Talk:Linkin Park/Archive 3

Rap Metal
they are best suited in the Rap Metal genre than anythhing else —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordzii (talk • contribs) 01:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rap Metal just redirects to rapcore, which is already mentioned. Second, they've never even won a legit award (ex Grammy) for anything outside of alternative/hard rock. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 09:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be Rap metal. --Alice Mudgardens (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Genres (For the 90th Time)
Genres, as indicated in previous discussions DO NOT need to be cited. Unless there is a vast disagreement, there's no sense in changing it. Please search the previous discussions on this page (and in the archive) before changing them. Furthermore, if you disagree with a genre, please discuss it here first, where we can act like civil human beings. Enfestid 01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving the Genre message here, as a reminder to other editors. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  01:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks for archieving (Y). now, as i am reading in the to-do list, cleaning up minutes to midnight stuff is our greatest goal, as of now. right? män-et-arms 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeh, the MtM section, and later the videography section. Those are the last two things that need to be fixed. Then my work here will be done :p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  01:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Minutes to Midnight section
okay, this is from far our main aim here. but, since the album has it's own section, i think we should attain more to the album's "era", i.e., what happened to the band during the time the album was the band's main attention.

so i suggest their supporting tour, what happened during the recordings, rather than singles, charts and so on, 'cause we got that on the main article.

so, let's focus the edits on this section, at least for now. män-et-arms 23:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"of varying influences"
I've added "off varying influences" to the intro of the article, to read "a rock band of varying influences," to indicate that their sound includes many different forms of rock (and to somewhat appease people who keep removing "rock" from the intro), yet both times it's been removed by someone. Is there a reason? Does it not make sense? Thanks. Enfestid 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

for me just keep up with "rock band" only. or rather, just "band" (Y), 'cause there's a space for genres already (Y). yet there's nothing wrong with "varying influences", but if you're keeping that change for "different influences" which reads easier (Y). män-et-arms 16:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of a lead simple states what the subject of the article is. It should be kept simple, brief, but thorough to cover the subject of the article. Rather than going through the whole debate of what genre(s) the band truly is, its a better idea to simply state "rock", a generic term that covers most of the genres they sound like. See WP:LEAD --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

minutes to midnight linkin park are chester beninngton mike shinoda brad delson joe hahn rob bourdon dave farell

We can refer to them as a rock band i guess, but we can't put that in the genre section because they have other genres

Cleanup of Minutes to Midnight
I cleaned up the "Minutes to Midnight" section, but currently I don't feel like trying to hunt down the sources that the author used. The grammar was not the best I have ever seen, but I'm hoping my rewrite sounds and flows better.

If you wrote that section, then go source it. Trivium32 21:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up? You just made some small grammatical and wording changes. The section still needs more clean up to look like the other ones in the article --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, I meant it more like I cleaned up the words. I'm not hunting down the sources though, I tried and didn't get very far. Trivium32

I got bored so I ended up tracking down some sources and adding quotes and other good facts. Closer to completing the clean up standards?Trivium32 18:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bootlegs
Does anyone feel like doing a page for Under Attack (B-Sides), Splitting the DNA, and all the various bootleg recordings of live performances? (Uta 06:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
 * ????????Bentu 02:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A serious issue
Since Linkin Park does not have project page, I feel this is the appropriate place to address a serious issue. Over the past few months, another user and I have been working on the Chester Bennington article. I originally added two clean-up tags, but later went through the entire article and realized that most of the facts are not verifiable. Another user suggested following WP:Attribution and removed the biography altogether, as its better to have nothing than something that’s possibly false (See Jimbo Whales’ advice).

This article had a similar problem, but I rewrote almost 75% of information from reliable resources. I tried to do the same with Bennington’s article, but fell short, since there are not many reliable resources on Google. Ironically, some online biographies just nabbed information from Wikipedia, which was in turn being used to verify information on Wikipedia itself, a la Moono.com. So, I am wondering if anyone can find information about Bennington’s background from books, magazines, interviews, or websites, that meet Wikipedia’s Reliable Source policies (WP:RS). Thanks --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  08:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot think of any specific articles, however I can link you to a few archives   --SayCheese 04:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

GA article?
okay, i was looking the "To-Do" list, and i think everything is done (mostly by ShadowJester07, thanks man), does it mean we can apply for a GA status?
 * As of right now, I think the article is extremely close to GA-Status. The lead needs some work, but that should be about it. It would also be a good idea to put this page up for a peer review, so we can weed out any minor problems and such. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

well, i tried doing something on the lead, but i'm unsure about what to source. i was reading WP:CITE and they say to source statements that are likely to be challenged. i sourced their diamond status for hybrid theory directly from RIAA site, but i think the second paragraph is quite okay. am i right? gimme a light here =), so i can source it right.män-et-arms 17:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks good, but make sure the lead summarizes most of the article,


 * Linkin Park is a rock band from Agoura Hills, California. They formed in 1996, and have since sold x amount albums, and won y'' amount Grammies. They first achieved mainstream success in 2000 with their debut album, Hybrid Theory, which has since been certified Diamond by RIAA.[1] The band’s following studio album, Meteora also garnered success, .... (ect)

Linkin Park is known for adapting Nu-metal genre into a radio friendly style, creating thus many successful singles, such as "In the End" and "Numb", which were number one singles in several countries. They are also known for their several collaborations, most notably with rapper Jay-Z in their mash-up album Collision Course. Linkin Park's newer work has stemmed away from the nu metal genre... ect''


 * Something like that, around two paragraphs should be good. If you need a model as to what to write, look at the Megadeth, Slayer, Pink Floyd, Smashing Pumpkins, and NIN articles, as they are ll at FA or GA status. --ShadowJester07 01:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

i think it's pretty okay. thanks (Y) män-et-arms 17:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC) well, i think the lead is pretty done, so i guess a peer review now would be quite good, wouldn't it?män-et-arms 21:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

we're completely missing details of LP vs Warner Records feud
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1519374/20051228/linkin_park.jhtml?headlines=true&rsspartner=rssNetNewsWire http://www.google.com/search?q=Linkin+Park+and+Warner+Records+feud&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Because the problem lasted over year, and with media even circulated to the point that Warner Bros. Record would collapse without them, this topic deserve more attention then mere "In May, the band demanded to be released from its contract with Warner Bros. on the grounds of "a lack of confidence." The band was recently in negotiations with the label over a new record contract. Linkin Park had four albums left outstanding on its 2000 record contract. In December 2005 the band announced that they had finally reached a settlement with Warner Bros. Records." My idea is that we look into it more detailedly and put up more information regarding this, since this was the reason Linkin Park refused to release new album for over three years. I brought this back up because you guys are not doing anything about it. If you guys have any reason for not adding this, let me know. Other wise, I will be adding in few days. K^ aka Fooly-Dooly-00000 16:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * please do it. write a parahraph about it, 'cause i see you've the sources. we're focused on the lead lately, but you should add it, most likely it will improve the article. if you want an opinion on what you write before editing the actual article, leave it here in the talk. män-et-arms 17:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It has been in there for awhile, around the side projects sections, On the home front, the band's relationship with Warner Bros. Records was declining rapidly on account of several trust and financial issues.[27] After months of feuding, the band finally negotiated a deal in December 2005.[28]--  ►ShadowJester07  20:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Rock/Metal
i have noticed that alternative metal has been removed many times and put back again. i'm for it, since nu-metal is a subgenre of alternative metal, but let's discuss it here.

Alternative Metal should stay

wercan just put both and maybe some newer genres that they have for some small songs should have the word (NEW) or (new) because they have like a new age.

e.g. Elctronic Rock (new)

If one song has it, then its like a mini genre I guess

Genre Again...oi.

 * I think we shouldn't have Rapcore there as Nu Metal basically covers Linkin Parks pre-Minutes to Midnight. And as of Minutes to midnight. Alternative & Punkshould cover it. As this is what the band basically says it is. So the Genress should be "Nu Metal" and "Alternative & Punk". If they're are no objections in the next few days I shall change it. RiseAgainst01 02:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Punk? Maybe Given Up is kind of punkish but that's about it. --SayCheese 23:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Says Queercore as Genre atm. ... dont think theres such a genre is there ??? /Wingis --83.248.66.87 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

NEW:

As i wrote in the other section, We ahould put all minutes ot midnight as (new)

inculding QWERTY (Behind Your Lies)

for example LEAVE OUT ALL THE REST has synth rock, and mmany other songs will have this one

so if are going to have it, then it is put on the top.

Transformers
Although I'm not certain yet that the sountrack for Tranformers is set in stone, I do think it would be worthwhile to mention at some point in the article that Linkin Park's 'What I've Done' is currently a selection. Click: RedZionX 23:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should belong on the discography page. --  ►ShadowJester07  01:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC) i think they are more rock/alternative than punk

"Bleed it out" officially confirmed as the next single
If you head on over to www.videostatic.com you'll see the following details: BOOKED: Linkin Park - Mr. Hahn, director Being directed by Linkin Park's own Mr. Hahn...

artist: Linkin Park song: "Bleed It Out" label: Warner Bros. director(s): Mr. Hahn production co: @radical.media June 27, 2007 in Radical Media, Warner Bros. | Permalink

Awsome!!!! I love that song!!!!
 * Lover of the sand 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)*

Linkin Park band picture
surely we can do better than the one we have now, yuo can't even see half of the nband in the picture


 * You may not use non-free images on Wikipedia just to show a band; that's why we're stuck using the concert shot, since its better than nothing. -- ►ShadowJester07  14:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

is it alright to use a screenshot from a youtube video they posted? as they are letting everyone view the video anyway? then you could get a good pic. i got some quite good quality images. silvarbullet1 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, see WP:Fair Use -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 22:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JAPAN TOUR
Ok so during 7.7.07 live earth linkin park stated that they will be having a japan tour this november before playing "In The End". You can see that in this video on youtube at 1:48 seconds http://youtube.com/watch?v=lB2PQ5Lfe1Q. hopfully you'll take this into consideration.66.41.86.80 04:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Emcee or M.C. ?
I didn't change this because I'm not exactly an expert on this kind of thing, but in the band members section it says "emcee" but as far as i'm aware the term comes from the term 'Master of Ceremonies' which is useualy refured to as M.C.

but if this is e.g. on there website or something then obviously they know better :)

The term, like many, has evolved. Both are in current use. Perhaps an expert will tell us who (artists, genres, fans) use which form..? silvarbullet1 22:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Hedley 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC) MC was actually used after emcee, emcee evolved because it sounded like MC. Shapiros10 (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Associated Acts
Why are Barry Manilow, Hoagy Carmichael, ABBA listed under the "Associated Acts" section? Fort Minor and Dead By Sunrise make sense, but I don't see what the others have to do with Linkin Park. I'm going to remove them. If someone decides to revert the edit, please give a valid reason. --Mathew Williams 04:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR Three-revert rule
I fully protected the article and blocked five four of the fifteen editors engaged in this revert war. A fifth editor was blocked by another admin. An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. See Three-revert rule. Most of the editors knew when to stop, some did not. If you have a disagreement over content, discuss that disagreement on this talk page. When in doubt, do not revert. If discussion is not possible, ask for administrative assistance or engage in dispute resolution. For now, please take a break and enjoy the rest of the weekend. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 20:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiRage.com
This article keeps showing up at WikiRage.com. We tried fully protecting it for a short time and blocking some of the editors. That does not seem to have work to resolve the ongoing disputes over this article. Please work out your differences on this talk page rather than use "revert" to attempt to settle them. I soft protected the article. However, if another admin thinks full protection with an indefinite expiration time would help calm things down, please feel free to take such action. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 17:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're mischaracterizing most of the activity at this article. It seems, after a brief scan of the last 50 edits, the vast majority is vandalism, and the reversion of said vandalism. It doesn't appear to be really any more contentious than any other musician article. Information is being added, and copy-editing is being done. Semi-protection will solve the majority of the problems with this article. There's no need for full-protection. If people want to create vandal-only accounts to circumvent the semi-protection, it's no problem to report them at the appropriate admin board. Parsecboy 22:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

LP Portal
I was thinking, do we have enough material to make a LP profile? or maybe a Nu Metal profile? please tell me what you guys think Rashempashem 19:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC
 * Yes, I think so. Bentu (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Link to Park Name
I was looking at putting together an article on East LA's Lincoln Park (originally named Eastlake Park). The article here says that the band was named for a park by that name in Santa Monica - if there is one, it is different and the link goes to the wrong place. L. Greg 00:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good eye. I made the changes. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 02:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new template
I've created a new template in my own namespace based on the new templates for musical artists. I tried to condense it down a lot and took out a couple articles which were repetitive or didn't really belong. Implement it if it's good enough, or make changes. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Plethora
1.	overabundance; excess. Someone ought to remove that from the second paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.24.123.107 (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Done that for you, the word was acctualy not setting in. Utkarsh Rastogi (talk) 10:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

LPTV
Does anyone think that Linkin Park Television should be added as a topic in the article? Bentu (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah that would be a great addition. I see it on their website and MySpace all the time. If you find enough info, you can add a section on it. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk  / contribs ) 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

template
Where is the navigation template for bands stored? I would like to create one for another band that does not have one. Thanks! --&Mu;79_&Scaron;p&euro;&ccedil;&iacute;&aacute;&int;&iacute;&scaron;&dagger; tell me about it 20:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up, but another genre question
Is Rapcore really the best genre to use, as far as rap (fill in the blank) goes? I've never really thought of their music as being in any way related to hardcore punk. Also, rapcore just redirects to Rap rock, which I think is a far better descriptor than the aforementioned rapcore. Another thing to consider is that rap rock is a broader genre than rapcore, and might be the better choice for that reason as well. I thought I'd bring it up here before I went ahead and changed it. Anyone have any thoughts/comments? Parsecboy 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But isnt rap rock and rapcore basically the same thing? To be honest i prefer the term rap rock to rapcore, but i think they are basically the same thing. RPI 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rapcore is a subgenre of rap rock, and is influenced by hardcore punk; hence the name rapcore. Thanks for your reply. I'll wait a day or two longer for some more opinions before I make any changes though. Parsecboy 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters which one is listed. But since, rapcore is a subgenre of rap rock, then rap rock would be a better choice for the infobox. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk / contribs ) 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Linkin Park is more of an Altenative/Rap/Rock than regular Rapcoresuch as P.O.D. which would be regular rapcore.

If iw as in control of the article, I would put Alternative Rap

GA nomination on hold
Yay, one of my favourite bands, but a band that I know very little about - hopefully reading this article will changes things a little :) Please leave a note on my talk page when you're done with this stuff. Cheers, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the "Years active" section of in the infobox, list it as "Linkin Park 2000 - Present" - otherwise it looks a bit odd
 * I've never thought of LP as an alt metal band. This is only mentioned in the infobox and cats - have any reliable sources described them as "alt metal"? (I won't comment on nu metal having not heard of it previously...)
 * AskMen
 * MTV.com
 * Yahoo! Music


 * Refs 2 and 3 shouldn't have the title in ALL CAPS (even if the target page does, it's just annoying)
 * Ref 4 needs a title
 * "he album topped the Billboard Charts and became the third best debut week of any album for the year. [10] [11]" - There shouldn't be a space between the full stop (.) and ref 10, nor should there be a space between refs 10 and 11
 * "After graduating from high school, the California natives later began to take their musical interests more seriously" - the "later" is redundant to the "after", so remove it
 * "Later, Farrell would also leave the band in order to tour with Tasty Snax, as well as other bands" - "also" redundant to "later", change "as well as" to "and"
 * "Bennington, formerly of a band named Grey Daze" - Reword to "Bennington, formerly of Grey Daze"
 * "The band’s renaissance culminated with a change in name" - wlink is not necessary here
 * "from Hybrid Theory, the band changed their name to Linkin Park" - You never mentioned when they changed from Xero to Hybrid Theory....?
 * "MTV also awarded the band their Best Rock Video and Best Direction awards for In the End" - Remove "also"
 * "where a lot of monasteries have been built on top of the rocks" - change "a lot of" to "numerous"


 * "Eventually, Meteora sold nearly three million copies by October 2003" - Reword to "By October 2003, Meteora had sold nearly three million copies"
 * "Meteora also earned the band additional awards and honors." - Remove "also", change "additional" to "multiple"
 * " The band won MTV's awards for Best Rock Video (Somewhere I Belong), Viewer's Choice Award (Breaking the Habit)" - need an "and" before Viewer's Choice Award
 * "On the home front, the band's relationship with Warner Bros. Records was declining rapidly on account of several trust and financial issues." - "On the home front" is a bit tacky...reword to "At the same time, Linkin Park's relationship with Warner Bros. Records was declinging rapidly on account of several trust and financial issues."
 * "Additionally, they also participated in numerous charitable events" - Replace "additionally, they" with "Linkin Park", remove "also"
 * Refs 8 and 37 are the same
 * "and later premiered on MTV and Fuse within the same week" - Remove "later"
 * Ref 39 needs access date
 * "Bleed It Out is the second single from Minutes to Midnight which was released 20 August 2007. Shadow of the Day, the third single, was released in the UK on 8 October. The song has also been released in the U.S (16 October)" - Song titles should be in "quotation marks", not italics. Also a full stop (.) is needed after the stuff in brackets at the end.
 * Ref 44 - publisher (/author) is Rolling Stone, not RollingStones.com
 * "In Minutes to Midnight the band experiments with their established sound and sees them drawing influences from a wider and more varied range of genres and styles" - This should be in past tense
 * "Shinoda has also been placed in Hit Paraders list of "Heavy Metal's All-Time Top 100 Vocalists" at 72." - This needs to be cited (by doubling up the ref used for Bennington)
 * In the "Band members" section the instruments are only wlinked for past members - either wlink for everyone or not at all

Reviewed version:

Good luck, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 03:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll tend to the suggestions - I'll get them done before Friday, and leave you a message. Thanks for the review. - ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm this went A LOT quicker than I thought it would. We should be good now. Thanks for all the helpful suggestions and copy edit advice. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 04:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand, passed. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 04:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is Nu Metal?
Hey! Someone has erased Nu metal  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.118.32 (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, because it is a subgenre of alternative metal. Both of them should not stay and the harder songs on Minutes to Midnight are alt metal not nu metal. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk  / contribs ) 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The genre box is not for what they are now (which I agree is not nu metal) but what they used to be. Personally, I only think they were alt metal on just one song (No More Sorrow). I think nu metal should stay (it is with the likes of Korn and Limp Bizkit). I say we should all vote. Titan50 —Preceding comment was added at 09:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. We don't vote to decide on issues. The genres in the infobox are meant to encompass the band's entire musical career. Nu metal should not be there because the genres in the infobox are supposed to be as general as possible, which means that, since nu metal is a subgenre of alt metal, only alt metal should be listed. Nu metal should be discussed in the article, not the infobox. Alt metal sums up their entire career better than nu metal. Alt metal/alt rock and rapcore should be the only genres in the infobox. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes - ~ ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk  / contribs ) 15:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fake albums
While searching the 'net, I encounrtered three albums (unofficial) under the names of Linkin Park: Splitting the DNA (a two-disc album made by some guy, it contains Grey Daze tracks as well as others), Under Attack (a fan-made album containing random tracks, some by Linkin park) and Erection (first half sexual-named tracks by some artists, second half complete Meteora). Shall we include these in the article or create pages fr them? Titan50 (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These are fan albums, and therefore are not worth mentioning at all. There's probably hundreds of them out there on the internet made by obsessed fans. Also, when adding a section to the talk page, please add it at the BOTTOM of the page. Also, please sign your posts correctly, by typing ~ after your comment. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (talk  / <sub style="color:#00FF00;">contribs ) 20:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Although it's interesting that they are being sold on mp3 download sites, as well as other like "best ofs" and a remix album called "Projekt RevoloutioN" after their tours Titan50 (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Projekt Rovolution is an official dvd or live cd. Lots of albums are sold on mp3 download sites, but that doesn't mean that they're notable. If they're not official, the best thing to do is just mention them in general in the appropriate section of the article. Or if there's enough information that can be sourced, make a new section on the albums, but they're definitely not worth an article. ╦ﺇ₥₥€Ԋ (<sup style="color:#FF6600;">talk  / <sub style="color:#00FF00;">contribs ) 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm prety sure there was a PR DVD, but someone made an album of remixes, as well as other songs (both versions of Cure for the Itch, It's Goin' Down, etc) and called it ProjeCt Revolution Titan50 (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

NU METAL!
Linkin Park is a NU METAL band not an Alternative Rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.118.32 (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the earlier post you started about why alt metal is in the infobox and not nu metal. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorting of genres
I think the genres that are put up are fine as they are. However, I think a revision should be made. It should go like this:

Genre Older material: Alternative metal Nu metal Rap rock New material Alternative rock —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaikiriChidori (talk • contribs)
 * First, please put new posts at the bottom of the page and please sign your posts with four tildes - ~ . About the genres, I believe they are fine the way they are. There hasn't really been much argument recently over them and I'm sure everyone wants it to stay that way. What they are now is already at the top of the list, and I don't think it needs to be changed. Tim  meh <sup style="color:darkred;">contribs  19:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We've brought this up at WikiProject Alternative music: Linkin Park is not an alternative rock band. The genre should be removed. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Where specifically was this discussion? and can a Wiki-Project actually determine what genre a band can fall into? It sounds too much like the Metal Archives cabal. Linkin Park has received many awards and nominations in the past that have recognized their work in the alt rock genere, The have also appeared on Billboards Alt/Modern Rock Charts recently. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed with ShadowJester; the discussion should have taken place here, not hidden on a project talk page, under an unrelated section header. Given Linkin Park's history of awards and nominations, as well as the links provided above, the alt rock genre should be re-added. Parsecboy (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, someone should add it with the sources. Tim  meh  !  18:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Appearing on the Modern Rock Charts means nothing. Modern Rock is a radio format that, while the key place alternative rock is heard on American commericial radio, doesn't merely play alternative rock. For instance, Metallica has charted on the Modern Rock charts numerous times, as have many metal bands. Eminem gets airplay on Modern Rock radio stations. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's actually the "Alternative/Modern Rock chart". Parsecboy (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So? There have been numerous songs that have charted on that chart that aren't alternative rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, awards are necessarily a good indicator either. After all, Paul McCartney and Lily Allen have been nominated for the Best Alternative Music Performance at the Grammy Awards. What is needed is a reliable source that actually says Linkin Park is an alternative rock band, and explains why. There doesn't seem to be any, however, and nothing I've seen indictates that any other genre labels are required beyond alternative metal, nu metal, and rap rock. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Alternative music isn't necessarily the same as alternative rock, now is it? Here's nomination for specifically alt rock, a college newspaper that describes LP as alt rock several times, Amazon.com has them in the alt rock section. Clearly there's a wide number of people who view them to be alt rock. Parsecboy (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Alternative music isn't necessarily the same as alternative rock, now is it?" Since you ask, yes, it is. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

At this point I'm more concerned about the approach to sourcing here. I had to remove two sources in a row because they didn't call Linkin Park an alternative rock band at all. You can't just use any source just because it calls Linkin Park alternative. The Metacritic link for instance: why of all possible sources is this one used? It's an aggregated review website; its job is not to classify bands by genre. It's valid as a source of reviews for the album, not as a source for the band's genre. That's why you rely on Allmusic or a book on rock genres. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Futhermore, IGN labels Korn as alt-rock as well. Higher-quality sources are needed that actually discuss the band's genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel you're putting forth a higher standard than is required. All we need is a reliable source that describes Linkin Park as being alt rock. Nothing more, nothing less. As I stated above, there's clearly a large number of people who consider LP to be alt rock. That's more than enough to justify including the genre in the infobox. Whether you think Linkin Park is alt rock or not is irrelevant; a significant segment of sources do, we merely report that. Parsecboy (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Allmusic's "job" isn't to inform the reader of a band's genre. It's to inform the reader about the music or band as is any other site with music reviews. I haven't seen any website with the sole purpose of informing the reader about the genre of certain artists, songs, or albums. As long as the source calls Linkin Park or it's newest album alternative, then it can be used. It's no different than if allmusic called the band alternative. We can't rely on only allmusic to tell us what genres to put in the infobox. There are many different sources used in Wikipedia articles because one cannot provide all the information and doesn't provide for a neutral point of view. Tim  meh  !  04:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Allmusic has pages and essays devoted to genres. You can see them if you click on the genre names. And no, just because a source calls Linkin Park alternative doesn't mean it can be used. A reliable, verifiable source with knowledge of the subject needs to be sourced. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Allmusic doesn't discuss anything about the band's newest album, other than stating that it was released in 2007. Since it doesn't even discuss the album or its music styles, we can't use it as a reference to say Linkin Park is alternative rock or not alternative rock. Tim  meh  !  04:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then find a source that does. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a specific example of this? Some FA-status articles such as Slayer simply verify their band's genre with a single simple reference to All Music Guide. However, I cannot seem to find an RS that verifies that Linkin Park falls under the "alternative rock" genre. As a matter a fact, I figured that bands that fell under the alternative metal genre would automatically fall under the alternative rock genre - in the same sense that a Thrash Metal band would  be classified as a metal band. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk  04:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, alternative metal is a fusion genre, closer to metal than it is to alt-rock. Oftentimes alternative metal bands are groups that take an unconventional approach to metal, rather than mix the metal and alt-rock genres. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many sources have avoided discussing exactly what genre the album is because it is basically a clash of several diverse music styles. Most sources either don't discuss the genre at all or just mention it having punk and classic rock influences just because Chester talked about how the band's sound was moving toward these styles. Since the music is so diverse from track to track on Minutes to Midnight, the safest way to sum up the sound of it is to say it's alternative rock. Subgenres, such as punk and classic rock should be discussed in the style section of the article. Actually, I believe alternative metal should also be removed from the infobox because nu metal and rap rock are the band's older styles and alt rock is the band's newer material, with alt metal being just a very vague description of the band's entire career. Tim  meh  !  05:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Take a gander at Heavy metal music (which I sourced as part of that article's FAR, so I don't have to go into detail here) for explanations of alternative metal and nu metal. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Since the music is so diverse from track to track on Minutes to Midnight, the safest way to sum up the sound of it is to say it's alternative rock. Subgenres, such as punk and classic rock should be discussed in the style section of the article. Actually, I believe alternative metal should also be removed from the infobox because nu metal and rap rock are the band's older styles and alt rock is the band's newer material, with alt metal being just a very vague description of the band's entire career." Don't rely on your own personal interpretation. Without proper reference and reliable sources this is original research, so we can't do that. By the way, if Minutes to Midnight is so diverse to avoid easy classification, the safest genre classification is actually to just say "rock". I doubt anyone contests that it isn't a rock album. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

High Voltage
What happened to the article on High Voltage? It's just as notable as My December, so I don't see why it has to go Titan50 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the AFD logs, or old url of the article itself - usually, there is an explanation somewhere on the page. -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 17:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Don Gilmore
Greenmeister (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Can i just say that Don Gilmore didn't "Edit and Polish" Hybrid theory. As quoted by Chester Bennington in issue 1194 of the Kerrang! magazine "Well he [Don Gilmore] actually liked two [songs in the original hybrid theory] - points of authority and with you. We basically had to write a new record in two months. We stayed at Mike Shinodas around the clock and wrote that album" The reason they changed their name from Hybrid Theory to Linkin Park because a new Warner Bros band called Hybrid objected to thier name.Greenmeister (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also
Greenmeister (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Can i also mention that Linkin Park "Never liked the Nu Metal tag" as quoted by Mike Shinoda in issue 1194 of Kerrang! )£2.10)Greenmeister (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You can as long as you don't remove it from the genres Titan50 (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)