well as rap metal. The first track has heavy industrial elements and at least a couple of tracks contain rapping (with "Confessions" containing no metal elements at all, sounding closer to jazz fusion than anything else).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. smoothy (talk • contribs) 18:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC) 

It says the songs Only One and Tattered & Torn feature Danny Worsnop. Danny Worsnop was born in 1990, and this album came out 6 years later in 1996, and Asking Alexandria was formed in 2008, so there's no way Danny Worsnop could've been on this album if he was 6 years old & if Asking Alexandria was formed 12 years later.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.109.16 (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC) 

It's gone for a while now, someone fix this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaggotSupremacy555 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC) 

Recently a lot of information has been added to the personnel section, with many of it seeming to be dubious. Additionally, editors who added these never left any edit summaries. It seems like there is a possibility of misinformation. I do not own a copy of this album, so I think someone else needs to verify this. HGP7 (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that the "Artwork" section does not have citations. Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2025 (UTC)