Talk:A Thousand Suns/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about A Thousand Suns. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
New info added
I've added a bit more info and references to the page. Maybe someone wants to add some info about the puzzles and games Mike Shinoda put up on his blog in the run up to the release of the name of the album and the release date? alexdeangelis86 20:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Please notice that band websites fail at WP:RS, since they are highly susceptible to link rot; they are updated annually and old posts are deleted. We need to find the information in other websites so it will still be available in the future. Sirius 128 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- What else would you concider more reliable than the band website. The people who update the official websites have the most accurate information. --98.234.74.77 (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Concept album!?
http://www.cbennington.com/2008/10/billboard-linkin-park-thinking.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkin_Park#cite_note-52
So, apparently it is gonna be a concept album... It is kind of obvious. Just look at the track names! Two song titles with "The" at the start of the album, and two song titles with "The" at the end of the album...
Someone add it. QWERTY531 (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Does the usage of the "The" in the title really mark something as being a concept album? Just wondering. But I digress, as, based on the source, the point is moot. As far as I'm aware, the point of it being a concept album cannot be added if we do not know what that specific concept is. If you can cite a source stating such, I'd be more than happy to add it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 08:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just a small note, for what I mean on specifics of a concept album by Linkin Park, see the article for Minutes to Midnight. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 08:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Does the usage of the "The" in the title really mark something as being a concept album? Just wondering. But I digress, as, based on the source, the point is moot. As far as I'm aware, the point of it being a concept album cannot be added if we do not know what that specific concept is. If you can cite a source stating such, I'd be more than happy to add it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 08:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
http://www.cbennington.com/2008/10/billboard-linkin-park-thinking.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkin_Park#cite_note-52
THESE TWO LINKS ARE MY SOURCE. It already says it on LP's page, why not put it where it SHOULD be (on the album's page)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by QWERTY531 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- You missed the point. The second link is just the cite note for the first. All the source states is, "Linkin Park is planning what singer Chester Bennington calls "a concept record" for its fourth album". It states absolutely nothing with regards to it beyond that which isn't surprising considering that it is a 2 year old post, written before album recording was apparently even underway. There is no need to get angry over it, just find more information it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay. When the album comes out and if it turns out to not be a concept album, could someone put in "It was originally planned to be a concept album, but the idea was scrapped after _____"? Q̬̲̜̲͔̤̓̈́̿̿͑̄́͜W̉ͬͯ͗̄ͥͩ͑̎̚҉͡҉̨̯̰͚̰̩̹̗̳̪͎͈̲͖͕̀ͅE̸̵͓͖̳̠̤̣̞̠̤ͯ̓ͮ̄͋͂̃ͦ̈̓͊ͮṚ̛̣̘͇̩̘͚̯̞̤̮͍̥̰͇̻͔̯̾ͯ̒̑̾ͤ̏̑̋͠ͅT̴̛̗̥̺̠̖͙͓̟̙̞͙͇̳̖͈͊ͫͦ̔ͪ͑̏̊Y̢̛̫͚̘̪̅̇͐ͣ̈̈͋̕͜ 19:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- You'd still need to define what was the concept in the first place and summarily prove notability. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 20:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Found more info! Not sure if it really matters, but listen to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsRQQR6GHAE&feature=player_embedded .
There is no track on the album called "A Thousand Suns", but the title is referenced in the song "The Catalyst". I know it's probably not enough to mean anything, but I just found it and thought it was interesting so I decided to add it. Q̬̲̜̲͔̤̓̈́̿̿͑̄́͜W̉ͬͯ͗̄ͥͩ͑̎̚҉͡҉̨̯̰͚̰̩̹̗̳̪͎͈̲͖͕̀ͅE̸̵͓͖̳̠̤̣̞̠̤ͯ̓ͮ̄͋͂̃ͦ̈̓͊ͮṚ̛̣̘͇̩̘͚̯̞̤̮͍̥̰͇̻͔̯̾ͯ̒̑̾ͤ̏̑̋͠ͅT̴̛̗̥̺̠̖͙͓̟̙̞͙͇̳̖͈͊ͫͦ̔ͪ͑̏̊Y̢̛̫͚̘̪̅̇͐ͣ̈̈͋̕͜ talk 03:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
According to Pheonix, "It's just one of those records where I think people are going to have to hear it and sit with it a little bit, hopefully listen to it from front to back and get a feel for what's going on vibe-wise and where it's going as a journey. We definitely made it to be listened to as a journey, as a 45-minute album."
Perhaps more info leaning towards the fact that it is a concept album? Q̬̲̜̲͔̤̓̈́̿̿͑̄́͜W̉ͬͯ͗̄ͥͩ͑̎̚҉͡҉̨̯̰͚̰̩̹̗̳̪͎͈̲͖͕̀ͅE̸̵͓͖̳̠̤̣̞̠̤ͯ̓ͮ̄͋͂̃ͦ̈̓͊ͮṚ̛̣̘͇̩̘͚̯̞̤̮͍̥̰͇̻͔̯̾ͯ̒̑̾ͤ̏̑̋͠ͅT̴̛̗̥̺̠̖͙͓̟̙̞͙͇̳̖͈͊ͫͦ̔ͪ͑̏̊Y̢̛̫͚̘̪̅̇͐ͣ̈̈͋̕͜ talk 13:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the fact that Mike Shinoda said it himself that the 4th album was gonna be a concept album? "Oh really, where did you read that?" On the main LP wiki page :) Btw, please change your sig, it's annoying. 82.72.117.104 (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I read that too and posted it here (see top of section) but then EvilGohan2 said some weird shit that I didn't understand. Even though I had reliable sources and everything it still somehow wasn't good enough. Just read the top of the section. Q̟͓͈̪W͙͓̘̟E͓̻̘̹R͈͎͖͔̗̭ͅT̲͇̫̣Y̝͈͉̯̝ talk 13:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly what was weird about what I stated? I think it was very simple. Find more information on WHAT DEFINES THE CONCEPT. Not just saying that the band calls it a concept album so it is a concept album. To give a metaphor, this jet pack tells me I can fly, but it conveniently left out the instruction manual and I hit the ground on take off. Likewise, 2 year old interviews and a brief mention 2 years later tell us it is a concept album, but they left out exactly what the details on said concept was (considering said concept is still a mystery) and thus the statement is ambiguous, fleeting, and about as notable as Bono saying "fuck" in the middle of an awards ceremony. To put it bluntly: Find information on it, else it's just not notable. That's what I've been trying to state. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, ok fair enough. I'll stop whining then. 82.72.117.104 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clear things up, the album is NOT a concept record in the 'traditional sense.' So the argument can be put to rest. There's a video chat with Mike Shinoda on ustream (although it can be found on youtube) from 08/02 where he makes a point to clearly not call it a concept album. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS6y45uSO_A at about 4:00 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.67.203 (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, ok fair enough. I'll stop whining then. 82.72.117.104 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly what was weird about what I stated? I think it was very simple. Find more information on WHAT DEFINES THE CONCEPT. Not just saying that the band calls it a concept album so it is a concept album. To give a metaphor, this jet pack tells me I can fly, but it conveniently left out the instruction manual and I hit the ground on take off. Likewise, 2 year old interviews and a brief mention 2 years later tell us it is a concept album, but they left out exactly what the details on said concept was (considering said concept is still a mystery) and thus the statement is ambiguous, fleeting, and about as notable as Bono saying "fuck" in the middle of an awards ceremony. To put it bluntly: Find information on it, else it's just not notable. That's what I've been trying to state. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 22:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah I read that too and posted it here (see top of section) but then EvilGohan2 said some weird shit that I didn't understand. Even though I had reliable sources and everything it still somehow wasn't good enough. Just read the top of the section. Q̟͓͈̪W͙͓̘̟E͓̻̘̹R͈͎͖͔̗̭ͅT̲͇̫̣Y̝͈͉̯̝ talk 13:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Digital Album Cover Art
There's a different cover picture for the digital downloadable album. The image can be seen at: [1] (scroll to the bottom) Skakdi (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, take a look at all of these alternate covers too. http://www.lpassociation.com/articleimages/072510-211512_LP_COVERS.JPG Q̟͓͈̪W͙͓̘̟E͓̻̘̹R͈͎͖͔̗̭ͅT̲͇̫̣Y̝͈͉̯̝ talk 12:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- the official site shows the picture black - white, and the white - black, as shown in the article.82.72.117.104 (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
To satisfy fair use criteria, an uploaded alternative cover art image would need to be drastically different from the original. These are all just color inversions of the original cover, so it's essentially the same image. Slight differences in the cover art should be mentioned in prose within the article body, if at all, and not visually depicted with an image gallery. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ats lp digtalcover.jpg & Ats lp digtalcover.jpg for your rationale use. UltraHeadShot (talk) 13:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just because it is a color inversion it isn't allowed? What?! Why don't you go check out the article for The Black Parade... LOLHI IM QWERTY 02:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- UltraHeadShot, I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. QWERTY, I am not sure how The Black Parade passed a GA nomination with a similar cover art image uploaded. Having multiple cover art images that were too similar was specifically the reason why Zeitgeist (The Smashing Pumpkins album) failed it's GA nomination, as you can see in its corresponding GA discussion here. According to the Fair Use Criteria, which is a Wikipedia legal policy not just a guideline, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." The little template that allows one to add a second image to the infobox also says something along those lines, as you can see here. Keeping with the Smashing Pumpkins theme, the difference between the different covers uploaded need to be similar to Adore (album). While it may be the same woman, she is in an entirely different pose, at a different distance, with a different background, and she is in color. Does this all make sense to everyone? I know Wikipedia policies can sometimes be a frustrating slap in the face when you are just starting out... Fezmar9 (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- "I know Wikipedia policies can sometimes be a frustrating slap in the face when you are just starting out"... man, if that's not the truth.... Four years later and they still frustrate me sometimes, haha. But they're in place for a reason. If they weren't this place might start looking like E.D. (for all things sacred, please no). But I digress, I noticed said covers were added anyway. Outside the issue of Fair Usage licensing, I cannot see the principle of having 2 images which effectively are the exact same image with a color inversion applied to one, and the other is a color inversion with multiple gradient patterns applied. I fail to see the practicality in this many covers without specific details of notable differences in the releases (such as a notable re-release, See: Guns 'N' Roses' "Appetite for Destruction"; AC/DC's "Highway to Hell"), otherwise the only thing necessary might be a note in the article about a special and/or limited edition (In example, Black Sabbath's "Paranoid", or Linkin Park's "Meteora"). ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- UltraHeadShot, I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. QWERTY, I am not sure how The Black Parade passed a GA nomination with a similar cover art image uploaded. Having multiple cover art images that were too similar was specifically the reason why Zeitgeist (The Smashing Pumpkins album) failed it's GA nomination, as you can see in its corresponding GA discussion here. According to the Fair Use Criteria, which is a Wikipedia legal policy not just a guideline, "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." The little template that allows one to add a second image to the infobox also says something along those lines, as you can see here. Keeping with the Smashing Pumpkins theme, the difference between the different covers uploaded need to be similar to Adore (album). While it may be the same woman, she is in an entirely different pose, at a different distance, with a different background, and she is in color. Does this all make sense to everyone? I know Wikipedia policies can sometimes be a frustrating slap in the face when you are just starting out... Fezmar9 (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The link I gave was the official Australian site of A Thousand Suns. THERE IS A DIFFERENT DIGITAL COVER THAN THE ONE ON THE ARTICLE!! Geez, does anyone notice anything apart gfrom what they find? [[User:SkakdiSkakdi]] ([[User talk:SkakdiTalk]]) 06:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Skakdi, did you read any of this discussion? I noticed your link. However I also noticed the Australian edition was the exact same as the US standard edition, but with the band and album name. Because I was just able to simplify the description of that cover into a single sentence, it's not covered by fair use. It needs to be distinctly different from the original image so that words alone will not convey to the reader what the image looks like. So that we would have to upload an image to convey to the reader what it looks like. Which was the same issue with all of the other covers. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay sorry, i wasn't aware of that. [[User:SkakdiSkakdi]] ([[User talk:SkakdiTalk]]) 07:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I tagged the two images currently in the article with speedy deletion tags, and they were supposed to be deleted yesterday. However, it looks like I added the wrong tags, and now they will be deleted in seven days from today. Just a heads up. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- What the fuck? I see that you also tagged that image on The Black Parade. Fuck you. LOLHI IM QWERTY 13:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- ....Wow. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 20:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Wow is probably the best word. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. If you feel so strongly that File:Blackparadecover.jpg and File:The Black Parade.jpg are vastly different from one another, and that removing one would be detrimental to the understanding of The Black Parade, then take your concerns to File talk:The Black Parade.jpg. The patrolling admin that will review the image up for deletion will check the talk page and edit history before making a final decision. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Tour
There is a part in the article that says: "The tour will begin in Berlin, Germany on October 20." But, on the band's official website it says that the tour will begin in Buenos Aires, Argentina on October 7.
- Source: www.linkinpark.com/events
Australian Release Date
I do believe that the Australian realease date is different from the three listed on the page. Here the date above "A Thousand Suns" is 10/9/10. Assuming that is Australian date format, the 10th of September 2010 is the release date. [[User:SkakdiSkakdi]] ([[User talk:SkakdiTalk]]) 07:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Song length???
Is there a source for the length of the songs on the album? I can't find it anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.103.9 (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see a source provided in the article. Be bold and remove the lenghts! Fezmar9 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Done ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- WHAT!?!?!?! Here's your source! http://www.lpassociation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31479. I'm adding it to the article. LOLHI IM QWERTY 01:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- No need to get annoyed. As said before, assume good faith. I'll also point out once again that that is a fan site. The only difference being that it actually links to a verifiable reliable source. I do begin to wonder if you may have a personal vested interest in this article as you seem to take some things rather personally (as evidenced here and above). I merely suggest calming down, easing back, and if you don't agree with another editors actions, respectfully state such and edit to correct - as long as it's not flat out disruptive, of course. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 02:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- WHAT!?!?!?! Here's your source! http://www.lpassociation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31479. I'm adding it to the article. LOLHI IM QWERTY 01:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Album Release Concert
Linkin Park has announced an album release concert for September 14, 2010 at Best Buy Theater (formerly Nokia Theatre) in New York. If someone wishes to insert this information, related to a concert tour or release information, please do so. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 17:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Genre
Everyday the genre is changing from alternative rock to electronica to electronic rock to nu metal to rap rock to alternative hip hop to alternative rock. :p
Would not it be better to put it off to a generous genre (such as Rock) until September 14 or the first international release of the album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.99.99.67 (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- thats what im trying to convince these people in the other genre section, but apparently the genre of the album is "still audiable"
if the album hasnt come out yet, then how can you hear it? well still, all of this is pointless since the album comes out tomorow, but im just here to show some support 24.139.117.90 (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
shouldnt da more specific genre be like...idk.....electronic rock? cuz i think thats da genre that describes their new music. just my opinion......--68.48.143.184 (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
'''''WRETCHES AND KINGS
so another record has been released by LP. WRETCHES AND KINGS which is available to download for every person who has pre- ordered the album and i think it needs an independent page considering it has already been released although i cant find any art work for it can any body tell me when it comes out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.184.149.179 (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wretches and Kings is not single. --Djlordi (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
u mean "track" not "record" right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.79.237 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- The word "record" can also refer to an individual song. Digitelle (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- "Cut" is also usually acceptable, but generally discouraged as far as I am aware. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 01:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- The word "record" can also refer to an individual song. Digitelle (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
SONGS LEAKED?
'so in the article page under "release and promotion" i read that 30 seconds of all the new songs were released on sept.6 but there is no such news on the main website of linkin park. and when i checked its reference (no.20).""""""it was really there """"""""" and all previews sounded genuine and original.
if this is a leak please report this immediately to LP and remove the reference from the main page pls help! LP FOR EVER ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.79.237 (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Report this immediately to LP? How do you propose we do that?! LOL 98.164.121.11 (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Pick up your phone and give these guys a call. They are in the white pages. They're down to earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.239.67 (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk pages are not a bulletin board. This is not the proper place for a discussion such as this. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Albums get leaked and dogs bite men
So the album was leaked today (7 Sep 2010). There are guidelines in place in when leaks should be mentioned in articles: see WP:LEAK for the full text. In a nutshell, if the leak isn't widely reported in the press, and if the leak doesn't trigger some reaction from the band/label/etc., it's not a notable leak and should not be mentioned.
If anybody wants to put forward a reason why this leak is significant and should be mentioned in the article, please explain it here and provide sources. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can see no legitimate reason for it's notability. It was leaked like pretty much every other album that ever releases. What makes this one significant is beyond me and seems to be nothing short of fan cruft. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 13:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. The article has been semi-protected for a week because of this. Perhaps that will encourage discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 15:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's easier for download if you know it's leaked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.239.67 (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote/encourage illegal activities, nor is it a soapbox upon which to proclaim such things. If someone wants to download this, they can do so when it releases to digital retailers on the release date posted. If someone really wants to get a leaked copy which may be subject to all kinds of errors and problems, they'll find it regardless of the lack of a Wikipedia promotion. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Reviews
There are two reviews from professional reviewers! one from Kerrang! (4/5) http://www.lpassociation.com/gallery/d/29039-3/LPAKerrangReviewATS.jpg and one from Sputnikmusic (3,5/5) http://sputnikmusic.com/review/38969/Linkin-Park-A-Thousand-Suns/
could someone please add these two to the infobox =)--LuffyGear2 (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I will add them, but not to the infobox, as reviews no longer go in the infobox. BOVINEBOY2008 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be using an image as a reference. If the file ever goes dead there's nothing to fall back on, and there's no way of really knowing how to obtain a physical copy of the article to read it. I just went through a frustrating situation like this while trying to revamp another article. It took forever to track down the magazine! This should either be removed entirely or the citation should be replaced with a {{cite journal}} template. From what I gather from the publication's website, this review may be in this week's issue. Do any of our UK editors here have this issue that could confirm this and provide us with the page number, ISSN, volume and issue number? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's funny you said that, Fezmar9. Especially since said image 403's, making it effectively unverifiable. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I was about to leave that same comment about the 403 error, but I ended up being able to get through to the URL. I just assumed it was my computer or internet connection. But since other people are having the same issue, perhaps this is another reason why it should be removed until a proper citation can be provided? Fezmar9 (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's funny you said that, Fezmar9. Especially since said image 403's, making it effectively unverifiable. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 00:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be using an image as a reference. If the file ever goes dead there's nothing to fall back on, and there's no way of really knowing how to obtain a physical copy of the article to read it. I just went through a frustrating situation like this while trying to revamp another article. It took forever to track down the magazine! This should either be removed entirely or the citation should be replaced with a {{cite journal}} template. From what I gather from the publication's website, this review may be in this week's issue. Do any of our UK editors here have this issue that could confirm this and provide us with the page number, ISSN, volume and issue number? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
ArtistDirect gave a review of the album http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/live-review-linkin-park-a-thousand-suns-laser-light-exhibition-the-henry-fonda-theater-hollywood/7636482 shouldnt it be on the wiki article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.143.184 (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's actually a live review of a Linkin Park concert and not the album A Thousand Suns. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
shudnt da mtv review of da album be on dis article? da one bout comparing da album w/ kid a? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.143.184 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- If you've got a link, I'll be more than happy to add it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 23:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to ask why the "neutrality of this section is disputed" was added? There are four positive reviews, and three negative reviews, so far. How is it "Slightly positive leaning"?? [[User:Gabe19Ga]] [[User talk:Gabe19Be]] [[Special:Contributions/Gabe1919]] 04:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
i think we need someone whos not a fan of linkin park or a hater to edit the "review" section. someone honest, not me god no! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.143.184 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Since the album has not been officially released, several credible websites and magazines including AllMusic, Alternative Press, Pop Matters, The Guardian etc. have not published reviews. We have placed reviews that are already published, some of which will be removed as more credible reviews are added. Please bear in mind, all reviews will be read and key sections and summaries will be in the Wiki article. Thank you. Kevon100 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC).
ddnt rolling stone giv a review or somethin? --68.48.143.184 (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Unreliable sources? WHERE??
A certain "Fezmar9" is insisting that there are "unreliable sources" on this page, and I have to ask, WHERE?? [[User:Gabe19Ga]] [[User talk:Gabe19Be]] [[Special:Contributions/Gabe1919]] 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Several of the sources stem from Linkin Park related sites, whether it's their official website or Mike Shinoda's blog. These sources fail WP:RS because they're first-party sources and because official websites quickly turn into link rot -- official websites update frequently and no longer provide the information that is being sourced. For example, if the article for Linkin Park's album Minutes to Midnight contained any citations from their official website, those would all have to be replaced now that their official website is being used to promote A Thousand Suns. Why not just get editors active in replacing those now while the information is easier to find? Also needing to be replaced are all of the webstores; refs linked to Amazon.com, Best Buy and iTunes. Webstores also fail WP:RS as they're not published and it's inappropriate to directly link to a place to buy the subject in question. I know that the phrase "unreliable sources" may be misleading. It doesn't always mean we think the information from these sources is false, but in most situations a better source should/could be provided due to a multitude of other reasons. Fezmar9 (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nowhere in WP:RS does it say that official websites of a particular act, or webstores like Amazon, itunes or best buy aren't reliable. There's only 3 sources from linkinpark.com and they just state content that is included in the album. 1, 2, 3 Many album articles source material from their own website, how is that unreliable? I also understand that blogs aren't that reliable, but these days blogs are a popular way to keep fans and readers updated with things; and many album articles use blogs as resources too, and there's no "unreliable" tab posted at the top of those articles. "and it's inappropriate to directly link to a place to buy the subject in question" - What?? MANY if not ALL Album articles source some type of material from cite such as best buy, itunes and amazon. The source serves the purpose to say what is included in that version of the album, not persuade the reader to buy the album. [[User:Gabe19Ga]] [[User talk:Gabe19Be]] [[Special:Contributions/Gabe1919]] 03:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Citing another article that may or may not be following the guidelines provides a very weak argument here; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Although that essay is specifically about deleting articles, the same logic applies here. Instead try to argue why A Thousand Suns specifically needs to have unreliable sources. There are instances for this, but this does not look like one of the situations to me. WP:RS makes it clear that sources should be third-party, and an official website about the subject in question is anything but. While first-party sources are acceptable in certain situations, what's being sourced could probably be found elsewhere. That, and in a year Linkin Park's website will probably be redesigned and the sources will have to be replaced then anyways. Why not now? It's very rare to find a bit of information that's posted to a band's Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, official website, iTunes, Amazon, etc that's not published somewhere else. If it's notable, a publication will write about it. And if a better source is available, why not use it? Shinoda's blog is also a self-published source, which are unacceptable. After digging through the reliable sources noticeboard, I found several discussions about retailers, many of which were inconclusive. Some editors seem to think it may be okay if the album has already been released, some think it may only be okay for digital albums. No one touched on my personal gripe of advertising by providing a direct link for purchase. Perhaps I should open a new discussion with this point. I did however like Protonk's response, "My opinion is no, as they are a retailer. The link could be used to describe something like song length or something if absolutely nothing else did and the subject was otherwise notable, but for 99% of the cases, no." Generally, if you have to resort any of these websites as sources, you either have not tried looking anywhere else, or you failed when you did look elsewhere. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I personally counted more than three, and that's not counting all the mikeshinoda.com links which still are first party links, which all typically fail WP:V and WP:RS by the very principle of their nature. Link rot has already been discussed so there is no need to regurgitate that by me. It seems that if it's not a first party link being used as a resource, it's a retailer or a fan site - for that matter, the forum of a fan site, and I don't even think I need to even begin to discuss why such places are not reliable sources. There's even a YouTube video, which I don't necessarily take issue with as when properly used, a YouTube video is a perfectly valid source, but this one is also a first party link. People also seem insistent on re-adding "MySpace.com" or some variation in what is clearly blatant promotional activity and not something which is our purpose to advertise. I also find retailer links to not quite be the third-party links they attempt to masquerade as. They tend to act as more of an intermediary than anything else, and by extension, a first party source. I don't have a problem when there is only a couple of them, but when I look at a page and, quite literally, see thirty of them down a straight line, there's a problem. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 12:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yawn, I got sleepy reading though both of your responses. In my year of editing and working on Wikipedia, never have I ran into an editor that that is so fixed on the things you say. I suggest that you go and edit all of the album's pages here on wikipedia that have sources from their official websites, and edit those that source "Webstores", which is virtually every album's article. [[User:Gabe19Ga]] [[User talk:Gabe19Be]] [[Special:Contributions/Gabe1919]] 04:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're still young. Give it time and it will all make sense. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is that supposed to be a joke? Cause if it is, it wasn't funny. [[User:Gabe19Ga]] [[User talk:Gabe19Be]] [[Special:Contributions/Gabe1919]] 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hardly. But "tl;dr" is not exactly the best response either. Additionally, as prior stated, if you had read the comments above (a statement I make based on the fact that you said you did not), you would see that the issue is not so much that retailer links were used, but the sheer amount that were used. Quite literally more than half of the links (at the time of this post) are retailer links, mostly to iTunes. The others are primarily first-party links to Linkin Park's official websites. Then there's the fan sites being used as references. I would, once again, highly recommend a thorough reading of WP:RS. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 14:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
- Is that supposed to be a joke? Cause if it is, it wasn't funny. [[User:Gabe19Ga]] [[User talk:Gabe19Be]] [[Special:Contributions/Gabe1919]] 04:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- You're still young. Give it time and it will all make sense. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yawn, I got sleepy reading though both of your responses. In my year of editing and working on Wikipedia, never have I ran into an editor that that is so fixed on the things you say. I suggest that you go and edit all of the album's pages here on wikipedia that have sources from their official websites, and edit those that source "Webstores", which is virtually every album's article. [[User:Gabe19Ga]] [[User talk:Gabe19Be]] [[Special:Contributions/Gabe1919]] 04:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
- I personally counted more than three, and that's not counting all the mikeshinoda.com links which still are first party links, which all typically fail WP:V and WP:RS by the very principle of their nature. Link rot has already been discussed so there is no need to regurgitate that by me. It seems that if it's not a first party link being used as a resource, it's a retailer or a fan site - for that matter, the forum of a fan site, and I don't even think I need to even begin to discuss why such places are not reliable sources. There's even a YouTube video, which I don't necessarily take issue with as when properly used, a YouTube video is a perfectly valid source, but this one is also a first party link. People also seem insistent on re-adding "MySpace.com" or some variation in what is clearly blatant promotional activity and not something which is our purpose to advertise. I also find retailer links to not quite be the third-party links they attempt to masquerade as. They tend to act as more of an intermediary than anything else, and by extension, a first party source. I don't have a problem when there is only a couple of them, but when I look at a page and, quite literally, see thirty of them down a straight line, there's a problem. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 12:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Citing another article that may or may not be following the guidelines provides a very weak argument here; see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Although that essay is specifically about deleting articles, the same logic applies here. Instead try to argue why A Thousand Suns specifically needs to have unreliable sources. There are instances for this, but this does not look like one of the situations to me. WP:RS makes it clear that sources should be third-party, and an official website about the subject in question is anything but. While first-party sources are acceptable in certain situations, what's being sourced could probably be found elsewhere. That, and in a year Linkin Park's website will probably be redesigned and the sources will have to be replaced then anyways. Why not now? It's very rare to find a bit of information that's posted to a band's Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, official website, iTunes, Amazon, etc that's not published somewhere else. If it's notable, a publication will write about it. And if a better source is available, why not use it? Shinoda's blog is also a self-published source, which are unacceptable. After digging through the reliable sources noticeboard, I found several discussions about retailers, many of which were inconclusive. Some editors seem to think it may be okay if the album has already been released, some think it may only be okay for digital albums. No one touched on my personal gripe of advertising by providing a direct link for purchase. Perhaps I should open a new discussion with this point. I did however like Protonk's response, "My opinion is no, as they are a retailer. The link could be used to describe something like song length or something if absolutely nothing else did and the subject was otherwise notable, but for 99% of the cases, no." Generally, if you have to resort any of these websites as sources, you either have not tried looking anywhere else, or you failed when you did look elsewhere. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nowhere in WP:RS does it say that official websites of a particular act, or webstores like Amazon, itunes or best buy aren't reliable. There's only 3 sources from linkinpark.com and they just state content that is included in the album. 1, 2, 3 Many album articles source material from their own website, how is that unreliable? I also understand that blogs aren't that reliable, but these days blogs are a popular way to keep fans and readers updated with things; and many album articles use blogs as resources too, and there's no "unreliable" tab posted at the top of those articles. "and it's inappropriate to directly link to a place to buy the subject in question" - What?? MANY if not ALL Album articles source some type of material from cite such as best buy, itunes and amazon. The source serves the purpose to say what is included in that version of the album, not persuade the reader to buy the album. [[User:Gabe19Ga]] [[User talk:Gabe19Be]] [[Special:Contributions/Gabe1919]] 03:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about A Thousand Suns. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |