Talk:Slipknot (band)/Archive 2

message: I'm not sure if this would be totally appropriate or necessary, but would it be out of boundaries to create a part in the Slipknot pages that discusses the actual metal content of Slipknot? I live in a community where Death Metal and Black Metal is pretty common, and there's always a lot of dispute if the word "Slipknot" ever arises. Mister Deranged 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can cite reliable sources that detail the issues and debate, I'm pretty sure the section would be a violation of wikipedia policies by default. The problem is a section devoted to that would be original research and most likely POV almost by default. --Wildnox 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Add in conflict?

message: Didn't the band participate in some bandslam contest? They came second and Corey Taylor's band came first. That's where they first found Corey and recruited him. It's an interesting piece of information that I think should be included. I'll look for the exact source and post it up when I find it here. -- Zuracech lordum 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If(I'll assume it's more a question of when) you find a source, I'd suggest including it in the second paragraph of the band history. It was in the article in that paragraph before I made a few large rewrites to the first half of the article awhile back, but I removed it because I couldn't find a source. Hopefully, you'll have better luck with a source than I had. --Wildnox 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Band's early history

message: Someone has edited a lot of stuff on here. dont personlally have time to fix it, but if someone could...
i agree, and can someone fix craig jones page cause i saw him unmasked on a you tube video, and im sure 1000's of others have. the reason why im not typing it is cause i dont no wat to say
81.77.150.93 07:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with it right now? --Wildnox 12:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Info

message: They're Nü Metal/Alternative Metal, I think that should be what's labeled for them but it doesnt really bother me what you put.  I have to disagree with Cloudy about them pioneering Nü Metal as it had already been common ground for a few years before Slipknot came in.  I would agree of adding a fact that they are much harder than many other Nü Metal artists.  And the idea of the industrial influence isn't much because the way they use their keyboards and samples is much more in tune to the Nü Metal aspect of them.
I think we should change the genre to alternative metal/rap metal/heavy metal. That is what the all music guide puts for their genre. DavidJJJ 21:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I would approve of adding alternative metal, but would oppose adding either rap metal or heavy metal, or removing nu metal. The only problem with all music in regard to nu-metal is that it does not list nu-metal as a genre in any respect. The mixture of elements from alternative metal, rap metal, and heavy metal is one of the defining elements of nu metal. Wildnox 21:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Remember that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  Whether they "definitely have industrial influences" doesn't matter unless an external source can be found to cite.  That said, genre is inherently somewhat POV, and the infobox is not a place to play POV games.  I'll discuss this more below. --Xtifr tälk 20:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre

message: In the past I thought that listing the genre as Debated and referring people to the genre controversy section was unnecessary, but now I believe otherwise. So I'm going to set it as Debated and link "debated" to the genre controversy section. Under the section I would suggest anyone list any genre that has a reliable source, prefferably music profiles or reviews, and cite the source directly next to the genre. Wildnox 21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genre "Debated"

message: Listeners
----
- Patrick Gargano (Queer)
- Rhett Chesser
- Gelati
- Luke Casey
- Oliver
wtf is this? Vandilism?--69.213.152.186 10:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, it's vandalism and I just removed it :).--Wildnox 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Listeners"

message: who idiot writed that Corey Taylor is former member? Hes still in the band. A notice for you who writed it, next time please do not make emberassing mistake like that anymore
:It likely was vandalism, and was done on purpose. Someone has reverted it, and most vandalism edits on this page are removed in a matter of minutes.
Also, in future edits, pleas refrain from calling people "idiots". Thanks, --La Pizza11 22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: who idiot?

message: There is no Discography, despite haveing a link to jump to it...
:Yes it's suppose to be like that.It has it's own page now. SOADLuver 02:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discography 

message: I'm going to try to rewrite the article. Mainly I'm going to focus on factual accuracy and clarity. The version I am working on can be found at, any help there would be welcome.  --19:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most difficult part of this obviously will be the history section. Does anyone have any reliable sources for some of the uncited and sometimes contradictory information? --Wildnox 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just replaced the old, obsolete infobox.  Now some stylistic comments: The Musician's WikiProject standard is to put a very general genre in the infobox, and discuss more specific genres in the article itself.  Usually in the intro.  Also, I've never, ever seen anyone put refs in an infobox before.  I'm not sure that's a good approach.  But I left all the content the way I found it.  Along those same lines:  I understand why the bandmembers have numbers next to their names, but again, I'm not sure that needs to be in the infobox.  (Though I could go either way on that.)  I do think the point should be more clearly linked to the actual presence of the numbers.  The reader shouldn't have to backtrack to figure that part out.  It should be much more obvious that those numbers are there because those are the members' numbers.  I'll think about ways that could be improved.  One last thing: even though there's a separate discography article, it's still generally considered a good idea to have a brief summary at the main band article.  A common approach is to just list albums, not singles, and include just the name, year and label.  But there should be something there as a teaser.  I may be back with more suggestions later.  cheers.  Xtifr tälk 16:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think you're definitely right about the numbers. I think I'll remove them and relist in alphabetical order. The genre citation and listing is more of response to SPAs and one time editors who come on and switch the genres constantly. If I left the genre heavy metal, a detractor comes by and replaces it with something like mallcore. If I left the genre nu-metal, a fanboy comes by and replaces it with something like death metal. So I've decided a medium list with citations was a way to deflect most of the edit warring. I'll handle the discography the next time I have the time to do heavy duty editing, which might be a while from now. --Wildnox 00:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers are fine in the Members section, and with a little extra explanation, they'll be great there.  I was only worried about the infobox, and it's not a big deal even there.  As for the genre debate ... bottom line, it's a POV dispute.  And I have enough comments about it to justify a separate section, so I'll make one.  Xtifr tälk 02:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Genres are somewhat subjective, and sub-sub-genres especially so.  For this reason, genre debates are generally a POV dispute.  This is one of the reasons why the infobox guidelines say to use a broad genre in the infobox field.  I've checked the citations, and first of all, neither one really qualifies as a reliable source.  AllMusic is close, but is generally only considered reliable as a source of publication data.  And second, the Allmusic link actually lists the genre as "Rock"!  So citing it to back up something else just doesn't work.
When there is a POV dispute, "all significant published points of view are to be presented", but they should be presented as points of view, not as fact.  A critic's point of view does not belong in the infobox as an implied fact, but in the body of the article as a critic's published point of view.  Thus, I recommend putting Heavy Metal (or even Rock) in the infobox, and then adding a sentence to the introduction like: 
:According to Steve Huey on AllMusic Guide, Slipknot's mix of alternative metal, neo-shock rock, and rap-metal "helped make them one of the most popular bands in the so-called nu-metal explosion of the late '90s."1
This will get the point across to the reader, and won't leave any room for debate.  He did say that.  But it doesn't claim that it's anything more than his opinion.  And if someone wants to have another sub-genre listed, all they have to do is find another notable critic to quote.  Xtifr tälk 21:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then go with rock in the infobox.  Note that the current cites in the infobox don't actually support the claims made in the infobox!  Xtifr tälk 18:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? The refs in the infobox all have listings of the band under the genres cited. --Wildnox 20:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe a misunderstanding of what you mean by support? Do you want a page devoted soley to explaining a bands Genre?--Wildnox 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really!  Look at 'em again.  All Music Guide lists the genre as rock!  You're misreading what it says.  As for Rockdetector, yes, it says "Genre: Nu-Metal, Metal, Alternative Metal".  But it's not what would be considered a reliable source.  At best, you can cite that as one critic's opinion.  Anyway, there's a smallish discussion about genres and musician articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Genre wars and the distinguishing of genres and styles, if you want to offer some feedback.  Xtifr tälk 02:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All music guide lists Heavy Metal, Alternative metal, and Rap Metal as "Styles" instead of "Genres", which are essentially the same thing, so the whole thing is moot? Look around allmusic awhile, the vast majority of bands are listed as "Rock", as the site broke up what is usually considered genre into "Genre", which is essentially the most general category they could place a band into, and "Style", which is the more specific of the two. Slayer, Black Sabbath, Metallica, all well known as Heavy Metal bands, all listed as "Rock" with their "Styles" listed as sub-genres of Heavy Metal. Should they all be listed as "Rock" alone on wikipedia since we have a source stating that "Heavy Metal" is their "Style" rather than their genre? The answer is simple, no. Or at leas that is how I view the "Styles" v "Genre" debate. I'll definitely concede about the Rockdetector source not being reliable though. I'm not sure in which ways it would be considered unreliable, but I understand burden of proving the source reliabe would fall to me, as I am the one attempting to include it, and I don't have the will to hunt around Rockdetector trying to prove satisfaction of the criteria. Maybe we remove the Genre listed from Rockdetector and leave the other three? At least until the "Styles" V "Genre" debate is solved in regard to the infoboxes. --Wildnox 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and removed the one genre and the rockdetector source that went with it. --Wildnox 03:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre as POV 

message: Should I put what Slipknot fans are named/labelled as. I think it is maggots. 
http://shopping.yahoo.com/p:Slipknot:1927033098:page=biography;_ylt=Avj2Du1e8d0sfp0YLqMbADMJGbgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjE5YXBsBHNlYwNiaW8-?
Zenity 04:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slipknot fans 

message: On the album cover, you see "James" (wearing the black mask) standing right next to Corey. On the other side is Mick. Every Slipknot fan knows that James is taller than Mick, but, on the cover, "James" is shorter than Mick. Is this a slip-up, or Josh? WereWolf 03:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josh or James? 

message: I think it should be known that Stone Sour was the original band, and Slipknot was made as a side-project. Slipknot then became famous, and Stone Sour was left in the dust until a few years ago, then was in the dust again, and is finally catching up again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.5.70.242 (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Side-Project 

message: There may be a reliable source for the Nu-Metal classification, but not Rapcore. Rapcore isa genre with bands such as E. Town Concrete, (hed) pe, and Otep. None of which sound like Slipknot, clearly. Please change this. -Metalhead666
:I changed it back to Rap Metal, which do have a source labeling the band as. --Wildnox(talk) 06:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from Metalhead666

message: '''
i love the this band slipknot.....yeah really!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.17.223 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ....Likeness 

message: Why everybody keeps saying that they are Nu Metal??? the y aint and never goinna be nu metal! Band has itself sayd in interwiev that keep it very offensive or it hurts them or whaterver that word is if you call the Nu Metal. Slipknot is one of the bands that is very hard to put in some genre :(
But if you are a real fan, a maggot like me, you SHOULD know that they arent a goddamn lame Nu Metal!!!!! If someone has some prufe that they are, says it here! Ps. Iliputti
Then what are they? Nickoladze 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why dont you guys learn?