# Talk:Iowa (album)

I've been reformatting Slipknot's albums' articles in a manner that I've seen practically every other good album article on Wikipedia (see any Nirvana album, Marilyn Manson album, etc). Slipknot's albums' articles are the only ones where for some reason bonus tracks and discs aren't given a sub-heading in track listing, everything in chart positions and personnel is listed in columns no matter how long or short they are, and other little things. Not to mention some of the personnel for all three albums, and 9.0, aren't even listed, which they would be if not for the flat-out revert. I don't see how the way I'm trying to format the articles would revoke their GA status when I'm modeling them from even better articles of some of the greatest albums released (which you can expect are better than this one, as many have been featured articles). Anyways, I wouldn't be admin of two wikis if my thing was to explicitly ruin any decent article. So, what do you say? Vixen Windstorm (talk) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The formats are that way due to the work of many users (members of WP:SLIP, peer reviewers, and GA reviewers) have agreed on them. There are no Marilyn Manson studio albums listed as Good Articles; don't mistake quality of an album for quality of its article. I personally feel that the current format of Slipknot (album), Iowa (album) and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses) are as good as could be achieved. Adding extra sub-sections only clutters things up (Adds more unnecessary [edit] links to the body, screws up columns, prolongs the Table of Contents). If someone wants to see what position a single peaked on the Billboard 200 I think they're smart enough to realize it would be in the Chart positions section. Format is second to the actual prose in the article, expanding prose on articles in needed the most, so helping out there would be a better area to direct effort. (see: the current Aof for ideas) Blackngold29 18:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Umm i noticed that the song "shape" is incorrectly titled "the Shape". on their website it says Shape so ill change that. OKay?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.72.174 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 

The album lists it as "The Shape". I would think the album would be the highest source, even if it is Slipknot's official site. Blackngold29 03:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In an attempt to end continuous edit warring the following list has been organized, please add any sources to the list so a consensus can be reached on what to add to the infobox. Keep in mind that personal opinions have no place on Wikipedia articles, and all information should be from a reliable source and WP:NPOV. Thank you. Blackngold29 01:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic
Pop/Rock
Alternative Metal
Rap-Metal
Heavy Metal
Rolling Stone
Metal
Its clearly Nu metal not Rap-Metal as Corey doesnt rap much at all in this album well less so than the s/t anyways, none of those in the above list are present in the album either they obviously have not been given much thought by allmusic 86.147.105.74 (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
You have changed the genres again and I have already explained those genres clearly have not been given much thought, alt metal for the later 2 albums yes as with Heavy metal, Rap metal does not really apply to be honest, the closest they come to that genre is in Spit It Out and even that doesnt have that much rapping in it. It doesnt take a musical genius to find out this album is typical of the nu metal genre and if you dont think that then you obviously dont know your genres, so there end of discussion... 86.142.53.36 (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

As stated above, explinations and opinions without a reliable source mean nothing. Please present a source that calls the album Nu metal and we can change it, until then please do not. blackngold29 01:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Pop/rock? The only reason why that is on the Allmusic page is because it's a category, not a genre. Anything relating to pop or rock gets put in that category, even death metal. - GunMetal Angel 17:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason this album is called "Nu Metal" is because it mixes different subgenres of heavy metal, so placing "Death Metal" as the genre is not right. The album does mainly sound like a death metal record, but the material is not death metal. Slipknot have only ever really been labelled as Nu Metal, and Alternative Metal. The genre of the album should really be corrected. 18:10 21 July 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobononobobonono (talk • contribs) 
The Genre should be changed to Alternative Metal because this album carried in little or no of the Nu Metal elements of the first record. It could even be considered Thrash Metal.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.5.53 (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
TragicVision (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC) A simple typing of 'death metal slipknot' in google shows how much the genre is in contention but its highly unfair to label them as nu metal when the band themselves do not describe themselves as such. And to stop other Wiki users from editing the sub genres is a case for reporting. I know this page has had high vandalism in the past but it is NOT strictly Nu Metal and its extremely easy to tell this without citing references

Should we upload the red version of the Iowa cover? I already know that the shiny cover shouldn't be here, but should the red version of the cover be here? It's okay if the answer is no, I have no problem with that. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a yes. Theres also a black cover of the album. We need a consensus on this.[1] Torque3000 (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm guessing that the black cover is just the original shiny cover tilted at an angle so that it looks black. The red cover is something I've seen at my local Best Buy and Barnes & Noble, so it is real. I've only seen three versions of the album, the original version with the shiny cover, the re-release with the red cover, and the digital version with the white cover. I've seen this black cover before, but I just think it is just the shiny cover tilted away from the viewer Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently created a section for the re-release with different color schemes. I'm not sure if it should be here though (I can't add much about it, because my copy is the original shiny), so if it gets removed, I won't try to add it back. If it's not notable enough, just remove it. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if its notable or not, but I think it needs a source. I won't remove it just yet, but we should probably look for one. blackngold29 06:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


### Is discogs.com a good source?
This is about reliable sources. I know how to site a website now, I just want to know if discogs.com is a good source. You see, they have information about the re-release of this cd. I don't want to add it as a source yet because I'm wondering if it is reliable. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, as it says that it is "community built". Which basically puts it on the same branch as Wikipedia—a non-reliable source. Oh and I think you mean "cite a source". ;) blackngold29 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll just try to find another source. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


### What about Opium of the People.com
Is Opium of the People.com a good source for information? Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I use it all the time, but as for WP it isn't a WP:RS as it's ran by a fan who isn't officially associated with the band. blackngold29 22:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, that's two sources out, when I find a third source, I'll see if it's reliable. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a dream about it last night, and apparently I'm experiencing dream-spawned déjà vu after Google-ing it. Apparently the title track "Iowa" is a song to feature backmasking and has a subliminal message when listening to the song backwards during a certain passage[2], so should this be mentioned in the article? - GunMetal Angel 17:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite notable and rather intersting but I'm unsure how to source it. That is a video from Youtube, I know it's hosted on the NME website but I think that is a user submitted thing. I would feel a lot better about having it in the article if it was properly sourced because right now I think it fails WP:OR. REZTER TALK ø 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
The subliminal message is real, I used an audio editing software to find it. The message itself is singer Corey Taylor screaming, "Don't look at me!". The voice is slightly distorted. There is another message in Skin Ticket where Corey can be heard saying, "I love myself!". 18:20 21 July 2009
OK, granted it may be there but without a reliable source which explicitly explains this, the information can not be added because it is original research. REZTER TALK ø 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added the alternate cover from the album. If you think it's too similar, just remove it. I only added it once, and if it gets removed by one of you, I won't add it back. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss what to say. This numbers thing is so stupid that I don't even know where to start. So go ahead, explain why this makes sense in any conceivable way.  --91.55.198.57 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all please read WP:Civil and if you had first have brought up the issue on the talk page and made it clear what your objection to the content was this whole thing would have been much easier to clean up. Secondly... I have added information to the article which explains the numbers. In future I advise that you both ask about content on the talk page before you change it and act mroe civil towards other editors or you may end up in trouble. REZTER TALK ø 13:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I was not uncivil towards a particular editor.
"Stupid" is simply just the most accurate term in this case. If you would drop the hate for IPs and think about it for a second you would agree that dropping numbers in the article the way it was is stupid. If you don't believe me, ask for a third opinion.
Read WP:BOLD.
I made my objection clear very early. Read the logs again if you think otherwise.
What trouble? Is this a WP:THREAT?  --91.55.226.76 (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, the issue you arose was valid. I believe Blackngold29 and I first thought you were changing the order of the band members... which I apologize for not checking the edit correctly, but we have had a lot of edits on articles were people change the order. However, when you first made the edit you didn't leave any comments as to why you changed that, and unfortunately we got confused. I wasn't threatening you, I was just saying if you are uncivil to people, you may be warned and potentially banned from editing Wikipedia. I do not hate on IP editors, I actually find that most IP editors have the best intentions, this is just a misunderstanding and we should just forget it. REZTER TALK ø 02:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Also for future reference edit summaries where refer one to another article's talk page happen all of the time, especially in a case like this where each album shares a piece of info about the band (ie the numbers). It's not "absurd" or "unbelievebly stupid" whatsoever. blackngold29 15:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was it removed from the singles?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.25.91 (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC) 
Because it was a limited edition release of 666 copies so it wasn't intended to be a single that could chart, it was just way of promoting the album.--Jacoblikesmetal (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 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=A9sqog4sptv4z
--CactusBot (talk) 11:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Kevon100  Talk! If you're  ❺❺❺ then I'm ❻❻❻ 16:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I really disapprove of these genres being added only on the basis of interpreting the source. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, specifically "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." This is not what is going on here when we add these sources.Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying the source isn't specific enough for genre categorization? I really thought "their most extreme album yet" was a giveaway myself. Death might also apply. But I'm near certain extreme does. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Interpreting as "the most extreme" is not the equivalent of what the the source says. Again, I stand by WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Just because something is the most extreme, they were not specifically saying it belongs to the genre. That is greatly misleading to readers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
On the topic of death metal the article https://www.popmatters.com/slipknot-iowa-album-atr20 states how the album has heavy death metal influences and could be compared to the likes of bands such as Cannibal Corpse. Djentcore (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Iowa (album). 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/20121011204327/http://www.nme.com/news/slipknot/7781 to http://www.nme.com/news/slipknot/7781
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219142252/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=1780 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=1780
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080620042948/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=8702 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=8702
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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Iowa (album). 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/20080112105145/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=88079 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=88079
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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is utterly absurd to include this, I know the source for Logos Magazine contains the sentence "The album reached into the death metal and hardcore wells that existed inside of the band, almost completely ignoring any sort of melody or hip-hop element that was key in their debut," but I really dont think this needs to find a place in the genre... It's just ONE source and the writer is only basically implying there was some influence from those genres found on the record.. I would much suggest it would be wiser to just make note of it somewhere on the page such as the "Music and lyrical 
themes" section where it could say "Logos Magazine noted that the album contains influence from hardcore and death metal." 
Otherwise, the article for the self-titled album needs to have "hip hop" in its genre by that logic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.162.0.86 (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC) 

I agree, it's not death metal. Bur as far as sources go, I can't find a single source that explicitly states "Iowa is a death metal album", and even if there is, I agree that a section in the body of text for the article is a much better place for it (i.e. Pitchfork said the album has some death metal characteristics). As far as I noticed the latest source that's trying to get used for the genre's justified inclusion is written by a guy who is so discredited that his writing about The Beatles and rock music has become an actual meme. It's a good opportunity to question if that really is the kind of guy we should depend on genre inclusions for? Even if it is technically reliable, it's a pretty trash source. Second Skin (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC) ——— Actually, the meme guy himself is negated as a source per WP:ALBUMAVOID. Not that surprised. Second Skin (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If 1999’s Slipknot was a blurry snapshot of a nine-man tornado, Iowa is a frame-by-frame blowup that harnesses the whirlwind and diffuses nothing. “We really stepped up on this one,” Jordison says. “All of us are a lot happier playing death metal — those are the kinds of bands we were in before. We still have the more ambient numbers, but most of this album is much heavier.” and “On the Ozzfest tour, death metal's mutant, nine-headed spawn prepares America for the shock of their latest album.” "Slipknot: Highway to Hell", - Rolling Stone Magazine, 2001.
When I saw this in the article, I felt like I had to add it to the genre list, BUT- I didn't want to start an edit war.
I will look for more sources to corroborate this, but until then, please discuss. BoxxyBoy (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If this album is "death metal", then Korn's self-titled is black metal Second Skin (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)