Jump to content

Talk:All Hope Is Gone/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Style

I know the album's not out yet, but the band has reassured us in multiple interviews that this will be their heaviest album to date, and will include thrash-metal riffing and more guitar solos. I read this in Revolver Magazine. And, knowing Slipknot, there will probably still be a little nu/alt metal. Dark Executioner (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

We should just put TBA (which i think means "to be answered") in genres section. π₰₯ ĬLʡ$Φǚɭђµπt₴ŗ ₯₰π 12:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
No, we should leave the field blank as is customary with any Infobox containing unanswered or unknown information. The only place in an Infobox that warrants a "TBA" is the Recorded field, and even then in my opinion, it's hardly necessary. Saying the album's genre is to be announced in the future is sort of misleading, too, since we can already identify the genre of one of the tracks from the album. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot has been subject to one of the largest genre debates in modern rock. But let me say that after listening to this new song, along with watching the 9.0 Live recently (...blast beats...down-tuned guitars...shrieks...) I've got to say... Slipknot is no longer a fake metal band. Sure it has some elements, but it's now musically nearer to the thrash/death territory than to the alternative metal one - It can't be called NU metal anymore. Yet, we should wait at least until the album is released, before classifying it. We cannot tell that much after only testing one song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.43.38.168 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Producer

Still no word on who it's gonna be yet? Dark Executioner (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Yeah, Blabbermouth said it's Dave Fortman. [1] Rezter TALK 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rezter, I just added that to the page. Wow, who would've guessed him? Dark Executioner (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Release Date

The user at IP: 70.105.209.59 has deleted the release date of August 11, claiming that Kerrang! Magazine made it up to boost sales. He cites the official forums, on which the best thing I can find is "ALBUM RELEASE DUE APPROX JULY/AUGUST. (no way of knowing exactly when just yet...obviously)". This is the second time that he has made this revision. Kerrang! as far as I know is a legit source. Due to the fact that both Kerrang! and the official forums say sometime in August, I see no reason why it should not be left as August 11; when the official site confirms, or changes this date, it can easily be corrected. But until that time it should be listed as August 11 because 1) Kerrang is a reliable source and 2) The offical site does not contradict the release date. Please do not remove the date again, until it is further discussed here. Thank you. Blackngold29 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, HMV.co.uk also has the same release date. I think that HMV wouldn't annoucne a release date unless they recieved it from a source clsoe to the band. [2] REZTER TALK ø 13:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
From Opium of the People: "According to HMV.co.uk, Roadrunner Records has set an August 11 UK release date (one day later in the U.S.) for the much-anticipated new SLIPKNOT album." This is only a fansite, but they seem to confirm that HMV is pretty certain about the release date. Perhaps the US release date should be added? Blackngold29 (talk) 02:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I looked on an article on mtvnews.com about the rockstar mayhem tour, and they say that the album is coming out in the spring. I don't know whether to trust them or not, but i think we should put it up.Down with the (sic)ness (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The current source is this: [3] which includes an interview with guitarist Mick Thomson who says they are expecting it to be released in September, which is probably one of the best sources I think you can have. REZTER TALK ø 11:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the statement from the band said that the only good word is that which is directly from the band. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't even have to be discussing the release date in the article's Infobox here because the change I made reflects exactly what were your last words, Blackngold29. Directly from the band, Mick Thompson's word was the the album would probably see a September release, so is that no longer the best source for its release? After all, HMV and other online retailers do tend to make mistakes (take Amazon for an example. Good site, but it still lists Dope's upcoming album No Regrets as released on June 10 (today), despite that the its been delayed until further announcement, and therefore the date listed is unreliable). Not only that, but both the UK and US August release dates' sources are the same website, which is European, and so why is it the source for the American release date as well? Not to mention having the release date information reading as it does in the Infobox is very unencyclopedic, there can't be "Unconfirmed: Possible date, date, date." Stick with that which is most reliable. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's true. I think it should say something like a "tentative release date" since it isn't quite official word yet. You have my support to change it to September.
I sometimes act too quickly when people change large amounts of info without discussing, since there's vandalism all the time. Thanks! Blackngold29 02:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah no problem, it just frustrates me when people revert justified edits. I fight vandalism just as much as you guys and I want for this article to be as reliable as possible. I should probably include edit summaries more often lol. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed a mistake, in the info box, it says 20th of August, in the intro text, 25th August UK, 26th US, could someone correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.181.2 (talk) 10:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Splash Teasers section

I changed the "Possible Artwork" section's name to "Splash teasers" since there is more mention to the splash teasers instead of artwork. It is nothing but hype. It has not yet been confirmed to be artwork so for now, we'll call the section "Slash Teasers" until more is known about the teasers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homie C (talk • contribs) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Splash teasher dates

There has been somewhat of an editing war over whether they've been up every nine or ten days. When actually it has been nine (10th to the 18th) the new one was up on the 19th (Displayed for nine days, new one added on the tenth). Either way, the pattern is not followed 9 days - 3 days - 9 days - 9 days. It would seem that they are trying for every nine (obviously to match the nine members), however the 3 day one threw it off. If the plan is followed the next one should be up tomorrow (May 9). In any case, I am not sure that it is notable. It is interesting, but there is no way of confirming that the update every nine days is related to anything. I say we eliminate the sentence all together. It seems silly to argue over it now, when it's gonna most likely be removed or changed after the album is released anyway. Blackngold29 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree; I added the sentence in the first place (not realizing that it was actually every nine days, generally), but I do get what you're saying. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

List of splash teasers

I believe that we should list the splash teasers in order of their release instead of bunching them up in paragraph form. It will make the section (and the page) look neater and much more easier to read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homie C (talk • contribs) 19:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Summer release...

I feel that it is unsourced because it is not stated that the album will (1) be called "all hope is lost" and (2) that the word "Summer" refers to the album itself. It could be the albums release, but it could also be referring to the upcoming tour, or perhaps the first single off the album. Until a source can be found that states the album itself will be released this summer, it should remain as it was before. Even if it does mean the album will be released this summer the possible August dates already listed are in the late summer. Blackngold29 05:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"All Hope is Gone"

This is NOT a splash teaser, just a picture on their MySpace. Do not call it a splash teaser unless it is shown as one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homie C (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have merged it with the section, but renamed it "Splash teasers and posters". After the album's release I doubt very much of that info will remain anyway. Blackngold29 05:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Track listing

Why was this added? It is cited to "Slipknot-metal" which is a fan site and an un-reliable source. I understand that the info was taken from Revolver magazine, but even the article states: "Please note at this time, nothing is 100% official until the album is ready to release". Since its addition, it has been subject to numerous vandalism and false tracks. I think the listing should be removed, until the issue of Revolver (which is a reliable source) is released? Blackngold29 14:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think when that person said nothing is completely official he meant not to take the titles as anything more than tentative. The issue of Revolver should be out now though, I saw one at the store a couple of days ago but I didn't pick it up to scan for any Slipknot coverage. I just remember Disturbed is on the front page, promoting Indestructible. But as for the latter three additions to the track listing, what is the source for these ones? Vixen Windstorm (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Opium of the People (another fan site, but pretty reliable from what I've seen) has pretty much the whole article here. It includes the extra track names. I would still prefer to see the actual magazine before citing it though; I'm sure someone will scan it and have it online soon. Blackngold29 18:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Just so you guys know, the Revolver issue with Disturbed is on the front is the July issue, the one with the Slipknot album preview is the August issue. REZTER TALK ø 19:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If you pre-order the album on iTunes, you can see the tracklisting for the new album. Currently the tracklisting is:

1. execute 2. Gematria (The Killing Name) 3. Sulfur 4. Psychosocial 5. Dead Memories 6. Vendetta 7. Butcher's Hook 8. Gehenna 9. This Cold Black 10. Wherein Lies Continue 11. Snuff 12. All Hope Is Gone 13. Child of Burning Time 14. Til We Die 15. Vermillion Pt. 2 (Bloodstone Mix) 16. iTunes Exclusive Track [pre-order only]

"All hope..." is not album title (yet)

Just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention, according to Amazon.com a single will be avalible to download on June 20, entitled "All Hope Is Gone (Album Version)". If you look at [http://www.amazon.com/All-Hope-Gone-Album-Version/dp/B001B1JI1E/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1213542498&sr=8-2 the page], it states "From the album All Hope Is Gone", which re-directs you to [http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001B1HRUS/ref=dm_sp_alb?ie=UTF8&qid=1213542498&sr=8-2 this page]. I don't think that the second page is the full album, as it lists the same release date (June 20) as the first. So until new info comes out, please don't change this article's title withough further discussion first. Thank you. Blackngold29 15:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Amazon is considering "All Hope Is Gone" to be a single from its own single... Fezmar9 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed was that Play.com have the album listed as a CD+DVD, this is the first mention of any kind of DVD with the album I have heard. [4] In my opinion Play.com are pretty reliable I think they're one of the biggest online selling sites in the UK, I wouldn't add this to the article yet though. REZTER TALK ø 17:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Fourth studio album?

I didn't think about it until now despite how many times I've seen the article title, but technically this album is going to be the band's fifth studio album. Mate.Feed.Kill.Repeat. was not a demo, unlike the unreleased Crowz, but an actual studio album the band recorded with Sean McMahon, who also produced the band's Roadrunner demo, and as a result, the version of "Spit it Out" featured on Slipknot. The band doesn't really acknowledge the album, but despite Vol. 3 being titled as it is, it was still in reality the fourth studio album Slipknot recorded. I don't want to do any moving of the article to "Slipknot's fifth studio album" or anything at the moment though, because this should be more of a consensus thing. Thoughts? Vixen Windstorm (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I can't help but chuckle every time this is brought up. It comes down to MFKR, basically it was recorded by the band, 1000 copies were made for the purpose of getting the word out about the band, the band today (and as far as I know has always) considers it a demo album; They do "acknowledge" its existance. However, when recorded the line-up was drastically different and many of the songs have been altered and re-appear in later albums. There was a "discussion" about this topic, which lasted over a month. It (or atleast most of it) can be found here. I, and I think I am like most fans, who accept the band's word that it is a demo album...but, there ya go. Blackngold29 06:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well ladies, it is not a studio album, because it wasn't made in a studio. They even say it in the song Dogfish Rising. Colsefini say "shouldn't we have recorded this in a real studio?".John Holmes II (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Song leaked

The full "All Hope Is Gone" is on YouTube. Is this worth adding, since I suppose it'll be taken out eventually anyway. (We're not supposed to talk about it but, It's not bad, nice to hear something new). Blackngold29 23:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we will have to wait until a reliable source talks about it to cite it, I don't know. I'm sure most hardcore fans know about it already and have it but you can't just be like "yeah we all know so we can put it on Wikipedia", you need sources. REZTER TALK ø 00:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, this place has definately turned into rumor-filled mess. The funny part is that once the album comes out, most of the info in the article will be removed. Roadrunner lists more upcoming releases, including "Phycosocial" and "Single #2", for sometime in July. Anyone think Protecting the page would help? Blackngold29 07:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I think I will request a semi-protect as I did with All Hope Is Gone. REZTER TALK ø 09:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Damn i missed it. Ah well protect it until a reliable source comes up. Jakisbak (talk) 11:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Single's clarification

I just want to clear this up since info is coming fast and new reports are everywhere. According to Slipknot's official website (which I think should be held as the highest reliable source that we have) "Psychosocial" is the "first single off the new album". Therefore, despite "All Hope Is Gone (song)" being release first it is not a single? Just a release? Am I missing something or is it just confusing? Blackngold29 19:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "All Hope Is Gone" is not a single, it won't be released as a single, Psychosocial will. The count down on Slipknot1.com, Outsidethenine.com and Roadrunnerecords.com are all until they release "All Hope Is Gone" as a free downloadable, they did the same thing with Pulse of The Maggots on the last album and that wasn't a single. Slipknot themselves said "Psychosocial" is the first single and will be available as such, I am guessing it will be released as a CD single too where as I doubt "All Hope Is Gone" will be. REZTER TALK ø 19:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
So I'm assuming we should remove "All Hope Is Gone" from the Single's timeline, and the Single's section on the Template:Slipknot (move possibly to Miscelleny?) Is "All Hope Is Gone" even worthy of it's own article if it isn't a single? Blackngold29 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot's official website isn't the only site that refers to "Psychosocial" as the album's first single. But then officially, "All Hope Is Gone" and "Psychosocial" are both planned for release in the exact same formats (with the exception of "All Hope"'s limited time free download). Both songs are planned for digital release, which still entails them to be singles as they are uniquely sold separate from the collective whole (in this case, All Hope Is Gone). A similar example is Nine Inch Nails' "Capital G". It was the band's twentieth single but it was still only released promotionally. Even still, it was the twentieth single released by the band. The only reason it wasn't deemed a "Halo" was because Trent Reznor didn't want hardcore fans to feel almost "obligated" to purchase it to complete their Halo collection, when he realized Interscope planned on overpricing Halo releases. But regardless of release format, the song was still a single released by the band. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should regard All Hope Is Gone as a "Promo Single" similar to The Heretic Anthem, The Nameless and The Blister Exists. You know, they were never released as singles like they were never sold on CD by themselves, only released to radio. REZTER TALK ø 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. It's kind of hard to say. Physical singles of "The Heretic Anthem" and "The Nameless" were still pressed. They were promotional, but still singles spawned by their respective albums. As for "The Blister Exists", all I know for sure is that it's a video single. I think Roadrunner's releases page had some mention of it as more than just a video, but I don't remember for sure. Anyways, "All Hope Is gone" is kind of different than "The Heretic Anthem" and "The Nameless" since its not entirely promotional. A digital single isn't promotional, a 2-track disc of a song accompanied by its edit sent to radio stations is promotional, but this song is being made available for paid download by the public. Imagine it were pressed as a package or something that you could physically hold and pop into a CD player, then doesn't the public being able to pay for such a package remind you a little about what a CD Single is? Because it's the exact same thing, only you're paying for music in digital form. Some whole albums are sold for paid download and never officially released in packaged form. That doesn't mean they're promotional, they're just digital releases. That's what I say anyways. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
How do you know it will be a charged download? Amazon.com [http://www.amazon.com/All-Hope-Is-Gone/dp/B001B1HRUS] has now removed the thing saying it will cost 0.99, so again it may be free. Just because Kerrang says it's going to be available from Slipknots official site for 24 hours doesn't mean iTuens and Napster will charge you for it.[5] And yes I do have "The Heretic Anthem" and "The Nameless" on CD but they are just promo CDs which are given out to radio stations. So until you KNOW they are going to charge people for the song, it should be considered a promotional single. REZTER TALK ø 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that with the changing technology and the ability to easily release digital tracks, rather than the traditional vinal or CD formats; perhaps Slipknot is just changing their release formats because it's easier, cheaper, or some other reason that wasn't avalible in the past. I still think the word from the band that "Psyco" is the first single should be what is accepted, after all, it is their release. Blackngold29 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A LOT of bands still release CD singles and I don't think Slipknot will stop, plus the vinyl singles were only ever rarities and Vol. 3 spawned the msot ammount of both, so I don't really see them stopping it =/. But I still think that "All Hope Is Gone" is a promo single. REZTER TALK ø 20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think they'll stop, but it seems like they're adding the digital releases to the CD and Vinyl ones as well. Blackngold29 20:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so because they are openly releasing All Hope Is Gone before Psychosocial but then they declare Psychosocial their first "single", so they don't consider "All Hope Is Gone" a single so they're not "adding" it are they? REZTER TALK ø 20:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I just meant that instead of a CD and Vinyl release they'll have the digital one first, then a CD, then a vinyl. Not that the format really matters. It seems that since they've done the same thing before, we should hold "All Hope Is Gone (song)" to the same standard as "Nameless" or "Heritic Anthem"; a promo single. Blackngold29 20:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
OK I agree, but on the same basis shouldn't there be an article created for Pulse of the Maggots? It was released as a free download on March 30th [6] and Duality wasn't released until May but that was still considered the bands first single. REZTER TALK ø 20:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, I was thinking the same thing. What's WP:ALBUM's view on Promo singles? Blackngold29 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I was out for a bit so I haven't been able to comment for a while lol. Anyways, Rezter, as far as I know there's no such thing as free digital singles on iTunes or Napster, especially Napster since it was re-established. It's not really a question of whether or not I know the song will be a paid download on online retailers, I just doubt that retailers will randomly decide that Slipknot's digital single "All Hope Is Gone" should be the one download users do not have to pay for. That would be absurd and unlikely. It's sort of why I added the following statement to the article for "Psychosocial" (and a slightly reworded one to "All Hope Is Gone")
And you're misconstruing the notability of a digital single over a song that was enabled for free download and nothing more. "Pulse of the Maggots" was a brief free download, "All Hope Is Gone" is a digital single that will be a brief free download beforehand. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 20:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Slipknot has never called "All Hope Is Gone (song)" a single. Blackngold29 20:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah and just because it will be available on iTunes and the liek as a single track doesn't mean it is a "single", you can buy EVERY song (bar MFKR) by Slipknot on iTunes separately, does that mean they're all singles? REZTER TALK ø 20:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember the announcement about everything, except band members themselves, being bull? As far as I know the band says "Psyco" is the first single and it is not uncommon for them to release other songs (not singles) prior to the real album. So as this has happend before, why all the fuss? Blackngold29 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why this is so hard to explain. Okay. Slipknot recognizes "Psychosocial" as the first album single. True. But, "All Hope Is Gone" is a radio and digital single that will be released before "Psychosocial". The song is still a single circulating airplay and available for the public to purchase, and just because Slipknot says it isn't the album's first single, it still fits the definition of a single regardless. True that some songs on heard on the radio are not official singles, and I'm not saying that a song played on the radio alone is enough to justify it a single, because that is untrue. I already described the point I'm trying to make perfectly, above. Both songs are planned for digital release, which still entails them to be singles as they are uniquely sold separate from the collective whole, All Hope Is Gone. So far "All Hope Is Gone" and "Psychosocial" are scheduled for release digitally, with no physical release scheduled yet (though I'm pretty certain "Psychosocial", being the only 'official' single, will be the only one to see future physical release), so at this time we're dealing with nothing more than two digital songs, one that is released before the other, and the other which the band considers more official than the former. And in the case that Slipknot has never called "All Hope Is Gone", see my entire digital single argument, and remember that Roadrunner has released unsanctioned albums of their artists in the past. And Rezter, as for your argument, "All Hope Is Gone" has its own seperate cover art. Does that remind you a little of the packaging of a music single? Vixen Windstorm (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
OK here are my problems with what you just said, are you suggesting that because they are both scheduled for digital download that they are both singles and until Psychosocial is released as a Physical release and then the situation changes? Other Promo singles had their own artwork too See The Heretic Anthem, The Nameless and the The Blister Exists so how does this make All Hope Is Gone different? Pulse of the Maggots was released in the same way as All Hope Is Gone, (I'm unsure if it was available as a buyable download then, but it is now (along with EVERY other Slipknot song which you can buy seperatly all for £0.79)) it was also released to the radio. Just because it is released before their first "single" does not make it a single, because that is what you are arguing. REZTER TALK ø 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of the MFKR discussion, it's the band's word against other's word. Half of me wants to wait a week or two until the release of both songs and then come back and revisit this discussion. The other half wants a reliable, third party source that states ""All Hope Is Gone" is the first single from Slipknot's new album All Hope Is Gone" OR ""Psyco" is the second single off AHIG". For some reason, I personally tend to fall on the side of the band, but that doesn't matter. My thoughts don't matter and neither does anyone else's when it comes to Wikipedia. Blackngold29 21:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair no third-party source will say Psychosocial is their second single, because All Hope Is Gone is not a single. REZTER TALK ø 21:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, that's my point. There is word from the band, and Roadrunner, that "Psycho" is the first single: "The first single "Psychosocial" will be delivered to radio on June 30 and will be available digitally on July 1. A complete track listing will be announced shortly." Unless someone can refute that with reliable sources, not "This is similar to this random band's situation..." or some other unrelated example; then I think we're done here. Blackngold29 21:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Saying I'm arguing that a digital single released before a band-recognized single still makes it a single is to say the least, but why not? No offense here, but I don't think you're realizing the whole explanation of paid download packaging. Individual purchases of songs from albums are not in the same case as "All Hope Is Gone". They are just songs made available for anyone that wants to purchase select music from the album. Slipknot isn't the first band to release a digital single so if what you mean to say is that just because the band says the album's first single is the following song to be released digitally and enter airplay, even though a previous digital single will have already been released by then, well that is messed up. There's two evidences that contradict each other: there's Slipknot and Roadrunner's announcement that "Psychosocial" will be the album's first single, and there's the digital single of "All Hope Is Gone" that is available for online retail on June 23, a week before another single that is "officially" the album's first. I can't help you if you still don't understand how a digital single differs from a promotional one. I honestly don't know how else to put it. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The point I was making with all their song being available as download was that just because it's available for purchase as a single track does not make it a "single". Yes I understand what a "digital single" is and All Hope Is Gone not one, is every other song by the band a "digital single" then? The release date is redundant, because when the album is released all the tracks will be available for digital download as separate tracks but that doesn't make ALL them tracks "digital singles", you know. Don't you see the difference? REZTER TALK ø 22:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What is a "digital single" you keep refering to? Do you consider it a "Single" on the same line as "Psyco"? "All Hope Is Gone" will be avalible for free download on Friday through Roadrunner's website. Not a single, just a song that happens to be unreleased. Roadrunner does this all the time. It's unconfirmed when the CD versions of "Psyco" and "AHIG" will be out.
I'm not trying to offend anyone or put words in anyone's mouth. I hold a view, and I have credible sources to back it. I cannot figure out how discussions go on (this isn't the only one, I'm not picking on you) when one side has a source and the other doesn't; when this site is practically based around legit sources. Blackngold29 22:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I've known the difference since you brought, and it just makes it more difficult to explain what I'm saying. Like, okay I don't use iTunes so this is just an example. Let's say the "Wait and Bleed" single was released as a digital single. All songs can be found on the Slipknot re-issue, but here they are compiled for digital release. But all these songs are already available on one CD pressing, so does that mean that its release as a digital single isn't notable? It's not the best possible example since "Wait and Bleed" wasn't part of a commotion between the band's word and its evidence as a digital release on iTunes, but I think that gets the notability argument across. And as for what I refer to as a digital single, I'm not speaking of the free download Roadrunner plans to host on Friday, I mean the paid download version that online retailers will begin selling on June 23. As is customary for most singles in general, it is even accompanied by its own album art. The CD pressings of the two songs are unconfirmed, so really both are just as notable, as they both will be digital releases and they both will receive airplay. The only difference being that the one with the exact same treatment, only later, is being referred to as the first official single. It completely throws everything out of balance. And I know you're not just picking on me, I've held these arguments with others before lol. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I see what you're saying and I understand what you are trying to say. But I feel that when Slipknot says Psychosocial is their first single that they will release it as a CD, release a music video, enter it into the charts you know make it a single. Just because they haven't announced these plans yet doesn't mean that both songs are on a level plane because they have said themselves that Psychosocial is their first single even though they (obviously they release what they are doing by) releasing All Hope Is Gone first. Are you suggesting we treat them the same until they release Psychosocial on CD or make a music video for it? Or do you think EVEN if they do that they will still be both "singles". REZTER TALK ø 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, chances are "All Hope Is Gone" will be nothing more than a digital single, and a "Psychosocial" CD single will probably surface in the future. And I don't mean to suggest we treat them the same until one is released, then go back and have to reword everything and whatnot. I don't know what should be done, I just think "All Hope Is Gone"'s release is notable as a single, even if it will most likely be digital-only. I mean, we note on promotional singles and those aren't even available to the public (except maybe if you look around P2Ps or torrent trackers enough), so I just think that digital singles available for the public to purchase online should be as notable as physical singles available for the public to purchase in, say, a record store or something. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Slipknot hadn't made the contradictory announcement. But I guess they did, so we have to make a choice. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't buy songs from iTunes either, but I do use the program so I can see the Store. As I look through it I see this: iTunes shows singles (an "album" with about 1 to 3 songs on it) as "Title - Single" (ie. Disturbed's new one is "Inside the Fire - Single"). Slipknot currently has no singles. Therefore, if I go there Friday I don't plan on seeing "All Hope Is Gone - Single", however, when I go there on July 1 I do expect to see "Psychosocial - Single". That being said, iTunes isn't the top source for single releases. lol, after writing that I can see your frustration for trying to explain things.
I honestly don't think going over this again is going to help anything. Anyone want to give it a rest until we can all get a hold of the CD single for whatever the hell comes out first and go from there? We can leave both the "AHIG" and "Psyco" articles up, calling "AHIG" the title track and "Psyco" the first single, until a release or new source says otherwise. Because in the long run, the stuff we're fighting over will get changed eventually anyway. Blackngold29 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds like a good idea. There's been a lot of updates surrounding Slipknot anyways, it shouldn't be long before a track listing or something we can go from gets reported on. In the meantime yeah "All Hope Is Gone" should go by 'title track', and maybe use the Song Infobox instead of the Single one. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Psychosocial Release Date

The article and sources say the album version of Psychosocial was released in digital stores on July 1, but today is the 2 and its still not avaible on iTunes or Amazon Mp3. Is this simply because they put songs up slowely or is the date wrong? Harlot666 (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I did the modifications to the "All Hope Is Gone" article. Let's just revisit this topic in a few days or something, once some more information slips up surrounding digital or physical singles and track listing or whatever. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh it was delayed a week, ok thanks. Harlot666 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Yet the promo disc was released today. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Isn't a promo disc just what is sent to radios and stores to play? REZTER TALK ø 01:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably what this one is too. Anyways I'm not opposing noting the release date for the single as July 7 since that would be the public release of the single. I'm just saying that a promotional pressing has technically been released. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Im not really denying whats on the article, but if the promo was released yesterday and it has both the radio edit and album version wouldnt it be ok to say the song was released on July 1 and the digital version on July 7? Harlot666 (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Can the band do nothing simply?? lol. The iTunes "single" for AHIG lists a release date of June 20, but I'm fairly certain that it was not added to iTunes on that date. I suppose it will list the Psycho original release date whenever it is added too. Blackngold29 03:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I believe iTunes did that with the "Inside the Fire" single and didnt release it until a day or two later. Guess we just have to wait and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlot666 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Track listing

Protected...

01. Execute 02. Gematria (The Killing Name) 03. Sulfur 04. Psychosocial 05. Dead Memories 06. Vendetta 07. Butcher's Hook 08. Gehenna 09. The Cold Black 10. Wherein Lies Continue 11. Snuff 12. All Hope is Gone 13. Child of Burning Time (Bonus Track) 14. Til We Die (Bonus Track) 15. Vermillion Pt. 2 (Bloodstone Mix) (Bonus Track) 16. iTunes Exclusive Track [Pre-Order Only] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.210.173 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

-Hey maybe it should be added onto here that its the first Slipknot album (excluding MFKR) that doesnt feature an intro/prelude with a number to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbo45 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That shouldn't be added per WP:OR. REZTER TALK ø 19:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Name of the song "execute"

It should be listed as "execute," because this is how iTunes has it listed, and iTunes is a far more reliable source then Blabbermouth. Slipknot is also notorious for making some of their songs lower-cased. dude527 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I've seen "execute" ".execute." and "Execute" but the only source we can link to is Blabbermouth so for now it's gonna have to remain as it is on there... you can't link to iTunes because it's only accessible if you have the program. REZTER TALK ø 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Blabbermouth gets it's track list DIRECTLY FROM iTunes and iTunes has it as "execute," therefore, we must take the main source, which is iTunes, if we're going to try Blabbermouth. dude527 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying you're wrong and that it is "Execute" because I don't know but you can't use iTunes as a source because you need the program to access it and not all people will and the only soruce we can link to is Blabbermouth. It won't be long before we get OFFICIAL track listings anyway, Wikipedia is all about providing reliable information which can be verified and you can't link to iTunes as a source, I'm sorry. REZTER TALK ø 18:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying to link to it. I'm saying, Blabbermouth is grabbing their sources from iTunes, making iTunes the primary, and the more reliable source. We are inclined to generally use the primary or more reliable source, here, which is iTunes. So we link to Blabbermouth, but we have it listed as it is on iTunes. That's what I'm saying. Because iTunes is the primary source that Blabbermouth is using. dude527 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
But the most accesible source is Blabbermouth, which is showing it as Execute, not execute. For all we know you could be lying about there being a lower-case start on iTunes, so it'll have to stay with an upper-case start in the article. Jasca Ducato (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Download iTunes and check. Or I could get you a screenshot or something. dude527 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You're not saying we need to change it? But that is constantly all you're doing. We don't have another source, Blabbermouth is our only one. Just leave it alone. Jasca Ducato (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing it isn't VERIFIABLE. You cannot post information on Wikipedia unless you can prove it. You could have a track slit written by one of the band members... it will most certainly be genuine but you have no way of proving you have that. So we must therefore rely upon verifiable sources. Anyway the article will be changed when we get a better source or official announcement so don't worry.. I mean what is the capitalisation of one track? While we're on the topic... I believe track 9 is called "This Cold Black" and not "The Cold Black" but we have to by the source. REZTER TALK ø 19:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, "Execute" is "execute", and "The Cold Black" is "This Cold Black". Stupid Blabbermouth has never been reliable. dude527 (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a tricky one. It is "execute" on iTunes, but I can't say I've ever seen iTunes listed as a reliable source. So even if iTunes is considered legit, then one source is capitolized, the other isn't; therefore both would be correct, but obviously that can't be correct because its either one or the other. I think we should leave it capitolized because the source that we can cite does capitolize the word, but there's really no sense in going back and forth over it because when the album comes out it will be changed to whatever the album itself lists. Prior to that, I would expect a release directly from the band (maybe through Roadrunner) that states the official listing, as I think the band's statement that they are the only reliable source still holds; upon this statement we should change it to that. Blackngold29 20:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, again. iTunes is the original source for this track listing, but we can't link to it as a source here because it can only be accessed by people who have the program installed, as opposed to a web page that is universally viewable. And because we must link to that which is the universally viewable source, we also represent the track listing from this source, in the article's track listing section. A similar issue on a Wikipedia article surrounded "HYPERPOWER!", a song from Nine Inch Nails' Year Zero, regarding whether or not it really was italicized, and in all capitals and whatnot. The band has repeatedly said that their own word is ultimately the most solid evidence for what they are up to, so until the band or Roadrunner confirms some track listing, the one revealed through iTunes is about as solid as the release dates that HMV provided nearly a month before the official word. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, my only gripe was that Blabbermouth listed iTunes as it's source, but it didn't have it's facts right according to it's listed source, automatically failing WP:RS in this particular case. But, we can list it, I guess. dude527 (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting sick of have to keep reverting the change. Blabbermouth, the only verifiable source we have, list the song as "Execute", not "execute", so that is how it remains. I have iTunes, and all I can find is All Hope Is Gone - Single, not album, so as far as i'm concerned the album is not up for pre-order yet. Until Blabbermouth or someother website shows it as "execute, I'm gonna keep reverting, and if I have to, have the page protected. Jasca Ducato (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The Blabbermouth source is unreliable, even by your standards. They list their source as iTunes, and if, as you said, the album weren't on iTunes, then Blabbermouth is making things up, making it unreliable. In the other case, iTunes is listed as it's source, but it has 2 facts from it's source wrong, making it unreliable as per WP:RS, and it should not be listed if this is the case. dude527 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Stop telling us to "Look at the talk"... you need to look here yourself. Maybe Blabbermouth did misquote iTunes but that is the ONLY SOURCE we have right now. We CAN NOT use iTunes as the source because there's no way of linking to it. So that is why we must bide by Blabbermouth. Plus dude just drop it, it isn't a big deal, I'm not saying you're wrong by saying it's lowercase it's jsut we only have one source atm. It will all be corrected when we have more sources. Like I said above iTuens may be right but you CAN NOT link to it so we MUST bide by blabbermouth (for now). REZTER TALK ø 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
No, but I'm not saying that we need to change it to a lower case now. I'm saying Blabbermouth is an unreliable source as per WP:RS, which it fails, and we need a new source. dude527 (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I know we do... but for now it's the only one we have. Is it really such a big deal just wait. And for the moment we must bide by this source. REZTER TALK ø 21:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, you're not getting it. Having this source up is conflicting with Wikipedia's guidelines, which is a no no. We have to figure something else up, because we simply do not put up unreliable sources. dude527 (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What the hell makes you think Blabbermouth is unreliable? Jasca Ducato (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
How about these...[7] [8] [9] all capitalized. REZTER TALK ø 21:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It lists iTunes as it's source for that listing, but it has 2 different track names wrong ("Execute," which is actually "execute," and "The Cold Black," which is actually "This Cold Black"), which makes it fail WP:RS. Use this source instead, it doesn't list iTunes as it's source, it has "This Cold Black" and it is a legit, valid listed source. dude527 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It also list the track you keep reverting as Execute. Jasca Ducato (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how a single mistake makes automatically makes Blabbermouth unreliable. I think one would be hard pressed to find any source that has never made a spelling error. Blackngold29 01:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not my judgment I was using, it was as per WP:RS, a reliable source has to pass all of those standards, and it says it must check it's facts. It clearly didn't, as it had two song errors. That's what make it unreliable. dude527 (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I shall now throw another rench into the discussion: According to the official website it is "execute" and ";This Cold Black". Blackngold29 01:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Link? dude527 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The or This?

From the previous discussion I have also noticed that the sources are split on wether the song is named "The Cold Black", or "This Cold Black". Now I predict that regardless, Dude527 is gonna keep changing it to This Cold Black, but what does everyone else think we should do? I myself am more inclined to have "The Cold Black". Jasca Ducato (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

iTunes lists it as "This Cold Black," while most of the other sources list it as "The Cold Black". Please don't take personal cuts at me in talk pages. dude527 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize my opinion wasn't allowed in this discussion. I'll back out, then. dude527 (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Why thank you. And as I have stated many-a-time before, I don't give a monkeys what iTunes says, because not everyone can read iTunes. I can't even find the pre-order on iTunes. Jasca Ducato (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Pre-order All Hope Is Gone, there you go. I wouldn't care what iTunes says either, but it's different when almost every source says they got their information directly from iTunes, it makes iTunes significant, whether everyone can view it or not. Also, can you please stop being so smarmy to me? I haven't done anything to you personally, and I don't appreciate how you're treating me. dude527 (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not being "smarmy", I'm being realistic. Not everyone can access iTunes, and the only sources we have listed the song with a capital. Now this is getting off subject. Jasca Ducato (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This was never about "execute," but by smarmy I mean throwing in comments like "Now I predict that regardless, Dude527 is gonna keep changing it to This Cold Black [...]," unnecessary comments like that. Also, when a site lists a track listing, and lists their source, and you go to that source and it says something different, that is what we call "unreliable sources". So that means the "sources" we have, that say "iTunes has posted the track listing [...]," yet they have information differing from the iTunes information, are not reliable sources, as per WP:RS. I've stated that many times. dude527 (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue is settled I have added an announcement from Roadrunner Records. Can't get any more reliable than the band's record label. REZTER TALK ø 01:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Except the band themselves, I suppose. Anyways, discussion closed. dude527 (talk) 01:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The band have confirmed it. The track is called "This Cold Black," and "Execute," is "execute". Go to the news section and click page two. dude527 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Didn't I say that above? That's what "official website" means. Oh, well. As long as it's correct. Blackngold29 04:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You never provided a link, or even told me specifically where to go. I just discovered it and gave instructions for all these nay-sayers. dude527 (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed most people would know what "Official site" would mean. Anyway, I changed the citation to the official site, and altered the messege about "execute"'s spelling (It won't always be on "Page 2"). Blackngold29 04:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's smart to link to the official site for a citation. You can't list specifically to news, so most people will get confused as I did and try looking around the site, not finding it when you only provide the information "it's on the official site". dude527 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The official site is the "most reliable" source. The citation has a link, the title, and the date. If someone can't figue that out... Blackngold29 04:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm saying, we can't link DIRECTLY TO the place where it says it on the site. We can only link to the home page. dude527 (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, that is why the date and title is listed in the citation as well. Once you make it to the home page it's common sense that you can't directly link to a story on a flash site, and that you should look though the news to find the title of the story listed. Blackngold29 04:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, I overlooked said date. dude527 (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Special edition DVD

Per the new announcement from Roadrunner UK, shall we add the info about the Spe Edi DVD? Looks like it will be three ways: 1 Digital release, 2 Standard album, 3 Album + DVD SE. I assume there is some sort of precedent for how to add this somewhere. Blackngold29 01:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Album artwork

Hey I was just looking on the official site http://www.slipknot1.com/ and they have a new image up, do you think it's the album artwork? They were said to release the album at 12.00 EST (5am GMT) but that's not for another 3 hours. There's no mention of it BEING their artwork... but it certainly seems possible. REZTER TALK ø 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but not valid without a reference. dude527 (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Confirmed by Blabbermouth too... [10] REZTER TALK ø 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Album Cover

It has not been revealed yet, and it has been announced that it will be revealed tomorrow, July 9, 2008. We don't want to go by the Slipknot forums, or Blabbermouth's assumptions about an image posted on Slipknot's site, with no confirmation of accuracy, or the picture iTunes has up, because it goes against the announcement that was already made. Leave it be until then. dude527 (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're seriously concerned about one hour? Alright, I can wait that long to re-add it, I suppose. Blackngold29 02:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's longer then one hour. It's being unveiled at 5 AM UK time. That's longer then one hour. dude527 (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I was incorrect, my bad. But, yes, we're concerned about accuracy. Wait one more hour. dude527 (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm split on this. Blabbermouth.net is actually hosted by Roadrunner, so I usually see it as pretty reliable. On the other hand, Roadrunner UK did say they would have the cover revealed on their site first, and one hour fifteen minutes after the scheduled "Reveal time" it still ain't there. I think a second source (other than Blabbermouth) would effectively end this edit war once and for all. If anyone out there has one, please post it! Blackngold29 05:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
My gripe is that I've already proven that particular Blabbermouth article to be an unreliable source as per WP:RS. The artwork is on the official site, but it's not labeled as the official artwork, so we can't post the artwork until a further announcement is made on either the Roadrunner site or the official site. Leave it be until then. dude527 (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't changed it and I won't, until a further source can be found (which judging by the popularity of this album so far won't be long). But I'm still not convinced that Blabbermouth is fully unreliable, maybe their Spellcheck screwed it up or something. One could probably render any site "unreliable" if they tried, I've found big, stupid mistakes in Popmatters before and that is accepted by WP:ALBUM as "reliable". So I dunno... All we need is one more reliable source and this all goes away. Blackngold29 05:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
We need a source that A) interviewed the band, or B) is the band's or label's page. I'd say it shouldn't stay otherwise. dude527 (talk) 05:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Roadrunner Record's Main page has the new album cover up, confirming it. Jasca Ducato (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

All that hassle just to be proven wrong Dude527, can you not just accept Blabbermouth as a reliable source? REZTER TALK ø 10:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

All sources make mistakes. Jasca Ducato (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I just want to be completely sure before we jump the gun. There were no official announcements yet or anything, so I wanted to wait until there were official announcements, so we could stick to the facts. dude527 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I just find it difficult to believe that after an official annoucement that the cover would be revealed, three different websites started displaying the same picture. If that isn't the cover art, it's one heck of a coincidence. Blackngold29 18:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Roadrunner Records UK said they would be posting the image today, at 5AM. Adn today, that image pops up on their mainpage… Only an idiot would try and deny a clearly advertised fact. Jasca Ducato (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody's denying it. *sigh* dude527 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Someones messed up the cover, just thought you should know. 216.12.108.73 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok its fixed, never mind. 216.12.108.73 (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This is just my speculation, nothing more, but the art that's been posted looks more like cd tray art, with the sidebar and everything. It would make sense to me that the art on iTunes is the actual cover art and the other art is the tray art. I could be completely wrong though but it makes sense to me. Just speculation though... Mattpaige (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Mattpaige - It's a thought, but then again the special edition of Vol.3 had a very similar layout to this (name and whatnot in the sidebar), so I suspect it is in fact the front cover. GeneralAtrocity (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
We musn't all forget: suspecting and speculating is not allowed on Wikipedia. Only knowing, and proving. dude527 (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know. That's why that's not on the article. Mattpaige (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot said they were going to release the album art and this is the image they released... go figure... ITS THE ALBUM ART. Now lets just make sure the current image is the one that is kept on Wikipedia... it has to be low resolution to meet the fair use rational and I'm sick of people uploading higher resolution pics. Now lets stop talking about this... there's no problems. REZTER TALK ø 19:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Track-by-track.

Does anyone have the track-by-track yet? Should it be added to the article? 65.189.210.173 (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the Track listing? Blackngold29 03:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
In the latest issue of Kerrang! Corey gave a track-by-track account of all the sogns on the album. Basically he talks about what they're about, so yeah that I guess could be used to construct a Lyrical themes section. I got the magazine today but I wouldn't really know how to construct it in to prose. REZTER TALK ø 16:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
We can't, not everyone could see that source, we need an internet one. dude527 (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No you do not. Books and magazines are GREAT sources, they are considered better than some internet sources, the fact that they're printed is seen as much mroe solid proof of the information than somebody posting something on-line. See WP:RS, if that's the case then most of the Slipknot articles (and a LOT of other articles) should be removed for using non-internet sources, but that isn't the case lol. REZTER TALK ø 16:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, published sources are seen as "better" sources as internet, because internet ones can suddenly disappear with no explination. I doubt you're finding too much about Zhou Tong (archer) on the internet (notice the FA). Blackngold29 18:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal

Sid's role should be listed as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turntablism surely?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fre k (talk • contribs) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really, the page doesnt have a list of "Well Known Turntablists" or anything like that. Zombified22 (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

3rd Single?

I heard a third single from the albums going to be released? While I doubt it, does anyone know if this is true? Zombified22 (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll release more singles from the album, but there's no word of the next one yet. REZTER TALK ø 04:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks, just making sure. Zombified22 (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

why is snuff listed as the next single? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.48.54 (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, what? "Snuff" isn't mentioned anywhere in the article or its Infobox as the album's third single. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It was earilier, it's been removed. No annoucements have been made yet, nor have I even heard any rumors so I doubt it'll come out before the album (17 days now), but you never know. Blackngold29 18:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Just an update, according to The Quietus the band intends to release "Dead Memories" as a single. However, this has not been confirmed and it does not yet warrent its own article. Blackngold29 06:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, this review is pathetic. He shit talks the album and the band in nearly every track's description. On the topic of "Dead Memories" being a single though, it isn't stated that it will be one for sure, I think it's just this guy mentioning how he expects such a power ballad to be commercially released by Roadrunner. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 08:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
From ThrashHits: "Neither the next single of ‘Dead Memories’ or the whole-heartedly soppy ‘Snuff’ quite fit in with the true Slipknot identity, to be honest." dude527 (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well that is a different source entirely, lol. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I told you that you put "lol" on at least half your posts! So take that! Zombified24 (talk) 03:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh, okay? Vixen Windstorm (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on the topic, this is not a discussion forum. dude527 (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Q Magazine review

The latest issue of Q Magazine had a review for this album; they gave it 4/5, calling it their most accessible and mature album yet. Should be added to the Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.124.155 (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well some people prouble will disagree, but I dont see why not. If its a actual review it shouldn't really matter when we put it up, espically when its going to be released about a week and half from now anyways. Haroldandkumar12 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It should be added as soon as we can, but we'll need actual quotes and all the cite info. If someone with a copy could provide that, I'll type it up. Blackngold29 20:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Album Leaked

I'm fairly certain the albums been linked. I found two websites which claim to have it, but I cant confirm since I wont download until I know its the actual album (slow computer). [[11]] and [[12]] Zombified26 (talk) 05:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And sorry, I didn't really get those hyperlinks right. Zombified26 (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
it's fake from what i can tell, as the files don't work —Vanishdoom (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Please, once again, this is not a discussion forum for general discussion of the album, but a place to discuss improvements to the article. The album leaking would, in no way, effect the article. The Guy complain edits 09:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The album was claimed to have been leaked about a week ago, but the files were fakes. The album torrents that are circulating the Internet now are reseeds of that same torrent. Oh, and by the way Dude527, this doesn't violate WP:TALK. Album leaks are mentioned in some articles, whereas in others they are not. There is nothing wrong with the community which surrounds an article discussing whether or not a legitimate leak should be noted. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The articles that mention leaks must have citations for them, where a reliable source covered the story on it leaking, or else it would be a violation of WP:OR and WP:V, as you should know. And this album does not have any such citations, so we could not mention a leak in this article, even if there was one. The Guy complain edits 17:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The album was leaked today 80.229.169.189 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was released today, in Japan. The Guy complain edits 12:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been leaked; I found full song videos that weren't rickrolls today. They might be removed soon, though...should this be added to the article? Winstontalk 12:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It was released in Japan today, so nooo Jakisbak (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
So that's why the videos haven't been removed... Winstontalk 16:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, adding that into the article without some coverage from reliable sources wouldn't be verifiable. As WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion of Wikipedia is verifiability, not necessarily truth." The Guy complain edits 17:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
and WP:ALBUM#Leak Jakisbak (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing is on YouTube put up by various users. Not really sure if that counts as being leaked or not, espically since its now out in Japan, but anyways it would be sources, I think... Disturbedfan24 (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Youtube isn't a reliable source...although it doesn't really matter since it's out. Jakisbak (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Reliable, third-party sources that generally have a writing staff that checks over the material posted multiple times, would not describe YouTube. The Guy complain edits 04:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

You guys are crafting an amazingly good article. I'm much impressed. :) I'm not working on it; I'm just watching it so that I can slap a B on it for WP:Album as soon as possible. I trust that you'll be wasting no time boosting it for higher evaluation. I expect to see this on the front page someday. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:All Hope Is Gone/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.

This album cannot yet be properly assessed by the album criteria. Lacking track lengths, it only meets the "start" class criteria, but it is clearly well on its way to a higher rating, which would make a "start" misleading. I have removed the rating for now rather than limit it on a technicality to a lesser rating. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Although this still lacks composer information, there is more than enough here to qualify it for an WP:IAR into B class by the album criteria. Awesome work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:All_Hope_Is_Gone/Archive_1&oldid=1136290168"