Talk:Linkin Park/Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2017

To Change the Total No of Selling albums from 70 million to 86 million as of calculated from individual albums selling nos from wikipedia page MilinSankar (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I applaud you for calculating the actual number, but there still needs to be a source to back this claim. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Pop Rock

I was thinking that we should add pop rock as another genre of Linkin Park since their most recent album has tons of pop rock songs. Nintendoswitchfan (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

NSF sure if there are any reliable sources. - TheMagnificentist 04:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

While I wouldn't mind the addition of pop rock, if some good sources are found, I haven't seen many sources yet that call them a pop rock band as a whole. Kokoro20 (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I am also not opposed to adding 'pop rock', but we would need a reliable source that idenfies the band as pop-rock throughout their entire existence. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  13:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone should see this argument again, it need not be their entire existence like Starscream says, but more than just One More Light. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 03:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2017

Please change "On July 20, 2017, Bennington committed suicide by hanging.[147]" to "On July 20, 2017, Bennington died by suicide. [147]", where reference is as follows: "147. https://themighty.com/2017/07/linkin-park-chester-bennington-suicide/. July 20, 2017. Retrieved July 20, 2017. "

Reason: There have been concerns on various mental health forums regarding the way Bennington's death has been reported, specifically regarding the TMZ article that's being spread through social media. The concern has to do with the headline of the report, where the means of suicide is explicit. It violates safe reporting guidelines for suicide (for safety and other purposes), due to the sensitive nature of its subject matter in most cases. A public facebook post by an active mental health advocate talks about it here: https://www.facebook.com/alicia.raimundo/posts/10155195031196329. The aforementioned reporting guidelines can be found here: http://reportingonsuicide.org/. Ratneshchandna (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2017

On July 20, 2017, Bennington completed suicide by hanging.[149] Shinoda confirmed Bennington's death on social media, writing "Shocked and heartbroken, but it's true. An official statement will come out as soon as we have one."[150] It should be committed not completed Axelblaze69 (talk) 04:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Done Thank you for pointing that out! regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please discuss first below - FlightTime (open channel) 05:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2017

There are reference to Minutes to Midnight World Tour in section "2006–2008: Minutes to Midnight", but I cannot make a shortcut/reference out of it. Could anyone please do that and add double brackets? Heres the ref: Minutes_to_Midnight_World_Tour . In fact, it is included as a link on the section Concert tours: Headlining so you can take that one out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allstone (talk • contribs)

Not done: - as per WP:OVERLINK, Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 07:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Booster, generally I would agree, but it is the first link after the lead to the tour in the article.AllStoNe 07:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Though I understand what DRAGON BOOSTER is saying and will have to agree with them here, I do not understand where the initial link is that prevents this request from being fulfilled. Its possible that we might be able to forfeit that link in favor of this suggestion, but for the time being, let's leave it be until a consensus is reached. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"Committed suicide" consensus discussion

I'll start the consensus discussion. It has been suggested to phrase it "completed suicide", I'll suggest "death/died by suicide". Too much edit warring on this subject. - FlightTime (open channel) 04:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, The Associated Press Stylebook discourages "committed", and suggests alternate phrases. Even though Wikipedia is not written in AP Style, that is nonetheless one major writing style that errs against the use of "committed". For instance, Pitchfork selected to use "died by suicide", one of the AP's suggested terms, for their headline. The New York Times phrased their obituary in such a way that avoided an action verb near the word "suicide". "Completed" is neither encouraged nor discouraged by the AP. However, I suggest wording this in a similar (but not exact) fashion to the Times, since that reference is already in the article as the citation for that sentence. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 04:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point, the sources still say "apparent." We won't have confirmation until there is a coroner's report. Just noting. But yes, "committed" is a phrase to be discouraged, and the AP stylebook is persuasive authority on such matters. Montanabw^(talk) 05:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The Stylebook also discourages using the actual official name of a piece of legislature, and the attached article points out its own hypocrisy. I wouldn't throw too much weight behind it, since A. this isn't a newspaper and B. the AP has had issues in terms of objectivity in the past. To suggest using 'completed' is innappropriate because it sounds like some kind of achievement. Also, considering the fact Bennington's own page| says he was "found dead....from suicide by hanging", I'm not sure why in the world this is even a point of discussion. He committed suicide. And the AP's wrong - suicide is still a technical illegality at the state and federal level not as a punishment, but to justify forced entry by law enforcement to try and prevent it. Axslayer33 (talk) 21:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

"Commit suicide" is the normal phrasing, even if it is somewhat antiquated (i.e. it makes suicide out to be a crime). It should therefore be used on those grounds alone. Esszet (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Doc Strange post, it's a very strong argument. I still suggest "death/died by suicide" as I mentioned in my first statement. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 01:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I really don't understand the reason's not to continue to use "committed suicide" in articles to describe the actions and manner of death of a person; but with that said, "death/died by suicide" is acceptable; both are better than, "killed himself or killed herself". Kierzek (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Doc Strange's comment. It is also more professionally accepted to say 'died by suicide', rather than 'committed suicide'. I really do not have a problem with using 'committed suicide', but I'd rather use the other phrase. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

what about was suicided .. at least that's what conspires to me .. like aaron swartz and many others Ebricca (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Surprised to find 'committed suicide' is still present in this article. Can't see on the discussion where it was agreed that this should remain.

As nobody else has mentioned it I'll point out that 'committed suicide' is beong replaced in most mainstream journalism with 'died by suicide' for a specific reason: 'commit' SycamoreWood (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

(Connection was interrupted)

'Commit' relates to suicide's historical categorisation as a crime. As it is no longer a crime, we should stop using the outdated phrase. This page looks severely behind the times because of this decision. SycamoreWood (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Heads up

Unfortunately, it looks as though the GNAA has hijacked the article and has made it so that the whole article redirects to their website, along with a link at the top. Please for the love of god wikipedia fix this and find a way to keep them out.

--YLCC23 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Someone who really wants the GNAA to get off the page

Newest Album

I'm not familiar with how to edit pages, and I'm not overly familiar with Linkin Park; however, the link for the newest album to present takes users to a gnaa press release, which does not seem to be correct. Misterryan (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2017

- Actually, clicking anywhere on the page takes you to a GNAA press release (at black41.pe.hu/m). I can't figure out where that's being done on the page though to fix it. Is it maybe in one of the infoboxes? Treznor (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

- Annnnd its fixed now. Treznor (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

-Thanks. Glad to hear it. Just seemed disrespectful, particularly today. Misterryan (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)misterryan

Members timeline

When band pages have a members subpage, the Timeline is located on that page. Examples:

• Black Sabbath
• Deep Purple
• Iron Maiden
• Judas Priest
• Rainbow
• KISS
• Great White
• Korn
• L.A. Guns
• Megadeth.

I'll stop here, this list can be expanded if needed. If the band page does not have a members subpage, (usually because not many lineup changes), then the timeline go on the band's page under the members section. @4TheWynne: seems to think that's not the standard practice, Stating in an edit summary "It's usually still encouraged to have them on the main band pages. So were here to gain consensus. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was certainly misconstrued... I was only stating that some users like to keep timelines on main pages anyway if, as you've said, there haven't been many line-up changes. I have some pages on my watchlist, for example, where the bands have had the same amount of/more lineup changes but either don't have a separate members page or do have one but still have the timeline on the main page:

• DragonForce
• Fall Out Boy
• Foo Fighters (also has a members page)
• Machine Head
• Metallica
• Prototype
• Rise Against
• Slayer

The Linkin Park page also came under the same category as the Foo Fighters page up until this point, and FlightTime – who we've all seen around the site over the years as Mlpearc – is the only user that I've come across in a while who is heavily opposed to removing timelines for the reasons that he's stated above. Yeah, there are always going to be inconsistencies, but perhaps that's not the worst thing. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I have fixed the Foo Foo Fighters page. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

No, not "fixed" (I absolutely hate it when that word is misused) – the point that I'm trying to make here is that, just because a band page might have a separate members page, doesn't just mean that the timeline has to be removed. Some might find it useful to read it on the main page and might not even want to cross over to the members page (the concept of which I just find to be confusing, as enough of that information is explained on a band's main page anyway). This is why I was reluctant to participate in the discussion. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with having a timeline there (usually), but when there are as few member changes as this, I see no point in the timeline. It was always the same before two days ago, other than Dave Farrell replacing himself after the release of Hybrid Theory. The more lineup changes there are, it's nice to have it available conveniently on the band page unless it presents a serious length issue like Guns N' Roses. Note that page has a timeline anyway, but I believe that should be changed too and will discuss that there. For example, there are a good chunk of changes. If there were list pages for Metallica, Machine Head, and DragonForce, I would still prefer the timelines, but Linkin Park's case is only three early changes which afterward didn't change for a decade and a half. If they were more spaced between departures and had more replacement individuals come in, my standing might be different about this timeline. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, if it were a choice between having a timeline at all and having a separate members page (timeline or not), and there have only been a reasonably small number of changes (3-4, like here), you would think it'd still be good to have a timeline. The Guns N' Roses example is one of the only cases where I think a separate members page should exist, for the reasons that you've mentioned (a large number of changes and/or complex circumstances). 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I think Evanescence would probably fall underthat same reasoning as GNR. Bands that revolve around one member are definitely in need of them as long as they're not as bad and frequent as these two bands. Anyway, how important were the changes to Linkin Park? I guess that was my question to begin with. I definitely support your ideas toward members pages, I echo that they are confusing for the same reasons; Metallica used to have one (it was a FL!) but it was redirected immediately after demotion. But I still don't see timelines being of any use if they were few in number and less notable. On the other hand, if there were several at different eras of the band, I think they'd be important. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that with Linkin Park, as a separate example, perhaps a timeline would be a bit more useful (not that I'm against having one now) if/when, say, they decide to bring in a new lead vocalist as a permanent member? I definitely see where you're coming from, with the length of time between changes. It's probably just the amount of detail that you see on there – as another example, if Farrell hadn't come back in, and a third bass player had joined the band instead and been a member to this point, that adds a bit more detail. I guess it just comes down to what people's expectations are about what constitutes having a timeline, but I still think having one here is necessary. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, I know that more people should weigh in before we come to a decision, but as the timeline has always been there, I think that we should stick with the status quo until the consensus is that the timeline shouldn't be there and/or should be deleted entirely. Obviously it would appear now that this is a much greater argument than just about timelines, but for now, that seems like the best way to go about things. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Since this issue can effect many more articles, I've started this RfC. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2017

Please change "musicatrelief.org" to "musicforrelief.org" in "2015–present: One More Light and Bennington's death" section of the article.

Reason: The site currently being mentioned (musicatrelief.org) does not exist. Furthermore, the official site (musicforrelief.org) is already listed in the External References. TodBringer (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Done jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Kyle Lodge: Since you are engaging in an edit war on this article, I'd like to open this discussion in an attempt to resolve the issue. The only problem I see is the fact that with Bennington's death, you think it's okay to include this in the infobox, where other users tend to disagree. Why do you think it's necessary? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Total records

Linkin park has sold way more than 70 million records. I don't think the ones editing recently knew the difference between records and albums.Records have wider meaning (albums and singles). Linkin park, according to this article which directs to official RIAA website, have sold 30 million singles in US alone according to the certifications. www.blabbermouth.net/news/linkin-park-earns-11-new-platinum-single-certifications-following-chester-benningtons-death/ This means that Linkin park have sold more than 100 million records worldwide easily given the fact that records are not just "albums". So if anyone engaging in this edit mess , he should at least consider using the term "albums" instead or better yet, keep it as it is and only change the number while also adding between brackets (albums and singles) just to give the term of "records" the right meaning.

Zazofazo (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

What is happening with the timeline of group members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brodyargo (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Brodyargo: some kind of formatting error, the correct timeline is located where it should be List of Linkin Park band members#Timeline. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

October 27 concert

Are there any "reliable" sources stating if they will be performing with a new singer on the October 27 concert? I've read some articles stating new singers, But I'm not sure how reliable they are.--129.78.56.200 (talk) 05:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

No. The band has posted a list of special guests who will appear at the October 27th concert, but has made no announcement about an official replacement for Chester Bennington. -- Poetdancer 17 October 2017

Total Sales should mention albums and singles separately.

The total sales of LP should be mentioned as 68 million albums and more than 30 million singles worldwide. If you go to RIAA page and see all the certifications for songs in US alone, the total sales would come around 28 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.6.196 (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2017

It was OneRepublic not One Direction that sang Halleluiah, Reference 155. Can someone please fix this? Thank you! :-) 173.154.233.197 (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Done – thanks for pointing that one out. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2017

Move Chester Bennington to the top of the list of former members as he was in the band for the longest period of time. 175.33.103.137 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Done Nihlus 04:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – the infobox policy clearly outlines that both current and former members should be listed in order of joining. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Dave Farrell and Rob Bourdon

Dave Farrell and Rob Bourdon should definitely be moved back to articles, instead of just redirects. They are long-time members in one of the biggest rock bands in history, so easily meet notability requirements. The articles can be extremely well sourced, and both have lots of coverage, so can I re-create articles on them? If they are unsatisfactory, then we can just redirect them again.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

That's all well and fine – like you said, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but no reason not to try. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, awesome! Thanks, I'll start working on them.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to creating an article for Rob or Phoenix, but my hope would be the articles would be something more than a paragraph per musician and have more than a few reliable sources. I do not see the point in mirroring the exact information from List of Linkin Park band members‎ to a separate article. While both subjects are part of one of the most notable bands in rock history, notability (on Wikipedia) is not inherited or defined by popularity. It's defined by the number of reliable sources that can be used to generate substantial content and commentary. I'd say give it a shot for sure and we build on it and then see what our best option is after a month or so. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds like a good plan. I will try to expand more on the Rob Bourdon article, I know its still not great.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Take your time. At least all the information in your revision is sourced :). I will try to see if I can find some archived magazine interviews with Rob. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I began a discussion recently suggesting that bands should only have members subpages if they have had large numbers of line-up changes. I don't believe that having a members subpage for this band is necessary, as there are only three former members, a lot of the information there can already be found at the band members' articles, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The touring members can simply be listed in the band members section, and there's then no arguing over where the timeline should belong. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Strong Support - the band has had very few lineup changes, and all of the info is redundant to the band member's separate articles, of which they all have. I literally cannot see what someone's motivation for creating this article could be other than a complete invalid "well Nine Inch Nails has one so it's only fair that Linkin Park does too." Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed - Yes, I do agree with you. NipunChamikaraWeerasiri 07:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
• Agreed - I also agree. The members article feels redundant. I think as long as the touring members are added to the main page, nothing of any significance would be lost, especially since each of the main members already has their own page/biography. MoeHartman (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Main describing genre

They are described just as "rock band". This is too wide, Scorpions and AC/DC are also described simply as rock bands, but they are not even similar to LP. I think LP shoud be described either as alternative rock band or alternative metal band. Alt-metal is maybe a little bit more correct, because they sing rap metal and nu metal mostly, subgenres of alt-metal.

@Rexton Williams: First off, sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), second it's fine the way it is. Yes, it is a very wide, and a very general genre, but that's why we are using it. They are not just alternative rock, same with nu metal, alternative metal, rap rock, and electronic rock. But what do all of those genres have in common? They are all rock genres in some way. Rock covers all of those way better than alternative rock or alternative metal. It would not make sense to put those genres in the lead. Also, most bands just have "rock" in the lead as opposed to more specific sub-genres. See: Fall Out Boy, Nirvana, and U2. Also, just because Linkin Park doesn't sound like Scorpions and AC/DC doesn't mean they can't be described as a "rock" band in the lead. It looks like there is a long-standing consensus to just have "rock" and it should stay that way. Bowling is life (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that leaving it at ‘Rock’ is fine. The first sentence of an article should offer a concise and simple over-view of a subject (WP:LEAD). We did not want to use multiple genres to avoid editing waring and to focus on the one genre over-arching the band carried throughout their existence. The subsequent sentences in the lead explain how the band has integrated other genres, nu-metal, rap-rock, and electronica into their material. Yes, rock is a broad term, but that’s why their genre and style are explained in detail in the lead section and ‘Musical style and influences’ sections. Further sections within the body of the article also explain the band's various genres and musical diversity. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. It should just be "rock" in the lead. The problem with putting "alternative metal" in the lead is that they have a lot of stuff doesn't even remotely sound like alternative metal. Take the entirety of A Thousand Suns and One More Light, for example. If Midnight to Midnight was their final album, then "alternative metal" might work for the lead, but as it stands now, not at all. Kokoro20 (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Samples

Does anyone think this article could use some song samples? Maybe in the musical style section. Bowling is life (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding samples. However, Samples fall under fair use. There would need to be some context/prose discussing the song. I think it could help the article. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the samples would be great for the musical style section. It would give readers a taste of what they sound like. Also lets not forget, this is a good article. Bowling is life (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

About 90% of their singles have a song sample on their respective articles so some could easily be added here, Solitude6nv5 (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sales

The total sales are always said to be 70 million records. But records =/= albums. The total certified units sold by Linkin Park adds up to 82.8 million!!! The record is 70 million albums + 30 million singles = 100 million albums! LP4Ever (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

MTM Reception in 'Musical Style'

Why is NME's criticism of it mentioned? That belongs in its own article, and reception wasn't mentioned at all for all the other albums in this section. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I know, that doesn't need to be there. Should we remove it? Bowling is life (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Not really up to me but I vote for removing it. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say it should be removed. I'm not opposed to having a criticism in the musical styles / legacy section, but it should focus on the overall band's work or an era, as opposed to just one album. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018

I would appreciate it if you could change linkin park from a rock band to a heavy metal band (nu metal) because their type of music coincides more with the sound produced by nu metal bands, as well as the subject matter of their songs AF28 (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - For Linkin Park, calling them a rock band is better. Not all of their albums are heavy metal. So it wouldn't make sense to call them heavy metal, in the lead. Also, heavy metal and nu metal are rock genres. Rock has every thing covered. No change is necessary. Bowling is life (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Calling Linkin Park heavy metal is like calling Coldplay grunge. And it's common knowledge that the term 'rock' should be usd in cases like this. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Forgive me if this has been discussed previously, but is there a particular reason why Fort Minor and Dead By Sunrise are not listed in the section for associated acts? Those are legitimate band member side projects, and the only things listed are collaborations, one of which was, as far as I am aware, a one-off. Meanwhile, over at Pearl Jam's article, the acts Soundgarden, Mad Season, and Three Fish are listed, despite only sharing one member each per act. I am unsure of how we are judging this, and why. NightmareSnake (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The guidelines in Template:Infobox musical artist state that we should avoid adding bands in the ‘associated acts’ which only featured one-member of subject. Bennington was the only full-time Linkin Park member in Grey Daze and Dead By Sunrise. Mike Shinoda was the only full-time/main member of Linkin Park in his Fort Minor project. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  13:32, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Understandable, but then by those same rules, a number of other band-related articles should probably be edited to also conform to this (such as Pearl Jam, as stated above), and also Steve Aoki should probably be removed, as the guidelines state that one-time collaborations for a single song should be avoided in the associated acts section. NightmareSnake (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If other articles are not in compliance to this guideline please fix them, that's exactly why we are here :) - FlightTime (open channel) 14:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Linkin Park and Steve Aoki have collaborated multiple times though I believe if even just one member is/was in another band it should be listed as the acts are definitely related. Solitude6nv5 (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not personally aware of any LP x Aoki collaborations other than A Light That Never Comes, other than remixes, but it's possible that I'm wrong and will accept if I am. As for the Pearl Jam issue I mentioned earlier, once I am at home I will handle it myself if it has not otherwise been handled and will make sure to handle other similar situations accordingly as well. The IP address I am currently editing from is my place of business and I don't have the time to spend on it right now. NightmareSnake (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Does 'Darker Than The Light THat Never Bleeds' count? Solitude6nv5 (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Aoki was a late inclusion to the list. As @Solitude6nv5: mentioned, I believe he worked with the Linkin Park on two seperate tracks at different times. We did make sure to mention Fort Minor and Dead by Sunrise in the body of the article under the 'Side Projects' section as they still are somewhat relevant to the band's history. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

If Fort Minor and Death by sunrise do not meet assoc act criteria per Infobox musical artist then shouldn't their respective pages match that?Joker4lifead (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. That should be fixed. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@NightmareSnake: "Darker than Blood". ("Darker than the Light that Never Bleeds" is a mashup of "A Light That Never Comes" and "Darker than Blood".) Qzekrom (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

My 2¢: We do not need to add Fort Minor and Dead by Sunrise to the infobox. The section Linkin Park § 2004–2006: Side projects already discusses LP's relation to them. Qzekrom (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I thought  StarScream1007  and I cleared the air that Fort Minor and Death by sunrise do not meet assoc act criteria per Infobox musical artist, therefore, do not need to be added in the infobox and the discussion about them was dead. Joker4lifead (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

rap metal 85.76.144.180 (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Rap metal is already covered in nu metal and rap rock, although it could be argued that could replace electronic rock as three albums are sourced as rap metal and only two as electronic rock. --Solitude6nv5 (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Delson and Phoenix keyboards?

Why are we excluding Dave Farrell and Brad Delson's keyboard contributions from the Band Members section again? They played them sometimes both in the studio and live for the albums A Thousand Suns and Living Things. Even if not indicated in the time line, I think we should at least list them in the bullet points, especially if we're continuing to label all the other four as backing vocalists. -Solitude6nv5 (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Timeline + Band name

So, I was advised to take this here: I put the three different names in the timeline to signify from when to when they were known as Xero, HT and then Linkin Park. The bands are essentially the same, but they did have different names and members that didn't participate in all incarnations. So the way it is presented right now, it suggests that Mark Wakefield was a member of Linkin Park, which isn't true. He was a member of Xero. So either the timeline should be corrected by removing him, putting the start date as 2000 (when they renamed to Linkin Park) etc., or we can add the name bar again.

Furthermore, I spoke to the old roommate of Chester Bennington and he told me that the band was named Hybrid Theory before Chester joined Source. So that needs to be fixed in the article. Seelentau (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

bump Seelentau (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why the name bar is necessary. You're making it sound as though there were three separate bands, which isn't the case – there was a similar discussion at the Rise Against talk page a few years ago, and I know how these discussions generally go. Everything that's in the article at the moment is sourced, and you think that someone's Facebook comment (and he didn't "tell" you anything – he could hardly remember) is enough to override several reliable sources? Yes, Wakefield was a member of Linkin Park, just back when the band was known by a different name, so there's nothing factually incorrect about that statement. Where's your source(s) saying that the name change to Linkin Park took place in 2000? 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

"You're making it sound as though there were three separate bands" - On the contrary, I explicitely said "The bands are essentially the same, but they did have different names".

"Everything that's in the article at the moment is sourced" - "The band then agreed on changing its name from Xero to Hybrid Theory [...]" has no source. The source at the end of the sentence (askmen.com) doesn't mention their name change to Hybrid Theory at all.

"enough to override several reliable sources" - The former roommate of a band member is surely a more reliable source than askmen.com, which again doesn't even mention the name change.

"there's nothing factually incorrect about that statement" - Well, yes and no. That's exactly why I want to add the name bar. To make clear that he's not a member of the band in its current incarnation, but was their singe during a previous incarnation under a different name.

"Where's your source(s) saying that the name change to Linkin Park took place in 2000?" - https://www.whois.com/whois/linkinpark.com => "Registered On: 2000-05-24". And before you say "Yeah that's when the domain was registered": They did that after changing their name. Seelentau (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Seelentau, Thanks for bringing the missing source to our attention. I have added a RS to supplement the AskMen source that specifically mentioned Hybrid Theory as a previous band name. To clarify your request, you are askign us to break the timeline into three parts to reflect each personnel grouping per phase, correct? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I actually only noticed that when I wrote my counter argument to 4TheWynne's arguments. So he's to thank for that. :)

And well, yes, kinda. I already changed it once. This is what it would look like. I took the look from another band's timeline, but I can't remember which one. I just think it's a nice addition and a timeline of the band should probably also reflect the band's names.

Of course, one could argue that each of the incarnation is its own band, but considering the history, we know that's not really the case. Seelentau (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. I see it has been done here: List of the Who band members. The other option would be adding a note to the bottom of the section stating, "Linkin Park was known as Xero from 1996-1999 and Hybrid Theory in 1999." Your thoughts, @4TheWynne:? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Seelentau, I don't see how anyone could argue that each incarnation is its own band, as they aren't. StarScream1007, I'd just prefer the note at the bottom of the section, if I'm honest – the name bar shortens "Hybrid Theory" to "HT", so you'd almost have to anyway. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, like this "They have a different name and different band members, which makes them a different band.", I think. But as I said, I never said they are different bands, just different incarnations that should be noted somehow. I liked the additional graph because readers can see how the band member history was during which incarnation. Seelentau (talk) 13:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've added the note to the top of the section (rather than the bottom), which I think looks neater. Another problem with the name bar is that you would need exact dates, just like you would with any other bar in the timeline (it wouldn't be right to just use approximate dates), whereas in the note, just the years are listed. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't the exact dates issue also apply to members joining the band? It's almost impossible to find something like that out, as long as it wasn't announced online or so... Seelentau (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

In either way, I think it's fine with just a note for now. 'HT' might be confusing to someone who skimmed over the article and did not read the Early years section. They may confuse HT for something else unless there's a way to add hover text. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey, me again. StarScream1007, maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but didn't you say you added a source for their name change from Xero to HT after Chester joined? Because I still only see the askmen-source which, as I said, doesn't mention their second name at all. Seelentau (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I definitely miss-placed the source. It should be fixed now. The Telegraph source should have this covered. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's the thing: The source for that article is Mike's instagram post with the picture of the band. However, Mike himself mixes up the dates every now and then. I don't know how Wikipedia handels sources, but does an unreliable source put into an online article count as a reliable source? Seelentau (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Band Status - Hiatus?

This article's lead states, "Linkin Park went into an indefinite hiatus after longtime lead vocalist Bennington died from suicide by hanging on July 20, 2017. The other members of the band have yet to decide whether to continue with a new vocalist." The "2015–present: One More Light and Bennington's death" section further states that the band is not recording or touring at the time. Should the band's status in the Infobox be changed to 'Hiatus Since 2017' or something along those lines? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  12:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

StarScream1007, apologies for completely missing this one. I think "1996–2017 (hiatus)" would work. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Lincoln Park

Really? "Not to be confused with Lincoln Park"? Thats stupid and disrespectful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.164.212 (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Change Linked Page

Under the Concert Tours section, change it so the Linkin Park and Friends: Celebrate Life In Honor of Chester Bennington, links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linkin_Park_and_Friends:_Celebrate_Life_in_Honor_of_Chester_Bennington, instead of a page does not exist error. 173.44.93.239 (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Suicide

My edit to the lead was (properly) reverted; I hadn't seen the discussion further up here, but looking over it I think it's worth revisiting. The current phrasing, to my reading, manages to be both vague and hyperspecific at once. First, saying someone "died by suicide" is not normal phraseology; there was just an overwhelmingly rejected proposal to rename categories to avoid "committing suicide", and a bit further back there was a discussion where the community overwhelmingly rejected circumlocutions to avoid "committed suicide". Secondly, noting that he committed suicide by hanging is entirely unnecessary detail for the lead; that it was suicide is essential, the method is not. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that adding the method of suicide is unnecessary detail – I'm OK with either "committed suicide" or "died by suicide" (on its own). 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

More Recent Photo

I believe it is time that the main photo of the band be changed since the earlier one is from October of 2010. I added a photo from July 2017 in which Linkin Park performed at the 02 Arena in London, England. UnknownLegacy 3:17, 10 October 2019 (EDT)

I think the current picture is fine. Bowling is life (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

How is alternative rock before nu metal? Isaacsorry (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The only albums described as nu metal by sources are their first two albums and The Hunting Party. Alternative rock is more prominent throughout thier career. For the most part, only thier early material is described as nu metal. Bowling is life (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2019

table of band members has black lines going across 81.128.185.85 (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what happened there, but I've reverted the edit that caused the issue. Courtesy ping to User:4TheWynne. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ElHef, I wouldn't say my edit caused the issue – these random black lines can happen at random, and it didn't happen at the time when I made the edit (though the diff might make it look like it did), otherwise I would have fixed it straight away. Whenever this happens, all you need to do is make a minor change to the format rather than simply revert, particularly if the edit being reverted was an improvement. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 15:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019

change Chester Bennington committed suicide to Chester Bennington died by suicide 75.83.45.204 (talk) 00:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Multiple discussions at WT:MOS have found no overall consensus to make this change wholesale. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Early history

The early history surrounding their signing to WB seems to be incorrect. They were signed as "Hybrid Theory" in April 2000 and forced to change their name when already on the label. I don't know why this website is given as a source for "The band initially wanted to use the name "Lincoln Park", however they changed it to "Linkin" to acquire the internet domain "linkinpark.com".", because it doesn't seem to mention that at all. cc StarScream1007 Seelentau (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. So oddly these sources [1][2][3][4][5] all state Linkin Park was signed by WB in 1999 by Jeff Blue. This is odd given Jeff Blue did not join WB until 2000 per his Linkedin. Though this is not a policy, Wikipedia leans to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth on this matter. Since the year is disputed, my best advice would be to remove it, but leave that band signed with WB thanks in part to Jeff Blue.

Per the comment about the Huff Post source, there’s a line in the interview by Shinoda: “When we came up with the name Linkin Park, we wanted to go with the presidential spelling but we chose L-i-n-k-i-n because we wanted to get the domain ‘.com.’” --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, the pdf I linked even gives Jeff Blue's name as their contact person. But my point is, as per the pdf, they were signed in April 2000, while still known as Hybrid Theory. Then they got forced to change their name due to another label act called Hybrid. They decided on Linkin Park for the reason you mentioned: They wanted the domain "linkinpark.com". I have no idea where the 1999 even comes from, to be honest. Seelentau (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restructured the section to reflect this discussion. The year might be disputed, but it's clear that the band went from Hybrid Theory to LP after signing a record deal to avoid confusion with Hybrid. This was a good catch. Thanks.--  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

So, I was linked this text, it says that LP was signed by Warner as a "developing artist" in 1999. So I guess that's different from their signing in April 2000 as a "real" artist, so to speak. Seelentau (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

It states that linkin park is on hiatus because Chester committed suicide. This verbiage is considered harsh by todays standards http://www.suicide.org/stop-saying-committed-suicide.html https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mental-health-language-committed-suicide_l_5aeb53ffe4b0ab5c3d6344ab https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/language-matters-committed-suicide

It should be updated to "died by suicide". Minor I know, but important. 2605:A601:A707:6F00:D188:8A3B:A630:D5BA (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done; proposal is consistent with Suicide#Definitions and Suicide terminology. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Genres

Why is rap metal not on the list? --Eddymitsu (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Because rap rock and nu metal are listed so listing rap metal would be redundant. Rap metal is in the musical style though. Bowling is life (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Right. --Eddymitsu (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

CB status

Wouldn’t it be better to leave Chester as a member is the band and not as a former member? It isn’t like he left the band before he passed or that LP has released any music since he passed. Buckeyegurl (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Buckeyegurl, have a think about what you're saying – how can he still be considered a current member if he isn't alive? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Kyle Christner and Scott Koziol

Were Kyle Christner and Scott Koziol actually official members or touring/sessions? The article currently lists them as members with no real info or sources citing their status. If I remember correctly Scott Koziol is credited for playing bass with Ian Hornbeck on Hybrod Theroy; but, not cited as an offical member. 49.180.133.122 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty fair point (I was wondering the same thing, to be honest). Seelentau added Koziol based on what Shinoda said in this Q&A in July, but the way I read it, both Christner and Koziol, along with Ian Hornbeck, were session/touring members. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: This should be updated in the members section as well. I'm not sure how we should do that. Bowling is life (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Bowling is life, I am in fact doing that right now. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I've too wondered this. I always thought Christner and Koziol were touring/session members. But the Q&A that 4The... has linked doesn't seem too clear on whether or not if they were official members. Are there any additional sources citing such information? If available, I think the article should cite their time and status in the band. --101.190.157.67 (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's like Mike Portnoy playing for A7X. LP also had a guy called Andrew Lanoie playing with them for a bit, but I don't think WP would accept this as a fact, since the only proof is an interview with him and the fact that he uploaded the elusive Pictureboard song on Soundcloud last year. Also, I'd at least consider Kyle Christner to be an actual member of LP, he was even included on band photos. Seelentau (talk) 10:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

We can consider as a band members only Kyle. He is mentioned in liner notes of Hybrid Theory EP as a band members, and there is a good book written by Neil Daniels. It says that Kyle was a band members and Scott and Ian was actually touring members. Okay? You're My Only Destiny (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Seelentau, based on what? You're My Only Destiny, being mentioned in the liner notes isn't evidence that Christner was a permanent member of the band (and it definitely can't be used as a source) – that would be a little bit like saying that Bob Rock was a permanent member of Metallica just because he was mentioned in the St. Anger liner notes. You also can't just say "there's a book" and not try to bring it to the table as a possible source – what's the name of the book, where does it explicitly say that Christner was a permanent member of the band, etc.? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 12:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

4TheWynne, based on Jeff Blue's new book "One Step Closer: From Xero to #1: Becoming Linkin Park". He lists Kyle and Scott as members of the band. Don't know if that's enough for WP though. Seelentau (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Band members, timeline

So, let's get some things straight. I wanna combine the designations of Mark, Chester, and Mike's vocal work. They can all be considered lead vocalists or just vocalists, but I would prefer to assign them the position of vocalist (lead and backing vocals). Yeah, and now about the backing vocals of the other members. Brad, Joe and Dave only started singing on "A Thousand Suns" in late 2008 (not including "Hands Held High" from the previous album). Rob didn't sing, and he almost never performed backing vocals at concerts. So he can't be considered a backup singer. It's as if we thought Dave Farrell was a rhythm guitarist, because he sometimes played "Leave Out All The Rest" on guitar. Brad recorded bass guitar parts in 1999-2000 for the album "Hybrid Theory", so during this time period, the bass guitar can be added to the timeline as his second instrument. Chester Bennington has played rhythm guitar quite often on recordings and at concerts since 2006, and this instrument can also be added to the timeline. Joe Hahn has never played keyboards in a band, and can be assigned the role of DJ and sampler. Mike Shinoda also played keyboards and made samples. Also, the band was formed not on January 1, 1996, as indicated on the timeline, but around February of the same year.

That's it. Please, let me know what you think about it.

If you'll find some mistakes in my letter, let me know too. I'm still learning English.

You're My Only Destiny (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Linkin Park - Hybrid Theory 2020 Charts

Linkin Park’s ‘Hybrid Theory’ Rocks Album Sales Chart, John Lennon Debuts in Top 10. (Linkin Park Hybrid Theory debuts at No. 3 on the billboard 200 for 2020).

https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/chart-beat/9468985/linkin-park-hybrid-theory-album-sales-chart-john-lennon/

Official Album Charts UK Top 100 (Linkin Park Hybrid Theory debuts at No. 25 for 2020).

https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/albums-chart/20201016/7502/

Can someone edit the 2020 section on the bottom of the Hybrid Theory album page with these two charts please?

Plear Name

The current revision of the article states Linkin Park was at one time known as “Plear”. I found four sources that claim the band merely considered using that name Plear, including an archived article on Jeff Blue’s personal website:

• https://www.shock.co/musica/linkin-park-hybrid-theory
• https://hot957cr.iheart.com/featured/sean-strife/content/2017-07-24-linkin-parks-first-album-when-they-were-called-xero/
• https://www.kerrang.com/features/linkin-park-the-inside-story-of-hybrid-theory/
• http://jeffbluemusic.com/former-warner-bros-ar-exec-jeff-blue-remembers-chester-bennington-linkin-parks-early-days/

In Chapter 49 of One Step Closer From Xero…, Jeff Blue mentions the band pitched the name to him, but never actually says they formally adopted it in that chapter. They instead experimented with the name by putting it on their album to see how studio executives would react. Is there another chapter or section you can specifically reference where they were called Plear?--  StarScream1007  ►Talk  15:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That's why I didn't put it in the artist box. Same for "Xero 818", another name they used for a short while. Seelentau (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a stretch to say they called themselves Plear when they merely suggested and pitched the name/branding to WB's exec's for testing purposes. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It was on one of their demos. So it was their name at one point. Seelentau (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I see, so not even on the mighty Wikipedia is it common courtesy not to make edits to currently discussed information. So why even start a discussion in the first place when you apply what you think is correct anyway? Seelentau (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Why the hell Chester isn’t in the band’s members?

… 87.248.238.120 (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you really need that explained? 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 10:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

He isn't in the active members. He is in the past members. Because he died in 2017. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Chester may have passed on, but to me, seeing his name in the "former" members list just feels wrong. Can we not place him in the current members list with a * or something, if nothing else as a mark of respect? 58.84.227.144 (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No. You cannot be an active participant in anything when you're not alive anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 12:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. With all respect to Chester, deceased members are no longer listed as "active" members. All the members can be listed in the same field if Linkin Park officially disbanded. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  14:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's nothing personal against Chester or Linkin Park, it's just that this is a encyclopedia, not an obituary or a eulogy. This is the same way we've handled things with Taylor Hawkins and Foo Fighters too. And where would we even draw the line if we allowed this sort of thing? Do we reactivate Kurt Cobain or Chris Cornell every time one of their bands release an old song from the archives too? Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)